Obama says NO to raising age on Social Security!

[OregonBlue]

Finally Obama has put a line in the sand on Social Security. He will NOT endorse his deficit commission's plan of raising the retirement age on Social Security.

President Obama has decided not to endorse his deficit commission's recommendation to raise the retirement age, and otherwise reduce Social Security benefits, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, cheering liberals and drawing a stark line between the White House and key Republicans in Congress.

Obama spoke to Democratic lawmakers over the weekend on his plans to NOT endorse the recommendations of his deficit commission on Social Security. Democratic lawmakers are jubilant and plan to do a news conference to showcase that Democrats are the protectors of Social Security and Republicans want to gut the program.

Democratic lawmakers, nonetheless, quickly moved to capitalize on the president's decision, scheduling an afternoon news conference to call attention to the man Republicans have chosen to deliver the GOP response to Obama's speech: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), chairman of the House Budget Committee.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/24/938535/-Breaking:-Obama-says-NO-to-raising-age-on-Social-Security!

[gateley]

1. Good. Keep saying no. nt

[rko_24550]

182. +1

[jtown1123]

189. This is highly MISLEADING. He won't discuss in SOTU. NOT, he won't look at it period

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012403472.html?hpid=topnews

If you read the original WaPo article, all it says is that he won't make any SS suggestions in his speech. At the end of the article it clearly states, "everything is still on the table."

[truedelphi]

210. Many here do not wanna know the truth.

I look to his appointments and who he has on his commissions, to know what will happen on any given matter.

He rules through appointments and commissions. And those he stacks with Big Industry, and Pro Uber Wealthy people.

Enough said.

[aggiesal]

206. Now, how about lowering the age? ...

This would allow workers to retire earlier, and open up jobs
for the unemployed.

[OHdem10]

2. Thank you, Mr President.!!!!!!!

[still_one]

3. That is good to hear. Why doesn't anyone just say raise the CAP? /nt

[TheWraith]

7. He has, several times.

But telling the truth about what the President proposes and what he can actually enact isn't very popular in the blogosphere.

[Statistical]

8. The commission recommended raising the cap. n/t

[leveymg]

75. Raising the age was just one of many recommendations. We haven't heard from Obama about the others.

What the report advocates is a mixed-bag of grab-backs from traditional middle class tax breaks and benefits. We don't know yet what other parts of this Obama may endorse. Here's more on the specifics we do not yet know: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1210/120110nj1.htm

Still, the basic concept of the plan's attack on the deficit remains the same. It begins with a modest increase in the overall tax burden, softened by a broad tax reform that knocks out most tax breaks and reduces tax rates at every level. It then calls for an increase in the retirement age for Social Security -- which would save tens of billions of dollars over the next decade alone -- and more changes aimed at slowing the growth in health care costs.

The commission goes further than the president's stated goal of reducing the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product, instead whittling it down to 2.3 percent of GDP by 2015. It caps revenue and spending, meanwhile, at 21 percent of GDP each.

The plan recommends the immediate implementation of fundamental tax reform and the elimination of nearly all of the 150-plus tax expenditures, with a few exceptions: the earned income tax credit, the child credit, mortgage interest deductions (but only for primary homes), employer-provided health insurance credits, retirement savings and pensions credits, and charitable giving deductions. Itemized deductions would be eliminated, and capital gains and dividends would be taxed at ordinary rates.

The plan cuts tax rates across the board, reducing the top rate to between 23 percent and 29 percent. Originally, the co-chairs recommended establishing three rates -- 15 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent. Their proposal to implement a 15 cent-per-gallon fuel tax hike within the next five years remains unchanged.

The corporate tax rate would be streamlined, with the rate necessarily falling between 23 percent and 29 percent, down from the current top rate of 35 percent. The plan suggests a 28 percent rate in its illustrative proposal, a 2-point increase over the chairmen's mark proposal. Meanwhile, a territorial system would be established for foreign-owned companies with U.S. subsidiaries, allowing them to keep foreign profits. All tax deductions and expenditures for businesses would be eliminated.

