General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFinally! Proof positive that Obama wants more schoolchildren to be homeless!
Today's talking point is that even though our President:- created a Catfood Commission that could only be designed to recommend Social Security cuts (which they did)
- called for Social Security cuts in a State of the Union Address
- agreed to cut Social Security during budget negotiations (or demanded cuts when the Republicans didn't even ask)
- added cuts to his budget that nobody recalls the Republicans asking for
- dropped the cuts from his new budget, but sent a press release saying that they're still on the table
The fact that there have not yet been cuts is proof that he won't agree to cuts. That outcome is proof of intention.
OK. I guess that makes sense.
Well we now have more homeless schoolchildren than ever. I guess this proves that the President wants more schoolchildren to be homeless.
And those children are homeless because the 1% are doing unbelievably well, better than ever before, while things get worse by the day for the 99%. I guess we have proof that the President wants the rich to get richer, and every one else to get @#$%ed.
Irrefutable.
And I guess he didn't want the three "free" trade agreements he championed, until the moment they passed in Congress. And he doesn't want the TPP yet, either.
Regards,
Absurd-logic Manny
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)K&R
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I won't even benefit the OP with the word "logic" ... because they is none, as:
Surely you recognize the above statement to be a strawman argument. And strawman arguments are ????? That's right ... a Logical Fallacy!
(At took you a week of not posting to come up with this gem? You're losing you mojo.)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)As to my mojo... deep in a black hole.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Now that I have ... it's still a strawman.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)It's not criticism!!!!! It's real, honest concern.
My daughter and I are hanging on my our fingernails! I've done everything I can to reduce our outflow and it's STILL not enough.
I've done everything right and I still have to worry every single day that Obama is going to cost me my home, my life, my livelihood.
I don't have any "fat" to cut out of our budget. I don't have credit cards, I drive a nearly 20 year old car and only when I just can't walk to where I'm going. I have to call the gas company to split up the bill just to pay for the visit to the doctor.
I'm sick, I'm tired, and I'm worried sick. We simply can't take chained CPI and still live.
It's NOT criticism. I'm terrified that Obama is willing to put my LIFE on the table.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)hoooookayyyy......
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)I have a life threatening, chronic illness and can't afford to go to the doctor or buy my prescriptions now.
I bought a home to reduce my monthly outlay from $750.00/month rent to $535.00/month mortgage.
If CPI cuts my benefits, per the charts by politicians I trust (I honestly can't recall right now if it was Bernie Sanders or Barney Frank), I won't be able to pay my mortgage, and my health will simply further deteriorate.
Is there something in those facts you find funny or strange?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)First, I DO NOT SUPPORT A CCPI unless it exempts all wage earners that earn less $250,000/yr (for any 2 out of the last 5-10 years before application) and/or hold more than $10,000,000 in accumulated wealth AND Taxes carry-forward as regular earned income AND Taxes (wallstreet) trade transactions over "X" AND ... I support the CCPI in the same way that President Obama does, only on terms that the republicans can NEVER accept.
{That's not intended for you ... just getting out ahead of a particular person with a history of seeing "1SBM" and "CCPI" in a thread who then comes and mis-represesents my position}
Now ... About those charts ...Did they show a raw number that represented the "cut" after 10 years? If so, that's not exactly an accurate representation. The number represents A REDUCTION IN INCREASES to SS payments. So your ability to pay your fixed expenses, e.g., your mortgage, will be largely unaffected. If you can afford it today, you will be able to afford it 10 years out, as those expenses aren't indexed to inflation.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)IF my benefits don't increase with inflation, by ANY measure, how am I supposed to continue affording things like food, heat and auto gas? ALL of these items increase DAILY because of inflation.
I carefully planned and purchased to AFFORD my living expenses. Bare necessities. And, a perfect example of inflation killing me is my current natural gas bill - $186.00 because of this extreme cold and the rates inflating over and over and over this winter. Because they could.
