= new reply since forum marked as read
I mean without the abrasive 'criticism', Obama wouldn't know what to do. Thank you for your service!
Maybe cali democrats Mamma is hiding her check. 
Maybe cali democrat ought to blame her and not Obama. Just no telling. Maybe people just get a kick out of posting " Fucking Obama" and getting away with it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024535742#post15
Gee whiz.... Go figure! 
know the difference. Especially when she/he is holding President Obama, directly to blame for it. 
So did Obama get people to lose their SS or SSI checks? I'd love a straight answer....
no problems.
so they must be embarrassed at being caught.
I thought I was responding to the OP.. oops. 
By not increasing the COLA, he effectively cut Social Security:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/cola/colaseries.html
become intellectually dishonest. 
a certain level of disability if you will. I think that might explain things some.
I'm a little bit confused as to the context in this instance however..
I think you probably are aware, I'm no robotic loyalist, and have very strong anti-authoritarian leanings. I'm accused of being a "far left", a marxist etc. I don't mind the "accusations", but they're made in a laughable context. i.e. demanding single payer instead of Insurance industry led policies in health care system is considered "far left" (to me, that's laughable) ..
Initially I was responding to the notion that SS is no longer, I'm saying that's just not true. Not yet anyway.
But the author of the op seemed to be insisting that it has ended.. I'm just scratching my head over that assertion. Now, I'm thinking maybe as another poster put it, maybe there's been cuts to the SSI which is quite different. (but I don't know if that's case either)..
Apparently, I misunderstood what the op was actually saying. Thanks for clearing the fog for me! Maybe I needed to finish my coffee and clean my specs before entering the fray this morning.
Which disastrous policies should be taken on today?
Alert I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet! 
one can either choose to fight or give in. I choose to fight.
he moves against the TPP, and the pipeline, and war with Syria again
He offered cutting SS as a carrot so that when the Republicans accepted it he could blame them. Wait, that's not it. No, when the Republicans reached for it, he could withdraw it and say nana-booboo. Sorry, I really thought I had "The Group" argument down.
I know, how about one of these 
"I happen to KNOW that Sanders doesn't think much of the President's economic record or policies."
I happen to know he voted to cut food stamps.
Again, the last two Democratic Presidents' policies actually cut Social Security benefits.
Hey, but whatever it takes to keep the air of being more progressive alive.
There's that phony endearment when the nonsense is exposed.
- I suppose if you did, that'd be even worse.Still, it's fun to watch how angry people are that it's not happening.
WTF? He's not doing it???
Fuck that!!!
Every Democrat, every American, should be sick of the constant Third Way implication that these Social Security threats have been just words and didn't harm anyone. They have harmed EVERYONE.
Stop the presses.
... social security" threads to continue up until the day he left office.
And now ... this could be the end of those.
I'm gonna get misty.
that there was ever, even for a nanosecond, any hint of compromise, negotiation or any action *other* than saying "No, not at all, no way, under no circumstances" in regard to SS cuts.
To some of us, anything other than "HELL NO" *is* pretty much a compromise. There are things I don't want on the table, hell that anyone even discussing them being on the table gets a beat down and slapped all the way to Gitmo.
But then I don't play poker, or make policy (if I did every teabagger would have become a non person as soon as the night and fog rolled in 
)
I’m trying to tread water calmly here after the first “POOF! BLOCKED!” response.
Are you wanting a Red pill or Blue pill answer? The Blue is easy, all we have to do is nothing. That Red pill though, what a bitch. There is no good one answer is there? I imagine it will be resolved and I’m hoping it won’t turn icky. We do need to stay engaged and meet people.
You can blame my state though! I posted a link to an article awhile back that some found interesting, I’ll repeat it again. It’s about changing the primary system to a come one, come all format.
Learning from California
RUSSELL SADLER
snip;
“…In a whirlwind of legislating, Schwarzenegger and the California Assembly raised the minimum wage from $6.75 to $8.00 an hour over the next two years; required drug companies to negotiate prescription prices or lose access to the huge California Medicaid market; approved bond issues to build new schools, affordable housing, roads and rail lines; and imposed strict new standards for limiting greenhouse gases over the objections of oil and auto companies.
The result? Polls show the once-beleaguered Schwarzenegger has opened up a 13-point lead over his Democratic opponent, State Treasurer Phil Angelides.
How does “the Governator” do that without being punished by party partisans?
By virtue of the 2003 California recall -- where all voters decide whether to recall an elected official and simultaneously choose a replacement -- Schwarzenegger is the only major public officeholder in the country who was not nominated in a partisan convention or primary. He was elected in a race where every registered voter had a chance to choose from a multiple list of candidates -- including partisans and independents….” - See more at: http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/09/learning_from_c/#sthash.kiJXUPSA.dpuf
They are so mad that he didn't make the cuts that they predicted for 3+ years that they absolutely hate him 10x more for not doing it.
Sid
Sid
- Sheeple are easily impressed......
K&R
The posts saying progressives are upset because they "finally got their pony" (Social Security is a fucking pony? THAT sounds like right-wing shit to me!) are getting kinda amusing with their deliberate lying lack of logic.
Chained CPI is still lurking.
Please please, get another glob of misdirection and deliberate misinterpretation, the "progresives are whing 'cause Obama took Chanied CPI off the table" meme is, well, sounding lame and dumb.
Now go eat your peas. 
"Or, that LBJ "only" sent 100,000 more troops to Vietnam rather than the rumored 200,000. "
Seriously, and it's not like the "poison" one was any better.
FAIL.
Last edited Sun Feb 23, 2014, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)
I had/have the same thought about you, considering you're still relatively "new."
Go figure.
a complex issue.
and Welcome.
It's nice to see new faces chime in (I know you've been here awhile, but I've never met you).
ties together a lot of the details from a broad perspective
Yeah, that one has always made me laugh...
The Solution: Wage Indexing
By 1976, the need for substantial revisions in the Social Security program and its financing was overwhelmingly clear.(19) In June, the Ford Administration submitted to Congress a proposal to create a new method for determining initial benefits(20) based on an approach called "wage indexing," a method which adjusts a worker's wages to reflect economy-wide changes in wages over his or her lifetime.'' Hearings were held on this proposal, but Congress adjourned for the upcoming Presidential elections before completing a full review.
The new administration of President Carter sent its proposals to Congress in May 1977. Its package included the same "wage indexing" solution proposed by the Ford Administration as well as many new tax and financing proposals.
Despite the two Administrations' support for wage indexing, Congress examined numerous alternative proposals!! in a lengthy series of hearings. Ultimately, both the House and the Senate adopted legislation replacing the flawed 1972 method with a wage indexing method, and President Carter signed these new Social Security amendments into law on December 20, 1977.
These new amendments preserved the way that benefits were adjusted for inflation for those already on the rollsCin other words, existing beneficiaries continued to receive annual increases (COLAs) based on the percentage increase in the CPI. The way initial benefits were calculated. however, was completely revised.
Under the old law, a person's initial benefit was determined by averaging the actual wages he or she earned (in "covered" jobs) over a period roughly equivalent to a working lifetime. A benefit table was then used to determine the basic amount payable.
But since earnings levels in the economy tend to increase each year, initial benefits tended to creep up as the worker's average earnings rose. In addition, these benefits were also "price-indexed" -adjusted for inflation - since the figures in the table rose by the percentage increase in the CPI.
Fixed Formula Introduces Wage Indexing
Thus the old law generated, under some economic conditions, inflated initial benefits by linking, or "coupling," the effect of both wage and price increases. The 1977 legislation "de-coupled"
23) those two elements, substituting a fixed formula for determining initial benefits: (24)
- 90 percent of the lowest range of average indexed monthly earnings, plus
- 32 percent of the mid range of such earnings, plus
- 15 percent of the highest range of such earnings (up to a maximum based on amount of earnings on which taxes are paid).
to reflect the growth of wages in the economy Cin other words, past wages would be translated into their equivalent in current wage levels.(25)
By adopting this new method, Congress purposely lowered initial benefits to offset the unintended increases that would have occurred as a result of the flawed 1972 method. However, it protected anyone who reached eligibility age prior to 1979Cthat is, anyone born before January 2, 1917 Cby "grandfathering" them under the old law. This protected people already on the benefit rolls as well as those who could have retired in 1978 or earlier but continued working. For those who continued working, the initial benefit calculations resulting from this grandfathering proved especially generous.
Thus a worker retiring under the new law would generally receive lower benefits than a worker I retiring under the old law, which was the intent of Congress. To minimize the abruptness of this change, however, Congress created a special five-year "transitional method" for people who would become eligible for benefits beginning in 1979.(26) In other words, those born between 1917-21 would I be the first to have their benefits calculated under the new law. This "transitional method" was designed to ease their transition to the new, lower level of benefits.
The transitional method was identical to the old method except (1) earnings after age 61 could not be used in figuring benefits, and (2) after 1978, no inflation adjustments would be made until age 62.(27) Individuals eligible for the transitional method would have their benefits computed under the new law method if it produced higher benefits.
The transitional method did not alterCnor was it intended to alterCthe fact that people born after January 1, 1917 would receive, with few exceptions, lower benefits than those born prior to that year. That was the purpose of the 1977 law.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/notchfile1.html
Reagan's legacy was a tax on Social Security Benefits, which Clinton expanded.
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.
This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.
(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Don't you be blaming Obama. The buck stops with the republicans or some body.
We really need one of those WTF thingies
"You just go right on ahead and blame James Earl Carter for that. He did it."
...you know Obama is bad for failing to cut Social Security, but other Democratic Presidents are certainly not shitty chess players because their cuts actually went through.
