We're all in a tizzy because Obama is going to slash SS and Medicare --

[gateley]

Do we KNOW this for a FACT?

I refuse to become out-of-my-head again over something that doesn't actually happen.

I've seen references to "willing to discuss" and articles with the writer's interpretation, but has there been a definitive statement?

Thanks --

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. It is still in the we may or may not

I think it is a trial balloon actually... and the WH got the response they either needed for political reasons, or did not expect. Your mileage will very on that one. It broke late enough that we will not know until midday tomorrow.

[woo me with science]

19. And IF this is a trial balloon, it needs a strong response. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Yep and threats of not voting for the man

and no money must be included. In my case it is a promise, not a threat.

[kath]

59. It's a promise here as well.

[gateley]

25. We won't know until midday tomorrow if he will/will not

agree to cuts? Is that what you mean? Have they said they will issue a definitive statement? (See how confused I am??? :crazy:)

[JDPriestly]

56. No. Obama waited until a lot of Americans are still recovering from

the Fourth of July. He thinks we are on vacation. The problem is that many, many Americans don't have the money to even think about going on a vacation this year.

Obama most definitely planned from the very beginning to destroy Social Security.

His "payroll tax holidays" are already inflicting damage to the system.

And now, he is pretending to "compromise" it for harmony. No. This was his plan from the moment he agreed to appoint Timothy Geithner as his Treasury Secretary. Obama has doublecrossed ordinary Americans, seniors and especially Democrats.

This is more than just a disappointment.

This is grounds to support a challenge.

Because if Obama does this, Michelle Bachmann or Romney will be the next president. And that will be a disaster.

There is no way Obama will be re-elected if he compromises on Medicare and Social Security.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

3. "this crowd" lol...thanks, Rahm

[gateley]

16. Well, you've got a point there. I just don't have the energy

any more and don't want to waste my ire on something that doesn't occur. :7

[JDPriestly]

57. It will occur.

[gateley]

64. Or not. We'll have to wait and see to know for certain. I DO

hope you're wrong, though.

[laconicsax]

4. The fact that he might is bad enough. n/t

[gkhouston]

10. No, what's bad is that we think this Administration *might* do such a thing.

How many of us would have believed such a report if it had been made during Carter's tenure? Or Clinton's?

[gateley]

18. I always think any POTUS has to give more than we out here

think he should (except for Republicans, of course :eyes:). It's not as cut and dried as we believe it to be.

[JDPriestly]

58. He should not give on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

Those are life and death programs. We who have recently retired or who are about to retire have paid a lot in, and we deserve to get our full benefits adjusted for inflation.

This is simply cheating. But then what do you expect of a president who does not have the courage to prosecute blatant fraud.

[gateley]

17. I guess that was part of my question (but not articulated) --

IS he in fact considering it, or is it conjecture? Do we know?

[CakeGrrl]

5. NO. It is NOT known as fact.

The WaPo article that has 'gone viral' on this forum is speculative and vague.

[gateley]

20. I've fallen for that before, so that's why I wanted to be sure (if we know). nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Would you perhaps be a wagering man?

Would you care to stake a few ducats on the outcome of the debt negotiations specifically about whether SS and Madicare are cut?

Cheers!

[gateley]

23. Well, no, since I'm a woman, but I wouldn't place a bet on

this anyway. I just never know. Like all of us, I've been gobsmacked before and it's happened enough times to know I CAN'T predict the outcome. Same with the opposite -- I've assumed he'll capitulate but then he surprises us.

[EFerrari]

7. People are worried and who can blame them?

I'm worried. Sorry if that's inconvenient but, there it is.

[gateley]

24. No - I'm not blaming anybody - and I'm worried too. I'm just

trying to determine if this is conjecture or a statement from Obama.

"Sorry if that's inconvenient..." ? WTF does that mean?

[EFerrari]

30. If you wanted to find out, wouldn't the best way to do that

be to go to the news reports themselves and read them carefully? Putting down people for being worried isn't really the fast track to certainty.

And I'm not in a "tizzy", gateley. I'm rightfully worried about Medicaid and Social Security, both of which I will need, in the hands of an administration that ran one way and governs in another.

[gateley]

35. First of all, I wasn't putting people down. I was getting swept

away and working on my own tizzy. I totally understand and identify with the frustration, anger and concern (always afraid to use that word on DU), but I wanted to clarify if was worth my blood pressure soaring -- literally.

The articles I've been able to find are just that -- no "Obama says he will have to..." no WH statement, nothing but conjecture, assumption, which is why prompted my OP.

I'm rightfully worried, too -- for the same reasons, but I want to KNOW. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

54. Anonymous administration sources aren't exactly conjecture.

I don't trust the WaHo as I fondly call them, or the NYTs or any of the media. But, on this issue they and Obama seem to be on the same page. They all are agreeing to take a bite out of these "entitlements" as he calls our social safety net, such as it is.