So, according to Obama/CPI catfood commissioners, I'm just supposed to choose a cheaper method of heating my house..........how? I have a natural gas furnace and am held captive to the suppliers per therm rates. Not to mention the fact that like cell phone plans, I'm locked in for a year with ANY supplier and pay $150.00 to break the "contract" and find another supplier.
Do you want to talk about food inflation now?
How about that brand spanking new ACA premium I'm now paying? Sure, it's a godsend and wonderful to have insurance for the first time in 30 years. But, by gawd, it's another $30.00/month I didn't HAVE and still don't HAVE.
I'm just supposed to keep squeezing blood out of this turnip, right?
That's the point....CPI means inflation 'doesn't exist' even though it does for every one of us every single day.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The CCPI continues to index your benefits to keep pace with inflation.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)and NOT what you are saying. That calculator shows my benefits DECREASE with chained CPI.
Frankly, I find the lack of concern by fellow DUers for the plight of others to be so anti-Democratic it's disgusting. Your flippant "ODS" response to concern and worry by your fellow Democrats says a great deal about YOU not me.
As a human being, I love Obama and his family. I'm proud to say I was a part of putting him in office, no matter how miniscule my part was, but I DID sway a very financially supportive personal friend to Obama very early in the primary against Hillary. However, his behavior in office has been a huge personal disappointment to me. Not just on social security and CPI. But, THIS subject hits very close to home. THIS subject affects me on a very personal level as a widow collecting survivor benefits.
I'm a widow because Obama was elected too late for my husband who was disabled and had to wait 2 years for his medicare to kick in. He died waiting for medical care. He left behind a devastated 15 yr. old daughter.
I've been diagnosed with a chronic, devastating illness and I have no intention of leaving my daughter an orphan. I'll fight for her survivor benefits with all I have - even IF the opposition is Barack Obama. Because, on THIS issue he's very wrong.
He's put a gun to my daughter's head, even though YOU seem to think it's not loaded. I can't take that chance.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bottom line: Cost-of-living adjustments would be lower with the chained CPI than with the plain old CPI. So depending on which formula is used, the amount of your Social Security payments could change over time.
How much could payments change? Estimates show that under the chained CPI, your cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) would be about .3 percentage point below the plain old CPI. That works out to $3 less on every $1,000, which doesn't sound like much — except that it keeps compounding over time.
Look at it this way: The COLA for this year was 1.7 percent. If your monthly Social Security check was $1,250 last year, it increased to $1,271.25 this year.
With the chained CPI, you would be getting $1,267.50 — or $3.75 less a month and $45 less a year. Again, that might not seem like a big reduction, but if the COLA is the same next year, the difference increases to $7.61 a month and $91.32 for the year.
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-02-2013/the-chained-consumer-price-index-explained.html
It is an DECREASE in the (projected) INCREASE, not a decrease to actual benefit payment received.
I have not expressed a lack of concern for DUers ... In fact I have stated very clearly that I do not support any formulation of a CCPI unless ... well here:
Is pointing out that many of those "concerned" about the CCPI have been wrong in their prognostications on this issue (and just about every other prediction that they have made, repeatedly) making a flippant "ODS" response?
I understand your fear ... I really do. But attempting to help someone understand that basing one's concern/worry on the prognostications of this cohort of DUers is an unfounded concern, is not a flippant response, nor is it unsupportive of you and your situation
Is attempting to providing a more accurate understanding of the CCPI's effect, making a flippant "ODS" response?
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Under what metric can you even say chained CPI would be OK? I don't care which calculator you use, you are trying to justify that compounding a lack of cost of living increases would somehow be OK in a rapidly escalating period of inflation!!!!!!!
Good heavens, it takes some serious hoop jumping to think that's OK for anyone, much less the poor and children!
Yes, I consider your multitude of ODS remarks flippant and condescending no matter how you attempt to cloak them.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and at or lower than any time in the last decade.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
Okay ... It is clear you believe what you wish to fear. Have a good day.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)NOT true inflation.
The items you and I pay for every day are not in the measurements. The things being most inflated are not considered in the inflation measurements by the government, like gasoline, heating fuel, groceries and medical bills.
I'd really like to see you try to convince ANYONE their weekly living expenses are NOT inflating...........that would be funny to see.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you should be somewhat reassured since the CCPI has been dropped from the budget.
But accepting that no one, not even the republicans, believe(d) that there will/can be cuts to SS, there is a difference between being worried/concerned about what is/has revealed itself as a strategy, i.e., the putting the CCPI on the table, (what you appear concerned with) and those on DU, (seemingly) hoping that the CCPI will be enacted, in order to validate their 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and present, predictions ... cuz it's really gonna happen this time!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)with actual cuts to Social Security.
Nope. No one ever did that.
No one ever said the President was about to CAVE and make a deal that included cuts. Nope. Never happened.
No one ever said that the President created the cat food commission specifically to provide the data needed so that the President could make an actual deal with actual cuts, based on that data.
No one ever said the 1% wanted cuts, and the President was going to get them those cuts. Nope.
None of this happened, over and over and over.
They were never predicting actual cuts, only predicting "calls" for cuts. Calls for cuts that apparently, the President made a corner stone of his 2012 re-election campaign. I still recall the endless whistle stop tours he did and the endless speeches calling for cuts. It was all he talked about.
See, the President still really really really wants actual cuts. This they are sure of.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)that they prevented.
They'll go on and on about that one.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama doesn't do something they predicted he would => "We stopped him! But he really, really wanted to do it."
President Obama does something they predicted he wouldn't => "We made him! even though he really, really didn't want to do it."
I think there is a clinical term for that!
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)My husband and I were there about a year ago and the 3-1/2 years before that. Not so much losing the house although I spent sleepless nights wondering if we were going to be able to make the house payments. When I would relay my story I got the same kind of bullshit lack of understanding from the same kind of people here on DU. They just don't want to hear any criticism about Dear Leader so it must be your fault that you're in the situation you're in.
There's a whole lot of us who are not assholes on this board. Always remember that.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)I'm just stunned by the lack of care and concern by fellow Democrats. I grew up with Democrats who believed and lived the idea that we're the last barrier to the Republican dream of crushing the "least among us" beneath the heels of their fancy, expensive shoes.
I spend too many hours wondering what we (Democrats) have become.......and I come here and see exactly what we have become in living color. It's painful to watch.
Thank you just for stopping to say "I hear you."
jsr
(7,712 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)And the makeup of Congress since Jan 2011, what big things has Obama himself failed to do that would have changed the number of homeless in this country?
Considering the current Congress, what do you suppose he should do going forward that has reasonable chance of success of reducing homeless population in this country?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)saving the banker bonuses without asking them to behave in return, not trying to raise the minimum wage when he had a chance to do it, making his stimulus trickle-down rather than aimed at the 99%, ...
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)You act as though there was never an attempt by Obama to seriously challenge the excess profits being made by investment bankers partly because of all the free money they were getting from the Fed.
There were plenty of contractors with the federal government who hired people because of money they received directly for projects tied to ARRA (stimulus).
Regardless of what we in the Democratic Party want to argue otherwise, marginal costs and marginal revenue will determine for a business when it is profitable to hire that next employee. The change in calculation changes when marginal costs go up. In jobs paying minimum wage, the probability of that being the case is extremely high. Therefore, it is rather unlikely that any president is going to arm twist a congress to vote in a minimum wage increase as the economy is shedding tens of thousands of jobs every month.
So....whether we agree or disagree that Obama could have successfully implemented any of the things you describe as items he SHOULD have done and DID NOT....
what are the things he SHOULD do right now and for the next slightly less than 3 years?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Second, he needs to utterly destroy one of each of the following:
- a Congressional Republican
- a Congressional Democrat
- a large corporation
Until then, he'll have no good target and no respect.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)In addition, Mr. Obama’s remarks fall against the backdrop of new attacks by the Democratic National Committee against Republicans for wooing Wall Street donors at a time when the administration is pushing for financial regulatory reform through legislation in Congress.
Funny. He helped talk up and get passed the most comprehensive financial reform since the depression era work done under Roosevelt. He ensured the Financial Consumer Protection Bureau was formed, got funding, and had a leader appointed.
Your statements about what Obama might have said on a particular occasion does not in any way negate real, material actions he took to regulate this wild west industry.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)Funny is right. 
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Embracing austerity, keeping pointless wars going, three "free" trade agreements
saving the banker bonuses without asking them to behave in return, not trying to raise the minimum wage when he had a chance to do it, making his stimulus trickle-down rather than aimed at the 99%, ... "
...friggin distortion.
The Stimulus worked.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024539986
Also, FYI:
Michelle Obama Expands Program That Gives All Students Free Meals
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024563502
Obamacare boosting household income and spending
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024606074
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Which should we start with?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)If that's not enough why bother, it will NEVER get any better than that.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)they were stopping the massive hemorrhaging in our economy and getting health care reform through.
One saw with the Senate make up you are talking about that the so-called super majority wasn't as strong as Obama could have used with Dem senators like Ben Nelson, Mary Liandreau, and Max Baucus.
Additionally, that super majority in 111th congress was for a much shorter duration than most people realize.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)setting up the Catfood commission, and showing Republicans that he's willing to,do anything to work with them.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)income to states so they could hold their budgets together and not have to lay off teachers and other public workers?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Deal?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)that when we discuss contracts to BIG ASS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY we have to use multiplier effect to show the amount of GDP increase was for wages that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. It is a difficult thing to pull apart, but we may find some academic papers discussing this since it would be a perfect opportunity for budding economists to publish.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)questionseverything
(9,651 posts)3 parts of the stimulus that only benefitted the 99%
1. 2% ss tax holiday....the money still went into ss from the general treasury and that 2% break only went to those making under 107 grand
2. increase in food stamps...it just expired a few months ago but it helped while it was there
3. increase in earned income credits (not sure if that was stimulus or not, hopefully it is permanent)
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)More than any other President on history. Somehow he had the votes to do that.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)noting that in my view your statement sounds like a Republican talking point.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Joe Lieberman endorsed McCain, Ted Kennedy was gone. Super maj. Total of 40 working days.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... Tim Geithner's appointment OK? Plus he's not Mitt McCain. Imagine the horror!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I've been telling you that for almost 5 years now.
All of your screaming on DU about the impending cuts has been for nothing.
During your rants on this topic, of which there have been many, you have ascribed specific motives to the President for why he was going to do it. Evil motives.
Those who have responded to you have also described their rationale for predicting that there would in fact be no cuts. That the President is boxing the GOP into a corner.
In discussing politics, people try to determine the intentions of the political figures.
On Social Security, we've been right. You've been wrong. There will be no cuts.
I get the sense this burns you up.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)None of this is theoretical or subjective. It’s spelled out clearly in the confidential offers that the two sides exchanged at the time and that I obtained while writing about the negotiations last spring.
In his opening bid, after the rough framework of a grand bargain was reached, Mr. Boehner told the White House he wanted to cut $450 billion from Medicare and Medicaid in the next decade alone, with more cuts to follow. He also proposed raising the retirement age for Social Security and changing the formula to make benefits less generous.
Mr. Obama wasn’t willing to go quite that far. But in his counteroffer a few days later, he agreed to squeeze $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years, with $800 billion more in the decade after that. He was willing to cut $110 billion more from Medicaid in the short term. And while Mr. Obama rejected raising the retirement age, he did acquiesce to changing the Social Security formula so that benefits would grow at a slower rate.
This distance between the two sides on entitlement spending was sizable but not unbridgeable. In the end, the deal fell apart over the ratio of cuts to revenue. Mr. Obama wanted $400 billion more in new revenue than he and Mr. Boehner had initially discussed. Mr. Boehner couldn’t sell that number to his caucus, and he wasn’t going to try without getting even more drastic cuts to entitlements in return.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You've written endless outraged threads over it. Had a large chuck of DU enraged about how imminent these cuts were ... over and over. Close to 5 years now. Every few months.
So when are the cuts going to happen?