The plan calls for discretionary spending to return to pre-crisis 2008 levels in 2013, while freezing spending in 2012 at 2011 levels and constraining spending growth to half the rate of inflation through 2020. It would cut non-war defense spending at the same rate as non-defense spending, while war spending would fall under the responsibility of the president, who would be required to propose annual limits.

The plan adds details on how to reduce federal health care spending, which were noticeably absent in the initial Simpson-Bowles proposal. They include changing how Medicare pays doctors, scrapping a long-term care insurance plan created by President Obama's signature health care bill, overhauling medical malpractice litigation, and chipping away at Medicare and Medicaid costs through a variety of measures.

But the final proposal still lacks specifics on how to control upward-spiraling health care cost increases throughout the economy - the biggest driver of long-term budget deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The commission's boldest attempt to control those costs is by eliminating the tax exemption for employer-paid health benefits, which many economists say would help reduce costs by forcing individuals to shoulder more of the burden of their health-care choices.

The retirement age would be raised to 69 from 65 in order to rein in Social Security spending to ensure the program's solvency.

More generally, the plan proposes budget process reforms to encourage accountability in the budgeting process.

[EFerrari]

78. Obama didn't say what the OP claims he said, per the WaHo article

that the Kos diarist used.

[leveymg]

80. That's correct. The WaPo actually says he won't be ruling out the Comm. suggestions:

Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources.

Opens the door to more back-door dealmaking between the White House and GOP leaders. He wouldn't do anything like THAT, would he?

[still_one]

164. and if he does he will pay consequences for it in 2012 /nt

[leveymg]

178. The corporate media will reward Obama handsomely, as they are for the tax deal.

Sure, he'll lose a major part of the base and split the Party, but that may also be part of the package.

[Trey9007]

10. I have heard Obama say this plenty of times...

If you listen to his speeches, you will see he says SS is the easy thing to fix. He says raising the cap is the quick easy way, to fix SS.

[howaboutme]

16. Absolutely it should be raised and expanded

Social security has been used as a huge contributor to the general fund for years.

We used it to wage war, cut taxes, provide corporate pork, etc. All of this funding was provided on the backs of working Americans and payroll tax surpluses. The richest people in the USA benefited and they paid no social security tax because their income came from the casino of Wall St either as capital gains, dividends, hedge fund carry interest, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Carried_interest etc. Yet the very rich benefited.

The cap should raised and there should be a tax on non-earned income over say $1 million.

[TBF]

76. Absolutely - a very easy fix. nt

[UrbScotty]

163. I have a better idea: Get rid of the cap altogether.

[grahamhgreen]

187. It's time the Dems pushed for this.

[xchrom]

4. one down -- let's see what happens to the rest.

wonder if he saw the ad re: lindsey graham?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. That is a big relief!

Finally.

This was definitely going to be a deal-breaker...

*whew*

Recommended.

[Poboy]

6. Watch your back folks. This move is made so that we let our guard down.

This is his game and the way he operates. I don't believe a fucking word he says.

[Robb]

So he's playing chess *now*?

:D

[Poboy]

13. haha...touche'. What I do know though is that I will wait for the results

and ignore the pretty talk and promises.

[Robb]

19. Good enough. I'm going to wait for the results as well

...similarly ignoring the baleful talk.

Between the two of us there will be precious little to read. :D

[Godhumor]

11. Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm tag n/t

[uppityperson]

12. well,isn't that special. You "don't believe a fucking word he says." Bless your little heart

[hfojvt]

37. why should that be special?

Didn't Obama also say he was gonna end the tax cuts for the wealthy, and close Guantanmo, and veto any Health Care Reform bill that did not include a public option? The man has a bit of a track record.

[uppityperson]

43. You don't see the difference between "don't believe a fucking word he says"

and not doing everything he wanted to? Dichotomous thinking like that makes someone special imo.