But who is?
I've been told that the flea is no worry, but watch out for the biscuit.
"Amazing that so many here that post on a political discussion board are so ignorant of just how politics works in this nation."
...not "ignorant" of politics. They're disappointed that Obama took away that club they've been using to bash him over the head.
No cuts!
Yay!
Just kidding! K&R 
By not increasing the COLA, he effectively cut SS payments... But I won't quibble - well done taking starvation of grandmothers off the table!!!
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/cola/colaseries.html
"Are you saying Obama was lying?? Are you stating we should not believe him when he...Like I said, ridiculous convoluted attempts to cover for the fact that a Dem President for the first time, opened the door to the idea of cutting SS."
...does your comment make no sense (who the hell said anything about him "lying" , but also you have no idea what you're talking about.
Carter was the last Democratic President to lower Social Security benefits.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024536721
Conyers voted for the payroll tax cuts. You know, the one that some claimed would destroy Social Security (it didn't: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024541764)
House Passes Payroll Tax Cut Extension (updated 2x, Senate too)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002322228
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002443728#post24
The GOP's long-held dream of slashing the retirement safety net faded this week.
Back in the summer of 2011, Republicans had it within their grasp. A dejected President Barack Obama placed the crown jewels of liberalism on the chopping block, offering Republicans hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits.
House Speaker John Boehner wanted to seal the so-called grand bargain, and was willing to reciprocate with the $800 billion in new tax revenues that the president sought in return. Democratic leaders were grudgingly willing to support Obama on what they feared was a lopsided deal for conservatives.
But the Ohio Republican, facing a tea party mutiny that threatened his Speakership, and loyalty issues within his own leadership team, was forced to walk away from the table. By many accounts, he was eager to make it happen, but the pressure from the anti-tax tea party movement was too strong to overcome. And so the deal was dead, never to be resurrected.
Nearly three years later, history suggests Boehner was right and the tea party was wrong. Republicans had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capture their Great White Whale if they just acquiesced to $800 billion in taxes. It turns out they were forced to soak up $650 billion in taxes anyway in the end-of-2012 fiscal cliff deal. Only they got nothing in return on entitlements.
As of this week, Obama has rescinded his proposals to chop Medicare and Social Security benefits. The political landscape has changed, and the dream is over.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-tea-party-absolutism-cost-republicans-a-huge-win-on-entitlements
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/21/1279265/-Abbreviated-pundit-roundup-Rejecting-austerity
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024540032
offered the chained CPI, there must be another Obama who apparently told some here that SS would never be compromised.
And yes, the mighty 3rd rail of politics has now blown a fuse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts
By Lori Montgomery, Published: July 6, 2011
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/sanders-applauds-obama-for-dropping-social-security-cuts-from-budget/
Social Security Cuts Still ‘on the Table’ but Not in Obama’s Budget
By Steven Dennis | Posted at 1:27 p.m. on Feb. 20, 2014
We are gearing up to 2016 and Hillary for President. The "SPIN" is preparing itself.
You have to go to Hartman, RT and the few surviving Left Blogs (and they won't survive much longer) to get the "TRUTH."
Truth Is: Obama was overwhelmingly elected to do what we "heard" he promised. There's no way a Candidate from Hawaii named Barack Hussein Obama would have been elected if the DESPERATE PEOPLE of America (of all Colors, Faiths, Non-Faiths and Gender/Sex) hadn't voted for him. Even the patrician Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry couldn't get elected after Bush II stole and election and took us into two wars and was a fool run by a sociopathic NeoCon Group who'd worked to worm their way into power on stealth paws by the MSMedia's ignoring what they were up to for decades.
Now, we who voted in desperation took a chance on an "Out of the Box" candidate and make him President over a known quantity like "The Clintons."
Yet...this person who defied ALL ODDS from NAME to BIRTH to even his Color of Skin was Elected...and he put "SOCIAL SECURITY CUTS" (Chained CPI) on the TABLE for the Vile Repugs to use as a bargaining point.
There are other "bargaining chips" that this Democratic President has put on the TABLE that would have been Bush II's Wildest Dream.
I have done enough rant. President Obama put it on the table. He is responsible for doing it...or he is a tool of Democratic Advisors who are out of touch with Democratic Principles and THEY should have been weeded out of his Administration when he was re-elected.
That's my view... I'm sorry it's not eloquent and I'm not giving links ..but there are those of us who've been here for a very long time who know what I'm talking about because they were "on the ground" and fighting against the REAGAN/BUSH and all of the Stolen Election, working for Voting Rights to correct 2000 Election and who were heavily envolved, on the ground, in trying to reform our Dem Party and we know about what Howard Dean tried to do and who Dennis Kucinich was and all of the rest of the crap we've lived through.
We aren't giving up and we will expose whatever President...either Dem or Republican tries to SPIN DOCTOR their way out of TELLING THE TRUTH to the PEOPLE.
