Pres Obama: David, in pursuit of strengthening SS, I'm willing to cut SS benefits

[Oilwellian]

Finally, it comes from the horse's mouth.

But David, as you know, one of the proposals we made was something called Chain CPI, which sounds real technical but basically makes an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated on Social Security. Highly unpopular among Democrats. Not something supported by AARP. But in pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the long-term I'm willing to make those decisions.

Transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50314590/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/december-president-barack-obama-tom-brokaw-jon-meacham-doris-kearns-goodwin-david-brooks-chuck-todd

[Cleita]

1. Well, my English teacher would call that an oxymoron.

[WillyT]

2. Definitely Moronic...

[Recursion]

6. Umm... no, it's one of two ways to strengthen an actuarial program

One is to increase revenues, the other is to reduce outlays.

[99th_Monkey]

29. "strengthening" the program on the backs of the poorest is despicable

and Obama is apparently willing to do this with his fucking mandate?

This. Is. A. Sell. Out.

He truly was the lesser of two evils in the 2012 race. I never thought I'd see
a Democratic president, with NOTHING to fucking lose politically as a second
term prez. do something like this. it stinks to high heaven.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. SS, Medicare, Medicaid and social programs are the

backbone of the Democratic party. Start messing with those things and you are no longer a Democrat.

Start messing with those things and you lose the people.

[99th_Monkey]

57. Amen! nt

[cstanleytech]

76. What? You mean we arent allowed to even discuss changes that might actually benefit

the majority and if we do we arent a democrat?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

92. The argument on DU IMHO was that there was no talk of a CPI. The President never said it.

Now that it is clear that the Administration had it on the table, has it on the table the narrative is now that we should discuss "changes that might actually benefit the majority."

Social Security is a Democratic program: an FDR progrm. Once you start cutting at it, through a Chained Consumer Price Index, the only thing that it will do is hurt those collecting SS into the future: those that need it the most.

If the Dems want to cut their throats in 2014 I can't think of a better way to do it. I can't believe that I even have to point out the obvious.

[bvar22]

130. Nailed It,

but don't expect a Mea Culpa from those catapulting that nasty piece of distortion over the last 2 weeks.

They will simply move on to telling us how WONDERFUL the Chained CPI really is,
and that we don't understand it.
The speed with which "they" can change positions and adopt the new talking points is enough to give a normal person whiplash.

[tomp]

222. and all those disaffected democrats...

....will vote for whom? this is how the lesser of two evils always works. take your vote elsewhere and you get worse. this is the plan of the two party system and it always was. they know we have nowhere to go and they know that let's them serve their masters (the rich), under the cloak of being better than the other guys. trust me, they would rather win elections but they don't really care that much, because they know eventually they will be brought back by the rich to do the dirty work under the cloak of being "better" and having the unearned trust of the rank-and-file democrats and progressives.

the people on this board who oppose every attack on obama's unprincipled actions are actually the enemy along with the party hacks and the republicans.

how will any of this ever change if there is not a mass movement organized by a party of true progressives?

actual insurrection is the only other alternative that i can see, and they know that too, and are betting they have those bases covered.

[Left Turn Only]

234. 3rd party dreams

As much as I would love to have a Progressive Party to vote for, unless we change the electoral college part of the Constitution and elect a president by popular vote, a third party that would attract liberal/progressives would mean a Republican party permanently in charge. For whatever reason, the majority of Americans are not liberals or progressives; in fact we are the left fringe of the Democrats. The only answer without changing the Constitution (next to impossible in this case) is finding candidates within the party with the knowledge and gift of communication to present the Progressive side in such a way as to show the common person that they would be a fool to vote any other way.

[tomp]

249. you say my way will never work....

....and i say the same back to you.

the ultimate effects of a third party are mere speculation. i promote it because short of insurrection i don't see a viable way forward, which is hardly viable itself (i mean, who wants another civil war, though it may come to that).

one of the things that people often forget is that about half of eligible voters do not vote. a progressive party might be drawing from voters other than the usual dems, repubs, and indpenedents. another speculation is that there are enough disaffected democrats, who, given another choice, might move to the progressives. it could be curtains for the dems. or it could force a negotiation between the dems and progressives, unifying a broader base against the repubs. however, i think ultimately the democratic party will resist anything other than being a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Left Turn Only]

250. Never IS a strong word

Anything is possible, but with almost all the states' electoral college rules being such that the candidate with the most votes gets ALL that state's electoral votes, it makes it extremely difficult for a 3rd party win in presidential elections. True, the largest number of voters are independent, but the votes between the Democrats and a Progressive 3rd party would split, leaving the Republicans the probable winner. Not only that, but state primary laws are such that a 3rd party candidate has to get each state's required signatures within their time-frame just to get on the ballot -- a difficult and expensive proposition - candidates from the 2 major parties are placed on the ballot automatically if they sign up in time. Everything has been set up by the 2 parties to make an incursion of a 3rd party very difficult. If I used the word "never," I apologize, but in this country, a 3rd party win for the presidency is not likely in the near future.

[grahamhgreen]

127. You're not allowed to lie and sell out

Core Dem principals.

Which is what it is.

No more doublespeak.

[Zorra]

173. +1 ~ No more Third Way bullshit.

[pam4water]

191. +1

[tavalon]

198. Now that's actually an oxymoron

Third way is the epitome of bullshit so you just said that's bullshit bullshit.

[MissDeeds]

78. Agreed

Perhaps he assumes he has no accountability to the Democratic Party and those who voted him into office. But what are we going to do about it? We need to raise holy hell, but I honestly don't know how to do that. We can't vow not to vote for him in the next election. This is why I was worried about his second term - he can do whatever the hell he wants with no fear of consequences. What a miserable disappointment...

[cstanleytech]

73. Doesnt it depend on what else they adjust though?

Why not just make it so the % increase a person gets depends on if they are getting money from some other source yet those who lack said extra source see a larger increase?
After all I dont think Cheney would be financially devastated if he didnt get as much of a raise as say someone only taking in 800 a month from social security.

[JDPriestly]

90. If your income exceeds a certain amount, you pay extra taxes. That is why we have the

progressive or graduated income tax. If you receive Social Security and have income of over, I think it is $40,000 and again $80,000, you pay taxes that effectively pay some of the Social Security back.

Means-testing is not the problem. Social Security is taxed. If you don't get much, the first half of it, I think, is not taxed.

Means-testing is not the answer. Everyone should be treated the same in the Social Security system. We should cut back on military spending, not on Social Security.

Social Security gets spent in the US economy. The military spends a lot of money overseas. Social Security increases the numbers of American jobs. A lot of military spending just increases jobs overseas.

Social Security is not just good for those who receive it but for our entire economy.

Obama is just plain wrong if he wants to cut Social Security.

If there were lots of jobs for seniors, I might feel differently about this. But the fact is that even recent college grads are under or unemployed.

Obama should keep his hands off Social Security.

I'm beginning to think he wants a Republican Congress in 2014. He certainly is doing everything he can to discourage Democratic voters. AND HE KNOWS IT. HE SAID SO: Democrats and the AARP don't like this policy.

How can he cross the Democratic Party like that?

Where is Joe Biden on this issue?

[cstanleytech]

109. Oh you wont get any disagreement from me at all over the need to cut military spending.

I still dont understand exactly why our government is spending roughly 600 billion as thats 350 - 400 billion more than China, Russia, UK, France, Germany and Japan combined are spending.

[Flatulo]

187. And why are we still defending Europe and Japan and S. Korea?

Bring that money back here. The Europeans are enjoying social services that we can only dream about, and it's being helped along by our footing the bill for their defense.

[cstanleytech]

188. Well the troops in South korea make a bit of sense when you look at

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/see-map-worlds-shipping-lanes/54847/ as a heck of alot of stuff uses the sea lanes between Japan and the Korean peninsula and N Korea does pose a threat.
Now the number of bases and troops still in Europe just dont make as much sense to me.
I mean cant the European countries look after themselves now? If they want our troops there though because it makes them feel safer they should pay what it costs us but otherwise we should pull most of our troops and close the majority of the bases there.

[Kolesar]

177. 85% of SS pension is taxable income if your income is above $45000, IIRC

I am not sure about the threshold. It is near $45000.
If your income is less than 45k, then half of it is taxable, unless you have almost no income.

[jberryhill]

152. Yes....

...the part the hair-on-fire-crew doesn't talk about is that when this thing was initially floated, it included safeguards for vulnerable recipients.

[cui bono]

204. It never got to that point because those dealing with reality were spending all their time

proving to the deniers that PBO really did offer up cuts to SS, to no avail. I would bet there are still some who will continue to deny it even after PBO said it himself. After all, they didn't believe it after his press secretary said it.

[BrooklynBoy]

189. This is precisely why I stayed home

I first voted in 1972, for George McGovern. With the exception of 2000, when I voted for Nader, I have voted Democrat in every election, sometimes holding my nose (Carter and Clinton).

This year is the first time I stayed home. Obama's putting SS on the table (after the health care "reform" debacle and extension of the Bush tax cuts) during the debt ceiling negotiations... when no one on the other side asked for it... was the last straw for me. I vowed I would not vote for him again.

And, I didn't. I stayed home. And I'm proud that I did. It was the right thing to do (for me). After waiting DECADES for a president who would push to implement a progressive agenda, Obama, despite his accomplishments, didn't even come close to trying. Didn't even seek single payer. He wouldn't have gotten it, but he didn't even try.

My hope is that we nominate someone like Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson in 2016. If we nominate Hillary, I will vote for the same candidate I voted for this year -- no one.