[hfojvt]

85. I do see a difference between not doing everything he wanted to

and not even trying to do the things he said he was gonna do, and then lying about his comprosurrender. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138

[uppityperson]

89. me too. eom

[uppityperson]

93. FYI "How Congress helped thwart Obama's plan to close Guantanamo "

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/22/107255/how-congress-helped-thwart-obamas.html#
January 22, 2011

(clip)
Closing the Guantanamo detention center had been a key promise of the Obama presidential campaign, and the new President Barack Obama moved quickly to fulfill it.

Just two days after taking the oath of office, on Jan. 22, 2009, Obama signed an executive order instructing the military to close Guantanamo within a year. European countries were effusive in their praise.

But as the second anniversary of that order passed Saturday, the prison camps remain open, and the prospects of their closure appear dim. Prosecutors are poised to ramp up the military trials that Obama once condemned, and the new Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon of California, last week said the U.S. should grow the population to perhaps 800 from the current 173.

Many factors worked to thwart Obama's plans to close the camps — from a tangled bureaucracy to fears that released detainees would become terrorists. But Congress' prohibition on resettling any of the detainees in the United States hamstrung the administration's global search for countries willing to take the captives in....(more)

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. It's the reduction of the payroll tax that will hit Soc. Sec. funding hard and fast.

[Red Knight]

52. Exactly!

If you are protecting the program why on earth would you cut funding?

I'm sorry--he also promised a "public option".

[Enthusiast]

82. Obama might be 'forced'

to compromise with Republicans on social security. You know, like he was forced to compromise on extending the tax cuts for millionaires.

[Enthusiast]

84. The purpose was so they could

win the argument to justify cuts to social security. Mostly they want it privatized. Of course you know that.

[TheWraith]

143. Uh, no. There is no reduction of Social Security funding, period.

The temporary one-year 2 percent decrease is being funded out of the general treasury, instead.

[decidedlyso]

172. I'll believe that when I see it.

[lark]

185. Exactly!

Can you imagine this ultra right wing conservative congress voting to increase a tax? Temporary, my ass!

Obama is giving mixed signals on this, but if he wants to permanently doom the Democratic party, he will "go along" with the Repugs and let ss be cut in some form or another. If, once again, his words are meaningless and he once again acts like a Repug stooge, he has lost my votes, my time and my money forever and I would spend all of those to support a real Dem and not a fake.

[decidedlyso]

186. We can look forward to the Ides of March for the capitulation, where

the Repubs refuse to increase the debt limit unless certain expenses, including entitlements, are somehow cut or relieved. Then Obama will be in checkmate. And he'll turn over his king. And who will the voters blame in 2012? That is the question. And that question has many elements. I have a pretty good idea what will happen. As I imagine you do too.

[Matt Shapiro]

213. And we can no longer say that Social Security has no effect on the deficit.

For decades, the Republicans have wanted to reduce the payroll tax and make it up from the general treasury. They needed a way to counter the argument that Social Security is completely independent in its funding and has no effect on the deficit. Because of the Obama compromise, their dream has come true. Social Security, for as long as this payroll tax holiday lasts (forever?) is adding to the deficit because the general treasury is funding it. It is no longer independent. Just another "entitlement" program that needs to be reigned in for the "common good."

I fear that President Obama is continuing to do the same thing with regard to Social Security that he has done since he was no longer a candidate - say very little that is specific other than that all we need are few minor adjustments, not saying what those adjustments are. Without knowing the devastating effect of increasing the retirement age, some people may think this is a "small adjustment" justified by changing life expectancies (which vary greatly by class and race and do not speak to the physical ability to continue to work full time). It is a very large change, as are the proposed changes to the COLA and to the benefit formula. Obama may not speak directly for these proposals tonight, but neither will he speak directly against them. He will leave himself open to being "forced" to compromise (again) in order to meet some other vague societal goal.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope Barack Obama uses his soaring oratory to draw the line in the sand and clearly state that he will use every power at his disposal, including the veto if necessary, to prevent any benefit cuts to Social Security, regardless of the form (benefit formula changes, COLA changes, retirement age increases, etc.). Same for Medicare and Medicaid.

The country needs him to lead on this, not to sit back and pretend that he is being forced to compromise. And the Democratic Party is doomed unless he leads on this and prevents any benefit cuts.

