Woman weeps to senator over Social Security cuts: "There's no way for me to eat less!"

[limpyhobbler]

A woman broke into tears at a town hall event with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) during a discussion about President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce Social Security cost of living increases.

Throughout this year, the White House has been considering adopting what’s known as chained CPI, a less generous way of calculating Social Security cost-of-living increases that assumes seniors will change their buying habits as certain items become more expensive.

Compared with the current model, advocacy group Social Security Works has said that a person who began drawing Social Security at the age of 62 would be receiving 7.32 percent less in benefits per year by the age of 88 under chained CPI.

“I’m sorry to say that the president of my own party has advocated this and he’s wrong,” Harkin told a group of seniors at a retirement center on Tuesday. “I’m so tired of people saying we’ve got to cut Social Security. I thought, we got to come back and say something, no, you’ve got to increase Social Security.”
...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/08/woman-weeps-to-senator-over-social-security-cuts-theres-no-way-for-me-to-eat-less/

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R. I have contacted both of my Dem senators about Chained CPI and they oppose it too.

I hope they all stick to their guns.

[tblue]

2. Make Tom Harkin Sen Majority Leader.

My gosh! I am appalled that this woman even has to worry about SS cuts. It should NEVER be an issue. It should be nonnegotiable, IMHO. How sad that Sen. Harkin had to admit this truth about our POTUS. Well, at least it's not just us hoi poloi who get it.

[cali]

4. He's retiring. Not running in 2014.

[emulatorloo]

53. And he's gonna be sorely missed.

[hollysmom]

66. indeed

he has always been an honorable man.

[The Blue Flower]

3. NO excuse for cutting benefits

Not when raising the salary cap for SS would take care of everything. I've written to the White House to say so, not that that's worth a crap.

[OnlinePoker]

52. Raise the salary cap then you have to raise the benefits cap

You would be no further ahead.

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. Why do you say that? Do you know what the salary cap is?

[OnlinePoker]

100. It's the level at which, if you earn any higher, you don't have to pay any more than that.

If you eliminate the cap, but don't raise the benefits for those paying the higher amount, you are just making the program exactly what the right wingers say it is...a wealth redistribution scheme from the haves to the have nots.

[daleanime]

121. And this is a bad thing?

[OnlinePoker]

128. All it does is give fuel to the fire if the pugs get back control of the purse strings.

They will kill SS in a heartbeat.

[jeff47]

145. .....Yeah, you really shouldn't advise anyone on politics. (nt)

[demwing]

187. In the same vein, you shouldn't advise anyone on diplomacy

and neither should I.

Yet here we all are....

[daleanime]

157. Their going to try no matter what we do.....

far more important for us to start addressing the problems left unattended the last 30 years. And that includes income inequality.

[maddiemom]

182. "they're" Contraction for "they are"

[daleanime]

185. It's what I get when I hurry.

so no points for style, any for contend?

[maddiemom]

191. LOL! "contend?" Yeah, points for that! Thanks for being a good sport to my grammar

Nazi. Their, they're and there are just really pet peeves and I just can't help myself sometimes.

[daleanime]

199. Huh? Why be upset?

It's not like I don't know the difference. Its just that sometimes my brain runs faster then my finger(working off my Nook until my desktop is repaired, again).

[Horse with no Name]

193. Not true

If someone makes $100 and has to pay $10 of that...that is pain and suffering

If someone makes $1000 and has to pay $100 of that...that is being uncomfortable

If someone makes $10000 and has to pay $1000 of that...some adjustments will have to be made

If someone makes $100,000 and has to pay $10,000...well, that is the price of doing business.

Anything above that is just obscene to complain about paying their FAIR share because in all realities...the breaks should come at the BOTTOM of the income ladder where people are having to live without food and medication to contribute...not at the top where they might have to settle for one less vacation home.

Let's get real...PLEASE.

[Jackpine Radical]

125. What??

[Sirveri]

184. that's not true, you only pay out 10% of what they put in.

There also is no benefit cap as written.

The top tier income only returns at a 10% rate, whereas you receive 90% up to the first 9k, and 35% up to somewhere around 45k.

We would need to adjust the tiers, and possibly establish a cap if we totally abolished the cap. But simply raising it to capture 90% of existing income would solve the issue nicely while inflating the existing tiers.

[leftstreet]

5. DURec

[exboyfil]

6. She is visiting the wrong Senator

She needs to go see Grassley and stop by Rep. King as well.

[John2]

8. That is what

the Base and left needs to do. Recruit your own candidates and oust the old guard going along with the President, if he doesn't listen to you. Get a petition to have your own candidate to run for President. People don't have to accept this anymore. If the Tea party can do it, then why not the Die hards on the Left? Nobody has to vote for a candidate just because some corporatist or wealthy person say so. Just start out from the grass roots and challenge them. That will make them listen to you,when they see you mean business.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Oust the President?

How does that work?

[maddiemom]

183. Impeachment. (See Bill Clinton)

[Scootaloo]

132. Because the left has shitty logistics

I say this as a person who happily calls themselves a leftist... this side of politics has the worst methods of executing ideas. Period. They're good ideas, but they get tied up in so much bullshit that it's impossible to get them implemented.

First off... Money. This is just the unavoidable reality, that money is the biggest factor in achieving any change. No, you can't use it to force votes... but you can use it to fire firms and foundations to lobby on your behalf, to create PR pieces for your position, to send their own people to doors and phones to get word out. You can't run the army if you can't get your hands into the treasury.

Second, organization. Take a look at OWS. great ideas, good points, annnnnd then no leadership, so it was basically a bunch of people preaching to the choir. The point of structure is to enable the movement to focus its resources; If you try to do everything at once you'll accomplish nothing at all. And yes, these leaders probably will end up getting arrested. Maybe they should carry copies jailhouse correspondence from other leaders of social movements. You can't send an army forth if you have no generals to lead it.

Third, propaganda. the American left has this weird aversion to utilizing propaganda, and in fact treats it as a dirty word. All it is though, is advertising. It's presenting your position in a charismatic or common-sense light. Instead we tend to blather on and on about all the details and fact after fact after fact - this doesn't make us look educated or intelligent, it just makes us look dreary and boorish, and loses the audience. You can't even think about going to war if everyone hates your plan before you even put it forth.

These three things link together; money can buy propaganda and hire brains, leaders focus money and forge propaganda, and propaganda can help fund-raise and recruit.

And the left has been incredibly bad at all of this... while the right has been amazingly successful in all three areas. Right now though, they're failing in propaganda and leadership - but we don't have any good way to pounce on that weakness and stab at it.

This is why the tea party has a caucus, and the left has a drum circle.

[LWolf]

7. "I've paid into it since I was 16."

My mom is struggling to get by. She'll be coming to live with me. I predict by next year. She's struggling, though, because she's just not ready to give up her independence, her life in her own home and her own community.

[RebelOne]

12. I am in the same predicament as your mom.

I am going to be forced to move in with my son and his wife at the beginning of next year. It is getting tougher and tougher to handle my bills. I am collecting social security, but it is not enough to cover all my expenses. Just like your mom, I love my independence and living alone, and I love the area where I live now. But I am going to have no other choice. I have a few thousand in the bank, but I try to pretend it isn't there, as it will only be used for emergencies.