[bama_blue_dot]

192. Why are you a member of this forum then?

You seem to be trying to stir the pot here..

[OldDem2012]

195. "This year is the first time I stayed home". Wow. Just wow. nt.

[Summer Hathaway]

213. It's just so wonderful to see

yet another passionate young man registering here for the sole purpose of telling everyone what a lousy president Obama is!

I admire your commitment to your more-than-obvious cause.

[tomp]

223. well, if the poster voted for mcgovern this is not about youth.

I'm in the same age bracket, and have been here since very near the beginning, and i've also been telling you all how awful the democrats, including obama, are for the people.

have you learned yet? obviously not.

the masses need to break from the democratic party and form a truly progressive third party. alan grayson will never be nominated by the democratic party (alan cranston stands a better chance). it's too early to tell what warren's ultimate stance will be. these people will only be of any use when they expose the duplicity of the democratic party with the republicans in serving the rich.

[Summer Hathaway]

243. ...

" ...and have been here since very near the beginning, and i've also been telling you all how awful the democrats, including obama, are for the people."

I'm curious as to why someone who believes that Democrats, including Obama, are 'awful for the people' would choose to post on a message board created, as this one was, to support the party and its elected reps.

But good luck with finding those 'masses' who want to break from the Dem Party and form a third party. I don't think you'll have many takers - here or in the population at large.

Just to be helpful, there are numerous websites devoted to forming a third party. Granted, they aren't anywhere near as populated as this site is - but at least you'll find
a couple of like-minded people to discuss your grand plan with.

[tomp]

248. well, actually...

...this website was founded to oppose the bush selection by the supreme court jesters.

some of us have stayed and moderated our discussion, as du has evolved, to oppose bad democratic party policies and strategies, such as being a tool of the rich, in complicity with the republicans. this far i have not been tombstoned.

your basic suggestion is i should not be here. that's a pretty lame argument in defense of the democrats and only adds fuel to my argument, in that if your type of reasoning is representative of views within the democratic party, you just make my argument for me.

the history of democratic party selling out the interests of the non-rich is self-evident. the rest is denial or unconsciousness.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

37. Do you want to strengthen Social Security.

Raise taxes on it a little. Those making over 1 million per year don't need SS as much as somebody making 30K per year.

Problem solved.

Cutting SS through a CPI is going to hurt those that need it most. There is no way to argue for it. To do so is heartless.

[JDPriestly]

81. It's a choice, and he is choosing the more painful of the two.

That's a bad choice in my book.

I wonder what nursing home owners think about this?

[sabrina 1]

118. SS has zero to do with the Deficit. The right answer to that moron, 'David' from

a Democrat is this:

'David, you appear to be grossly misinformed. SS is a separate fund, owned by the American people who have built it up to the point where it currently has an over 2 trillion dollar surplus. It is not in any trouble and won't be for the next two decades or so. We have no right to touch that fund without the permission of those who own it and so far, they have overwhelmingly opposed Republican's attempts to do this. As a Democrat I intend to stop them from attempting to cut benefits to our most vulnerable citizens, one because they have no right to do so and two, because SS has nothing to do with the deficit and cutting those benefits will do nothing to lower the deficit.

In fact, I believe that SS ought to be raised considering the huge surplus in the Fund and how that would help stimulate the economy.

I do believe you need to learn more about this issue, David.

[JimDandy]

128. Exactly. Word-for-word. Obama needs a do over.

Not standing up for the very basics of the dem party would probably disqualify him from even posting on DU.

He needs to get a backbone or find another party.

[Oilwellian]

149. +1 n/t

[Liberalynn]

167. +Agreed

[Recursion]

183. Nearly accurate. It has zero to do with net debt.

If he said it had zero to do with a given year's deficit, then David would say "would lowering benefits in a given year decrease the money borrowed?" To which the answer is "yes", which would leave Obama in a bind, since that amount borrowed is the deficit (it's borrowed in the process of redeeming a bond from the trust fund, so it's not adding to the debt). There's a legal guarantee that it will not add to debt, but the actual cash flow in a given year doesn't care about that.

Another reason we're fucked any time the "deficit" is considered something important.

[cui bono]

205. I'm confused. If it has its own trust fund why does SS borrow anything?

I thought the borrowing being done was from SS.

[Recursion]

214. Treasury still has to write the checks

The fact that it's notionally self-funded doesn't change the Treasury's cash flow; if less is paid out in benefits, less is borrowed, even though the entire thing is self-funded.

[CRH]

221. Then cut the problem with treasury's cash flow, ...

start with the military, then big oil welfare subsidies, and close all loop holes for corporate and the top 10 percent of income earners. Now what is the problem with SS, a program that has nothing to do with the debt?

[cui bono]

245. How is it borrowed? Sorry, I don't get it.

If I'm a child and my mom is holding my money that I've earned as allowance, how would it be borrowing just because she has to write me the check so that I can get my money? It's my money and I don't have to pay it back. Isn't that how SS works?

[tavalon]

199. Best.Answer.Ever!

[rhett o rick]

235. If only he would. But it is telling that he did not. What he did do was break the ice. As another

poster stated, "He crossed the Rubicon". Discussing "strengthening" (Orwellian for cutting benefits) will be easier in the future.

[grahamhgreen]

123. No, you're not strengthening it by weakening it.

Your lessening the guaranteed benefits and efficacy of the program; ie, weakening it.

Duh.

[cui bono]

203. The program is there to help the needy. If it helps them less, it isn't strengthened.

It's weakened.

[snot]

224. I think every DU'er needs to read this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33471.htm :

"{W}hy do politicians only create new spending power for the purpose of waging war and destroying property, not to build or repair bridges, roads and other public infrastructure? Why should the government tax employees for future retirement payouts, but not Wall Street for similar user fees and financial insurance to build up a fund to pay for future bank over-lending crises? For that matter, why doesn’t the U.S. Government print the money to pay for Social Security and medical care, just as it created new debt for the $13 trillion post-2008 bank bailout?

* * * * *
"There is no inherent need to single out any particular area of public spending as causing a budget deficit if it is not pre-funded. It is a travesty of progressive tax policy to only oblige workers whose wages are less than (at present) $105,000 to pay this FICA wage withholding, exempting higher earnings, capital gains, rental income and profits. The raison d’être for taxing the 99% for Social Security and Medicare is simply to avoid taxing wealth, by falling on low wage income at a much higher rate than that of the wealthy. This is not how the original U.S. income tax was created at its inception in 1913. During its early years only the wealthiest 1% of the population had to file a return. There were few loopholes, and capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income.

"The government’s seashore insurance program, for instance, recently incurred a $1 trillion liability to rebuild the private beaches and homes that Hurricane Sandy washed out. Why should this insurance subsidy at below-commercial rates for the wealthy minority who live in this scenic high-risk property be treated as normal spending, but not Social Security? Why save in advance by a special wage tax to pay for these programs that benefit the general population, but not levy a similar “user fee” tax to pay for flood insurance for beachfront homes or war? And while we are at it, why not save another $13 trillion in advance to pay for the next bailout of Wall Street when debt deflation causes another crisis to drain the budget?"

Much more at the link.

[leveymg]

228. This is a GREAT READ. Highly recommended. Gets right to the point, and kicks ass.

Thanks for posting this!

[snot]

229. Thanks for the thanks! I found it on the

Stock Market Watch thread.

[leveymg]

231. Goes to prove that every now and then even the truth leaks through the corporate media. ;-)

In spite of itself.

[Oilwellian]

240. Incredible piece

Thanks for including it in the discussion.

[Catherina]

244. +1000 n/t

[leveymg]

226. Indicates the policy choice made by Obama to reduce outlays instead of raising the cap.

The way you put it is so dry and technocratic, it makes cutting future benefits to poor Seniors seem neutral. Perhaps, that captures the problem, right there.

[roguevalley]

30. I hope no one attacks anyone who calls him out now. proof is here of his

indifference to suffering. roguevalley, a senior

[JimDandy]

129. We've got your senior back!

We're all going to be there someday.

[roguevalley]

184. thank you jim honey hugs

[rhett o rick]

144. Now hold on just a sec. He still hasnt said he will "cut Social Security benefits." What he did say,

he is willing to make "an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated on Social Security." It's just a little adjustment among friends. If it happens to reduce benefits, well that's unfortunate. I am sure in 20 the seniors will thank him for making the system so much stronger.

[cui bono]

206. You know, you added too much of an explanation that actually attempted to rationalize that statement

Made it way too obvious it was sarcasm. I never got that much of a "reasoned" response from anyone denying he ever put it on the table.

One person actually said he couldn't have done it, that "he could just as easily have put an unicorn on the table". lmao. I kid you not. I swear this place is scary now.

[tomp]

225. this place has been infested....

....with deniers of democratic complicity since day one, despite the continuing evidence. nothing new at all.

[rhett o rick]

230. Scary is a good description.

I figured it would be obvious from the post that I was being sarcastic, but because it is so scary here, I decided that some may not recognize the sarcasm.

I kinda feel bad for those that worship the President. They desperately want him to be their savior and just put their faith in him. That relieves them from having to deal with tough issues like nuclear power, Monsanto/GMO/FDA, domestic spying, indefinite detention, etc.

[Jackpine Radical]

156. I thought "oxymoron"

was a term coined to describe Rush.