We'll see what he actually says in tonight's State of the Union Address.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

28. The OP has a misleading subject line. Obama has not said "no" to anything. n/t

[dionysus]

31. ROFL, this comment could have come straight outta FR...

:spray:

[EFerrari]

72. It's a good response to spin.

:)

[cliffordu]

60. lol

[Arkana]

95. Ahahahahahaha.

Let me guess--the whole government's run by the Illuminati, right? And aliens killed JFK?

[EFerrari]

100. You didn't read the WaHo article either, did you?

[bluestateguy]

101. Oye vay

I need an aspirin.

[Deep13]

171. I will become Janus.

[phleshdef]

177. Funny, I don't believe a fucking word you say.

[Blue-Jay]

218. Oh brother.

[RKP5637]

9. This is good news. We need something like this the citizens can depend on ... n/t

[bobbolink]

42. And dare we trust that OTHER cuts won't take the place of raising the age?

Like continuing to bypass the COLA, which didn't get a response of outrage, or cutting the invisible people on disability, or other horrendous acts?

Dare we?

My trust is a bit tattered around the edges.....

[RKP5637]

54. Yep, one problem is we can't see between the lines yet. n/t

[defendandprotect]

15. Let's see if that lasts longer than 15 minutes ... otherwise, GOOD!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Godhumor]

26. He has never, not once, acted like a typical freeper

Not even remotely.

This is a response to the invented from whole cloth (i.e. outright fabrication) belief that Obama was going to personally say that we need to cut SS in his speech.

[udbcrzy2]

18. Wish he would of said he wasn't going to mess with it at all n/t

[JoePhilly]

21. So you don't want him to raise the cap?

[udbcrzy2]

90. Yes, that's I thought I just said

I really wish he would lower it. Right now I will have to be 67-1/2. So I don't want it to go higher than that and wish it was instead 65 for me.
So, how about you? Do you want him to raise the cap???

[JoePhilly]

165. The "cap" is not the age, its the amount of income at which one

stops paying social security taxes. The "cap" is currently about $106,000. All income above that is not taxed for Social Security.

If you raise the cap, you increase the money available foe Social Security benefits.

Either way, raise the cap, lower the age ... you've "touched" social security.

[bobburgster]

181. The cap should be eliminated! n/t

[EFerrari]

20. The WaHo article says he won't endorse the cat food commission's recommendation.

It also says he's not likely to take anything off the table.

"Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources. It also says he likely won't take anything off the table."

Does that sound like a "no" to you?

[Robb]

22. Wait. You're impugning the source ("WaHo") you're using to make your point?

So should we believe "WaHo" on this or not? :D

[EFerrari]

24. I read the article, Robb. Did you?

:)

[Arkana]

96. Politispeak.

"Nothing off the table" basically means "I'll let the other guys in the room, if I feel like it."

[eilen]

106. All it says is that he will not reveal what he is willing to capitulate to at this time. nt

[jtown1123]

195. Apparently, nobody read this part of the Article:

Administration officials cautioned that Obama is not necessarily taking benefit cuts off the table. They said his vision for deficit reduction will become clearer with the release of his 2012 budget request in mid-February and in the months beyond, as both parties test the limits for compromise.

[MilesColtrane]

25. Time to move on to the next secret plan he has that proves he's a Republican.

Repeal of DADT, now not raising the retirement age...

I heard that he plans on installing Newt Gingrich as VP, then voluntarily leaving the Oval Office.

[mzmolly]

29. Or, fall back on the "mandate"

scandal.

[mzmolly]

27. Gosh, all that "progressive" hand-wringing for nothing?

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

30. Did you read the WaHo article used in the Kos post?

[mzmolly]

32. "Obama spoke to Democratic lawmakers over the weekend on his plans to NOT endorse the...

...recommendations of his deficit commission on Social Security."

Yep. You?