[gateley]

65. WaHo! Hadn't heard that one!

He did talk about "looking at" administrative costs (heard that right from his mouth), but I got the impression it wouldn't actually affect our benefits (which I don't get yet, by the way).

I feel really strongly that these are like insurance policies that we as individuals have paid for -- as opposed to taxes which we give to the government hoping it'll go where we want it to (but never does). I honestly feel this isn't that much different than paying an insurer -- pay this premium, and here is the coverage you will receive. I wouldn't stand for it if an insurer decided to change the "rules" after I'd been paying the premiums for years. And to carry the analogy further with reference to the administrative costs, I'd be supportive of an insurer doing that to better protect my investment.

But other than that (if I understood it correctly) no give.

And I hate the word entitlement -- they're services/coverage we BOUGHT.

I'm hanging on to nad's question about it might be a trial balloon. If so, hope he's aware it's been shot down.

TRIAL balloon, not TRAIL balloon, gateley. :eyes:

[thewiseguy]

8. I am going to wait before making any judgement on this one

But if Obama does slash SS and Medicare he better kiss his re-election chances goodbye.

[gateley]

27. Yeah - When Bush wanted to privatize SS, that's when his

ratings plummeted. Live and learn, Mr. President. Two sacred cows.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Yes. I'm in a tizzy. You should be too.

The very fact that this is a plausible sounding scenario speaks 10,000 decibles for the inherent worthlessness of elected Democrats.

[Bluebear]

15. +

[gateley]

28. IF it occurs then trust me, I'll be apoplectic, but unless/until

then, I'm trying to keep my blood pressure down.

[Hawkowl]

37. A tizzy may prevent the actual event

Tizzy's aren't pointless. Assuming Obama still listens to the voters (a questionable assumption at best), he may just decide not to mess with SS. I'm sure he's not lying when he implies everything is on the table. We just have to make it abundantly clear that the political price he pays will be catastrophically severe.

[woo me with science]

38. If it's a trial balloon, doesn't it deserve a strong response?

Interesting when people here seem to discourage any response at all.

[gateley]

43. Oh, for the love of God. I've e-mailed him 3 times on this over

the last few days, e-mailed my congressman (who is a good guy) and am encouraging my friends and families to relentlessly do the same.

I'm not advocating no response - I've posted about 5 times elsewhere here tonight to keep e-mailing and calling.

Does that sound like discouraging any response?

[woo me with science]

46. Three emails. Uh huh.

:eyes:

If you are truly so upset about this, why does it bother you so much when people express outrage here? Why do you denigrate it with dismissive words like "tizzy"?

[gateley]

48. Are you saying I didn't? Do you know that about me, too?

My intention was never to denigrate - that's your interpretation and conclusion.

It doesn't "bother" me, if you read my OP I explained I didn't want to get upset essentially on conjecture.

But you know, I don't need your judgment and rolling eyes and insinuations that I'm not telling the truth, so see ya.

[woo me with science]

49. Oh, so "tizzy" is a positive, approving word.

Got it. :eyes:

[LiberalAndProud]

11. It would appear to me that the CPI changes are a done deal.

Within these totals about $350 billion to $400 billion is now attributed to Medicare and Medicaid savings, and one wildcard still is a proposed change in how the inflation adjustments are made each year for benefits as well as tax brackets and personal exemptions.

Social Security recipients could be impacted by these changes in the CPI, but administration officials Wednesday night cautioned against a Washington Post report that “major changes” were being contemplated in the retirement program.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58462.html#ixzz1ROb9aLgM


Reports are circulating that it might be worse than that. I suspect that the impetus of those reports is to make the CPI adjustments more palatable. Mmmm mmmmm good. Love the taste of austerity in the evening.

[gateley]

29. Thank you -- and thanks for the link. Austerity. Sigh. nt

[woo me with science]

70. And in 3.....2....1....

"But these are NOT 'cuts' to Social Security!"

:eyes:

:puke:


Fucking sociopaths.

[woo me with science]

74. Vile. Unconscionable. Evil.

And sneaky as hell. This is their way of doing it so that they can claim not to have done it.

I have seen multiple posts already brazenly challenging DU-ers to "define the word, 'cut.'"

:puke:

[joshcryer]

12. lol the last two SOTU's were supposed to usher in pure fascist free market capitalism.

No more medicare, no more social security, privatized health care, whole nine yards. Private roads, new coal plants, nuclear plans, war with China, youbetcha.

OK I'm exaggerating for the most part but people always get worked up over this sort of thing.