[LWolf]

38. It's not right.

She worked so hard all those years as a single mom to raise me, and to support herself. She just wants to be the pilot of her own life.

It's not right.

My mom knows she always has a place with me.

[RebelOne]

111. I really sympathize with your mom.

And I am grateful that I have a place with my son.

[avaistheone1]

9. We treat seniors like dirt in this country and it is has

only gotten worse with this administration.

[Little Star]

26. True and shame on us! I think some of the poorest countries treat seniors better!...

Shame, shame, shame on us.

[adirondacker]

197. +1000. It's sad and disgusting. nt

[LittleBlue]

10. How else can we afford to send drone armies to Yemen

Sorry, but cuts must be made somewhere.

Sick fucks

[joeglow3]

11. But she is overweight

Brought to you by RW logic

[Ed Suspicious]

17. High calorie, government subsidized carbs are the cheapest food source and it makes many people

with metabolism issues such as diabetes and it's precursor metabolic syndrome especially susceptible to weight gain furthering the issue of metabolic ailments.

Thank the government's farm bill for making junk food the most logical choice for low income people such as those who are on Social Security.

[Bunnahabhain]

24. Not really true

Dried beans are super cheap, provide protein and complex carbs, and have the added two bonuses of having a long shelf life and being very tasty if prepared well. I have this discussion with people on a regular basis and creating a healthy, very low cost menu is not hard.

[Little Star]

28. Some people are allergic to beans, just saying.

[Bunnahabhain]

32. "Some people" will be allergic to just about anything

and beans was merely the first example that popped into my head. And then there are those millions of people not allergic to beans where this advice would work just fine.

Just saying.

[silvershadow]

59. Yes, and others, like me, have a catastrophic medical condition for which very expensive food stuffs

are the norm. I get $16 in food stamps. My medical expenses place me in the extra help category for my disability. Even with my Social Security, my income is considered poverty, at $7k per year. $7,000 per year. I don't know of too many people that can put a roof over their head, food in their belly, pay their light bill and gas bill, buy medicines, have a phone, have a car, have insurance at that amount. It needs to be raised, not lowered. And your "Some people" comment just rubbed me wrong, because my diet is *paramount to my health and well-being.

[Bunnahabhain]

65. Does this negate what I am saying for the vast majority of people?

Of course not. There are always going to be outliers. If I were to magically fix only 80% of all problems for people I think that would get me a Nobel, don't you?

[silvershadow]

69. You are really naiive or ignorant if you think that I am an outlier. I am just lucky that my

disease is catastrophic, or I wouldn't be able to afford to keep my home, and would be forced into antenable situation. There are plenty of people with diseases whose dietary needs are specific, and often complex. You really should get out in the world and meet your neighbors.

[Bunnahabhain]

71. Given my line of work and education

I feel I am neither naive nor ignorant on this topic.

Your attitude towards my reasonable and easily executable solution is very interesting. I acknowledge my solution might not fit you but am sure it would positively impact millions.

Please, have a nice day.

[silvershadow]

80. Oh, well, then by all means I apologize. Tell me, what are your line of work and education?

Perhaps I could learn much from you. Again, I apologize.

[Bunnahabhain]

84. Only a fool gives out specific personal information on the Netwebs

But I will say one of my graduate degrees was in public health and that I have worked in public health and health administration for the last 20 years.

Also, please do not think your sarcasm is lost on me. I am just an optimist about human nature and hope when confronted with the truth at least one person accepts it. There are inexpensive, healthy foods that millions of people in the US could benefit from if utilized more.

[silvershadow]

89. I do understand that, as I am educated and worked in public health as well. My point is that your

post assumes the your plan will help a vast majority (when it won't)- the numbers you assume (80/20) are pie-in-the sky, in my not-so-humble opinion. If it takes a little sarcasm to jolt you from your comfort zone, then it's well worth it in the long run, to me, but only if it has the intended effect- instigating a meaningful dialogue.

I have lesions all over my brain and spinal cord, going all the way to my brain stem, so I could die mid-sentence while talking to you or I could live another 20 or 30 years, so my food is important. So is a diabetic's. So is a lot of other folks. It's my reality. And it's the reality of a great many who desperately need food, real food, in varieties and quantities that are just simply out of reach. Have you tired shopping for gluten-free? Or even just fresh, healthy produce? Or organic? Or meat? I went to the store the other day with my mother for meat, and had to leave the first store and go to a second one because I had bough chicken their cheap many times in the past. Got to the second store, and there was no whole chicken there less than $10, including the value brand I had purchased in the past.

[Bunnahabhain]

91. While I am extremely empathetic to your situation

I will stick by my assertion that eating inexpensive and healthy food is a viable alternative for millions. Btw, gluten free? No gluten in beans. And while farro is not gluten free it is far lower in content than that of wheat so can often be eaten by folks with only a mild intolerance. Brown rice, cheap and healthy, is gluten free.

I am trying to dialogue with people but getting attacked from all sides for a factual, workable solution for millions. I would think people would be pleased that many people could be helped but apparently they just want to attack me and kvetch. Ah well, each to his own, I say.

[silvershadow]

97. So is your degree or field nutrition? Is is accompanied by any type of medical degree? Because,

while I appreciate what you think you are trying to do, in my mind I can't help but categorize you as either a professional disruptor (don't take offense, that's what my mind is doing right now, and such people are all over the tubes, especially on sites such as our own) or else very, very young and naive. We haven't talked yet about the 80/20 part, which i what really set me off anyway. Because by focusing on your rice and beans argument for the 80, you do two things in my mind: You focus only on the 80, which many/most politicians, talking heads, etc like to do because it's the 20 that are the most costly on our system, and more importantly you assume that no one in the 80 has a disease that excludes rice or beans in whole or in part as a real option. It sounds more to me like R-wing crap, stuff you might find on Rimjob's site. It's the prism I look through, always, when dealing with issues, so I can be a little rough around the edges for some. I'm also busy trying to get our party back to it's roots, so you will find to to be the left of the left on a lot of stuff- you know, a good, old-fashioned, yellow-dog Democrat (The kind that used to be around before Raygun destroyed this country, aided an abetted by third-way Democrats).

[shraby]

107. Eating beans meal after meal is inexpensive, you're right. BUT how often can a person stand to eat

the same few inexpensive foods day after day?
With a very narrow diet, they eventually are lacking many essential nutrients to maintain the body in a healthy way.

[riderinthestorm]

131. You're assuming most poor and elderly folks can cook those foods.

Access to a stove and cooking utensils are required. Knowledge and the skills to make that food (a single mom working 2 jobs is leaving the dinner prep to the 11 year old, whose preparing it for his two younger siblings...) is also required. And the physical dexterity and stamina to stand at a stove are required. My experience at the local food bank demonstrates that most folks have many faceted problems that aren't easily solved with "just eat more beans".

I think most people are arguing with you because you seem to be advocating that the poor should simply suck it up and accept more cuts. Instead of the compassionate approach which is to evaluate each situation and deal with it realistically.

Saying that the poor should just "eat more beans" (or the equivalent) isn't addressing the core issues here.

[SheilaT]

202. By the time I was 14 I was doing most of the cooking for

myself and my siblings. I'd learned to cook by the time I was five. It's not so terrible if a child fixes the meals at home.

My mother was a nurse. She packed up us five kids when I was 14 and moved us across the country to escape an abusive, alcoholic father. We were desperately poor. This was before food stamps. When I had babysitting jobs I used the money to buy food for us. Mom worked the 3-11 shift, so she was not home in the evenings. We fended for ourselves. We cooked. We got our homework done. And she worked as many extra shifts as she could get, because we needed the money. I can recall going for weeks without even seeing her.

Physical dexterity and stamina to stand by the stove are trivial issues. Any 11 year old can do that. The bigger problem, in my opinion, is that overall we've become so dependent on fast food that almost no one can cook any more. It's really not that hard. And it really is a lot cheaper than fast food or prepared foods.

Being poor is not a lot of fun, but it's also not the end of the world.

[riderinthestorm]

208. I grew up poor and by 11 was in the same situation as you

except by that time I got a job as well.

Taking care of siblings, cooking, working AND going to school while my mom struggled to bring in what she could. By 18 I was on my own and homeless.

Please don't try to school others here about being poor. Many of us have been.

And physical dexterity and stamina to stand over a stove are NOT trivial issues. Ask any 60,70, 80 year old with severe arthritis. You are viewing this through a narrow lens. Several decades later, after my own experiences and volunteering at shelters/food banks/community resource centers, I know better.

[llmart]

137. I wonder how you'd like to eat beans day in and day out......

when you're a senior citizen. I have no idea how old you are, but now that I'm a senior citizen I can speak from experience. When you are poor and older, there are few pleasures and when you get up each day and look forward to beans for breakfast, lunch and dinner, well, who'd even want to get out of bed?

If you're a younger person, I sure hope karma doesn't come back to bite you in the ass when you get older, because you truly have no empathy for what it's like to live on Social Security alone.

[Recursion]

29. A bag of beans and a bag of barley. 6 meals for $2 total plus energy and water costs

But Ed does have a point about ag subsidies and the way they distort US eating habits.

[Bunnahabhain]

30. While I agree about Ag subsidies

the truth of what I said is undeniable. Once people understand this truth they can change and benefit.

[Recursion]

31. The other problem for the working poor is that they take time

Time that people working three part time jobs don't really have. Though canned beans are not much more expensive.

[Bunnahabhain]

35. The woman in the example is retired.

I would assume she have a surfeit of time, no?

Secondly, beans can be prepared ahead of time for instant consumption upon need. Third, I work 60 hours a week and still manage to do a ton of home cooking.

[cliffordu]

47. lol......

[Bunnahabhain]

75. Why are you so wound up about my solutions?

Logically people should be pleased there are solutions to the assertion that only government subsidized foods full of carbs are affordable. We know that is not true and I think that is a good thing. Why don't you?

FWIW, I'll be having some farro tonight. Simply boil for 15 minutes and it's ready. You should try it.

[cliffordu]

78. I'm having steak and lobster bought with food stamps.

And some champagne courtesy of the Veteran's administration.

All free, ya know.

No need to eat beans 24/7/365

[Bunnahabhain]

81. No one said eating beans 24/7/365 was required

I am very puzzled at your obvious hostility. Do you honestly believe the assertion that only government subsidized, high carb foods are affordable? Do you really have a problem with inexpensive and healthy food such as beans, farro, bulgar wheat, etc? Is challenging non-factual statements that frightening to you?

The simple fact is most of us could eat healthier and cheaper. It is completely up to each one of us what we eat relative to what we can afford. This does not mean we should not acknowledge the truth that there are inexpensive and healthy food available.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. I love you for this post.

nt

[MADem]

175. That Rick Shinseki is a helluva fellah!

[Dragonfli]

148. the woman in the example can only afford to eat free meals at the center

Your proposal would have her take money out of her medication to subsidize an INCREASE in expenditure due to having to buy food stuffs and pay the extra energy costs to cook.

You really think lowering her meager check via Chained CPI will do anything but harm her? I know you neolibs loved the chained CPI and think of course, she's is living high on the hog, it is this person that must find cheaper alternatives for everything (neat trick with medication as the chained CPI ignores the cost INCREASES there. Also you geniuses pretend you don't realize that having found the cheapest (rice and beans that you think is good enough for old people, even cat food being out of reach), what then? Having already chosen the cheapest alternative this scam ASSUMES that they will be able to chose yet cheaper, each year into infinity even tho there is nothing cheaper than the cheapest.

Your statements thus far reveal a cold hearted "pragmatist" that would cut what has already been paid for just to pretend to save money from the budget by not having to redeem SS's investments via the 3 trillion dollars these people have accrued with their money (not the budget's) in T bills to cover these already meager checks.

Centrists are cruel and heartless bastards. IMNSHO

[bvar22]

213. WOW. "Let them eat Beans".

here, on a supposed "Liberal" Democratic" Discussion Group.

The arrogance is stunning,
and the fact that this Reincarnation of Ronnie Reagan is getting support sickens me. There IS a place for that kind of Republican crap.

Reading that makes me feel like I touched something dirty.
I'm going to clear my soul by reposting this:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
--FDR, Economic Bill of Rights, SOTU, 1944

Please note that FDR specified the above as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected and administered by our Government OF The People.
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by Private Corporations.

Now THAT is what it means to be a "DEMOCRAT".
NOT "Hey, they can eat BEANS!"

.
.
.
Or "Austerity peas?"

While the RICH are RICHER than they have EVER been,
and walking off with a bigger piece of the pie every day?
"Hey. Let em eat beans!"
.
.
.
How FAR we have fallen as a Party.




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS and their ARROGANCE.[/font]

[MADem]

174. Good grief, I have to agree with the people who are giving you a bit of noise.

I have a relative who is disabled, living in de facto poverty, who wears a leg brace, uses a cane, and could no more stand at a stove and cook than go to the moon. And he doesn't work at all. He eats healthily because members of my family supplement his grocery allowance and make sure he has nutritious food that is easy to prepare in the house. He has new shoes and decent clothes because we buy them.

Just because you can do it, and you have a working stove, you have pots and pans and spices, you can get to the supermarket to buy those beans, you have the sense that everyone has the same capabilities. They don't. Some people don't have strength, some people don't have time, some people play "Which utility will get turned off this month" because there are too many days and not enough dollars.

I don't think you appreciate the range of issues many people deal with. Someone with a crippling condition isn't going to be racing to the store and doing 'home cooking' when taking a shower is an hour out of the day, mostly involving getting in and out of the bathroom.

[jtuck004]

138. The only real truth in your posts is the amount of hot air you are spewing...

You forget transportation to and from the store, plus a place to cook it, plus appliances to cook it on, plus something to cook it in, plus the time to do this while riding the fucking bus to and from work which takes another 4 hours out of ones day...and always being healthy so you can be up to do these things, which is pretty unlikely on that diet with no fruit, vegetables, or diet supplements, which increase the costs beyond what you have said..

Lots of other costs not being figured in with your mythical solution to hunger.

While it might work for someone who lives off the back of an aid truck in a country where the kids scratch in the dirt with sticks to learn, in this country you are leaving out the fact that over 6 million of the households , which translates to about 20 million people or more, work for a living, (a worker making federal minimum wage who works full time during the year is under the poverty line if they have 1 child, btw), assuming they miss no days, which doesn't exactly leave the them leisure time you think they have to cook these foods, which do, in fact, take longer to prepare than most.

You leave out the fact that we give Aramark more in contract money to feed prisoners in a group setting with all the discounts that buying in bulk nets. There isn't a court that hasn't ruled that you can't feed people like you suggest. Maybe with your wisdom you should go set them straight.

But it's relatively easy for a Fox News employee, or even a (self-described "well-educated&quot middle-class Democrat (maybe in a political office) to sit on their fat ass and tell others that they should be able to be more thrifty, isn't it?

Not to say that describes you...of course.

[Dragonfli]

149. Well stated! /nt

[jtuck004]

151. I try not to be too mean, but damn. People just don't get how truly hard it is for

people.

It's too easy to state it on a bbs like this one, and they ignore how people who don't ordinarily live such a lifestyle try and fail every time they think they know better how these other people could live if they would just follow their self-righteous advice.

Too many years of hearing it, I guess.

[heaven05]

189. +100

[Sentath]

54. Revelation 6:6

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

[cliffordu]

115. Most excellent!

[rhett o rick]

120. What a lot of people dont realize is that the poor dont have access to healthy

foods. How do they bring home a sack of beans from Costco on the bus. You wont find a Trader Joe's in poor neighborhoods. Those that walk get treated to 7-11's. And everything they watch on TV is geared to propagandize them into desiring fast foods which are convenient to them.

I work at a food bank and the people love the produce. They dont have access to produce. The farmers markets are in the yuppie sections of town.

Also, it's hard to break the cycle of fast food convenience. Most poor have been raised without knowing how to cook. Some dont even have stoves.

[Recursion]

124. Those are all great points

Getting EBT accepted at farmers markets was the last big policy push I worked on, but there are a ton of barriers between poor people and healthy food.

[Ilsa]

33. Beans have to be planned for in the diet, especially

if she has a social life. It's more difficult for many elderly people to suppress the gas attacks, too.

[Bunnahabhain]

36. Beano works

And I have to say flatulence is the most creative excuse ever given to me when I raise the issue of how cheap and health beans are. Extra points for creativity assigned to you.

[Ilsa]

95. I guess you don't spend much time around

the elderly. Older ladies tend to be more self-conscious about farting in public as they try to walk or socialize with their friends. Maintaining hygiene and bowel control is frequently as important as bladder control, cognitive function, etc. Maintaining dignity is very important to them, even on their deathbeds.

For some elderly people, the high fiber content is too much and irritates their bowels. And some elderly folks need more fiber to keep bowel function up.

A one-size-fits-all prescription of "eat more beans" is inconsiderate of individual needs, health, culture, and preference.

[Bunnahabhain]

105. It's a shame I gave a list of other items too

Or else your post might have merit. Btw, beans are an excellent source of both soluble and insoluble fiber.

And again, beans were just one example. One inexpensive, healthy, high in soluble and insoluble fiber.

[Ilsa]

123. Your suggestions were fine. It's just that your

comments seemed so absolute, as if retired folks had the same physique as 20-40 year olds with no health issues. It appeared that you were pushing your solution as The One.

I also failed to mention how cooking frequently needs to be a quick, simple process for older retirees. They are more likely to forget foods on the stove that require long cooking times. If they burn themselves, recovery is more problematic. Safety first. Hence, Meals-On-Wheels for those that cannot manage preparing a meal on their own.

[heaven05]

188. who

are you. You've been very wrong on just about everything you post on and 99% of your advice. You don't know squat about conditions facing senior citizens on fixed incomes.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. Your 'Beano' adds about 25 cents to every single meal on your 'eat beans you old

bag' diet. Does it remain cost effective with the 'Beano works' solution to your calloused budgetary plan? Seems to me it would at least shake up the old equation, not nearly as cheap. Perhaps the 'Breatharian' diet, comprised of breath and water, is the solution for these oldsters?

[Flatulo]

140. I'd give up if I were you. This crowd is simply not going to eat beans. Me, I love 'em.

Dried peas, lentils, navy beans. They're all good.

[LuvNewcastle]

178. So your handle is "Flatulo" and you love beans.

[Flatulo]

190. Haha, good catch. Stay upwind LOL.

[MADem]

176. So gee, asks Granny to herself, "Do I buy my heart medication this month, or the beano?" nt

[3auld6phart]

41. Fulla *#%t

I'm looking forward to having beans 3Xs a day, 7 days a week,365 days
a year. yum yum.

[Bunnahabhain]

44. Perhaps you could answer a question?

Do trolls like beans?

Again, they were just one example and a good one. Farro, TVP (texturized vegetable protein), bulgar wheat, brown rice...

[cliffordu]

49. Or, your Mother.

[Bunnahabhain]

62. If this is a joke or insult

I'm not getting it.

[cliffordu]

64. Well. We'll just have to wonder, won't we.

[Bunnahabhain]

72. Not worth it.

Not one person has put forward my facts are incorrect...probably because they are not. I'm not sure why people are against actual solutions vs. complaining but I will agree that is the usual way of things.

What I responded to, that only non-factual assertion government subsidized carbos were the only food affordable. That is patently false. Not sure why people are so upset by my pointing out that simple reality.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. At least Antoinette suggested cake.

But then again, she was not parroting Republican talking points about the spendthrift pensioners of the US, throwing away money on fresh fruits and vegetables, fish and poultry as if they had some excuse for such wasteful ways!

[Moonwalk]

126. They're arguing with you because they believe you're arguing against the woman...

...who is close to starving on what Social Security gives her. It's as if you're saying, "Well, this woman's problem is easily solved..." and the solution is not to give her the money she needs to eat, but to make her eat cheaper. That is how they're interpreting what you're telling them. And why they're attacking you. Because they think you're being callous and "Marie Antoinnette"-ish but offering a solution that serves the side which cuts the benefits rather than upping them as they ought to be.

As they can't argue here with the ones cutting this woman's benefits, or who would, in all honest callousness, argue that side, they're ganging up on the only avalible target--you. Because you've unwittingly made yourself the bad guy by implying that she should" eat cheaper" rather than a good guy by arguing that her benefits being cut are terrible. They don't understand that you aren't (I presume) arguing that. You're arguing that the poor are being tricked into eating bad food and we should address this.

[Bunnahabhain]

195. Thank you for a thoughtful reply

I think you are correct and I guess I have to acknowledge what the zeitgeist is here. I'll refrain from correcting non-factual assertions and offering any sort of practical advice that could actually help alleviate problems. I now realize the correct answer is apparently, "FORGET CPI! Everyone on SS needs a 50% increase to their benefits!"

While that is a not thought I live in the real world and my first instinct is to correct misinformation and then offer solutions. Do I want to see this woman helped more? Yes. Do I want posters here spreading misinformation that is not helpful to the situation? No. There would be my mistake apparently.

[Paulie]

129. When do you return to Elysium?

Or am I mistaken and its somewhere measured in parsecs?

[LanternWaste]

194. Maybe you should write a letter to the woman in the OP and allow her your suggestions...

Maybe you should write a letter to the woman in the OP and allow her your suggestions...

Or simply feel validated that no one allows the sincerity of your query enough credibility to answer to it, and pretend they're "upset".

[Enthusiast]

110. Pfft!

[No Vested Interest]

141. I'm laughing out loud at this back-and-forth!

Like a routine on early TV.
Thanks.



Edit: typo.

[4Q2u2]

82. Sounds Like a GITMO menu plan

I am sure people will be lining up to chow down on beans and bulger wheat for the rest of their lives.
Why is the onus on the poor defenseless elderly woman to take the hit and sacrifice what little she has to supposedly fix this problem. Why are you not advocating for her so ardently as you are for the stupid beans. Hell at least Marie Antoinette was giving out Cake.


BTW if we did feed the prisoners at GITMO like that, there would probably be more outrage than for this Senior.

[Bunnahabhain]

87. LOL, nice loaded analogy there

Btw, what advocating do you want me to make? Do you think the COLA on her SS is the difference between eating high on the hog or government cheese? I don't think so. I am dealing with reality. The difference in the COLA will be a percent or two. But just for argument's sake let's say it's 4%. Her SS is probably about 1k per month so we're talking a $40 difference. Do you really think $40 will suddenly make her well off? Able to go buy Angus ribeye nightly? Of course not.

So while I hope the CPI works out in the favor of retirees I can also give some useful suggestions on food too.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. Of course the average benefit on SS is currently $1,230, the $40 difference you

suggest is of course monthly so in a year that's $480 which is a good sum, and that adjustment is a yearly event, so each year there is a $40 drop in 5 years that is a $200 dollar a month decrease, $2,200 a year.
But you are being very honest and direct about it all. Beans!!!!!

[4Q2u2]

165. Try thinking bigger

Why limit yourself to just a COLA and the Chained CPI. Our Seniors deserve a 25% increase in their benefits. You are suggesting that this woman alter her life because some Billionaire Robber thief from Wall Street plundered the National Treasury and they tell us money is tight. So the first place you look to trim the so called fat from the budget is poor defenseless Seniors. What a sport. Now with nothing but beans we will not have to buy them dentures. Double savings, what a bonus.

There is more than enough money in this country for EVERYBODY. We just have to tell the no good greedy SOB's that it is not all theirs.

[jeff47]

142. No, courts have ruled such a diet to be illegal.

So clearly this woman just has to switch to a diet the government decreed not fit for murderers.

I bet she could save a ton if she got her protein from Fancy Feast.

[MADem]

177. If seniors ate that well, there wouldn't be any issue.

Pardon the source, but here's the Gitmo menu:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/GTMO-menu.pdf

We'd have the UN breathing down our necks if we fed the Gitmo population that woman's diet.

[Dragonfli]

150. I don't know if trolls like beans, you can answer that yourself. DO you like beans? /nt

[ehrnst]

55. You are also looking at a woman of a certain age.

And many people of that age fed their families Chung King, La Choy, Chef Boy-ar-Dee, precisely because that was a cheap, fast alternative to cooking from scratch in an era where women were in the workplace, but still not given support at home.

It is indeed cheaper to get calorie dense, convenient food than to buy produce and other items that may go bad in the fridge - especially if your schedule is erratic.

It is a major lifestyle change where eating habits are concerned. My mother in law was a well educated, former medical tech who died from Crohn's, and I believe it was exacerbated due to her diet. I suggested that she go the specific carbohydrate route, but she said that she had never been a cook, and had a full schedule volunteering. She ate lots of frozen entrees from BJ's and fixed the limited number of meals that she knew by memory or had bookmarked in her 45 year old Betty Crocker Cookbook.

[freshwest]

106. IAT, and some older people get food pantry, which is often in that category; and don't have the

manual dextrity or stamina to cut up and stand by the stove to cook. There is also a problem with a level of confusion and general fatigue. And ther is a lack of family or social service support due to lower funding and people going to get jobs elsewhere.

[KamaAina]

63. Let 'em eat beans?

[Bunnahabhain]

73. Do you have a better solution?

I listed a number of inexpensive and healthy alternatives to the assertion that only government subsidized high carb food is affordable. That's just not true. Not sure why everyone is so upset that this statement is not true.

[KamaAina]

90. Um, yeah.

Raise or eliminate the cap on FICA tax so we can afford to pay realistic benefits to people who can then afford to eat something besides beans. Or gruel.

[Bunnahabhain]

92. Do you understand why that cap is in place?

And that completely eliminating it will not make a huge difference?

[KamaAina]

94. I guess Rep. Mike Honda doesn't, either

http://honda.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:rep-honda-to-hold-press-conference-on-expanding-social-security-

Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) will hold a press conference in Fremont Wednesday morning about efforts in Congress to expand Social Security benefits. Honda is an original co-sponsor of legislation that phases out the current cap on payroll taxes and changes the formula used to calculate Social Security benefits in a way that would increase benefits by about $800 per year. He will be joined by constituents affected by changes to Social Security, as well as the mayors of Fremont and Newark and representatives from MoveOn.org, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and Social Security Watch.

[SammyWinstonJack]

127. Aw, geeze.

[IrishAyes]

133. Soylent green would probably be cheapest of all, and maybe even most nutritious

But would YOU want to eat it?

[HiPointDem]

77. If she ate just enough to lose her minor excess weight it wouldn't make much difference in her

living expenses anyway; just saying. -100 calories a day is basically one piece of bread & -10 lbs a year.

[Bunnahabhain]

79. Not worried about her weight

Let her eat as much as she wants and/or can afford. Again, I was simply reacting to the assertion above that only government subsidized, simple carb foods are affordable.

That said she might feel better if she had a healthy diet. I know I feel like a sloth if I indulge too much.

[jeff47]

143. She'd save even more if she got all her protein from Fancy Feast! (nt)

[MADem]

172. You're talking about my neighbor when I was in university.

She didn't have a cat, but I saw her buying cat food and crackers at the market.

She used to dress in clothing from the 1920s and 30s...it was nice stuff, but old. I got the sense she was well off once, and fell on hard times.

I was broke as hell, living hand to mouth, really, but I used to leave a small sack of stuff like tuna fish and spaghetti... and toss in a few apples and oranges and tea bags and cookies... outside her door when I'd come back from the grocer.

It appalled me that she had so little. I knew my circumstances would one day improve; I also knew hers were unlikely to have the same trajectory.

[Marrah_G]

155. When you are poor nothing raises the spirits like eating beans every day

Beans and rice after a long day of working for minimum wage to barely pay the rent makes life worth living!!!!!!

[Dragonfli]

160. It is a good change of pace from dumpster diving maggot rich meat supplements.

[Marrah_G]

162. .

[MADem]

171. You gotta pay the gas or electric to cook them, too, though.

And you have to have money to buy the crock pot or pressure cooker or whatever to cook them.

And you have to have the car, full of gas, to get to the supermarket to buy the beans. Or bus fare--if there's a supermarket on the bus line; otherwise you have to change buses and haul your groceries home lugging them up and down bus steps.

If you are living day to day and walking to the overpriced convenience store to get food, it can be a challenge for people to get all that healthy and tasty cheap stuff to make these "not hard" meals.

There's a lot more to it for many people than "Oh, just buy dried beans and spices that mean you can't buy your blood pressure meds this month."

[PD Turk]

113. Well then

She should have worked harder, pulled herself up by her bootstraps and become independently wealthy , that way she wouldn't need to rely on gubmint handouts ...


(In case anybody needs this)

[cliffordu]

14. What Obama plan to cut social security?

Has it passed the senate and the house?

Have I been in a coma?

[leftstreet]

16. The chained CPI the GOP rejected n/t

[cliffordu]

20. Oh!! THAT cut!!!

I wondered why my SS check was less than it used to be.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

201. You're going to have to be more patient. The GOP said Obama's proposal wasn't enough.

He is the first President in history since FDR to offer to cut Social Security.

Nixon didn't offer to do so. Ford didn't offer to do so. Reagan didn't. Bush I didn't. Even Bush-II didn't.

If you are wondering about Obama's proposal to cut SS, just be patient.

[cliffordu]

204. He offered nothing in reality. I'd be happier if people here

who are smarter than the average pick-a-nik basket could get that.

In politics, sometimes you have to say what you have to say to paint the opposition into a corner.


And THAT is what he did.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

206. He offered to cut SS with a chained CPI. You should know that.

[cliffordu]

207. I fucking well know that.

I also know it had NO CHANCE of passing either the Senate or the House.

Jesus fucking christ on a cracker, he don't rule by caveat.

[Historic NY]

153. Yup you must have been...

I'm seeing a theme here with postings. I* wish we still had pizza.

[cliffordu]

169. Me too. Me too.

[cliffordu]

205. Cant tell if your insulting ME or not.....

[Historic NY]

210. No I'm not..

but I've haven't seen anything he was proposing or signing, either.

[asjr]

15. There has been much discussion about

this all around. Sen Harkin knows this has not been made into a law. I am surprised at his reaction. I for one do not believe President Obama would ever help make it a law. Despite all the iron walls the Republicans put up Obama has done much for all of us. I am a senior on a very small Soc Sec amount. There are many just like me but I must believe in our President.

[leftstreet]

19. It was Obama's idea

Obama’s Chained CPI Throws Off Pols and Here’s How It Works
April 12, 2013

President Obama’s outline for government spending in fiscal year 2014 includes a controversial proposal that has not only thrown the Republican Party off balance at the outset of upcoming budget negotiations but has also split his own party.

The proposal is a move to slow entitlement spending, and it goes by the name Chained CPI.

By indexing benefits through chained CPI rather than CPI-W, benefits would increase less quickly since it considers a consumer’s decision to get stingy or extravagant as prices of everyday items fluctuate.

...

Chained CPI isn’t a new proposal. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles first offered up the idea in their initial plan for deficit reduction two years ago. The duo suggested it again in February of this year. And Obama included it as part of his concessions to Boehner during fiscal cliff negotiations back in December, irking Democrats.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/obamas-chained-cpi-throws-off-pols-and-heres-how-it-works/

[cliffordu]

21. Fuck that. It was a political maneuver.

And it worked.

[Ed Suspicious]

23. It put it on the table. He offered up one of our sacred cows. Not bullshit and not Obama hating.

I voted for him just like you.

[cliffordu]

45. He KNEW they's back off.

Fuck me. BASIC POLITICS. THAT'S ALL.

[MotherPetrie]

40. "A political maneuver" - i.e. fucking with the welfare of old people reliant on SS. Is that right?

A political maneuver.

Look at how worried that woman is. She obviously takes Obama at his word. And why shouldn't she? Obama still wants Chained CPI. It's not about what Repugs want or don't want now. It's what HE wants. It's still in his budget. You'd have thought he'd have taken it out once he knew Repugs didn't want it.

But he didn't.

[cliffordu]

46. Goddammit. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

I'm sorry you don't get it. I really am.

I live on SS. If I thought it would pass EITHER the house or the Senate I'd be screaming at the top of my lungs.


IT WILL NOT BECOME LAW.

[leftstreet]

50. Even with a GOPer admin?

Obama signaled the Democrats' willingness to do it

[cliffordu]

60. NO!!!! IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!

THE REPUBLICANS would REALLY become extinct if they cut SS.

That is EXACTLY the corner Obama put them in when he suggested it.

If they'd voted for it, the Dems would have had a field day telling the OLD voters (primarily the repub base) that the R's wanted to cut SS.

As it is he 'inoculated' SS for the time being, while the budget and the debt ceiling are going to be held hostage for the forseeable future.

He's done this before. Dared them to up the ante from their previous position.

And they fail.

POLITICS GODDAMMIT, POLITICS.

He is a fucking jedi master.

[leftstreet]

67. He should put SS on the table. Inoculate that, too

That would be some master level maneuvering right there!

[cliffordu]

68. WTF. Really?

I thought you were smarter than this.

My bad.

[leftstreet]

74. ABSOLUTELY! You convinced me

This inoculating shit is brilliant!

The Democrats could keep several programs safe this way. And I bet that's what Obama meant recently about how we have to uh...reevaluate some of the social programs we cherish and hold dear.

*wink*nudge*

It's code!

[cliffordu]

83. He has nothing to lose.

The DEMS will NEVER let something like this get anywhere NEAR passage.

I'm astounded as to how naive people are.

He couldn't pass a change to SS if his life depended on it.

backing the R's into a corner was great.

Fucking Pelosi told everyone that it would never happen.

Do you think those two don't talk???????

[MotherPetrie]

85. And I'm sorry YOU don't get that Obama wanted Chained CPI. I really am.

[cliffordu]

86. Did he tell you this during your private time?

Did Pelosi say that it would NEVER happen the DAY after he brought it up?

What did Harry Reid say?

Do you think they NEVER talk?

This canard is astounding to me.

Well.....Mebbe not.....

[MotherPetrie]

96. He's told everybody publicly. It's in his budget. Again, sorry you don't get that.

It's irrelevant what Pelosi said and what Reid said. Unless they said publicly, "Don't worry, everybody, President Obama is only trying to fake out the Republicans with Chained CPI. He pinky swore to us that Chained CPI is just a ploy that will never happen!" Which they most certainly didn't say. I'm talking about what Obama not just said -- also what he DID.

For Obama to use Chained CPI as a ploy, as a bargaining chip, to raise its ugly anti-Democratic specter at all, is simply unconscionable.

[cliffordu]

117. Well, I'm sorry I forgot the Prez can just sign an executive order and voila!

SS is now CCPI!!!!

How fucking stupid of me to think that the goddamned Congress of the United States won't have any goddamned thing to say about the fucking thing!!!'


THANK YOU for the enlightenment.

By the way, Pelosi wants you to call her, she says she doesn't have enough distractions on her plate.

[MotherPetrie]

163. You keep missing the point -- which is that a DEMOCRATIC president wants to screw with SS.

This has nothing to do with Congress.

This has nothing to do with Repugs.