[EFerrari]

35. He won't endorse OR take it off the table:

"Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources. It also says he likely won't take anything off the table."

eta bold

[mzmolly]

41. What's interesting to me is that the specuation surrounding this issue has never been anything BUT.

Yet when some of us point that out, we're told to read more carefully? How about those who are pissing and moaning based upon negative assumptions point to something of substance, first? And, I'm not talking about recommendations by a committee (which are routinely dismissed) I'm talking about a formal proposal by the President.

This is positive news. You're free to disagree E.

[EFerrari]

45. It not' positive news. It's not news at all.

The OP took half of what he said and highlighted that, as the Kos article did.

I'm not trying to be horrible but, there is no news here. And believe me, unemployed and 55, I have to read carefully.

[mzmolly]

47. Much like the "non" news about Obama raising the SS age.

Which non-news story, came first?

[EFerrari]

49. Well, I agree with that. He hasn't committed to that, either. n/t

[mzmolly]

53. Thanks.

I'm glad we agree on this.

Peace :hi:

[EFerrari]

58. I'm sorry if I'm brittle around this.

It's not certain or even likely that I'll get a fulltime job again and having Social Security batted around like this is a liitle nerve wracking. Sorry!

[mzmolly]

62. I understand. What troubles me so much is the seeming desire to believe the worst

about someone who has clearly demonstrated his progressive values from the time he left college. I don't get it.

Oh well.

[EFerrari]

67. There's no need to believe anything in this instance.

The WaHo article says very clearly that he isn't taking a position.

[mzmolly]

110. There never was a need to believe anything on this

matter.

[EFerrari]

119. The OP's subject line is misleading. Obama has not rejected raising retirement age.

[mzmolly]

121. Were those who suggested for months that he supported raising the SS age

held to this same standard?

[EFerrari]

126. The OP's subject line is misleading. Obama has not said "no" to raisng retirement age.

[mzmolly]

129. "Obama won't endorse raising retirement age or reducing Social Security benefits"

I'm taking that as him saying "no" to all the contrary speculation, sorry.

[EFerrari]

151. Well, that's wrong. His people say nothing is off the table.

[mzmolly]

156. So we need to see the exact words "off the table" to assume X is not on the table?

C'mon.

[EFerrari]

212. They said nothing is off the table. Pretty clear.

:)

[mzmolly]

214. After not putting anything on the table

yes.

[hfojvt]

63. it's positive speculation

which is now some sort of proof.

I might point out that the people who speculated negatively, like about the Bush tax cuts, and the public option, were later proven correct.

The negative speculation serves a purpose. You might notice how quickly the Bush tax cut "comprosurrender" went through once Obama proposed it. Once he raised the white flag, it was already too late to fight. So it's kind of important to get people stirred up and motivated before that happens.

It's telling that he has yet to denounce the Commission report. Very telling.

[mzmolly]

111. Sorry if speculating on the speculation

isn't proof, while the initial speculation is ... my bad!

[bobbolink]

64. Could that possibly be because some of us have a HUGE stake in the outcome, unlike others of you?

Could it be that when trust has been shaken, mistrust enters the picture?

Yes, I know you are quite adamant about this... maybe a bit of putting yourself in the shoes of others would help.

[mzmolly]

112. What have you personally lost?

Tell me that.

I've put myself in the shoes of others. Namely the families of those with pre-existing conditions. Whose shoes are you in right now?

[bobbolink]

124. You know, I could make myself vulnerable and actually give a list, but...

the tone of your "request" isn't exactly friendly.

I am so sorry that this last election has caused so much division, and such a lack of real compassion for those of us who have taken the hind most.

So, go ahead and offer a harsh retort. We are getting quite used to it.

Which is why we are retreating and protecting ourselves.

Which also doesn't bode well for what you want the most... namely, VOTES.

Try, please, to consider that some you are berating really are hurting. Just try. Please.

[mzmolly]

130. You mean "friendly" like your continued assertions that my motives

are self centered? Either discuss the issues or don't. But stop relying on your "woe is me" line when you are losing the debate.

[bobbolink]

141. "woe is me"... how did Democrats get this hard and uncaring?

Hey, lady.... come trade places with me and live in your car for a bit and then talk to me.

