Can someone please post a QUOTE from President Obama where he said that he is cutting SS benefits.

[Tx4obama]

Thanks.

I am waiting ...

[MADem]

1. There isn't one.

Speculation is all anyone is going on....

[Rosco T.]

2. See here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=703542&mesg_id=703542

Self promotion but it's the truth.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. That makes no more sense now than it did when you first posted it. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

3. No...but that doesn't matter. The MSM, which everyone derides daily here, gained instant credibility

Don't you find that interesting?

[graywarrior]

4. The Thought Police have gained complete control

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

6. He would never say that, not even while he was doing it. nt

[eleny]

8. You've nailed it

It's a sad truth but that's how he seems in a nutshell.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. He hired Simpson and Bowles to run the "deficit" commission because

they were the two smartest guys he knows?

[MannyGoldstein]

13. I guess that's a difficult question

It never seems to get answered.

[boppers]

17. He hired 19 people for that commission.

They had a lot of ideas. Some were implemented in later legislation, some were not.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/members

[MannyGoldstein]

19. The two most accomplished attackers of Social Security in America

Just a coincidence, yes?

[boppers]

20. Accomplished?

What accomplishments might you be pointing towards?

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Bowles brokered a deal with Gingrich to slash Social Security

when he was Clinton's Chief of Staff. Of course, Clinton thought that was a rocking idea, but Congress turned them down.

Simpson has been screaming about old people ripping us off for decades, doing a great PR job for his benefactor Pete Peterson.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Yeah, just look at that list -

a real balance between the 16 members on the right, and the 3 members on the left.

[johnaries]

67. Would you get off that tired old meme. How about some TRUTH

about the Fiscal Commission.

First of all, the mission according to the XO establishing it was:

Sec. 4. Mission. The Commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. Specifically, the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. This result is projected to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers. The magnitude and timing of the policy measures necessary to achieve this goal are subject to considerable uncertainty and will depend on the evolution of the economy. In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.

So, it's mission was to make recommendations for the entire fiscal policy - NOT to gut SS. Obama has said repeatedly that he does not believe that SS has any major effect on the deficit.

Obama set it up to be bi-partisan. He only appointed 6 members, only 4 of whom could be from the same party. The rest were appointed by the leaders of Congress.

He also set it up so that it was almost impossible for the commission to reach official recommendations - requiring approval of 14 of the 18 members. In fact, they did not reach that 14 vote minimum.

In the unofficial report, they did include SS:

Social Security Reforms to Ensure Long-Term Solvency and Reduce Poverty: Ensure sustainable solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors. Reform Social Security for its own sake, and not for deficit reduction.

As for their unofficial recommendations, they were:

-Gradually phase in progressive changes to benefit formula, modifying PIA factors to 90%|30%|10%|5% by 2050
Which means lowering benefits to the most wealthy.

-Offer minimum benefit of 125% of poverty for an individual with 25 years of work; index minimum benefit level to wage growth
This actually INCREASES benefits for the most needy.

-Index normal retirement age (NRA) and earliest eligibility age to longevity so that they grow about 1 month every two years. Also direct SSA to create “hardship exemption”
This may gradually increase the retirement age, but it also allows "hardship" cases to retire at 62.

-Provide benefit enhancement equal to 5% of the average benefits (spread out over 5 years) for individuals who have been eligible for benefits for 20 years
This ALSO actually INCREASES benefits.

-Gradually increase taxable maximum to cover 90% of earnings by 2050
Yes, increase the "cap" to 90% of earnings.

-Apply refined cost of living measure (chained-CPI) to COLA


-Cover newly hired state and local workers after 2020
Increase the pool.

-Add increased flexibility in retirement claiming options by allowing retirees to collect half of their benefits at a time, including by allowing them to collect the first half at age 62
Allows for early retirement if you're willing to collect less.

Yes, it includes changing retirement ages and the way COLA is calculated, but it also includes a lot of very PROGRESSIVE ideas.

There was also an alternative report with alternative recommendations released by some of the members.

But it doesn't matter, since the report wasn't official and nobody acted on it.

So, all of the allegations and outrage over the Fiscal Commission is simply moot.

[TheKentuckian]

9. He'll do it and never say it. He'll just call it some Orwellian double talk and you'll swallow it

or not but waiting on the quote could be eternity even if he privatized the motherfucker and leaves us with pennies on the dollar.

[RBInMaine]

12. Welcome to Fringe Underground.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. So basically, under your argument, we can accuse Obama of just about anything...

Since we don't need proof or a quote.

Genius! I bet Obama is going to sell America off to the Martians. Yeah, you're not going to find the quote - but listen this his speeches, man! It's all there! Orwellian Double Talk - dude! Like, you know, the cosmos and such.

Whooooaaaa.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Excellent! Perhaps you can answer #10!

Thanks in advance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. No, we can look at results instead of pretty words.

Results - extended tax cuts for the rich.
Results - mandated insurance with not public option.
Results - less transparency, more prosecution of whistleblowers.
Results - privatization of education.

And before too long,
Results - fundamentally changing SS, to the detriment of the program
(he has ALREADY unfunded it by 2% - a program that is under threat of going bankrupt, so he TAKES money FROM it - that's how you 'strengthen SS').

[Fearless]

33. +1

[TheKentuckian]

44. Yes DI, under my logic if he does something, no matter how flowery his words

he still did it.

I'm not taking license to make up anything but rather to call a spade a spade.

He can call cuts "securing" or "making the program more secure" or "realignment" or whatever he wants to say one thing and do another or to frame his actions in a way that softens the blow.

The writer I responded to was waiting for the exact words and in politics we often get words that are less than a match to reality. Not just words but laws, "Clear Skies", "Operation: Iraqi Freedom", "The Patriot Act", "The Race to the Top", and it goes on an on.

[truth2power]

45. You've nailed it. One always has to parse his words to figure out

what he's really about.

[bhikkhu]

23. Unfortunately, the math involved is almost inherently double-talk

so most people will decide whether he's done it or not depending on what some talking heads or other on the news says - and they have bungled this one up pretty well already.

Anyone who's already made up their mind has also probably not looked into what's been said by either side much, or how the numbers work out, or what kinds of changes have been discussed recently, or what kinds of changes have been made over the years.

[Whisp]

10. I think he said something about Social Obscurity

then all the professionals both left and right started jumping up and down in unison.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

40. It must have come from one of the Tea Party signs?

[fadedrose]

11. There was a White House spokesman on Sharpton's show

subbing for Radigan, who said that any changes that the President made would be to protect SS & Medicare to make sure they'd last longer - it's as good hearing from Obama when his spokesman can make a statement like that. Sharpton tried to pin him down by saying did he mean cuts, but the guy wouldn't budge. He said any changes were to protect medicare and SS.

That's what those damned republicans have been saying...

Pelosi for President?

[jenmito]

18. Sharpton was subbing for Uygur. It was Gene Sperling. Steny Hoyer was on saying the same thing on

either Sharpton's show or Chris Hayes who's subbing for Lawrence O'Donnell.

[whosinpower]

22. But....

if it just extends it....IT IS NO SAVINGS TO THE DEFICIT....NOR THE DEBT CEILING CRISIS. Pushing the bill to the next month still means you pay the money - just next month.

This does not strengthen it at all.

Wanna strengthen it? Do what you said you would campaigned on. RAISE THE CAP.

[Hawkowl]

76. We have to destroy SS to save it

That is Obama's position. I say we have to destroy his Presidency to save the party. He's a party traitor. The biggest disaster to ever befall the Democratic party.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

24. You so crazy!

:evilgrin:

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. Didn't we go through this with DADT and SS Cuts before?

Someone in the media interprets a statement and folks on the left freak straight the fuck out ... Only to discover oops, didn't happen.

[bigwillq]

26. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Fearless]

32. DADT wasn't disolved until this week with the SF court ruling... it was still active all this time.

[Tx4obama]

34. Oh bull.

Congress passed the repeal of DADT, the training program is almost finished.
There have been only FOUR folks discharged since last October, and those four would not have been discharged if they and their attorneys had not used DADT as a loop hole to get them out of serving our country.

If you want to give the republicans credit for their DADT lawsuit that's fine,
but it is Congress and President Obama that are putting in place a PERMANENT repeal.

[Fearless]

35. You are wrong. Let me quote...

"The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (H.R. 2965 , S. 4023 ) is a landmark federal statute that lays a legal mechanism to repeal the Don't ask, don't tell policy (10 U.S.C. § 654), which since 1993 prevented openly gay and lesbian people from serving in the United States Armed Forces.

However, the Act does not immediately repeal the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Act:<3>

Provides for repeal of the current Department of Defense (DOD) policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, to be effective 60 days after the Secretary of Defense has received DOD's comprehensive review on the implementation of such repeal, and the President, Secretary, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) certify to the congressional defense committees that they have considered the report and proposed plan of action, that DOD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by such repeal, and that implementation of such policies and regulations is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Ask,_Don%27t_Tell_Repeal_Act_of_2010


This did NOT happen. There was NO certification. So this week the federal court replied with this:

"The U.S. Department of Defense must immediately halt its "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of dismissing openly gay service members, a three-judge panel 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled on Wednesday.

Congress voted to repeal the policy in December but has allowed the military time for a lengthy review process, during which openly gay soldiers have still lost their jobs. Wednesday's decision, an appeal of a federal judge Virginia A. Phillips' 2010 ruling that the law was unconstitutional, put pressure on the Obama administration to speed the process. The decision said that the government has had enough to time to prepare the military that "can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay" of repeal."

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/175977/20110707/don-t-ask-don-t-tell-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-ruling-dadt-ruling-gays-in-military-gay-military-pentagon.htm

[Tx4obama]

36. Here ya go ...

June 20, 2011

Obama: "... But the bottom line is we got it done. And in a matter of weeks, not months, I expect to certify the change in policy –- and we will end "don't ask, don't tell" once and for all."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/29/lgbt-pride-month-white-house


President was/is working to get this done.
The republicans just got lucky with lifting the stay.
It's just bad timing.

The only thing that has changed is that right now there will be no more gays in the military that can use DADT as a loop hole to get out of the military in order to go home. The military had already 'stopped kicking anyone one out' back in Oct 2010.

If the four service members had not used the loophole then there would not have been any discharges since October 2010. Instead of giving them the discharges they requested, then should have been thrown into the brig!

[Fearless]

37. First, it is grossly insulting for you to stereotype the actions of the GLBTQ community at large...

We are not cowards. We do not as a group use DADT to get out of the military. They use it on us because they are bigots.

Secondly, the military has not removed the policy. It exists. It is active. The Pentagon has confirmed this at the end of LAST MONTH.

http://www.365gay.com/blog/032811-monday-watercooler/
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/06/27/Air_Force_Confirms_New_Round_of_Discharges_Under_Dont_Ask_Dont_Tell/
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/dadt-discharges-for-fiscal-yea.html


You may think that this is "ok" but it is not. It is WRONG for the military to discharge soldiers based on sexual orientation, regardless of why you think they were discharged.


Thirdly, the President, the Pentagon, Congress, and the Joint Chiefs where seen as dragging their feet on this as seen by the statement released after the DADT ruling this past week. "Wednesday's decision, an appeal of a federal judge Virginia A. Phillips' 2010 ruling that the law was unconstitutional, put pressure on the Obama administration to speed the process. The decision said that the government has had enough to time to prepare the military that "can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay" of repeal."

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/175977/20110707/don-t-ask-don-t-tell-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-ruling-dadt-ruling-gays-in-military-gay-military-pentagon.htm

[Tx4obama]

38. The four service members DID use DADT to get out of the military.

They voluntarily stepped forward, announced that they were gay, signed documents, then requested to be expeditiously discharged, and with the help of their attorneys they received the discharges they requested.
They did use DADT as a loop hole to get out and go home.

I find it highly insulting that you assume my sexuality and that you presume to talk for the whole LGBT community.

Have a nice evening.

[Fearless]

42. When you say that gays are using DADT to get out of the military

You speak of all "gays". You have spoken ill of the entire GLBTQ community.

I have not assumed your sexual orientation at all. I don't care what it is. It is irrelevant. You have assumed mine no doubt by suggesting that I tried to "talk for the whole LGBT community".

Additionally, I have not spoken for the GLBTQ community. There is no "hive mind" or consensus. That is what I was telling you originally. It is insulting.

That said however, thank you and have a nice evening as well.

[Tx4obama]

43. You are completely wrong.

I did not say what you said I said.

Go back and review my comments and you will see that I was talking about the FOUR service members that were last discharged due to their own request to be discharged.
I did not say 'all'.

And yes you were trying to speak for the whole community when you used the word 'we'.

Ciao!

[Fearless]

46. Whatever helps you sleep. n/t

[BklnDem75]

47. Care to point out the accusation you're making?

[Fearless]

48. Excuse me? I'm talking to someone thanks.

[BklnDem75]

50. It's an open thread, not a private message.

You don't have that luxury here.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. It's a tactic to shut down debate, especially if you're losing.

;)

[Fearless]

58. So are you saying that gays are using DADT as an excuse to get out of military service? Or not?

[Tx4obama]

59. Yes, the last FOUR airmen that were discharged used DADT as a loop hole to get out of serving.

Pentagon Confirms New ‘Voluntary’ DADT Discharges

Excerpt:

SNIP

... all four individuals discharged had made voluntary statements regarding their sexual orientation and had asked to be “separated expeditiously.”

SNIP

Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, expressed his dismay that officers might be exploiting the ban while it is still in force:

“It is rather shocking that we continue to see isolated incidents of service members trying to force the Pentagon to let them out of their service obligations because the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law still technically remains on the books. The Pentagon has made it abundantly clear that it does not want to enforce ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ any longer and that it is more than willing to deal with any lingering harassment issues through the chain of command or, in the case of command involvement, the base’s or post’s Inspector General’s office. Thousands of service members have dreamed of the day when ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ would be virtually dead and commands would plead with openly gay service members to remain in the service. It really would behoove the Defense Department to expedite certification so that no one can use this archaic law as a loophole to leave the military early anymore.”

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/pentagon-confirms-new-voluntary-dadt-discharges.html#ixzz1ReFPs0jc


Edited to add article title.

[Fearless]

61. I was speaking to the other person, hence I addressed them.

[Tx4obama]

62. This is an open forum, therefore everyone has a right to comment. n/t

[Fearless]

63. I asked a specific person a question. You're being argumentative.

[Tx4obama]

64. You've stated twice now that you were speaking to another person. You're being repetitive.

[Fearless]

65. Both of those times I WAS speaking directly to other people!!

[Tx4obama]

66. Yeah well, you're speaking to me now :) n/t

[Fearless]

68. Actually I'm not.

[BklnDem75]

69. Who cares?

You got an answer to your question. Use PM's if you expect one on one discussions, not open threads.

[Fearless]

71. If I'm asking a specific person for their opinion, why would I want someone else's?

I don't expect anything except that a disgruntled DUer doesn't follow me around commenting on everything I say to other people.

[Tx4obama]

72. When someone asks a question, it doesn't matter who answers it as long as 'the facts' are posted.

And I hope you are not insinuating that I am 'following your around' - this happens to a be a thread that I started, so of course I am going to be 'here' reading all the comments.

[Fearless]

75. Condescending much? n/t

[treestar]

74. Yes, we have

We've had this whole trauma before, all for nothing. DADT too. That's DU for you.

[Generic Brad]

27. It is apparently easier to scream like a stuck pig than to produce the quote

You will not get such a quote from the President because it never happened.

[Fearless]

30. Nancy Peolosi... who is lunching with him this week... found it necessary to strike out against...

This "rumor"... strike out against a seated president of the Democratic Party no less... if that's not enough evidence that it is real then I don't know what is.

[Bluerthanblue]

39. she didn't "strike out" against anyone.

There is enough trouble in this world without making stuff up.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201107071707dowjonesdjonline000586&title=correctpelosidemocrats-wont-support-us-debt-deal-with-benefit-cuts

[woo me with science]

70. Wrong. After this, she acknowledged that chained CPI is on the table.

She not only acknowledged it, she talked about her possible "line in the sand" conditions for implementing it:

"But she reiterated that any savings from changing the CPI would have to go back to the Social Security Trust Fund." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20077942-503544.html)

In other words, she is on record discussing possible terms for implementation of this policy that supposedly isn't even on the table.

[Tx4obama]

41. White House: No Change In Obama’s Position On Social Security (will NOT 'slash benefits')

White House: No Change In Obama’s Position On Social Security

The White House is playing down a report that the President is willing to consider cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to raise the debt-ceiling and reduce the nation's long-term deficits.

White House spokesman Jay Carney several times during Wednesday's press briefing criticized a report in the Washington Post, saying the reporter "overwrote" it and questioning the motives of the story's sources.

Insisting the President has not changed his position on whether Social Security should be included in the debt-ceiling negotiations, Carney pointed to Obama's January remarks in the State of the Union that he wants to engage in a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a "balanced way" that preserves the promise of the program and does not "slash benefits."

Obama wants to create a dialogue "where every participant feels that he or she can bring to the room issues that they think are important," Carney said. "That doesn't mean that the President's position has changed at all."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/the-white-house-is-playing.php?ref=fpblg

[high density]

56. One worry I have is that Jay Carney keeps talking about a "balanced approach"

What exactly does a "balanced approach" mean, when the White House is talking in terms of entitlement "savings?" Especially when the Republicans that the White House is negotiating with have said no tax increases, period. (OK, they'll agree to tax increases that are offset by other tax cuts to be revenue neutral, but what's the point of that?)

Q Yesterday, Leader Pelosi left very little doubt in comments to reporters in the Capitol that Social Security, Medicare, entitlements should not be on this table. They should be on another table, she said. Did she succeed in talking the President into taking them off this table in their meeting today?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the point we have made all along -- and this goes back a ways with the President -- is that we need to get savings out of entitlement programs. He made that clear when he gave his address at George Washington University and put forward his framework. That is our position. And we think it is absolutely necessary.

But let’s make clear some of the distinctions here. We believe in -- that we can find savings in Medicaid and Medicare out of the cost of health care, not by transferring all of the burden onto seniors. We certainly don’t think in order to pay for tax cuts or to balance the budget that we need to essentially end Medicare as we know it and voucherize it and shift costs of up to $6,000 per senior per year to pay for it. That’s not the approach we support, and the President has made that clear since his GW -- so we think that we -- absolutely, the President has made clear that entitlement savings have to be part of a balanced approach, and they will be.

Q So the political pain that the President speaks of, that’s the pain that House Democrats are going to be feeling, because they’re very upset --

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think -- the short answer to that is yes, that there is no question that for -- that these programs matter a lot to Democrats, as they should, because they matter a lot to the American people, and Democrats deserve a lot of credit for having helped create them and having protected them and strengthen them over the years.

And we continue to take that approach. The approach that the President suggests, even as we need to find savings in these programs, is to do it in a way that strengthens the core commitments that the programs make, and ensures their integrity farther into the future rather than ending them in order to pay for tax cuts or deficit reduction.

But absolutely there are tough choices here that in a different world we may not make. And we expect Republicans to do the same -- to make tough choices that in their perfect world they would not have to make. But we’re not in anybody’s perfect world.

(emphasis mine)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/08/briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-782011

I can understand how savings can be found within Medicare without affecting benefits. I can also imagine some savings in the administration of Social Security. The problem is that the vast bulk of money spent on Social Security is in paid benefits, not administrative expenses. If there's nothing to worry about, why doesn't the President release his "balanced approach" to fixing Social Security and set our minds at ease?

I'm reading mixed messages here.

[boppers]

60. "the vast bulk of money spent on Social Security is in paid benefits"....

Yes, but what portion of that is spent on fraud, or over-calculated benefits?

The chained CPI has come up as a discussion point, as several times in the history of the program, seniors have been getting a greater increase in amounts from the program than specific product inflation itself justifies.... because (to highlight two hypothetical examples to point out the problem) inflation in "college tuition" doesn't generally affect seniors, but inflation in "heart medication" does. The CPI is a lousy measure of what seniors actually purchase and use.

As far as fraud goes, hardly a month goes by without hearing about benefits being collected for somebody who has already died, in some cases, for *years* after their death... that could be a place to save money as well, by making sure that benefits are actually being paid to somebody who has earned them, rather than somebody collecting "on their behalf".

[The Doctor.]

49. You'll be waiting a long time. Kind of like I'm waiting here;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x704257

[Enrique]

51. he'll tell us after he does it

he'll say he didn't want to do it, etc.

[JoePhilly]

52. If you watch him blink very closely, he announces cuts using a form of MORSE CODE.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. >>>>>>

:spray:

Keyboard please! :rofl:

[JoePhilly]

55. Go heels!!

[Bryn]

57. He will tell us once the deal is done

This is the way he is. Announce AFTER deal is done and sealed.

[LatteLibertine]

73. I'm guessing they'll hit medicaid

because it's tied to the most vulnerable and least powerful in our society.

[demgrrrll]

77. Quotes? We don't need no stinking quotes