Come on, don't be coy ... make a prediction.
If the President wanted to cut Social Security, the perfect time was February of 2009. The economy was in free fall. Perfect time to tell the American people we had to have those cuts, along with the stimulus to save the country.
It would have worked, easily. The GOP had been working towards reaching that point for all of W's 2 terms. That was how they were going to get the American people to give up Social Security benefits willingly.
That was the perfect time. But the President didn't do that. And has not since.
You now realize you've been wrong. The cuts are not only not imminent, they won't be coming at all.
But there is all that outrage about something that was absolutely going to happen. Can't let it go.
Must. Reframe.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Those goalposts flew past me at such a great speed that the shock wave nearly took out my eardrum.
It's pretty simple:
1. Obama designed the Catfood Commission to recommend cuts
2. I predicted Obama wanted cuts, and would call for cuts
3. Obama called for cuts
4. Obama agreed to (or demanded) cuts
5. Obama asked for cuts
6. The cuts are now dead, thanks to public outcry, Harry Reid, and some FDR Democrats showing up in Congress
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts) MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)By Christopher Ingraham
The White House released its budget plan this morning. It's a long, dense document full of charts and tables that describe President Obama's spending and tax proposals for the next year. Here are two things you absolutely need to know about it.
- Think of this budget as more of a wish list.
Presidential budgets are political documents. There’s little chance that Congress will approve any of these measures during a contentious mid-term election year. Moreover, spending levels for fiscal 2015 are already set, and House Republicans are already drafting a budget that ignores many of Obama’s funding requests. For more on why this budget matters even less than usual, read Lori Montgomery’s take. - The budget looks to reduce debt primarily by raising revenue.
<...> - Projections aside, only one date matters: Nov. 4, 2014
The budget projects deficits and expenditures out to 2024, but in reality the White House is focused on the mid-term elections this year. The budget is chock-full of populist ideas intended to motivate the Democratic base and provide a policy blueprint for Democratic candidates going into November. - The budget follows a traditional liberal economic playbook: Higher taxes, higher spending
Obama proposes more than $1 trillion in new taxes to slow borrowing over the next decade – with much of the burden falling on major businesses and the wealth. That would make it easier to restore spending to many domestic programs -- which are in line for deep cuts after 2015 -- and invest in new areas. - The plan revisits many policy proposals from years prior
Among them: Raise tobacco taxes to pay for universal pre-K. Impose a "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" on big banks. Overhaul the nation's immigration laws, which would produce a $158 billion windfall for the Treasury. Even the president's deficit-reduction ideas have been offered before, from limiting itemized deductions for the rich to forcing drug companies to offer big rebates on Medicare prescriptions.
- more -
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)
Do you have your beekeeper garb on? I haven't looked upthread but I'm thinking there's a swarm headed your way to tell you, with 500 links to nowhere, how you're wrong and you hate Obama and, well, you're a Paulite!!11!1!!111
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)fighting the gatekeepers' stings.
funny post
Don't stop manny
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)"The Beekeeper."
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Since his old narrative has been proven false over and over and over and over and over again.
This thread is one of your weaker efforts, Manny.
Your schtick is losing its appeal.
But you keep sitting in that pumpkin patch with Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to come and shouting at all passers by that dadgummit, it is really coming this time!
MindMover
(5,016 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)There is an army of folks who were sure Obama would make a deal and actually cut social security. And many of them reached an outrage level commensurate for his having actually done so.
Each time it was supposed to happen, they internalized the outrage as if he had actually made the cuts. It was always a done deal. It went from imminent, to a fait accompli, each and every time.
They have no way to turn off all that outrage for the cuts that Obama made ... even though he never actually made the cuts.
For them, he made those cuts ... he actually made them ... over and over.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)You've described the actions of Manny and his acolytes to a freakin' T.
Sid
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Pretty good attempt, I think. 
Sid
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... imagine Manny dressed as Vanna White.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)0.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)discussing Obama's budget, but some people are hung up on what's not in the President's budget.
Jared Berstein: What’s Not DOA in the Obama Budget
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024609603