Because I promise you.... I will treat you a lot better than you are treating others.

You see, some of us still have hearts and souls.

I really pity you... I have lost so much, but I still have a heart, and I still have a soul.

Bye... I made a mistake replying to you at all. I won't repeat that mistake. Welcome to my ignnore list.

[mzmolly]

142. "Hey lady," quit assuming

you know anything about where or how I've lived. And stop assuming that you're the only person here who has ever known poverty.

As I've said, debate the issues not not, but it's cowardly to pull out the victim card when you're losing the battle.

[Little Star]

66. Which is it???? I hate double speak......

Give-ith with one hand----"unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations"
Take-ith away with the other---"he likely won't take anything off the table"

[EFerrari]

68. It's a wash per the WaHo article, not a "no". n/t

[whathehell]

168. It seems like he's just saying "I won't say yes, I won't say no"

Not much "news", good or bad, in that.:shrug:

[mzmolly]

215. Seems like he's saying I don't support the commission recommendations

on Social Security.

[whathehell]

217. Seems like he said "nothing is off the table". n/t

[mzmolly]

219. Seems like you're beating a dead

table.

[whathehell]

221. Back at ya...

[madfloridian]

36. I did a lot of hand-wringing. He got a lot of mail and calls..

It took this long for him to say a single word.

I will continue to be a "progressive" hand-wringer. Always.

[mzmolly]

46. Yes

you did.

To the other matter, I don't expect the President to continually comment on unfounded speculation.

[eilen]

107. Perhaps he should comment on a Senator's direct question. nt

[mzmolly]

113. Perhaps he should wait until the state of the union

to clarify his intentions?

[bluestate10]

105. Hand wringing strengthens the hands.

And makes forming circles and singing Kumbaya easier. Meanwhile the world moves on.

[mzmolly]

118. Unnecessary handwringing makes for sweaty palms

and wasted energy.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

33. Sweet!

:thumbsup:

[ipaint]

34. Sounds like a negotiable position.

From the post article

"Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources."

The last negotiable position resulted in a raise in taxes on the working poor. Not counting my chickens yet. With a country and a government brimming with unpunished criminal banksters any room for negotiation is unacceptable.

[EFerrari]

38. Read the rest of the paragraph from where you snipped it. n/t

[ipaint]

44. I don't see that particular final sentence in the washington post article.

where am I missing it.

[EFerrari]

48. This is the paragraph:

"Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources. It also says he likely won't take anything off the table."

Obama has not committed to anything.

[mzmolly]

51. More importantly, Obama hasn't committed to raising the age of SS. He hasn't even

mildly endorsed it.

[EFerrari]

71. The OP said he said no. That didn't happen.

If or when he does, I'll fight to be the first one to give him credit for that.

[mzmolly]

116. Speaking to lawmakers and clarifying he does NOT endorse the recommendations

in question, can be taken as a no.

[EFerrari]

117. He does not endorse the recommendations and he does not reject them either.

That's not a "no", mzmolly.

[mzmolly]

120. That's an interesting new standard.

The President doesn't say he supports something, but lets beat him over the head with the issue for months, regardless. And, when he clarifies by saying "I don't support that" - we'll pretend it's meaningless?

:crazy:

[EFerrari]

125. No, it's not. The OP claims he took a position and he did not. n/t

[mzmolly]

127. He took a postion not to endorse the recommendations of his

own commission. Sanders agreed when he put out his statement supporting the President's position. If we can speculate for months that Obama supports cutting SS, then surely we can speak about him saying he's not supportive of the cuts in question.

[EFerrari]

128. Nope. He isn't endorsing and he's not taking their recommendations off the table.

It's right there in the WaPo article.

You don't have to speculate about anything.

[mzmolly]

131. One can't take something off the table if it was never on the table

to begin with. There is no quote from the President from the article in which HE says "I'm not ruling out an increase in the age of SS" is there? There is a notation about not ruling "anything" out which doesn't specifically refer to jack.

Good gawd. Now it seems we're not only demanding clarification, but clarification using specific language?

