Obama declares intentions on Social Security; we must prepare

[MannyGoldstein]

"To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."

Translated, this means "we're cutting, not slashing, Social Security for those who aren't yet retired.

This is despicable. Social Security is very strong. Unless the economy becomes permanently worse than today, it will pay full benefits for as long as has been projected. The scurrilous projection that claims benefits have to be reduced in 27 years assumes that the economy in the future will be far worse than it was in the past, even worse then it was in 2010! "Strengthening" something that's already strong means only one thing: cutting benefits so the $2.6 trillion (and growing rapidly) Trust Fund can be raided to enable continued historically-low taxes on the wealthiest. Working Americans will be robbed so the wealthiest can escape paying their fair share.

The "not-slashing" will come soon; probably in March when Obama will be "hostaged" over raising the debt ceiling.

We must prepare. We must fight.

[tabatha]

1. Obama will not cut SS.

[ProudDad]

28. HE ALREADY FUCKING HAS!!!

Where have you been?

My check buys less now than it did 2 years ago!

[SunsetDreams]

31. That doesn't say he "cut it"

What that says is there is rising costs in this country that your paycheck is not keeping up with.
He hasn't increased it still doesn't translate to "he already (bleeping) has" (cut it).

[Codeine]

43. Jeezus. That's not cutting,

it's the lack of inflation over a certain time period not resulting in a COLA. He doesn't control that.

[Arkana]

60. That doesn't translate to "Obama cut Social Security", Sparky.

It means that the cost of living has gone up.

[Teaser]

63. simmer down, shouty.

you really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

66. Look up "cost of living" before you look any dumber.

[DebJ]

2. Or it simply means raise the damn cap already. nt

[jtuck004]

69. +1 n/t

[vaberella]

3. WTF? Do we get your translation if we hear Obama say that part of his speech backwards?!

I mean really.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. So what other outcome fits those words?

Thanks.

[vaberella]

10. Making SS work positively and sustainbly. Without cutting benefits or privatizing.

I thought that was clear.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Obama could have said "without cutting benefits"

He did not.

He said a group of other things instead. Why?

[SpartanDem]

17. "slashing benefits for future generations"

Or are really trying to parse cutting vs slashing

[vaberella]

21. I figured he was addressing the Republicans in the audience who keep suggesting it.

Additionally to make it clear to the audience that people want to cut their benefits but he does not. I thought it was a specification. Not a secret language.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. He could have just said "without cutting benefits"

There's no accidents in Obama's speeches.

It will be marketed as trimming a bit around the edges - but in reality, it will be deep cuts disguised cleverly. The wealthiest want that $2.6 trillion trust fund.

[vaberella]

26. Uh...you're sounding like those people who heard satanic message in Stairway to Heaven. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Anyone wanna bet me $20 that Obama will cut it?

Have at it.

[SunsetDreams]

29. Why would you need to make a bet if you have evidence that it WILL happen?

seems to me hedging bets are made on the unknown

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Talk is cheap. Will you put your money where your mouth is?

Pretty simple.

[SunsetDreams]

32. So you don't have evidence? It's just an unknown speculation?

[MannyGoldstein]

33. I have lots of evidence

Which is why I'm willing to bet cash on it. Sounds like you're not so sure.

[SunsetDreams]

34. You have evidence that in fact he will cut it?

where are these secret documents?

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Start with Bowles and Simpson

And work your way forward. Don't forget Obama's repeated untruths about the origins of Social Security.

[SunsetDreams]

38. Is it not linkable in this thread?

Are those "documents" not allowed here? You said you have evidence in a thread you started "translating" his statement in SOTU "without slashing" somehow into "will cut" benefits. Why the need to translate his speech if you have evidence?
Seems to me you already "know" what he WILL do.

[obxhead]

41. "There's no accidents in Obama's speeches"

Very well said.

Obama is a very intelligent lawyer that knows every word you use can be used against you. I see "trimming", "cutting", and "modification" in the very near future for SS.

[Teaser]

65. "but he should have said without snipping benefits"

because a cut is bigger than a snip.

[SunsetDreams]

13. It's not, somehow "without slashing" has now became WILL cut

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Please be specific.

"and we must do it without putting at risk current retirees"

Why on Earth say that unless you're planning on cutting what's owed to those not yet retired?

[vaberella]

24. No...why wouldn't he us it when this is what is in the news and blogsphere noise for 4 weeks.

You've even talked about it on DU exhaustively. You and others have posted through articles or your own opinions that he would cut benefits putting at risk retirees. It's all over DU, DK, HP, Salon, FDL...why wouldn't he talk about how that is not his plan and directly addressing it.

[babylonsister]

4. No grass growing under your feet, Manny.

:rofl:

[frazzled]

5. What translation generator did you run that through?

I think you need to work on your "translation" skills.

Nobody but you read it that way at all.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. So how did you read it?

Thanks.

[pnwmom]

25. He used clear English. No translator was needed. n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

67. Bourbon and Vicodin.

[SunsetDreams]

6. Your errr umm translation needs ALOT of work

[Skink]

9. They have to raise the cap.

with wages stagnating and fewer workers the bottom simply can't prop it up. fortunatley we can wait a generation to do anything.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Actually, fewer workers was planned for in 1983

Only if the economy gets much worse than today, and stays that way, is there a problem. And even if things really do get that bad, it will not cost much to fix.

[Skink]

15. I agree with that but did they plan for massive outsourcing of good paying jobs.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Sort of

Unless the economy gets much worse than today and stays that way, Social Security is all set.

[midnight]

14. It's hard to read between the lines.... Mainstreet faces challenges.....

Wall Street has roared back.....

