There hasn't been a single statement by the President about cutting Social Security

[ProSense]

In fact, not a single person in the WH is on record supporting cuts to Social Security.

Yet, based on one unsubstantiated WaPo claim, the reports are now: Following Pelosi's lead, House Dems dig in their heels on entitlements

<...>

Obama stunned Democrats this week when he signaled an openness to Social Security and Medicare cuts — favored by Republicans — as a way of enticing GOP leaders to accept new tax revenues — favored by Democrats — as part of legislation to hike the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit. The Treasury Department has said it can stave off a default on government obligations until Aug. 3.

<...>

How could Obama have "stunned" Democrats without a single statement?

Senate Democratic caucus members from Kent Conrad to Bernie Sanders have been declaring that they will not support a rumored deal. One that the WH has strongly denied. Yet the rumor has taken over the debate. Maybe this is for the best, who knows?

How would cuts ever make it to the President if not a single Democratic Senator supports it? Still, that's another story.

Pelosi, Dems signal openness to Social Security changes

Isn't that what the Progressive Caucus said yesterday?

The media will pit Congressional Democrats against the President, and then Democratic voters against Democrats. Where is the GOP, the House majority (GOP attacks Dems from the left, accuses them of shredding `social safety net’) in all of this? Any Deal has to pass House Republicans and Senate Democrats.



Edited to fix formatting.

[jaxx]

1. K & R

It's time to put out the rumor fires.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

58. It's amazing how many gullible people here believe these lies?

I believe it is the GOP trying to put a cloak over their devilish antics of cutting social security, Medicare and unemployment benefit. They put out some lie in the Washington Post and everybody believes it is Obama's fault not the GOP's. Sneaky - They think they can get away with this.

[high density]

2. Jay Carney says "...there are tough choices here that in a different world we may not make"

Whatever that means.

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

[whosinpower]

3. By the same token

He could very easily dispel the myths and tell everyone that social security is not on the table. Has he done that?

[Tx4obama]

6. See comment #5. n/t

[whosinpower]

17. Yeah - see.....

Obama proposing a tax holiday for those paying into the social security fund...yeah...I don't see how that is really strengthening it.

Morphing that into some sort of democratic GAIN when he was negotiating the Bush Tax extension with the GOP and no Democrats other than himself allowed.....

Paying less into the fund - erodes it - does not strengthen it. I criticized it then, and I criticize it now. It was "sold" then as a stealth stimulus - I criticised that too - which it clearly has failed to do given the most recent jobs report. I also remember his attack on those "liberals" who were not agreeable to the way it was sold then. I lost confidence in him. I lost trust in him.

Instead of this deliberate vagueness - with changes to the way COLA is calculated, which by the way he attacked McCain on when McCain suggested it.....why doesn't he do what he campaigned on....RAISE THE CAP?

Or better yet, just deal with what is trully important and not muddy the water with any SS talk right now. The SS fund has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. All he has to say is that the SS is not on the table for raising the debt ceiling. All he has to say is he would veto any debt ceiling bill with attachments. And if the GOP cannot or will not provide such bill - then THEY will own the result.

President Obama is searching for the right fix to restore confidence. I do not fault him for this and can only imagine the pressures he faces. He is doing the best he can. I understand that. But, he is not a mediator, he is not a negotiator - he is the president of the United States. He has to LEAD - and that means HE HAS to show confidence....in us.

The faith of the United States ability to pay its bills shall not be questioned....period. There is confidence in that statement. He should use it, sleep with it, say it every day - and fucking demand Congress do its fucking job!

[Art_from_Ark]

7. He's also the one who appointed the Catfood Commission

co-headed by a rich old codger who thinks that people who receive Social Security benefits are "sucking the government teat", while he himself is quite comfortable collecting his government pension for the few years he was taking up space in the Senate.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. So, because he hasn't said those words, you'll assume the worse?

Of course entitlement programs should be on the table - to strengthen NOT weaken them.

I don't believe people like McCain should get social security benefits especially since he's been an elitist all his life, and a government employee all his life, too, but he's pulling s.s. checks. There should be a means test, and billionaires shouldn't be allowed. Those are the kinds of changes I would like to see.

But fact remains, nowhere and no how did the WH say they're considering cuts to social security and/or medicare. That's something corporate media is propagating - and doing so with relish.

[napi21]

12. The way I understand it, the "changes to emtitlements" he was

refering to were mandating all records be computerized which would save a bundle; tellinmg providers what they will pay for each procedure (Howard Dean's idea) instead of their current processing...and changes like those. The media, as usual, has read something into the words "entitlements are on the table" as reducing benefits, and as usual, they're WRONG!