[gateley]

31. Agree - some things are worth getting worked up over, but

not if they don't even happen! That's why I'm trying not to get swept away. Yet. :7 :hi:

[pa28]

13. If Obama positions himself for cuts will you support or oppose them?

When an executive decision is made it's hard to go back. It seems to me that now is the time to make calls, write letters and make your opinion known to our party leadership. Democrats should make it clear that they will not tolerate theft of our own savings. That's what Social Security cuts amount to.

Previously President Obama said our Social Security problems could be solved by raising the cap. I want him to stick to his word.

[gateley]

32. I've already sent two e-mails to the WH today, and usually

average about 3 a week. My poor congressman gets harangued by me even more -- and he's one of the good, know-how-he's-going-to-vote guys!

I'd be against them (did you mean support him or the cuts?) but I heard him explaining something about WHAT he was willing to whittle back, and to me it didn't sound as though it would impact people. Something to do with overspending in certain areas now, or something (administrative costs). I MIGHT be supportive if the cuts were truly innocuous in order to shut the Republicans up and not shut the government down, but on the whole, no. Don't like the idea of any cuts that might negatively affect people. I feel strongly that these aren't "entitlements", they are things we've been PAYING for. So if they can utilize my money more effectively, okay, if they're going to take away my earned benefits, not okay.

I want him to stick to his word, too.

[pa28]

40. That's more than I've done. Good on you.

If you don't have thousands of dollars to contribute per election cycle I think that's the right approach. We can't control what the President does but we can make our opinions known through every channel at our disposal.

:thumbsup:

[gateley]

47. I often use the "I'll contribute to your opponents campaign"

line when I fire off my threats. I always keep them short and simple. If you do/don't ___________, then I will give my vote and $$$ to your opponent.

Not true (usually) but they don't care how it affects me personally, they care about contributions and winning.

Sad, isn't it. :(

Only takes a second to e-mail :7. And if you haven't signed Bernie's letter:

http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=c1fd7f9b-abd8-4e7a-a370-1867881259d8

:hi:

[LiberalAndProud]

You have been paying for them gately, that's why you are entitled to the benefits.

Rush Limbaugh has been working for *years* to turn "entitlements" into a dirty word. It would appear that he has been very successful.

[Tx4obama]

14. Seems like most of the articles refer to other articles & none of the articles have sources named

and NONE of the articles have any quotes from President Obama.

It doesn't take much to get some dems all in an up roar.

I think the GOP is behind the rumors :)

[gateley]

33. Ha! If the GOP is behind it, mission accomplished! Yeah,

hadn't been able to find any source of Obama saying "we will have to cut..." which is why I asked the question.

:hi:

[Ozymanithrax]

21. I will not vote for a Democrat who does this...

I will not vote for a Democrat who supports gutting the poor and middle class and cooking us over a warm grill.

If Obama really suggested it, I will vote for a turd in a bowl before I vote for him. If Democrats support it, I will change parties. I would rather try the very difficult task of building a new party then supporting a party that abandoned me for moderate Republican values.

[gateley]

36. Fine, that's your choice and right, but has nothing to do with

my question.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. You will find the qualifier If in my statement.

I see no reason to once again give the President the benefit of the doubt. He stands up for us or loses our vote.

It is quite possible that this is a trial balloon, that the White House is trying to gage how supporters will act.

It is also possible that this is an effort by the "Liberal Media" to cut support for Democrats as we move toward election.

If this is actually on the table, then the President does not deserve our vote, even if other Democrats defeat it. It is a line in the sand and the White House and the Democratic Party had better understand that.

[gateley]

50. Understood, and pretty much agree with all you say, but

I honestly was just trying to see if others had sources that I couldn't locate, definitively identifying a "source".

It was to save myself from getting into more discussions (resulting in my increased anger) but I see I've opened a can of worms. I haven't been in this much trouble since I posted an "I'm concerned..." thread. :7 :hi:

[David Gill]

26. There are almost no facts on this

Until you see the President signing this potential compromise into law, you won't know what his thoughts are. This article is vague, and obviously doesn't quote Obama directly. Even if it did, there's always two messages to every statement in Washington- what it says to the people, and what it says to the other side's leadership. This is a complicated game of chess, and the one thing Republicans do well is make sure none of their pieces move without them saying to. I'm not saying it's better or worse, but it would be easier to get things done if Democrats sometimes had the discipline Republicans do.

Remember 2009-2010? You almost never saw a Republican in the House vote for something Obama wanted. Why? They wanted to say "this guy is so crazy, we can't possibly cooperate with them." It worked. Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer would never be able to coordinate a similar strategy.

[gateley]

41. You're so right. What a reasoned, intelligent response (among

many). That's something I need to keep in mind even though it KNOW it -- the statements contain two messages. They're not just To: gateley. :7

Welcome to DU, David Gill! :hi:

[David Gill]

62. Thanks!

A few different people have welcomed me- it's nice! I'm also glad when I see posts like this one, because it lets me know there's a place for me here. You know, that there's some diversity along the "pragmatic - ideologue" continuum.