[namahage]

18. "We must prepare. We must fight."

We must ready our thesauruses.

After all, Obama DIDN'T say that he WOULDN'T slice, dice, or julienne Social Security benefits for future generations. He only said "without slashing benefits."

[msanthrope]

53. I wish the DUZY's were still around for posts like this...

:)

[Catherina]

20. Never stopped preparing. Never stopped fighting. Rec'd n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Thanks! We need to fight back.

Social Security is where we need to make a stand. If not for this, then for what?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. Prepare for WHAT?

So, the fact that he said "without slashing" benefits instead of "without cutting" them means that he.....um......plans on cutting them (but not slashing them)? What's the difference? Is this the secret "code" that Cato Institute's (and hardcore Social Security privatizer) Michael Tanner said President Obama was going to speak in tonight to communicate his unwholesome intentions towards Social Security?
:wtf:

[KoKo]

37. I never would have thought...when I heard Obama Speak...that

that old adage passed along the internets about Politicians MUST BE TRUE:

About Politicians: "when their lips move they are lying." (I'm sure I Fucked the quote up...but it still stands for the essence, I think..)

:-(

[peopleb4money]

39. Bipartisan solutions are always oddly stilted toward the Republican agenda.

[peopleb4money]

40. I think he may have just telling Republicans to work together with them

Maybe it'll work. I have my doubts though. I hope people riot if they ever do cut it though.

[thelordofhell]

42. Jesus, what tinfoilhat decoder wheel are you using?

be sure to drink your Ovaltine

:tinfoilhat:

[Honeycombe8]

44. I took his speech to mean that (1) SS taxes will increase, and (2) retirement age will increase.

But benefits will not likely be cut for future retirees.

I hope the retirement age doesn't increase. The US already has the highest retirement age of industrialized countries, I believe.

[Raine]

45. Glad others caught the "not SLASHING" remark, O'Donnell

remarked on it too saying it obviously meant he would "trim/cut" SS ... so no one should be fooled. When listening to these speeches you have to catch the words and wording and not just the overall statement.

[woo me with science]

46. +1 nt

[MannyGoldstein]

47. I guess that O'Donnell and I are both crazy far-left haters

with a language comprehension issue.

As is the NY Times editorial board.

Thus spake DU.

[Arkana]

58. What the hell? Seriously? You really believe

that because of his choice of adjectives that means he's actually GOING to cut Social Security?

Wow. I...just, wow. That's a special brand of paranoia right there. If I wasn't so disgusted, I might actually be in awe.

[Raine]

61. Yes, I do ..."Words Do Matter"

especially when they come from politicians.

[JoePhilly]

48. The former predictions that he would ANNOUNCE CUTs now turn into coded messages.

What a surprise.

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Find that prediction and win $5

All I saw is that he'd call for cuts. Which he did, according to the NY Times Editorial Board, Lawrence O'Donnell, and others.

Also, I'll expect an apology if you find your accusation to be baseless.

[JoePhilly]

54. Here's one ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x572164

And he did not call for any cuts last night.

Keep your money.

[MannyGoldstein]

55. Kuttner should have known better

What's your favorite charity I'll send $5.

FWIW, I expected that he'd do pretty much what he did yesterday. Generally announce his intentions. I thought he'd mention his commission too, but I don't think he did.

[JoePhilly]

56. Pick one for abused kids. As for Obama's intentions regadring SS ...

I think he's going to leave it on the table and dare the GOP to announce the cuts THEY want to make to it.

Did you notice that Ryan's response did not put forward his road map for social security? He can't. No one in the GOP supports it.

By leaving SS on the (nonexistent table), Obama appears "open" to all options. Most Americans like that. He knows that the GOP doesn't have the stones to make specific attacks on Social Security, they'd prefer he take it off the table so they could snipe around the edges without any risk.

Have you noticed all the Dems calling out the GOP for wanting to gut SS?? With it on the table, we get to pound the GOP in this issue over and over.

[Arkana]

59. Gotta keep the angry furnaces burning, ya know.

[SidDithers]

50. Your translationomometer is broken...nt

Sid

[grahamhgreen]

51. Hopefully we still have a reporter who will ask if not slashing means not cutting or trimming, etc.

[flpoljunkie]

52. I tend to agree with Josh Marshall here. Obama's line on Social Security was 'somewhat ambiguous.'

(Particularly the line "without putting at risk 'current' retirees." Does that leave open Paul Ryan's privatization plan which would affect those under 55. I wonder how 54 year-olds feel about Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare.)

9:51 PM: Obama's line on Social Security strikes me as somewhat ambiguous.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/01/sotu_live_blogging_part_2.php?ref=fpblg

[Arkana]

57. What the fuck is this?

Manny, stop drinking the red liquid in your thermometer. It's bad for you.

[JNelson6563]

62. lolz

*pointing/laughing*

[dionysus]

64. bless your little heart for trying so hard. god bless.

[Vattel]

68. I hope you are wrong, but I fear you are right

[WiffenPoof]

70. Can I Just Ask A Simple Question?

So, why doesn't the President simply state that he will NOT touch SS and will veto any bill that attempts to do so? Why hasn't he done this? Without a specific and non-ambiguous statement from the President, is there any wonder that some feel that SS may be vulnerable?

One more point...
As a Democratic President, isn't it his obligation to uphold Democratic values? SS is one of the hallmark achievements of the Dems...the most successful social program in history. For me, supporting this program and protecting it is absolutely necessary if the President is going to consider himself a Democrat.

--------------

Now, if he has made the statement that SS is completely "off the table" and that it will not be touched...than I apologize. I just haven't heard him make that statement.

-PLA

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.