[Cleita]

242. Maybe for Rush it should be Oxy-Moron.

[BainsBane]

197. It's not oxymoronic

There is a logical argument one can make for that point of view; chained CPI is not the same as destroying all of Social Security. However and more importantly, the contention that Social Security needs paring down to survive conflicts with what Obama said in the Presidential debates, that the Social Security Fund is essentially sound. Therefore it conflicts with what voters understood we were supporting when we cast our ballots. I'm going to watch Meet the Press myself before passing judgment.

[Cleita]

241. I don't know how you could have missed the MTP interview as it was replayed over and over again

on MSNBC yesterday.

[BainsBane]

247. I don't spend all day watching TV

Especially since I've been sick in bed, but I did record MTP and will watch it. Thankfully the current deal doesn't touch SS.

[ProSense]

3. It's too bad that

PRESIDENT OBAMA: ...but I already have, David, as you know, one of the proposals we made was something called Chain CPI, which sounds real technical but basically makes an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated on Social Security. Highly unpopular among Democrats. Not something supported by AARP. But in pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the long-term I'm willing to make those decisions. What I'm not willing to do is to have the entire burden of deficit reduction rest on the shoulders of seniors, making students pay higher student loan rates, ruining our capacity to invest in things like basic research that help our economy grow. Those are the things that I'm not willing to do. And so...

...Boehner turned him down. It'll never pass in the Senate.

Here's an example of how dead chained CPI is, and why it should be.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022048462

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. You're counting on the Senate? The Senate that wouldn't give Obama a Public Option when he asked?

That was when we had 60 "Dems" I know, I know, that 60 included Lieberman, but there were other miderate to conservative Dem Senators willing to throw the Public Option under the bus not just Lieberman - and that was with the President supposedly fighting for it.

This time around we have 53 or 55 "Dems", depending on the date we do the count. We have a Democratic President who is on record as being willing to include the Chained CPI as part of a budget deal as opposed to when he was on record saying he wouldn't sign health care reform that didn't include a Public Option. This time Republicans control the House, so they have actual leverage in the final negotiations.

It seems very likely to me that moderate Senators will ultimately reach a deal with the Senate Minority Leader on a bi-partisan plan that includes a Chained-CPI now that Obama is on record as accepting it. That would only take 6 to 8 Moderate Democratic Senators backing the Chained CPI for it to clear the Senate - plus there would be some less conservative Democratic Senators who would accept it rather than fight a deal the President signed off on.

What then? It is true that there probably are at least 41 Democratic Senators who would balk at the Chained CPI, but are there 41 of them so steadfast in their opposition that they will fillibuster a bill that Obama says he will accept, even if that deal was the price for getting something through the House?

It is remotely possible that progressives in the Senate can ikill the Chained CPI, but not if progressive activists act like there is no reason to be alarmed. Progressives in the Senate will need a howling mob standing behind them in order to face down the mainstream tide pushing the Chained CPI

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

43. Yes, it's too bad. If CPI is dead then there was no need for our President

to even talk about it or say "I'm willing to make those decisions."


Right?

[bama_blue_dot]

49. I understand what you are saying,

but the strategy is to show that no matter what the Democrats put on the table, the Republicans will not budge.. He is showing how extreme they have become about the tax issue.. To some it looks like he is "caving" but he knew it wouldn't be accepted in the first place..

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. "No, no, no." The GOP has been saying that since Obama was elected. Everybody knows that.

Everybody who has listened for the past 4 years knows this.

There was absolutely no reason to bring up CPI unless the POTUS was considering it.

Nancy Pelosi brought it up to the press during negotiations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/nancy-pelosi-social-security_n_2333285.html

Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill that a cut proposed by President Barack Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations would in fact "strengthen" the program, echoing the claims often made by Republicans about entitlement programs they want to slash.

It was already on the table. The strategy was to offer CPI to the Republicans.

[AnnieK401]

212. I agree, bama blue dot. Although I think we're def. in the minority here. nt

[TDale313]

4. So discouraging.

Not totally surprising, but breaks my heart that this is even on the table.

On related(maybe better) news, msnbc was just reporting that talks in the Senate had broken down cause Repubs tried to bring in Chained CPI, and Senate Dems weren't willing to go there, at least not in what was supposed to be this smaller, simpler deal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Republicans insist on CPI now

[Oilwellian]

13. Repubs want it in this smaller, quick fix deal as well

It would appear too desperate if Dems agreed to include it in this stop-gap measure.

[NorthCarolina]

93. Why not, THIS is the prize that the "fiscal cliff" was designed for.

They won't wait.

[cui bono]

208. And that is exactly why a Dem should NEVER say it is negotiable.

And exactly why I have been saying that now that a Dem put it on the table it is going to be brought up without a second thought. It is now okay to talk about cutting SS where as before Obama, it was the third rail.

Fuck.

[djean111]

7. Sigh.

Now that we have heard Obama actually say it, I suppose we will be inundated with shit about how wonderful and harmless it is.
You know, by that half-assed logic, it would strengthen Social Security if we cut payouts in half, right?
Is that the way we should be going?
Don't think so.

[Dragonfli]

34. post #3

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. It has already started.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. He never said that!

The President DOES NOT speak for the President.

Only THE PRESIDENT can speak for himself.

Call me when the President himself actually says something. And stop this hair on fire shtick, it's tiresome.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[ProSense]

11. He said it.

You should accept that.

[Dragonfli]

38. but he didn't mean it, right?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

84. When oh when will you grasp this multidimentional chess thing

the president does so well?

[JimDandy]

141. LOL!

That was some memorable crap all right.

[TDale313]

12. And even then,

I'm sure he won't have meant it.

[Oilwellian]

20. LOL n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

42. LOL

[UnrepentantLiberal]

86. This is a win for the president, Manny.

It's a win win in fact. Maybe even a win win win.

[kenny blankenship]

143. A.B.W. is name of their strategy

Always Be Winning!

[Lasher]

210. That was not the President in that video.

It was Rich Little.

[tblue]

236. Hey Manny!

You crack me up, dude. Happy New Year! Ain't this a doggone shame?

[MannyGoldstein]

238. I wish I had taken a hallucinogen

Because then I'd know it would wear off.

[leftstreet]

9. How can Obama call himself a Democrat? n/t

[Recursion]

15. There's something magically litmus-testy about the way inflation is currently calculated? (nt)

[kenny blankenship]

23. Just change the party mascot to a pig/weasel hybrid GMO

and be done with it. And then there's no more contradiction.

[Doctor_J]

24. I think after his SS cuts are passed he may switch

just a hunch. After HeritageCare and Arne Duncan and the Bush tax cut extensions, and now this, what is left that identifies him as a (D)? OTOH if he leaves now the DU slugs who bow to his every move will jump off the bandwagon.

[RC]

44. Many Liberal/Progressive Democrats are asking that same question.

[SammyWinstonJack]

121. I wonder that too.

One thing is certain, he'll never have to worry about the cuts to SS benefits he's willing to make, in his retirement yrs, being a one-percenter.


One-percenters= all for one and none for all.

[Kolesar]

178. Join this website and sit on one's ass

that's all the qualification you need.

[bama_blue_dot]

10. He has to publicly state that he was willing to put everything on the table.

This is the strategy.. I am still amazed that people think every word that is uttered by a politician is the truth.. This is all a game to make the Republicans look even more extreme.. Look at what Charles Krauthammer said the other day. President Obama's plan from the beginning was to fracture the Republican party.. Obama showed how willing the Democrats are to "compromise", but it doesn't matter what he throws into the offer, because the Republicans will never except it in exchange for raising tax rates..

[leftstreet]

16. Why not offer to euthanize seniors? He'd look REALLY strong!

[ProSense]

18. Death panels. n/t

[Downwinder]

21. Can't afford to lose consumers. WALMART would close.

Think of the poor starving Chinese who would be put out of work.

SS is paying 8 million dollars per month into my rural town. That is the only reason it is still here.

[fredamae]

28. Now you're being Blunt

And Identifying the Known consequences of this action, btw ...

[Oilwellian]

17. So you're saying...

If Repubs had agreed, Obama would suddenly pull it off the table? Really?



Oh, and, Repubs have done a damn fine job of splintering themselves. Obama had nothing to do with it. Although he's doing a damn fine job of splintering the DEMOCRATIC Party. LOL

[bama_blue_dot]

22. He isn't offering anything without wanting the tax cuts to expire

for the top 2%.. Of course they would accept it for absolutely nothing, but he knows they are so stuck in their position of no tax increases, that they wouldn't entertain the idea.. Look at the whole "Plan B" debacle.. If the 1 million threshold wouldn't pass the house, it proves that they don't care what is in the offer.. Plus, it doesn't matter now, because that old offer is off the table, and the President is back to the original middle class tax cuts bill, and nothing else in return.. They had their chance to show they could compromise, but they didn't..

[JimDandy]

137. This SS proposal was Obama's equivalent of 'Plan B'.

He would have splintered the party putting it up to a vote, just like Boehner did. It didn't get there, so he was saved from a 'Boehner shut-out'.

[forestpath]

51. +1 Obama is cutting SS because HE wants to.

[Lasher]

211. I believe you are correct.

[tomp]

227. thank you.

the only reason we are talking about SS is because of the cat food commission.

obvious democratic complicity with the interests of the rich. finding common ground with alan cranston is not helping anyone but the rich.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

60. No. That's just silly. He didn't have to say anything of the sort.

He could have said nothing on a CPI at all, and made the Republicans look just as foolish. Agreeing to even consider something that will hurt seniors, saying it out loud, adds to the foolishness.

[daa]

74. It's so silly that I have received at least

A dozen emails from democrats send money. Cut social security cut off thir money. I will have to cut it comes from their donation. Assholes. I can't believe they are willing to commit suicide.

And make no mistake they will pay. The repugs will say Obama brought it up and we just went along with the dems, the senate des could have stopped it. 2014 bloodbath.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

80. Hard to disagree with that, but there's always infiniti level chess.

[JDPriestly]

99. I don't care about his clever chess tactics. He offered to make elderly people suffer.

The most elderly suffer under chained CPI.

A lot of nursing homes already provide substandard care for the helpless and very elderly. Chained CPI would make it even harder for them to provide decent care.

Chained CPI will cause unimaginable suffering and among the most needy Americans -- who often cannot speak up for themselves because they are incapacitated, severely disabled, have Alzheimers or other dementia.

This is just the pits.

Romney stole people's jobs and hope. Obama would steal their final years.

The best answer to our fiscal problems is to impose import taxes on consumer goods especially clothing, food, etc.

We were in good shape until we started this free trade stuff.

Younger people don't remember what life was like before free trade. We were a happier, richer country back then.

Free trade is our problem. We should simply get out of our trade agreements. That is the responsible thing to do.

And we should stop trying to buy friends around the world. It isn't working anyway.

[cui bono]

209. No, he has tto STFU about touching SS, but unfortunately it's already too late.

He's now made it okay to talk about cutting SS from now on. It was NEVER okay until he became president and started pushing Republican policies. When are we going to actually have a Democratic president again???

PBO has started the cuts to SS just be putting them on the table. If it doesn't happen this time it will happen soon enough. Look how far right the Dem party has moved. Why should we think it will ever stop moving right? Both parties owe their livelihood to corporate money.

That fracturing the Republican party thing is a bunch of malarkey. I'm convinced Krauthammer said that just to make everyone think what Obama is doing isn't exactly what the Republicans want him to do. They got him to put SS on the table ffs. That is quite an accomplishment. It's kind of like (but not the same) the Brer Rabbit fable where he says "please don't throw me into the briar patch".

[wilsonbooks]

14. We had to destroy the village

in order to save it.

[Doctor_J]

19. Are you going to believe a RW rag like the TRANSCRIPT?

[Oilwellian]

31. LOL

Perhaps a video will help?

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/david-gregory-president-obama-youve-gotta-ta

[idwiyo]

65. Can you proove beyond any unreasonable doubt this video is not photoshopped?

Well...
...
Am waiting...
...
Do I hear crickets chirping?...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

68. This has obviously been doctored in some way.

[pa28]

67. It's single sourced hearsay!!111 n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

216. *snort*

[Arcanetrance]

25. By saying that he's given Republicans the ability to go on Fox and say see we were right he wants to

Cut social security and kill grandma. Meanwhile the repubs won't allow new negotiations to proceed without the chained cpi. The president has shot himself and the rest of the democratic party in the foot

[bama_blue_dot]

27. No, they can't claim that he is the one who wants to cut it..

Lindsey Graham was just on tv saying he will hold the debt ceiling hostage in order to cut Social Security, so they aren't screaming that the President is the one who wants to "kill Grandma"..

[Fumesucker]

33. Have you met any actual Republicans?

They claim the most outlandish crap in the world without so much as turning an eyelash, they'll be trumpeting this non stop with the amp set to eleventy brazilion and the M$M will gleefully aid them.

[Arcanetrance]

36. Oh but they can they have the mouthpieces in place all anyone will hear is see Obama put it there

It's nice to think that they can't but history has proven when there's anything at stake the democratic party folds to the Republicans and allow them to set the tone of the conversation. Forgive me but Obama isn't negotiating from a point of power like he should after this election

[JHB]

233. Their behavior over the past four years... Or past twenty, for that matter...

...says you are mistaken. They'll say whatever will push people's buttons. Handing them a sound bite over an alleged negotiating gambit ignores that reality.

[bahrbearian]

48. I predict a surge in Tea Party membership. Forget about getting any gains in 2014

[world wide wally]

26. How can he NOT get it?

[RomneyLies]

32. That would destroy his legacy

[leftstreet]

39. Not really

His legacy is set: First African American President

That's all he'll be remembered for

Although he's destroying Hillary's chances in 2016...

[bama_blue_dot]

54. Wow.. That is very nice..

Just reduce him to the color of his skin as his only success??

[leftstreet]

56. Oh knock it off

How dare you reduce the historical significance of the first US African American president

Hope you aren't like this with the first female prez

[bama_blue_dot]

59. You said that it is all he will be remembered for..

Don't try to be cute..

[leftstreet]

94. ...in response to the assertion he's destroying his legacy

I'm correct

His legacy is the historical significance of his election

[RainDog]

64. wow. you really want to make this claim?

personally, I think your statement is a load of bullshit.

If you want to offer something better - you don't do so by lying about the President's tenure.

Off the top of my head - President Obama restored America's relations and reputation with other western Democracies - and other nations, after the fiasco of Junior and the NeoCons (terrible band, can't dance to them.)

He created the groundwork for health care legislation by actually getting some passed. Not the perfect, but this gives future Democratic legislators a framework to construct better policy.

He kept the nation from a worse financial calamity with the stimulus - even if he did not go as far as many thought would be for the good of this nation. He bailed out the auto industry.

He did all of this while dealing with some of the most overtly racist pigs in American society.

He's not hurting Hillary's chances. He put her in a position to claim foreign policy expertise - which is always a line of attack against women when they run for federal office.

You're just as bad as the "my president right or wrong" crowd. Worse, actually, b/c you claim to be on the left but you deal in the same sort of bullshit that the right peddles.

[leftstreet]

85. It's not a 'claim,' it's fact

Obama is the first African American US President

That's pretty big. You don't think so?

If you want him to be remembered for cutting Social Security, mandating private insurance, increasing FISA, etc, knock yourself out

[RainDog]

102. LOL

Yeah, I was so glad I got to be part of history and vote for the first African-American president.

But I'm also glad he was the leader while many important issues have been decided.

Am I happy that he's farther to the right than I am? No. But I also know that this is part of the reality of American politics so I don't want to waste my energy bemoaning the fact that America governs farther to the right than its citizens may be.

Bill Clinton, remember, was the president who gutted welfare programs - who said that the Democratic vision was over in regard to social safety net programs for the most in need in this nation.

...I could go on, but the point is that your post is a load of bullshit dressed up as complaint.

You are attacking Obama with no substance, just vitriol and cherry picking.

I disagree with many of the things he has done. I also recognize that this nation is what it is at this time and we'll either have a moderate conservative or a rapid right winger in office.

I prefer Eisenhower to Reagan, is what I'm saying.

I do understand, tho, why some who are very strong supporters of Obama see people here who claim to be on the left and question their sincerity when they engage in such all or nothing thinking or have the idealism of a fourteen year old boy with a hard on for a beauty queen. He wouldn't get what he wants and neither will you.

But if you want to deal in such bullshit, you will.

[A Simple Game]

117. Those are facts, and here is a claim.

If President Obama succeeds in cutting Social Security, he will guarantee there will not be another black president for 50 years.

[JDPriestly]

103. Forget Hillary. She and Bill Clinton are more conservative and anti-Social Security than even

Obama.

[DonCoquixote]

125. whew

be careful, half this board is already anointing Hillary for 2016.

[kenny blankenship]

63. This is EXACTLY what he wanted his legacy to be.

It damn sure wasn't healthcare. He had no plan for that and got shamed into echoing calls from other candidates in the primaries. Then he gets elected and even before his Inauguration he starts talking about how we're going to start making tough choices on entitlements blah blah blah and offering to Republican leaders to cut the safety net programs EVEN THOUGH NONE OF HIS DUPES (and I was one) ELECTED HIM TO DO THAT. And his healthcare plan? LOL! that turns out in practice to be the OPPOSITE of what he promised. His planned for "legacy" is the thing he DIDN'T tell us he would do, and now won't give up trying to do no matter how much Democrats don't want him to succeed at it.

We were deceived into electing a Pete Peterson created Trojan Horse candidate.

It's a lot like how George W. Bush immediately set about planning war with Iraq when he became President, although none of his dupes had elected him to do that either. They couldn't have voted for him to invade Iraq as he neglected to tell any of us voters about his war plans. The similarity extends even to the element of reversal, since just as candidate Obama publicly ridiculed the Individual Mandate before imposing it on us as President, candidate Bush publicly ridiculed the notion of "nation building" - and by extension the idea of "humanitarian war"- as a liberal fantasy of the outgoing Clinton administration. Then once installed as President, Bush moved implacably to launch his elective Iraq war, partly on humanitarian grounds (Saddam gassed his own people!), and likewise his occupation of Afghanistan (the Taliban oppress their own wimmins!) , and consequently committed himself to a thorough and thoroughly DOOMED project of nation building on top of the rubble he had created in both countries.

We're never told what the REAL agenda is. In Obama's case it's cutting the safety net, and in doing so, pretending that the nation has moved into an era of "post-partisan consensus", where the term post-partisan actually means everything gets decided on terms that would have delighted the billionaire Neoliberal backers of the Reagan Revolution, and competing ideas of political economy left over from the FDR-to-Carter period no longer exist and may not even be mentioned.

[SammyWinstonJack]

131. He wants this. Exactly right!

[Lasher]

232. That is an accurate summary.

There have been clues. Obama has been fairly open in his praise for Reagan. Even so, it took me awhile to catch on.