The only thing this is about is that Chained CPI is Obama's goal. Whether he actually achieves it or not remains to be seen, but that's not the point. The point is that this supposedly Democratic president has adopted a position on SS that even George W. Bush wouldn't go near. This is a betrayal of everything Democrats are supposed to stand for.

Obviously the poor woman in this clip is scared about losing what little she has -- and that is all on Obama, because he's the one who wants Chained CPI. He's opened that door that no Democrat should ever open, because he wanted to. He is a betrayer.

[cliffordu]

167. MY FUCKING GOD

when he signs the goddamned bill get back to me. Your posit is bogus.

[TheKentuckian]

186. When the Bush sign his privatization scam?

Was the shrub just doing his best due diligence to protect earned benefits?

[Dragonfli]

154. Did he tell you in your private conversations he suggested it but was just kidding?

Why do you just assume he is a liar, lying about how he thought chained CPI was just a technical adjustment that would save money?

Since you know when he is lying, can you tell me which times he is actually telling the truth?

[cliffordu]

88. I'm sorry that woman is ignorant (willful or otherwise) as some here.

That budget will never pass due to a multitude of reasons, one of which is the chained CPI

Big fucking deal.

[MotherPetrie]

98. The point is that we have a Democratic president who is even proposing Chained CPI in any way, shape

or form.

It's a total betrayal. Which has become so typical of this administration in so many areas.

[forestpath]

104. “I’m sorry to say that the president of my own party has advocated this and he’s wrong."

Direct quote from Tom Harkin. Apparently he is very concerned about it.

Or are you going to call him ignorant, too?

Your insults towards people worried about their very existence are disgusting.

[cliffordu]

118. Pfthhh.

so what?

[forestpath]

144. Charming. So you can't answer the question.

That figures.

[cliffordu]

170. Hmm.... Was there a question there?

[leftstreet]

48. They'd have backed off Single Payer, too

that would have been the smarter political maneuver

pull the GOP left

oh wait...

[cliffordu]

51. The lack of the single payer push pissed me off, too.

But it would NEVER have passed.

The DEMS told the Prez so.

[leftstreet]

57. But you're saying CCPI will never pass

So why not just 'barter' and 'chess move' with marbles?

Why risk getting citizens so upset? Why risk the brand damage to your party?

[cliffordu]

61. See 60.

[forestpath]

108. You can put it in caps 50 pts high and it still doesn't work like that.

Obama offered up SS cuts, and he will be blamed. He's being blamed now by many progressive groups, got emails from two of them in my inbox right now.

Some jedi master maneuvering there.

[cliffordu]

112. Fabulous. When the bill passes get back to me.

[forestpath]

146. Why bother, you'll just continue to insult the victims.

[cliffordu]

168. Yep. For the lulz

[kelliekat44]

18. Spreading disinformation is acore value for all BHO haters on the right and left. nt

[Dragonfli]

156. Tom Harkin is a "BHO hater" ? Really, you actually think that and that he spreads disinformation?

Can you prove it? Or is this just a random attack against a Democrat that is not sufficiently right of center enough for your tastes?

[Recursion]

22. And as everyone forgets, the poorest retirees are not subject to a chained CPI in any plan suggested

But, yes, I know: the distribution of expenses among urban retirees in the late 1950s (which is what we currently use) is written in stone, and must never be changed to reflect current times.

[TheKentuckian]

34. Your position is that benefits are currently too generous?

Go run tell dat

[Recursion]

37. Either the Chained CPI is actually more accurate or it isn't

If it isn't more accurate, I oppose it, but I haven't seen an economist make that argument. Remember, none of this is about cutting benefits, but about slowing their projected rate of increase (and, for that matter, a chained index can grow faster than a non-chained one, depending on people's behavior).

[leftstreet]

70. CCPI: 'I can't afford hamburger, so I'll get Mighty Dog'

'Then I'll need less money for groceries!'

'Now that I'm spending less on groceries, they can adjust my cost of living increases down!'



Sounds legit

[Recursion]

116. Yeah, when people lie about programs, they sound bad

Lying about how a chained CPI works doesn't clear anything up.

[leftstreet]

119. No. I wasn't suggesting you're lying

I think you just don't understand how it works

[jeff47]

147. Here's how you can tell it is less accurate:

The plan to introduce chained CPI includes "re-balancing" at 80. As in, there's a sudden increase in benefits to undo what chained CPI does.

If it was more accurate, why would it need a fix? From the very people claiming it's more accurate?

and, for that matter, a chained index can grow faster than a non-chained one, depending on people's behavior

[madrchsod]

25. i fully agree with that lady....

[Cleita]

39. I wrote directly to POTUS about it and got

an answer back that I could apply to other programs to make up the difference. Oh yes those programs are being systematically being defunded and ended like SNAP and Meals on Wheels.

[KansDem]

42. Trillion$ for wars based on lies...

No increases in cost-of-living for our seniors.

The plutocrats are laughing all the way to the bank we bailed out.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

56. They sure are laughing, goddamn it.

[Starry Messenger]

43. k&r

[MrSlayer]

58. Corporate owned politicians to weeping lady: "Find a way!"

They don't give a fuck about your tears. They drink your tears. That money needs to go into the pockets of the rich who work so hard.

They don't give a fuck.

[Rex]

93. Wall Street types don't give a fuck about people on SS.

They just want all that money to piss away for themselves.

[Faygo Kid]

109. Yep - They don't want to end it. They want to privatize it.

And if you thought the bank bailouts were huge and yielded massive bonuses to the perps, wait until they get their hands on Social Security, blow every dime on themselves, then cry to Congress that "we can't let our seniors down - we need a bailout."

There is no doubt, none, that would happen if they ever get their hands on it with the help of their bought and paid for politicians - now, every Republican, but plenty of Dems, too, and the list is growing.

[Rex]

134. Human capital.

Anything can be bought and sold in a free market.

[PD Turk]

114. Well then

She should have worked harder, pulled herself up by her bootstraps and become independently wealthy , that way she wouldn't need to rely on gubmint handouts ...


(In case anybody needs this)

[SunSeeker]

122. And yet seniors voted for Romney, 56-44.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/table.html

Insanity.

[Rex]

135. I bet they have a change of heart now.

If the Republicans would just leave the ACA alone. Their lust over it is getting obscene.

[bvar22]

130. Is something like THIS too much to ask from a Democratic President?

REALLY!
Is THIS asking too much?

[Dragonfli]

158. Since Al From arrived on the scene to succesfuly pull the party to the right of Reagan, yes

It is too much to ask from the Democratic version of a right wing party that the modern Democratic party has become.

[PoliticAverse]

161. I would hope so, Reagan wasn't telling the truth. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

136. Harkin's a good guy, no doubt, but he's wrong on just one thing.

Obama didn't exactly endorse the SS cuts....at least not genuinely, anyhow; that started with the GOP.

[Dragonfli]

159. Are you really suggesting Obama lied each of the many times he absolutely publicly endorsed it?

If that is true, is there any way to tell when he isn't lying? So I know where he really stands on issues important to me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

139. I realize the intent of this post; but …

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2013, 08:52 AM - Edit history (1)

One quick question … does this hurt Democrats, or strengthen Democrats’ hand going into 2014?

It would seem (has been my contention since President Obama put the CCPI on the table) that this has been the strategy all along. It allows Democrats to re-ensure the Seniors that they oppose “entitlement” cuts (Check the Senior Vote Box); it allows Democrats to argue how unserious they are with respect to their key issue – the deficit – because they rejected exactly what the had demanded (Check the anti-gop obstruction Vote Box); and, it allows Democrats in Red Districts, where there is a strong ‘progressive” voice and were there are a lot of “I just hate President Obama” folks, to demonstrate that they are not in lock-step with President Obama (Check All The Other Voter Boxes, including that segment here on DU).

In the coming days, I suspect we will be hearing all other Democrats to make similar statements.


GOTV 2014 !

[adirondacker]

152. I sincerely hope you are correct. nt

[Doctor_J]

164. so the leader of the party offering to cut social security actually strengthens the party?

The koolaid has addled your brain. This 12d chess bullshit is what caused the 2010 debacle.

[1StrongBlackMan]

181. Since the kool-aid has addled my brain; how about ...

you provide a non-kool aid addled refutation?

Should be simple ...BUT I GUESS IT'S EASIER TO BE A JERK WHEN NOT MAKING A POINT BEING THAN ADMITTING THAT YOU HAVE NO POINT TO MAKE.

[bvar22]

196. You're joking....right?

Here is the ONLY counter argument needed for your ridiculous claims.
I will repeat, Word for Word, exactly what you claim, and just let the readers themselves decide about about the quality of your logic.

[font size=3]

Having the President and Leader of the Democratic Party offering to CUT Social Security Benefits...
[font color=firebrick]"allows Democrats to re-ensure the Seniors that they oppose “entitlement” cuts"[/font][/font]----red text direct quote from 1StrongBlackMan.

No it doesn't!!!
THAT allows Republicans to CAMPAIGN as the guys who SAVED Social Security from the Obama Cuts,
and ALL they have to do is play one of the many Videos of President Obama offering to CUT Social Security!

Coming to a Station near YOU in 2014 and 2016!

[1StrongBlackMan]

200. Did you not read Harkins' almost perfect response? ...

Here:

“I’m sorry to say that the president of my own party has advocated this and he’s wrong,” Harkin told a group of seniors at a retirement center on Tuesday. “I’m so tired of people saying we’ve got to cut Social Security. I thought, we got to come back and say something, no, you’ve got to increase Social Security.”

The only edit should be:

I’m sorry to say that the president of my own party has advocated this and he’s wrong,”

[bvar22]

209. Harkin is not an idiot.

He needs to gets re-elected.
Obama does NOT.

Of Course Harkin is going to distance himself from President Obama.
Other Democrats up for re-election had better condemn President Obama for even making the suggestion,
just like Harkin did.

Did you REALLY interpret Harkin's remarks as HELPING the Democratic Party?
Do you think that a strategy of Running From the President and Leader of the Democratic Party is a GOOD thing?

[1StrongBlackMan]

211. How can you ...

Get in a 4 part statement ... all four correct and still come up with the wrong conclusion ... and do so with such confidence as to use a laughy thingy?

Did you REALLY interpret Harkin's remarks as HELPING the Democratic Party?

Yes, his comment, with the slight edit contained above, is the perfect response to the charge.

Do you think that a strategy of Running From the President and Leader of the Democratic Party is a GOOD thing?

Yes ... I do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

203. And besides ...

they already tried that already. Remember Greg Walden, Chair of the NHRR, the committee responsible for coordinating the gop's House campaigns, he tried to do just that:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200768/-GOP-campaign-chairman-calls-chained-CPI-trying-to-balance-the-budget-on-the-backs-of-nbsp-seniors#

Remember?

And what happened ... to major segments of the gop base raised their heads. The tea-party blew a gasket, threatening to primary any republican that bulked on the ccpi, as evidence of "budgetary unseriousness" and gop seniors blew a gasket asking why is CCPI was on the table in the first placeose trying to cut my social security. and

... And that was the end of that campaign, as the House and Senate gop leadership and several others told Walden ... the guy responsible for coordinating gop campaigns ... to STFU.

Apparently, they can sniff out a trap from time to time.

[Beacool]

166. This breaks my heart.

Her generation played by the rules and did not overspend. They lived within their means and they worked hard. They do not deserve this, it's immoral.

[Phentex]

198. Agree.

I find it sickening.

[AppleBottom]

173. Hey, but at least we're not worse than Russia....

[blkmusclmachine]

179. Obama's Catfood Commission II, coming soon to jeopardize the 2014 elections.

[B Calm]

180. So when does this take effect?

[TheKentuckian]

192. When did Bush's privatization scam take effect? Were we wrong to oppose it until it passed?

Where we wrong to attack the President and his party for proposing it?

Horrid shit is proposed all the time, it is only natural, reasonable, and rational to make politicians responsible for the shit they propose whether they can build a legislative coalition to win on the proposal or not.
What fantasy politics do you believe in to even try this silly talking point?

Have you ever watched an election? There is a shitload of back and forth and much of the decision making weight goes to ideas proposed. Part and fucking parcel.

Or is this some high arrogance? Are you saying that if this President actually wants something then by God it will fucking pass? If so that is silly as can be but logically, if it was true then it would reflect even more poorly on the President than this single proposal.

This is a wiper/dangler rationale of the first order that absolutely requires the use of a privileged frame of reference to be operative. Universal application of the "logic" makes it beyond laughable as a speculation and is going to create serious risk of bold face lying when one is trying to present as unassailable fact and respond with indignation to any and all who take the face value as what is up.

I don't get the masterful ploy school of thought here because those that push it always get their knickers in a twist if folks don't see right through it. This is an ongoing feint that supposedly is painting the TeaPubliKlans as obstructionist but clearly to any open eyes the President doesn't want this policy????

Really???

This is a cult style argument that allows the central character to ALWAYS be do right in the narrative by rules the cultist may be able to transfer but can never generally apply.

It also is kind of dim and stubborn. The folks that vote TeaPubliKlan don't give a shit about that. Even saner Republicans weren't about getting things done, unless they were largely bad things

The pool of people that will change their vote based on this perception is too shallow to risk anyone falling for the fake that is supposed to, particularly over now a period of years is fucking batshit as a risk/reward ratio.
Their is more risk of loss of cohesion and sullying of brand within the ranks than advantage to be gained fake fishing for the tiny sliver of reachable independent that aren't already in the boat.

[bvar22]

215. Here we have the CHEAPEST of ALL the cheap dodges to deflect criticism I have read on DU:

Thous shalt NEVER oppose Bad Policy or BAD proposals until AFTER they become LAW!

[jwirr]

212. While I hear what she is saying I can also hear what the congress is thinking. If she had less SS

she would get more food stamps. However the tradeoff is not equal.

[bvar22]

214. SS is an ENTITLEMENT,

in that I Paid In to it my WHOLE Life and have EARNED these benefits.

I don't wan t these Earned benefits swapped out for f**king Food Stamps.

[jwirr]

216. Neither do I but that is the thinking in DC. Congress - rethugs do not see it our way and that is

what I was trying to say.