[pnorman]

13. And while he's at it, he could also

show his birth certificate like Donald Trump had requested. That too would help dispel some rather nasty rumors going around on the intertubes. Or does he have something to hide? Hmmmmm?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. No, but define "on the table." If by "on the table," you deduce that he means to cut

SS benefits, then you have a point. But, if "on the table" means reforms to SS, such as raising the cap, then you would be wrong.

Perhaps the president needs to define what he means more, but not until there is a plan.

[Leontius]

42. Only one statement from the president will do and it is this,

"Social Security is not on the table in ANY debt and debt limit discussions."

[johnaries]

71. The WH Press Secretary explained it.

But it also remains true, as he made clear in the State of the Union, that he is willing to and thinks it’s important to talk about the long-term strength of Social Security. And it is also true, as he has made clear -- and the Vice President and others -- that they have created an atmosphere -- or tried to -- an environment, in the negotiations that they’ve had where everybody, every participant, feels that he or she can bring to the room issues that they think are important. And that’s what we mean by -- when we say everything is on the table. But it does not mean that the President’s position has changed at all.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. I'm the one stunned, listening to corporate media and some Liberals who are

getting all fired up about something that the WH has clearly, and succinctly, denied.

But it appears as if the ultra-left are no better than the ultra-right in this non-story; taking a rumor and running with it until it becomes a giant fire-breathing, three-headed monster when there's zero evidence the WH has even mentioned any cuts at all! They're helping this GOP-helpful rumor right along, and the GOP, of course, are silent.

This is another "Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet" moment, as corporate media goes into overdrive and make something that was said into something it never was, totally ignoring the outright denial by the WH because their rumor is FAR MORE juicy than the truth...and it helps Republicans in the election, too! For corporate media, it's a win-win!

[Hand_With_Eyes]

46. We have heard similar denials in the past

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 8, 2010

President Obama will argue personally Wednesday against extending the Bush-era income tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest families even for a year or two, White House officials said Tuesday - a message aimed at wavering Democrats who have been swayed by arguments that the economy is too weak to raise anyone's taxes.

In a speech scheduled for delivery Wednesday afternoon in Cleveland, Obama will restate his long-held position that the nation cannot afford to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of families, White House officials said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706847.html

We all know how this one ended...

[BlueCaliDem]

48. Two totally different issues.

The one you've cited has hurt no one. You keep hammering President Obama for compromising on the extension of the Bush tax cuts, but you fail to take into account the DIRE ramifications had he NOT done so.

The long-term unemployed would've gone without a check in December - something President Obama has been pushing the Dems in Congress to address back in July of last year so it wouldn't come to that { http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/19/obama.economy/index.html?eref=edition_us }, but what the Dems failed to until the very last moment. This gave the Republicans the momentum and opportunity to hold the country hostage in order to get permanent tax cuts for the wealthy. They didn't get what they wanted, did they? They had to compromise, too.

Failure to recognize the above unfairly pushes the blame completely on Obama while whitewashing the hostage taking the Repubes openly engaged in, and what Congressional Democrats facilitated by not having done anything about it earlier that year just as Obama had asked them to.

The current issue has the potential to hurt more than the recipients of Medicare and Social Security. But it's merely RUMOR. And by now, in another thread, I know you've read yourself, even the Progressive Caucus had to come out to squelch a growing three-headed, fire-breathing rumor (just like I said in my previous comment) corporate media and people like you are continuing to propagate as if it were truth.

Why do you insist on seeing President Obama as the bogeyman?

[Hand_With_Eyes]

68. Extending the Bush tax cuts extends the recession

It hurts everyone

The 'issue' is Obama saying he wont do something, then turning around a month or two later and doing it anyway in some shady backroom blackmail deal with the psychopaths. The past is prologue.

[Tx4obama]

5. 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."

SNIP

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

[Hawaii Hiker]

14. Cuts to SS and/or medicare would be a worse decision than

assigning Casey Anthony to a cabinet position...

Perhaps all this talk of cutting those programs is some sort of Jedi mind trick, knowing repubs aren't going to budge on tax increases anyway...

P.S. TX - no new confirmations in about 4 weeks now, :banghead:

[Tx4obama]

18. Some senate judiciary committee hearings are set for July 13th and 14th

July 13th
2:30 pm
Judiciary
Hearings to examine the nominations of Morgan Christen, of Alaska, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Scott Wesley Skavdahl, to be United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, Sharon L. Gleason, to be United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, and Richard G. Andrews, to be United States District Judge for the District of Delaware.

July 14th
10:00 am
Judiciary
... and the nominations of Steve Six, of Kansas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, Stephen A. Higginson, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, Jane Margaret Triche-Milazzo, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Alison J. Nathan, and Katherine B. Forrest, both to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, and Susan Owens Hickey, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

http://senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/b_three_sections_with_teasers/committee_hearings.htm


p.s. That's the only upcoming news I've seen lately.

[treestar]

26. Exactly. the inflammatory thread titles are just plain trollish.

[high density]

40. To me there is Psycho-like slashing and then there's also surgeon-like cutting

So going all Norman Bates on Social Security is out of the question, but they are still talking about a "balanced way" to "strengthen" Social Security. We need to know the details of this "balanced way" to put and end to this speculation.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Recommended. nt

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[CoffeeCat]

11. All of this information about Soc Sec cuts...

...is out there for a reason.

The messaging that is disseminated by our politicians via the media--is so tightly controlled and deliberate.
It's no mistake that The Washington Post reported that, and that these other "hints" about Soc Sec cuts are
out there.

Who knows exactly what they're doing...we can't know. But the info is out there because the White House
wants it out there.

It's possible that they're entertaining the idea of Soc Sec cuts and they're in the process of measuring
what the political fallout would be, from such a move.

It's also possible that they're putting the noise out there, but they have absolutely no intention of
cutting Soc Sec---and that they're doing this to soften the blow when the millionaires and billionaires
STILL maintain their tax-cut windfalls. Right now, so many people believe that Obama may cut Soc Sec--and
that's the message the White House wants out there right now. If Soc Sec is saved and no cuts are made,
Obama could look like the hero and the horrible, sickening move of continuing the tax cuts for the wealthy
won't seem so horrible and sickening.

Who knows. They're playing PR games, that's for sure. We just don't know why yet, and we won't know until they're
done playing with us.

[CakeGrrl]

15. Let's not forget the efforts of the former Republicans/Libertarians aka the "Professional Left":

(credit to the Obama Diary)

GLENN GREENWALD: A Libertarian, a supporter of GOP/Libertarian 2012 candidate Gary Johnson (who wants to end child labor laws and reckons President Obama’s election signaled the end of racism in America), also a paid Cato Institute contributor, his checks quite possibly signed by Cato’s co-founder Charles Koch.

JANE HAMSHER: Her CommonSense Media company works with Republicans in their efforts to defeat Democrats, and did online advertising for BP in the aftermath the Gulf oil disaster. (Much more could be said about her divisive, race-baiting nastiness masquerading as "progressive activism" - for example, feeding vote updates to the Tea Party during the HCR debate and coining the term "Union Thuggery" to refer to efforts to get Dem votes)

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: A hardcore supporter of conservative causes such as Newt Gingrich’s ‘Republican Revolution’ and Bob Dole’s 1996 candidacy for president.
(didn't she recently sell HuffPo to AOL-Time Warner?)

ED SHULTZ: A former Republican, he admitted to being “far right” until the late 1990s, the ‘homeless’ often the target of his right-wing rage.

JOHN ARAVOSIS: A leading gay rights campaigner and scathing critic of President Obama’s record on gay rights, Aravosis worked as a foreign policy adviser for corrupt Alaskan Republican senator Ted Stevens (who voted for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and against a bill adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes).

CENK UYGUR: A former Republican, and self-confessed Reagan fan, he admitted to voting for the first George Bush and …. Bob Dole. “I was so conservative judicially I went to Federalist Society meetings.” He dismissed President Obama’s Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which guaranteed equal pay for women, as “a minor bill”.

MARKOS MOULITSAS: A former member of the Republican Party. During the 1988 presidential election, he served as a Republican precinct captain and assisted with the re-election campaign of Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde – the same Henry Hyde who, as a member of the congressional panel investigating the Iran-Contra affair, vigorously defended the Reagan administration, and a number of the participants who had been accused of various crimes, particularly Oliver North.


...and these are the miraculously converted "progressives" telling the Left, in the name of righteous outrage, that the President is just walking all over them and doesn't give a damn about their interests.

Throwing chum in the water to churn up the Left and attack the Dem. And it works.

Divide and conquer.

[davidpdx]

24. Nice list

I wasn't aware of the background of some of these people. Thanks for the info!

[CakeGrrl]

54. Eye-opening, isn't it? Hamsher is actually a pretty nasty piece of work.

The more info is released about her, the more of a paid shill she proves to be. I don't take anything from FDL seriously given her record.