[iemitsu]

105. It will be his legacy.

And it will fulfill the wet dreams of the republican establishment to have had our meager safety net made even weaker by an African American democrat. That will demonstrate to Americans that we "lefties" are truly out in left field, when it comes to our social and economic expectations.
I hate this situation and I hate that the man, whom I helped to elect, is the one who has put us in this position.
Those who live by the rules in America, don't ever win.

[limpyhobbler]

40. We already knew that when we voted for him. It always was a lesser of 2 evils vote.

But actually I'm wondering whether Mitt Romney could have got away with cutting Social Security as effectively as Obama might.

If Romney tried it, at least the Democrats might unite against it. By Obama doing it, half the Dems go along and that makes it possible.

[leftstreet]

47. But we thought one of them was a Democrat

And you're right - no Republican could ever get away with this

[forestpath]

52. Yep - that about sums it up.

[A Simple Game]

120. Maybe we thought one was a Democrat, but

many here didn't and still don't think he is or ever was a liberal.

He was and is at best, the lesser of two evils.

[SammyWinstonJack]

133. Is he still the lesser of two evils if he allows cuts to 'entitlements'?

[A Simple Game]

161. Time will tell. n/t

[JDPriestly]

107. I don't know about other people. I've always been a Democrat, but there are other alternatives

and now would be a good time to investigate them.

[limpyhobbler]

111. Yeah either that or try to nominate better Democrats.

Maybe start treating the primaries for Congress as more important or something.

[JDPriestly]

154. Yes. The Party has worked to undermine very progressive candidates in the past.

Think about Kucinich.

Working people in Wisconsin did not receive nearly the support they needed from Democrats when they were trying to save their right to organize.

The Democratic Party makes a minimal showing of support for the traditional ideas of Democrats and then gives a wink and a nod to the ultra-conservative, right-wing Republicans.

Meanwhile, the labor leaders and others don't really know what to do. They need to speak out more strongly about Democratic values. Otherwise the Democratic Party will be consumed by Reagan Republicans.

[Le Taz Hot]

218. This is the problem with that idea:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021950310

It's a HUGE part of the problem in that it's why we continue to have to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of being able to work for/vote for candidates we truly believe in.

[limpyhobbler]

246. yeah I read that and totally agree there are a lot of problems with the primary process

yes, everything you said.

Also the role of money is just as prevalent in the primaries as is it is in general election.

It seems to pretty much guarantee only corporate-friendly candidates get through. If that doesn't do the job, the media can always do like they did to Howard Dean with the dean scream.

[JimDandy]

148. Two posts down thread were hidden for advocating about the same as you.

but you were saved.

--------------------------------------------
At Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:01 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

I don't know about other people. I've always been a Democrat, but there are other alternatives
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2098207

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Yes, we're piling on Obama - and that's OK because he's attacking a basic Dem tenant - but advocate abandoning our party is not.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:04 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Civil discourse in my view.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

[JDPriestly]

153. I'm not "advocating" for anything.

But facts are facts. There are other alternatives, and if Democrats do not speak for the people who elect them, the people who elect them will seek those alternatives out.

That's the way politics works. That is democracy.

A party is a group of people who agree on certain policies. The economic policies of today's Democratic Party are taking a turn that does not serve Democratic voters. That could easily destroy the party.

And the fact is that veering away from Democratic principles and programs like Social Security will make voting for Democrats far less appealing.

It will ultimately strengthen Republicans because third parties are unlikely to have the clout to beat Democrats.

That is why Democrats need to hold true to the ideals and ideas and programs that Democratic voters support.

This is not about Obama. This is about he future of the country. Democrats need to hold on and not panic.

We older people paid the tax rates that will return if we go over the cliff. Our economy thrived.

Obama's chained CPI plan would shift to the generation that paid those higher rates for years the burden of maintaining the Bush lower rates for the younger generation. It's unfair and makes no sense.

[Le Taz Hot]

219. To whoever objected/alerted on this post:

There are many non-Democrats on this board, me included. Our only requirement is to not advocate for candidates who are not Democrats. Stating that you are not a Democrat or are thinking about re-registering from the Democratic party, and why, is well within the discussion boundaries on DU. The two posts you refer to below both advocated for a Third Party which is a DU no-no. JD's did not advocate for a third party so he/she didn't "get away" with anything.

[Cali_Democrat]

46. This is ridiculous

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. Also, Obama needs to stop specifying cuts and force the GOP to explicitly say which cuts they want and how they want to go about doing it.

Why is it that the GOP never specifies the cuts they want, but they always get the dems to specify

[uponit7771]

50. ******MORE BULLISH HE NEVER SAID BENEFITS !!******

[cthulu2016]

55. **WOW /// $$ *** THaT IS SOME epic DENiaL @@##!!

So his proposal was meant to increase the cost of social security?

(You have fallen into a goal-post moving trap... the argument for medicare doesn't apply to SS. SS has negligible overhead... the only way to save money in SS is cutting benefits.)

[Bozita]

53. Remove the fucking cap!

Simple, effective, and fair.

[JimDandy]

146. This always gets my vote first. n/t

[Kolesar]

179. Then does the highest pension payout become higher?

What is the proposal?

[Bozita]

193. Any high incomers in danger of starving or not paying their heating bills during their retirements?

I think not.

Remove the cap from all earned income. Consider making all unearned income (interest, dividends, and the like) subject to the payroll tax.

Such a move would likely lower the rate of the payroll tax.

When it comes down to lowering SS checks and making folks work longer vs. the lifestyles of those well off, I side with the 47%.

Fuck the Romneys, the Kochs, the Adelman's and the entire GOP bunch who believe our government is an auction, winner take all.

[JEB]

58. Ouch!

[OldDem2012]

62. I guess everyone here understands that the President can only express his personal opinions....

....but he can't put together the legislation that ends up on his desk for signature. He could say he wants a man on Mars next year, but that's not going to happen either.

By saying he's for Chain CPI, the President sounds reasonable to conservatives and makes the foot-dragging by the House GOP Tea-Nazis look even worse to a majority of the American public.

[Oilwellian]

69. So you're saying...

If the legislation does wind up on his desk, he will suddenly pull the chained CPI proposal?

[OldDem2012]

165. Are you saying the Senate will allow such legislation to hit the President's desk? nt.

[Oilwellian]

174. There are many Dem Senators on video record who claim they would

I'm creating a video on that very issue and I can say now, it would be a filibuster proof number who are willing to join with Republicans and vote for the cuts. The entire leadership of the Democratic Party is on record supporting the cuts.

Except Harry Reid. I couldn't find one video of Harry supporting benefit cuts. Perhaps it is he working behind the scenes making sure SS stays out of the mix. It certainly isn't Obama putting up a good fight. He said on MTP this morning that he has the Democratic votes to make it happen. So I won't hold my breath hoping Harry can maintain. He certainly caved during Grand Bargain I.

[OldDem2012]

194. What Senate Dems say "on the record" is very different from what they do when....

....the rubber meets the road. If the Dems and GOP had a deal behind the scenes we would have seen it quite some time ago.

Again, what the President says publicly in regards to anything pertaining to the fiscal cliff is personal opinion, nothing more.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

75. He never had to say it at all unless he meant it.

There is no way you can argue your way out of this when he has said that "

Timecode 5:13.

"You know David, one of the proposals we made was Chained CPI, which sounds real technical but basically makes an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated on Social Security. Highly unpopular among Democrats."

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/david-gregory-president-obama-youve-gotta-ta


It wasn't a personal opinion. It was a proposal of the administration.

[OldDem2012]

166. The opinion of the President is just that, nothing more....

....it's the responsibility of Congress to propose legislation. That's basic Civics 101.

[JDPriestly]

113. He OFFERED to cut Social Security benefits.

The bit about how technical it all is.

That's the round-about way of saying "We are screwing you, but we are doing it in such a fancy, complicated way that you will just be so awed our technical smarts that you will stand their open-mouthed staring as we do it."

What a phony.

He's a great guy, but he needs to talk with, not just at, ordinary people more.

Social Security is what makes going to work every day and getting low wages all your life not seem quite so awful.

I know some young people whose parents are not yet eligible for Social Security and cannot work or get jobs. It is a terrible burden on them because they are not only providing for their own family but for their parents.

They have a small apartment. I don't know what they would do if the parents had to move in with them. I think it would be very bad. The programs that need to be maintained more than any others are Social Security and Medicare.

Student loans are a horror. But imagine having a couple of kids, owing a lot on student loans AND having to support your parents. That's what will happen more and more if Social Security is cut or if the eligibility age is raised.

We spend too much on our military. That is where money can be saved.

[JimDandy]

151. Nooo... not the OBVIOUS solution....

If you and I know people who have almost the same story, you can bet there are MILLIONS more in this type of situation.

SS cuts are disliked by both Dems and Repubs in the 99% and military cuts are DESIRED by by both Dems and Repubs in the 99%. You'd think the obvious solution would win out.

[nineteen50]

70. as the federal reserve

continues to throw money to the banks at zero percent interest.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

71. Yep, he's a Republican.

[jtuck004]

72. Killing old people, veterans, kids won't strengthen. It's cowardly policy. No big ideas -

in a time when the country needs to figure out what everyone is going to be doing for work. Then again, we shoot drone missles at innocent kids in Pakistan, not exactly the bravest policy either. No growth.

And since we are on the subject, btw, paying campaign donors/friends at the banks for years while yanking 50,000 families out of their homes every month, letting business continue to rake in profit while leaving 27 million people who way they want full-time work hanging, and leaving 47 million people on food stamps doesn't strengthen anything either.

