Toon that sums up the left's 2012 choice exactly

[n2doc]

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Yup

[Autumn]

2. Yes it does.

That's the sad part. Voting against not for. K/R

[CoffeeCat]

3. But Soc Sec cuts were "on the table" with Obama...

Obama spent weeks touting the "reforms" and "changes" that were necessary with the Soc Sec program.

Hasn't Obama also put Social Security cuts 'on the table' during the recent debt-ceiling debate?

We all know that "reform", "cuts", and "changes" are code words when it comes to
Social Security. It means a slow, systematic dismantling of this program.

It's what the corporations want and it's what the neocons and the elites want.
Unfortunately, most of our politicians are beholden to *these* interest groups
and no longer listening to "We The People".

Both parties are willing to cut Social Security and begin the great dismantling.

Rick Perry may be more blatant about it. Obama and other Democrats may use more
euphemisms and pretty marketing speech. But in the end--the rich, connected
and powerful want Soc Sec destroyed and Obama putting Soc Sec 'on the table'
and his willingness to use the corporatist lines about Soc Sec being "an entitlement"
and position the program as one that is in dire need of change--says quite a bit.

So sorry--I'm not seeing Perry and Obama on opposite sides of the Soc Sec issue.
Their rhetoric may be different, and the neocons/corporatist may not attain their
goals as fast as they would with Perry in office--but I do not SEE Obama standing
up and fighting like hell (in words and in deeds) to preserve Social Security
and other essential programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid.

[TheWraith]

4. No, they're not.

Obama has explicitly and repeatedly rejected the idea of cuts which would impact Social Security beneficiaries.

The rest is simply a lie from repeated propaganda.

[Dragonfli]

6. I thought he only spoke about protecting CURRENT beneficiaries, but what do I know. /nt

[CoffeeCat]

7. Well actually, Obama did put cuts on the table...

There was article after article about Soc Sec cuts being on the table.

Obama never stood up and fought for Social Security--giving speeches that
fought to keep the program unchanged. As we all know, Republicans were
all going after Soc Sec. Obama never stood up and drew the line.

David Brooks had this to say, "According to widespread reports, White House officials talked about raising the Medicare eligibility age, cutting Social Security by changing the inflation index, freezing domestic discretionary spending and offering to pre-empt the end of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a broad tax-reform process. The Democratic offers were slippery, and President Obama didn’t put them in writing. But John Boehner, the House speaker, thought they were serious. The liberal activists thought they were alarmingly serious. I can tell you from my reporting that White House officials took them seriously."

Business Week reported on this as well--"http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-07/social-security-cuts-with-new-inflation-gauge-on-debt-table.html

There were dozens and dozens of articles about this. It's not a big secret.

[patrice]

5. "The Left" is an old, bald, reactionary boomer? Or someone else who votes FOR conditions in which

it is more possible to functionally advance a wider deeper Liberal agenda than would be possible under Republicans.