[Whisp]

63. This is what most Democrats think of Jane...

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Just yesterday the WH said it's A-OK to cut Social Security:

But just don't "slash" it, whatever the hell that means. It's a fucking riot watching the White House twist on their petty word games:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0707/Briefing-room-word-games-What-s-a-slash-versus-a-cut-in-Social-Security">Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

So, a reporter asked, what does “slash” mean?

“Haven’t you got, like, a dictionary app on your iPhone?” Carney replied.

Q: Well, it’s a word that you use instead of “cut.”

Carney: “Slash” is, I think, quite clear. It’s slash. It’s like that. (Carney makes a slashing motion with his hand.) It’s a significant whack.

Q: So it means a significant …

Carney: I’m not going to put a numerical figure on it.

Q: So it means a significant cut.

Carney: I think slashing is a pretty sharp, direct …

Q: It’s not the same thing as cutting – the point is, it’s not the same thing as “cut.”

Carney: It’s slash. (Laughter.) And I don’t mean the guitarist. (Laughter.)

Q: A pledge to not slash benefits is not the same thing as a pledge to not cut benefits.

Carney: I’m not – again, we’re talking about a policy enunciated by the president back in January, and that is …

Q: This is a diction you guys have chosen.

Carney: No, no, I get that, and we did choose it, and the president used it. But I’m not here to negotiate the semantics …

Q: Just so everybody understands – just so everybody understands, when you say “slash,” you don’t mean “cut.”

Carney: We have said that to address the long-term solvency of the problem – of the program, because this is not an issue that drives short- or medium-term deficits, that we would look – the president is interested in looking at ways to strengthen the program and enhance its long-term solvency that protects the integrity of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.

Q: Which is not the same thing as not cutting benefits.

[slay]

19. +1

yeah and even if not - at this point obama is no longer trustworthy - hasn't been for a long time.

[johnaries]

70. No, it didn't. What you quoted was a discussion over semantics.

Just as the way some people here call changes in the way benefits are increased "cuts". It's like the Republicans saying that closing tax loopholes are "tax hikes".

The White House also said:

Q Jay, can I have a clarification? You keep saying that it’s in the talks because anybody can bring anything up. Are you suggesting Social Security is a topic of the conversation not because the President made it one but because somebody else did?

MR. CARNEY: Can I just say that I’m just not going to talk about the contents of the conversation. All I’m saying is the story today way overwrote a simple fact that has been true since January, which is the President is willing to and interested in talking about ways to strengthen Social Security in the long term, and then separately but in a related way, because of the nature of the story, we have also not put any bars on the door to -- that disallow issues that people want to bring into the room.]

[Fearless]

20. Why hasn't he said directly that he won't? If he won't, he knows it's a hot issue, why doesn't he?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

22. because those who keep spreading this nonsense would just take it as additional proof that he WILL

be doing it?

[Fearless]

27. That's idiotic!

[uponit7771]

30. No it's not, FUDrs and Bashers are bastards

[Bodhi BloodWave]

36. agreed, its an idiotic mindset but thats how things are

If Obama were to say it, they would say he is just trying to spin away from the bad press
That he is lying
That its crumbs spoken to the left to quiet them while he gives the whole cake away

It doesn't really matter that Obama says since nameless sources states he will be making cuts and everybody knows a nameless source is a lot more trustworthy then a president(since a president is a politician and as such always lies :p)

[PoliticAverse]

44. If your direct words are less believeable than a 'nameless source' you have a credibility problem.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

45. Not really a credibility problem when people are of the view that politicians always lies

That's a problem of people's prejudice(wrong word to use i think, but it somewhat fits so is used :p ), sure there tends to be doublespeak and hedging of words a lot, but its still silly in my mind to assume they always lie

[bornskeptic]

69. Or maybe your listeners have a stupidity problem.

I'm not aware that he has ever lied to the American people. Why would his credibility be in question?

[jaysunb]

21. k & r n/t

[treestar]

25. Exactly. This has occurred on DU countless times before.

It's getting old. Now when I see these threads I don't give them any credibility at all.

[PoliticAverse]

28. Some people apparently haven't learned the lesson of the 'public option'... n/t

[ProSense]

29. What lesson would

that be: Let health care reform fail because it wasn't single payer?

Let Wall Street reform fail because the CFPB and other reforms aren't all that?

Let the stimulus fail because, well, it was too small?

Never accomplished anything in the first two years to prove that he doesn't have to take crap from conservative House Democrats and Senate Republicans?

That people don't have a clue that Congress has a role?

That Obama has puppet strings tied to every member of Congress and all he has to do is pull them and they vote for everything he desires?

I miss Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon. Where have all the Presidents to the left of Obama gone?

:cry:

[Bluenorthwest]

33. The public option and 'single payer' are not the same thing.

The candidate said 'any bill I sign must include a strong public option'. The candidate said that mandating the purchase of for profit insurance to solve the health care crisis is like mandating that everyone buy a house to solve homelessness.
But how typical to reply to a point about the dropping of the public option with some crack about single payer. Just pitiful to see.

[ProSense]

35. Um,

"The public option and 'single payer' are not the same thing."

...really?

[PoliticAverse]

37. Yes, really...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/public-option-vs-single-payer/

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Yes, really, and I'm sure you know that.

So your 'response' to the comment about the public option was totally off subject. A tactic that I do not respect a bit.

[ProSense]

39. Oh brother

"A tactic that I do not respect a bit."

The "tactic" was sarcasm. As for the "respect" bit, I'm truly crushed!!!

[uponit7771]

31. The "professional left" still hasn't learned how the US government works and the president isn't...

...dictator who gives up the adequate for the sake of perfect and good.

[Enrique]

32. that's because he's playing chess

if you someone is stupid enough to wait for Obama to announce his betrayals, they're playing zero-dimensional chess against the master.

[ProSense]

34. There is

no chess. When did people forget that politics is part of the political process and strategy is part of life?

Maybe Obama should text his every move in advance to every citizen on the half hour. Why play games like negotiating?

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Negotiations are not a game, and if they were, he'd be a poor

player of that game. By his own campaign standards, his healthcare reform is as silly as thinking you can solve homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house. He said any bill he signed 'must' include a public option. And yet, in 'negotiations' none of that held at all.
Chess and negotiations are both about the close, the checkmate, the winning of the best of the deal. Counting how many people to let the cannibals eat is not negotiations, it is capitulation.
Also, when a candidate, Obama spoke endlessly of transparency in government. Now, the very nature of the smokescreen methods is doing harm to the public. What happened to transparency, to clarity of speech as commanded by the religion Obama says commands his anti equality position?
In conclusion, let me say this about those of us who live by negotiations. All that matters is the result. It is all about the checkmate, not about the process. Thus, if a negotiation tactic works in the end, it is a good thing. If it fails, it was not so good. Rhetoric in the middle matters not, the endgame matters, only the end, the result, the victory. The proof is in the pudding, not in the press release about the pudding. Basic stuff.

[ProSense]

43. "Negotiations are not a game"

Negotiations aren't "chess" either.

"By his own campaign standards, his healthcare reform is as silly as thinking you can solve homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house."

Hey, one person's "silly" is another person's "historic."

[Palmer Eldritch]

47. Actual facts mean little to those who see only what they want to.

[bemildred]

49. What's your point, why the hair-splitting? nt

[Moosepoop]

50. The point is the title of the OP.

What is the "hair-splitting" that you refer to?

[bemildred]

51. Well, OK then, he has not used the word "cut" yet.

That seems like quibbling to me.

Edit: If everything is on the table, then cuts are on the table.

[Moosepoop]

55. Obama hasn't said anything about cuts.

The OP states this.

You call it "hair-splitting."

I ask where the "hair-splitting" is.

You concede that he hasn't said any such thing.

But now it's "quibbling" in addition to "hair-splitting."

The only thing splitting is my sides. :rofl:

[bemildred]

57. Don't laugh too hard, you might have an "accident". nt

[Moosepoop]

59. Too late!!

I already banged my elbow when I hit the floor laughing. :rofl:

[bemildred]

60. Sorry, I had no idea. nt

[bemildred]

61. I've heard it's good fertilizer anyway. nt

[Moosepoop]

62. Do you always get bewildered this easily,

bemildred? ;)

[bemildred]

64. Only with incoherent fools. nt

[Moosepoop]

65. Hard to say what you deem to be incoherent in this exchange.

But it seems that your bewilderment is causing you to become cranky, so I'll leave you to pout in peace. Have a nice evening! :)

[bemildred]

66. I gotta feeling some people will get it, even if you don't. nt

[Moosepoop]

67. I'm sure they will, dear.

Now stop stressing yourself so. Perhaps a nap would help?

[sudopod]

52. Please post this again.

I didn't see it the other six times.

[Moosepoop]

53. The other six probably got lost in the dozens of

"OBAMA IS GOING TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE!!!" threads.

[Palmer Eldritch]

56. Did you see the 6 other times Obama was supposed to cut SS and didn't?

I did.