Just a note. When the weakling Chamberlain got on his knees and kissed Nazi ass, it didn't make Britain stronger either. It got people killed.

[JDPriestly]

115. Good point about Chamberlain. Obama needs to read up on that.

This is the time to stand tall for Democratic values.

Obama is not doing it. I am ashamed of him. He knows better.

I wonder whether Obama's mother-in-law is on Social Security. I wonder what her view is on this.

[SammyWinstonJack]

140. If she is, I seriously doubt she depends on it fully, as a means of support.

As for Obama being 'a great guy', that won't make up for cuts to SS for those who need it to survive.

[jtuck004]

145. $990 mo SS, $400 mo pension for 28 years employed by a now gone oil co.

Lady down the street, 92.

Some food from Meals on Wheels, has a dental bill still paying on for a year, can't always afford food or get it, would not be able to live without the married kids income, gets some help when utilities get shut off. That has happened a couple of times.

And they want to cut her SS while sending tens of billions of dollars to the wealthy so they don't lose money.

Chicago, April 1, 1932. Five hundred school children, most with haggard faces and in tattered clothes, paraded through Chicago's downtown section to the Board of Education offices to demand that the school system provide them with food.

There is a choice to lead into the future or hang one's head and punt. I sure didn't vote for someone to come stick a knife deep into the ribs of the kind of policy a great nation has to have, while sending more than $40 billion a month to the kind of people that are stealing opportunity from the country for profit.

Could get better. I'm waiting to see the reaction of tens of millions of working people people (including 10 million working poor) who will get paychecks that are $50, $100, $200 less for the same work they did the two weeks before that, and two weeks before that. I don't know if telling people they need to share more pain when they have already been doing that for years is enough, but we will see.

According to SIGTARP they had $26 trillion to make promises to banks with, allow them to collect hundreds and hundreds of tens of billions in profit and bonuses, but not enough to keep Grandma out of that sewer of an old folks home, or provide a basic college education without lifelong debt, or find life-giving work for, today, 27 million people who say they need full time work, or more sufficient food than that provided for 47 million people on food stamps.

The only hope for people who would do this to their neighbors, or people who will be seniors tomorrow will be if future history texts carry a starting disclaimer, "Now, it wasn't their fault...", though I don't know how many supporters will be left alive by then.

[JDPriestly]

155. The paychecks that are $50, $100, $200 less for the same work are the paychecks that

seniors received when working. Seniors PAID THE VERY TAX RATES THAT OBAMA IS DESCRIBING AS SO HORRIBLE AS TO REQUIRE CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY.

The whole thing is a scam, a ruse.

I'm waiting to see the reaction of tens of millions of working people people (including 10 million working poor) who will get paychecks that are $50, $100, $200 less for the same work they did the two weeks before that, and two weeks before that. I don't know if telling people they need to share more pain when they have already been doing that for years is enough, but we will see.

Sorry. But we paid those tax rates. Our paychecks were smaller for the same work.

[jtuck004]

162. You and I think it is necessary, and we know why.

When you and I paid those taxes there were schools you could attend without too much debt, jobs, health care, housing. Elizabeth Warren's work shows us economics have changed, that many of the things we used to save money on are now securitized and inflated in value for the benefit of the wealthy. Thus, the flexibility we had in past years doesn't exist when paying those taxes today, so it might be a quite different effect. We shall see.

On top of that the country is making choices to spend the money we are taking in not on making sure college is cheap or free, or that everyone gets good medical care, or even making sure that no one has to go hungry or cold in this country. Instead we are using it for stupid wars and enriching the lives of the criminals that attacked the middle class jobs and homes for profit. They are supposed to tinkle some of it back on us, I hear.

And layered on that are scores of millions of people between 40 and 60ish whose mid-wage jobs have been replaced by low-wage jobs or nothing, who have lost their homes, their retirement, and there is nothing in the next two decades that will replace it, so the need is probably going to grow beyond what is being proposed today. That makes it more like can-kicking, until we have an action plan to implement for whatever growth means in the future. If we don't figure that out, I suspect much of this will just be continuing drama, to no real effect.

[JDPriestly]

164. Maybe, but . . .

"When you and I paid those taxes there were schools you could attend without too much debt, jobs, health care, housing."

Actually, I worked, went back to school evenings (part-time) , borrowed money and got a professional degree in the 1990s. I paid extremely high tuition for that degree, and my interest rates were 7.5 to 8.5 percent on my private loans. The interest rates were far higher then. And when we bought our house in the late 1980s, interest rates were through the roof. So, actually, we paid the higher tax rates and higher interest rates.

There are two reasons for the job losses we are suffering.

The first is "free" trade. There is a hidden cost in all those Walmart bargains. It is paid out of our paychecks. When we go to get a job, we have to compete with low-income workers all over the world.

Now when a fat-cat investor looks for a place to multiply his profits, he analyzes the markets and gets the best deal for himself. Very often he decides he can make more if he invests in a country with cheap labor. He profits. American workers lose because more jobs that could be done in America are done somewhere else.

The second reason for job losses is computerization and other technological "improvements" in the workplace and in industry. My husband visited a grocery store in our area recently. There were no human check-out clerks. It was all machines. We will never go back. I like to greet a human when I shop. But that's another reason we have lost jobs and pay is down.

Here again, there are losers and winners in this "improvement," in this progress. We can't stop progress, but we should, as I explained before, share the costs and benefits of progress fairly. The costs should not all trickle down to the bottom of the wagescale, the working people, while the benefits, the increased profits, spray up like refreshing fountains on the wealthy.

Republicans need to understand that the free market will become more and more despised if it cannot also be a fair market. I am not opposed to the rich. I am not opposed to rewarding innovation and hard work. I am opposed to the unwillingness to see the big picture and to profit from the misery of others. Everyone needs financial incentives. That goes for working people as well as the wealthy. Since 1980, the financial incentives have gone more and more to the top. Almost nothing trickles down, and it appears that no one understands or cares.

I am very, very disappointed in President Obama. He does not seem to understand how economics works, not at all. Had he understood, we would see more of our bankers and Wall Street traders sitting in our jails.

There is an argument to be made for the fact that the jobs that are now done in cheap labor markets and could be done here for higher wages help developing countries raise their standards of living. Those standards of living are being raised at the expense of working people in our country. Investors gain from the difference in the cost of making a product and the price of selling it in the US (or Germany or Switzerland, etc.) So, investors are gaining from the losses of working Americans. Clearly if you want to talk rationally about "shared sacrifice" you must find a way to shift a portion of the gains that investors make who profit from cheap labor overseas into the pockets of working class Americans.

Chained CPI does not shift any of the profits made by those who are exporting good American jobs and have exported good American jobs into the pockets of the people who have lost the most in that export bargain.

A way to shift the investors' gains into the pockets of the workers in the US who have suffered the losses is to impose import taxes on products coming from low-wage countries in order to fund education and other socially beneficial programs here.

Another even simpler way to shift the investors' gains into the incomes of working people is to raise taxes on the rich and specifically on capital gains and the kinds of investments that cause the job losses. There are many ways to do that. But the goal should be to raise those taxes above the rates that prevailed in the 1990s. Some of the sucking sound that is destroying American jobs might be muted just a bit.

Another way to shift for positive benefit would be to impose taxes on stock market trades completed within the US while also taxing transfers of money out of the US regardless of the purpose for the transfer. These taxes would not need to be so high that they would impede investment or the markets. Some of the European countries are already imposing certain taxes a little different than I have proposed but for the same purpose.

"Instead we are using it for stupid wars . . . ."

Agreed. That is another way we could save tons of money.

And while I am at it. Have you ever known someone who lived through bombing raids in Europe as a child? I have. That person suffered from PTSD. It was a horrible experience for that person. It resulted in a terrible waste of talent. I often think of the children in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan who, now, are surviving frightening monsters in the sky above them and the unpredictable horror of bombing raids.

We pay for that. Terrorism is a horrible problem. I remember when we had Palestinian terrorists in the 1960s and 1970s. The problem has worsened since that time.

We have been fighting terrorism forever already. We have to find new solutions. I don't have ideas on that one, but certainly imposing austerity on people who have already tightened their belts over and over in recent years is not the answer.

The people who should be called upon to sacrifice are those who have gained, those who are wealthier now than they were a few years ago, those who bought inexpensive homes that had been foreclosed and will make a killing when they sell them. Capital gains taxes need to go up. We have to find ways to tax capital fairly. We tax labor on the wage statement, before the laborer sees his paycheck. We have to tax capital in that same way.

[jtuck004]

170. "The people who should be called upon to sacrifice are those who have gained"

Mi$$ RobMe declared $245,000 a week in income for 2009, I think it was. He didn't earn a penny of that, other people did. He, along with tens of thousands of others, found ways to take the money other people labored for, with borrowed money and effort from co-conspirators. Their profit represented opportunity for those people, growth and security for the country. Those pirates do not deserve to think they are safe when they walk the streets with the people they have hurt. Instead they laugh and throw McDonald's applications down on people who think they are criminals and terrorists.

People should demand they stop taking, (I can't use the word sacrifice for them) but the greater public really needs to learn why some of the laws of the thirties existed, how they have been and are continuing to be taken advantage of else they won't ever be able to defend themselves against these predators. Can't depend on elected folk to do it for us. but it's always going to be a struggle until the workers own the assets.

You mentioned "free trade". We, as a people, are being effectively prevented from competing with these other places by the high value of the dollar, which primarily benefits those with a lot of dollars, attracts them like flies to a corpse. If we spend to fund schools, social spending, we get smarter, the dollar gets weaker, and manufacturing here makes better economic sense. Cuts in SS, etc, or the sequester bill, make the dollar stronger. Over the cliff indeed.

The past is over. We really need to be having big conversations about gainful pursuits, how everyone will thrive in the future of robots and electronics, and how we intend to transition out of the past. The alternatives are things like cutting SS, health care, getting rid of the ways that adults earn and create more, and building more tarp cities, I think.

[JDPriestly]

196. Thanks.

[JDPriestly]

77. Let's see him live on less than $1,200 - $1,300 per month.

Let's see how he likes it. How about if he had to live on $800 per month for the rest of his life?

Do you think he or his wealthy donors would enjoy living like that very long?

I'm so sorry I wasted so many hours of my time on his election campaign. You have no idea how hard some of us over 65-ers worked. And to be treated like this. To have our children treated like this. Take the money out of the military. Bring the troops home and fire the contractors.

[ProSense]

79. Senate "fiscal cliff" negotiations hit major setback over GOP demands that it include chained-CPI

Senate "fiscal cliff" negotiations hit major setback over GOP demands that it include chained-CPI
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022097970

The current deal doesn't include chained CPI, and it looks like we're heading over the cliff.

[leftstreet]

95. GOP DEMANDS WHAT OBAMA PROMISED. Shocking n/t

[nashville_brook]

100. not true -- the talks stalled b/c Dems wanted the debt ceiling raised, IN EXCHANGE for SS cuts

and the repubs wouldn't go there. via Sam Stein: "The major problem right now: Republicans want chained-CPI without lifting the debt ceiling. Dem aide calls that a "poison pill."

[DrDan]

101. It should NEVER have been mentioned in the first place . . . that only complicates the negotiations

[Jefferson23]

82. I don't believe it.

[plethoro]

83. I was watching when he said it. I knew he was going

to say it and posted so yesterday. Let's face it, he could have wheeled grandma in in her Invacare Power Bed and there would be those here that would say he was just doing this for effect. IMO, the only way the chained CPI will not be put into effect is if the Republicans oppose it. Now, move forward six weeks for the debt limit fiasco. The Republicans will say they WILL NOT raise the debt limit unless Obama reforms entitlements (Social Security). Namely, "adjust the age for Social Security, CPI changes and means testing and look beyond the ten-year window.." (per Graham). Obama will pause on this for a few days, then agree to one or two of these items, probably "means testing" and "chained CPI " if not already done. This is what the corporatists want. However, when he does this, there will be none or close to none supporters for this on this board. This time every one here will get real busy contacting everyone in Congress and voters too. I will do this and also bumper stickers too, which I already have some ready to go. I would post them here but I don't need the flame. Anyway, this is what I think will happen. If it does, it will stop any economic expansion cold as people begin to understand they'll have to save more money for themselves and also junior, who will get nothing from SS unless he would qualify for welfare.

I wasn't going to post these thoughts if Obama had not confirmed his intention to go for a chained CPI adjustment implementation. But he did. I heard it. I do not believe it was a chess move.

[former_con]

87. Terrible decision and exactly what the right wants

Look I was indoctrinated in their crap, I know how they play and this is it they will start with getting Obama to cave and give chained CPI then when the debt ceiling negotiations happen they will try and get more spending cuts.... It is their meme that must be defeated, there is no spending problem as long as spending is being done to help people but the right wants to convince everyone that the rich should not be subsidizing the poor....

This is a trap by the right and if he falls for it he is not a very good Democratic President, imagine that legacy the only Democratic President ever to cut social programs...

[iemitsu]

89. Our benefits are not your's to give away Obama.

What a fucked up excuse for leadership.
I sure hope that he does not get his Christmas wish for the rest of us.
Even when we win we lose.
America, fuck yeah.

[patrice]

91. Dear President Obama, YOU'RE NOT CHARGING THE RICH ENOUGH for ANY changes in SS or Medicare.

You have set the price for a CPI too low.

[stupidicus]

96. butt, butt, butt, it's a bi-partisan screwing

doesn't that make you feel better?

[KamaAina]

97. "We had to destroy that village in order to save it."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. Oh, that's OK. It's just posturing and if the Repubs accept his offer he'll veto it.

It's just a *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* that will fool the Republicans but not us.

Isn't it?

[underthematrix]

106. PBO did say a lot of his peeps were

upset with CPI. I just started on social security 12/26/2012 (first check) and I don't have a problem with it. I trust the President and I'm one of his ALL WEATHER supporters.

[BanTheGOP]

108. I'm fine with this, IF it gets the people on board with a permanent tax hike on the rich.

We can always raise the rates later on to ensure the poor don't get strangled. But to be blunt, we need to start enforcing policies that actually DO something, like ban the republican party so we can get more progressive plans in place, such as 100% confiscation of all wealth over a certain amount (I proposed $10 million dollars before), a return to the 90% taxation rate from all those that make 1 to 10 million, and 70% for 250,000 to a million. This will ensure that nobody who is poor has to ever pay any significant outlay to their own survival, which should be done only by the rich.

[xchrom]

110. du rec. nt

[Faygo Kid]

112. Stop this madness. Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit.

Why is Social Security the number 1 goal to destroy by so many?

[bvar22]

135. The President CLEARLY stated THAT!

Sad, SAD day for "Democrats" when OUR President,
winds up waaaay to the Conservative Right of Ronald Reagan.

Have you had enough yet?


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]

[DirkGently]

114. So much for "People are crazy/disloyal for thinking Obama will offer cuts (again)!"

I see we're now shifting to

a) Butbutbut he doesn't mean it and

b) Cutting SS benefits to the detriment of millions, simply to appease Republicans' wealthy sponsors is 'realistic,' and

c) Cutting SS really WILL "save" it.

No awkward pause to apologize for being completely wrong in the first place, of course.

[nashville_brook]

122. it's just trial balloon starvation.

[AZ Progressive]

116. Obama and the Republicans are playing the Good Cop / Bad Cop Game

From a blog post in 2007:

"Thursday, August 9, 2007
Democrat, Republican: Good Cop, Bad Cop
The people of this country are strongly polarized along the Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative, Left/Right axis. It's puzzling, until you think that maybe it's a distraction from the real issues. Or that they are really one and the same, and only appear to be different on the surface. This is so the parties, and the public, will argue about things that don't really matter, such as whether or not to allow the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools. In the meantime, both parties voted to invade Iraq, with few asking, "should we invade Iraq at all?"

I say, the Democrats and the Republicans are playing out the role of good cop/bad cop. In case you don't know what that is... In the movies, when cops interrogate a suspect, "bad cop" barges in first and roughs up the suspect. "Good cop" rushes in and pulls "bad cop" off of the suspect, and yells at him to stop beating up the suspect. He then turns to the suspect and says, "I'm a nice guy. I'm here to help you. Just tell me what you know". The suspect, afraid of bad cop and thankful for good cop's intervention, begins to trust him and spills the beans.

Today the Republican party (better called the Neoconservative party), is doing overt things that alienate the American public. Bad cop. The people then think that the Democrats are here to save them. Good cop. The next Democrat president will proceed to do things he wouldn't otherwise get away with because our guard is down. The Democrat president wouldn't undo the authoritarian Executive Orders that Bush has executed which add frightening powers to the Presidency. Today, the Dems don't even talk about undoing those EO's anymore."

From http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/2007/08/democrat-republican-good-cop-bad-cop.html

[Arcanetrance]

119. The thing that amazes me is how many on this site are going on about oh it won't pass the Senate and

It's off the table now. Imagine the uproar if Romney won and proposed this or the uproar during the Bush years when there were privatization talk. Just cause there's a D after the presidents name doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable.

[MissDeeds]

126. You're exactly right

And welcome to DU...

[SammyWinstonJack]

142. To some on this board, that's EXACTLY what it means.

Just cause there's a D after the presidents name doesn't mean he shouldn 't be held accountable.

[FlyByNight]

124. Appalling

President Obama's offer to Bo(eh)ner was sociopathic. And for what? Showing the Beltway Set that he's "serious" by harming those most in need?

The Orwellian language of his statement makes him look disingenuous and dishonest. Chained CPI - a benefit cut - would be implemented in order to save/strengthen SS? What. The. Fuck. Last I checked, SS doesn't add ANYTHING to the debt/deficits. And the "savings" from chaining CPI are a mere pittance compared to the American national security state/MIC, which isn't being spoken about.

These EARNED BENEFITS are called entitlements for a goddamned reason. We paid (and continue to pay) for them, so WE'RE ENTITLED TO THEM.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

132. This is no way to run a country.

And I thought my disgust levels were exhausted during the Bush years, between Rs and complicit Dems.

[lob1]

134. If he'd done this in his first term, he wouldn't have had a second term.

He can say what he wants, but we're getting unnecessarily fucked.

[grahamhgreen]

136. SS DOES NOT ADD ONE NICKEL TO THE DEFICIT. WTF.

Starve seniors to prop up Big War? Despicable, nay, Evil.

He represents a sliver of the minority.

He is not doing his job.

[joelfreak]

138. Defense Cuts?!

Where are the defense cuts?! Why are we not hearing fights over how much should be cut?! Did we give up on that already?!

[Oilwellian]

147. I would bet you money...

The stop gap deal they're working on now, will protect the cuts to the Pentagon that were written into the fiscal cliff. It could be the bargaining chip Obama would have when the debt limit is knocking and Republicans try to hold the 99% hostage, again. Of course we all know how great Obama's negotiating skills are.

[JimDandy]

159. Really! Obama must have missed all the negotiating

classes in law school. Hamlin University School of Law has a great Dispute Resolution Program. It's never too late to go back to school to get the skills you need....

[Skittles]

168. GET WITH THE PROGRAM, JOELFREAK!!!

no one can touch the WAR MACHINE - Dems or repukes. THAT'S A GIVEN!!!

[CranialRectaLoopback]

139. I beat you because I love you.

[MjolnirTime]

150. you couldn't even poost your thread title without manipulating Obama's words

Why?
Because you're making shit up for your own reasons.

Be honest. Report what he actually said instead of what you want him to mean.

[Oilwellian]

157. Oh

So you're saying the chained CPI will increase benefits? Plus, I posted a link to the transcript. I know you think it's a right wing rag, but alas, it is what it is.

[MjolnirTime]

163. it actually doesn't affect existing benefits. its a change in the rate of growth.

No benefits would ever be taken as you and others like to pretend.
They just wouldn't grow at the same rate.

No matter how you try to bend it, existing benefits are never actually reduced.

[Oilwellian]

176. Really?

[uponit7771]

201. Yes, you can cut cost and gain in benefits....Obama skilled bashers not

[sabrina 1]

160. The President said that the Chained CPI will 'strengthen SS'.

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer agreed with him. The Progressive Caucus and every Progressive Org in the country tried to stop this from happening. But this morning the President was very clear, once again reiterating his claim that the Chained CPI will 'strengthen SS'. What exactly are objecting to in this OP?

Fortunately Republicans have rejected cuts to SS. Can you believe that? On the same day that a Dem president stated he was willing to offer cuts to SS, Republican McCain says Repubs will not do it.

If you want Obama's own words, I will be more than happy to provide them for you. I assumed everyone had heard them by now.

[uponit7771]

200. +1!

[DearHeart]

158. This is NOT what I, and millions of other people VOTED FOR!!

You want to strenthen SS, then RAISE THE FUCKIN CAP! YOU DON'T DO IT ON THE BACKS OF THE POOR, DISABLED, AND ELDERLY!!!


Sorry for the RANT, BUT I'm Fuckin SICK TO DEATH OF THIS BS!!

[Pryderi]

169. ...and my decision is, I won't do it" n/t

[heaven05]

171. I

just don't believe this President would betray, seniors, disabled, students, workers vets and he is not/wasn't serious on CPI. I just won't believe it until it becomes the law of the land. Executive/Judicial/Legislative branches of government. Obama knew CPI would never come to the floor. It would still have to be voted on. That's where the rubber meets the road. Reid said no. I just won't believe he would hurt my social security or any other americans benefit. He is playing the political game and all of you screaming, go find a fire extinguisher. I just won't believe he would hurt us. Your screaming is stressing me out.

[italiangirl]

172. Betrayal

I find it very hard to accept that President Obama willingly betrayed the Democratic Party and Progressives by proposing the chained CPI as a tool to get the Republicans to vote on his proposal and that it is coming from a Democratic President; He bragged about it on MTP today. The Social program that was passed by Franklin D. Roosevelt!!!!!!! Is this what the voters stood in long lines for hours in the hot sun bargained for?

The way Bernie Sanders explained it tonight is; People who sign up for Social Security starting at the ages of 55 trough75, they will lose $600 in their SS checks. Get this one, from 75-85 they will lose $1,000. This will affect veterans and I believe people with disabilities.

What was he thinking? Taking food and necessities from people who reach the age of 85 and lowering their quality of life!!!!! I am shocked that President Obama stooped to that level and that Nancy Palosi went along with this insanity.

I'm throwing ion the towel. I don't trust anybody any more!

[Oilwellian]

181. Don't give up

I think our calls and letters have had some effect.

[NYC Liberal]

175. "In pursuit of bashing Obama, I'm willing to make up bullshit"

[Kolesar]

180. Why was SS increased at higher than the Consumer Price Index, anyway? eom

[Tutonic]

182. The title does not match or even paraphrase what the man said. And if you read the entire

transcript it is evident that he is stating that this issue needs to be put before the public for discussion. He also is talking about long-term solvency for SS that might require some short term cuts or changes. I am approaching retirement and really don't care to see any cuts but if the facts clearly show that without cuts we won't have SS in another 30 years for the next generation why wouldn't we as responsible adults want to put that on the table for discussion. I read several of the replies to the post including several that were hidden responses and I am starting to become convinced that some of the people on this site are unhinged--much like the tea party that helped to bring down the Republican Party. We are destined to be a regional party like the Republican Party if we continue to conflate everything that the President says and does. He is one man--albeit the leader of this nation but he does not adopt bills or legislation--that is the congress. He merely signs off on bills or legislation that is derived in the congress. We have four years to go folks and if we pummel the man before January, we are in for a hard four years.

[allrevvedup]

207. You're right. I just checked.

Here's the extent of Obama's remarks on SS:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I've said is I am prepared to do everything I can to make sure that Medicare and Social Security are there, not just for this generation but for future generations.

GREGORY: You've got to talk tough to seniors...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: But...

GREGORY: ...don't you about this? And say, something’s got to give?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: ...but I already have, David, as you know, one of the proposals we made was something called Chain CPI, which sounds real technical but basically makes an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated on Social Security. Highly unpopular among Democrats. Not something supported by AARP. But in pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the long-term I'm willing to make those decisions. What I'm not willing to do is to have the entire burden of deficit reduction rest on the shoulders of seniors, making students pay higher student loan rates, ruining our capacity to invest in things like basic research that help our economy grow. Those are the things that I'm not willing to do. And so...

The OP is misleading, but I knew it would be before I clicked it. What's surprising is that it took 187 posts for somebody to check it out. Oh well, glad you did!

[lumberjack_jeff]

185. Can we all finally agree that there was never a pony?

"God, fate destiny and providence" had a cruel joke in mind for us.

[haydukelives]

186. Mr. President

Please don't do it!
pretty please.

[DeSwiss]

190. K&R

''When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the area of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses.'' ~John F. Kennedy

[CountAllVotes]

202. That does not even make sense!

Who is this man that is called Mr. President? I barely knew ye I'm beginning to think!

>>But in pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the long-term I'm willing to make those decisions.

How Mr. President does cutting Social Security make it more secure? This is a contradiction within itself!

I suppose you Mr. President will never need to collect Social Security in your life time so what me worry?

Big Fat *sigh*

& recommend.

[BigBearJohn]

215. Where's William Pitt when we really need him?

He'll explain all this. Relax.

[Kolesar]

217. Assuage the large scale butt hurt? eom

[bornskeptic]

220. There was never any danger Republicans would support chained CPI anyway.

It would increase income taxes by as much as it would reduce SS benefits over the next ten years, and by much more than it would reduce SS benefits over the following ten years. After that SS payments would be the same or larger than currently projected, since the extra money retained in the trust fund through chained CPI would move back the date of depletion of the trust fund. The income tax increases would go on forever.

After today, the Republicans can vote for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and not be voting for a tax increase, but they could not possibly claim that voting for chained CPI was not voting for a tax increase.

[Dustlawyer]

237. Our politicians, including Obama, answer to those who bought them! We allow bribery and extortion

to elect our leaders. The special interests give the money and support, if one of their politicians looks like they will step out of line, they get a primary opponent with more campaign money than God! Lets stop all of the time wasted fund raising and DEMAND, COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (CCFR)!!! They respect our votes, so lets fight to get enough support to make this a national issue and get it passed. They will not willingly give up power so it will require a LOT of support. Help me build that support and spread the word, CCFR!!!

[newspeak]

239. i'm tired of the whole bullshite

i remember clearly little boots and his band of greedy robber barons spending like drunken sailors while cutting taxes for the very rich; while starting wars for his greedy corporate buddies. meanwhile, back on mainstreet, those tax cuts didn't seem to trickle down on the plebes, funds for crucial infrastructure was decreased and the states, well, they had to make up for federal funds lost. this whole fiasco seems contrived, just so the "drown us on in the damn tub", while allowing the greedy "pig, i mean big boys" even more wealth at our expense. now, especially the repugs, "oh, we're so worried about the deficit (that they created), "oh, we need to tighten our belts (the poor and what's left of the middle class). we must all share in the pain, yeah, sure. we've been sharing the pain for years, losing our homes, our decent jobs, our pensions-but, hey we need to sacrifice, right?

my aunt lives off SS and a pension. she just received a notice by the company that bought out the company she worked for-she wanted me to read the notice. the notice says that the company, at their discretion, can basically stop pensions. now, she gets about 900 in SS and 3-400 pension. with a chained CPI and if the pension is gone-she's dead. she's worked all of her damn life, as many other americans have worked, and they all do not deserve to be kicked to the curb.

if the majority of americans don't wake up fast and realize that they've been conned big time, and the only thing we are good for now days is to contribute to corporate welfare and bailing out greedy sociopaths at our expense; we may see such a disparity it will look like any third world corrupt fiefdom.

and those who are for "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps", there are many who have had their bootstraps cut or their boots stolen.

[underthematrix]

251. I'm a senior and I'm okay with this

Besides it would not affect low income seniors like me and my husband. We already get all sorts of subsidies because we are low income. Really there's no drama here.

[Swede Atlanta]

252. Unfortunately BO is a tool.......

He is a "centrist" focused on his own political survivability.

He has NEVER been one of us. Mark my word his second term will show repeated give to the reich wing.

I would still support him over magic-pants Romney but still he is a pariah in our midst.