[Safetykitten]

34. We are in the "send out the hints" phase of what will happen in the Obama negotiating style.

Next will be the "you did not understand or he did not say that phase".

[Tx4obama]

44. Well since Obama actually has not been quoted, we are now in the BS phase :) n/t

[gateley]

51. Standing by.... :-) ANOTHER pins 'n needles moment!

I tell ya, it's been exciting! :hi:

[lonestarnot]

39. I'm not falling for the shit.

[woo me with science]

45. Unrec. nt

[inna]

53. +1

[BigBearJohn]

52. Honey, let me just stick the head in....

[JDPriestly]

55. Yes. We know this for a fact.

Do you know who Pete Peterson is?

He is obsessed with cutting the budget.

http://www.pgpf.org/

Peter G. Peterson (born June 5, 1926) is an American businessman, investment banker, fiscal conservative, author, and politician whose most prominent political position was as United States Secretary of Commerce from February 29, 1972, to February 1, 1973 under Richard Nixon. He is most well-known currently as founder and principal funder of The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which he established in 2008 with a $1 billion endowment. The group advocates for reductions in federal deficits and debt, through redirection of Social Security funds and cuts in federal entitlement programs.<1>

Before serving in the White House, Peterson was Chairman and CEO of Bell & Howell, from 1963 to 1971. From 1973 to 1984 he was Chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers. In 1985 he co-founded the private equity firm, the Blackstone Group. Peterson was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations until retiring in 2007, after being named chairman emeritus. In 2008, Peterson was ranked 149th on the "Forbes 400 Richest Americans" with a net worth of $2.8 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson

Peterson is a Republican who hates Social Security and Medicare -- AND HE IS THE GUY WHO PICKED TIMOTHY GEITHNER TO RUN THE NEW YORK FED.

When Obama picked Geithner to run the Treasury Department, he signaled that he would cut Social Security and Medicare. Geithner was a key player in the entire scam to rob our treasury of money to bail out banks and businesses.

These guys are not playing straight with the American people, and Boehner and the Republicans are laughing their way to the bank.

This is a shameful chapter in American history.

Clinton sold us Democrats out with NAFTA and with his changes to our financial regulations.

Bush was a disaster.

And now Obama is finishing us off. We are descending very quickly into an impoverished state. And it is for lack of leadership.

Yes. Obama has planned to ruin Social Security and Medicare from the very beginning of his term in office.

[somone]

60. It takes a Democrat to kill the New Deal

and Obama was chosen as the hatchet man

[woo me with science]

63. Excellent post,

as always.

[PufPuf23]

61. Why are still some at DU playing or being stupid about POTUS Obama?

Read into this comment what you want.

A look inside my demoralized head is more wars, regressive economic policy, etc.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

I expect to die before the USA turns a corner to positive or disolves and have booby-trapped my modest estate for any evil shits sowhat I have of value is given or in trust of an Indian Tribe and local state university rare book/county room, county historivcal association museum, and the Tribe are my heirs.

[gateley]

66. I assume I'm the one you're calling stupid, and it's because

I don't want to give up, I don't want to NOT fight.

And thank you. See ya.

[Ice Number Nine]

67. but tizzies are so much fun!

:puke:

[Bryn]

68. Obama always holds secret meetings

This bothers me. He made a deal with insurance companies in back room and took off public option, with Republicans on extending tax cuts for the rich without discussing with democrats in House. And recently he held secret debt ceiling meeting over July 4 weekend with Republican Boehner. Obama is showing me that he's more of a Republican than he is a democrat. I was excited when he won, but it looks like to me that he was a Trojan horse all along supported by the Wall Street and Koch Brothers as they knew people was wanting a change from G W Bush. If he touches SS/Medicare/Medicaid then America will really, really sink. This is serious so that's why I am concerned.

[lamp_shade]

69. The "Oh No!"-ers are out in force. They seem to have acquired a taste for crow.

I just skimmed 6 pages of Latest posts and there must be 50 or so "Oh No" posts.
I had to laugh.

[Bryn]

71. You know something we don't?

Come on, tell us something you know as a fact. I am interested.

[lamp_shade]

72. That's my point. I don't know the facts and will withhold judgment until I do.

I don't shoot from the hip.

[TheCowsCameHome]

73. I don't want him to even consider it. Period.

Yes, I'm concerned, very concerned.

[jtown1123]

75. Yes, let's wait shall we? Let's wait to cause a stink until they cut them right under us

Pathetic. Wake up people. Obama has always wanted to cut Social Security and MEdicare. He doesn't give two shits about seniors.

[NorthCarolina]

76. Sure, lets do the "wait and see" thing and then gripe about it afterwards.

Now there's a plan :eyes: