Dick Durbin voted to cut Social Security by 22%. Remember what Obama said?

[Dragonfli]

79. Could you be specific regarding details of the White House release you quote

Certain phrases make us simple people nervous, especially when they use the same phrasing used in third way policy papers that suggest cutting entitlements. I also have a sense that the two quotes cited are not clearly related, as the verbal non-binding resolution proclamations seldom appear to become binding in the house Senate reconciliation portion of the budget process. A cynical person may think such unanimous verbal agreements might have more to do with future campaigning than the process of creating law.

You are usually polite and helpful, here is the first phrase I would like to see some actual policy regarding, yes, specifics please, because it can mean many things, many of which are suggested by Pete Peterson and I think we can all agree he is an enemy of Democracy and a pirate of sorts fixated on the destruction and weakening of entitlements: "Like the President's plan, the Senate budget cuts wasteful spending, makes tough choices to strengthen entitlements,"
What are the tough choices? and what spending specifically is slated to be cut as wasteful? Did you realize that every time a third way paper on cutting entitlements suggest they use the phrase strengthening rather than cut, a euphemism I am sure the white House was unaware of when choosing such a phrase

I was also concerned that entitlements are being discussed at the same time and assumed to be in in the same potential legislation that has been marketed as a budget discussion, surely few other than right wing extremists are ignorant of the fact that SS specifically adds not a dime to the deficit, is currently running a sizable surplus and obviously the cutting of it will not add revenue to a budget it is separate from.

Another phrase begging for specifics before it can be judged in any meaningful way is:The President and Democrats in Congress are willing to make difficult choices so we can cut the deficit while laying the foundation for long term middle class job growth. And it is encouraging that both the Senate and House have made progress by passing budgets through regular order. this appears to support the house budget as equal which is concerning enough, but again this vague reference regarding difficult choices is as you must be aware is a phrase used in at least two third way position papers extolling the virtues of cutting entitlements. so, again I am afraid I need clarification of this purely rhetorical quote with specifics regarding what difficult choices are we talking about? Are these referenced difficult choices a secret for some reason? We simply wish to know what "difficult" choices we are being asked to support.

I apologize for being a bother again, just wish my consent and support is to be informed, this implies something that concerns me greatly that I would like you to clear up:
We will continue to insist that any solution has balance. The House Republican budget refuses to ask for a single dime of deficit reduction from closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and the well-connected but instead makes deep cuts to education and manufacturing while asking seniors and the middle class to pay more. To a simple guy like me, this seems to state that the balance lies in tax increases as well as the horrible Republican suggestions. Is there no statement that is clear? I dislike reading the tea leaves of rhetorical statements like this that are far from fully clear and, yet again are phrasing choices found in those ever pesky third way position papers that are a bit more bold in the suggestion that balance is found in such cuts along with some rather vague tax increases to be named later.

Without specifics and clarity, why this all just sounds like politic jargon to simple folk, designed to lack specifics while laying verbal groundwork to justify all manner of budget and entitlement slashing shenanigans.

Thank you in advance for the details and clarity I hope you will provide.