[EFerrari]

134. Have you read the OP?

[mzmolly]

137. Yes. We've been over this question. Have you read the numerous reports

suggesting the President was going to increase the age of SS because he surely supports the "cat food commission" report?

I'm done bantering with you E.

Have a nice night. :hi:

[EFerrari]

150. Obama has not rejected the Cat Food Commission's recomendations

as the source material for this OP shows.

[mzmolly]

155. Yes he has. If we're going by the WAPO article,

that is.

[jtown1123]

205. The WaPo article says he has not taken their proposals off the table

What you are referring to is that he won't endorse their recommendations in his speech.

[mzmolly]

216. When were they on the friggen table?

Sheesh people, get over the table analogies.

[jtown1123]

197. He's a politician. He's not stupid. Announcing a very unpopular measure

would be death to reelection. We should have a much better idea when he releases his budget in February. Steny Hoyer, Dick Durbin and other Dems have supported raising the retirement age and I am pretty sure Durbin is a lot more liberal than our President. We'll know where he stands soon enough. Doesn't hurt to remind him of this campaign promises on SS though.

[mzmolly]

220. Death politically, would be imposing an unpopular measure. Especially when the poster boy for the

other side (Ryan) has taken a ridiculously unpopular stance.

[ipaint]

59. I understand he didn't commit to anything and much like the public option or his deals with

tauzin this is not a line in the sand.

I just have the washington post open online and that particular bolded last line is not in the paragraph I quoted. Strange.

[EFerrari]

65. That is strange. n/t

[Better Believe It]

39. And President Obama also told lawmakers that he was strongly for the public option. Remember that?

And will President Obama make it clear in his State of the Union address that he will oppose raising the retirement age for early and full Social Security benefits, changing the COLA formula, means testing and that he will not sign any legislation that includes those or any other proposed cuts?

We'll know tomorrow.

We've learned from past experience that what President Obama says to lawmakers on one day won't necessarily stick the next.

[mzmolly]

122. And we needed 60 votes in the senate for the public option,

remember that? And Obama's not king, remember that? What Obama wants and what he can get through the house/senate are two different things. With SS he has more power however, because he can veto.

[Jackpine Radical]

40. I hope, I mean REALLY hope

that this is as good as it sounds.

An awful, paranoid thought I had was that raising the age is only one of the ways that could be used to screw SS recipients. How about a cut in payment rates, either for current recipients or scheduled for a few years down the road?

[EFerrari]

55. The Washington Post article doesn't say he's rejected raising the age.

They say he won't endorse and they say he won't take anything off the table.

And now, I'm going to annoy somewhere else.

[bobbolink]

69. Exactly. Purging people from disability, because we are INVISIBLE and don't raise any waves, could

be an example of what you are talking about.

Go for the cuts with the least potential for outrage... and that means those who are most vulnerable.

[Better Believe It]

50. So President Obama isn't ruling out Social Security cuts or raising the retirement age.

Wonderful.

You left this part of the article out:

"Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources."

A deal will be cut behind the scenes with Republicans. That's what it's setting up for.

[mzmolly]

56. He's not ruling out lowering the age of retirement either.

What's your point?

[Better Believe It]

91. Obama's also not ruling out doubling social security payments. So what's your point?

Once proposal he will sign if passed by Congress (increasing the age to collect early or full retirement benefits) and the other proposal to lower the retirement age won't be signed by Obama because it isn't a proposal at all!

If you think it is, list the Senate/House bills that want to lower the retirement age and provide links please.

[mzmolly]

115. You have my point. He's not done anything worthy of your blind

criticism.

[dionysus]

57. bless your heart

[EFerrari]

61. 32 recs in for a noncommittal.

I like good news as much as anyone but this ain't it.

[BzaDem]

74. When people go on and on about how Obama is going to ENDORSE such cuts during the SOTU,

his decidedly not endorsing such cuts is news (at least to them). Obama "not taking a position" is VERY different than what all the worrying was over.

[blindpig]

86. Doesn't matter if he 'endorses',

if he acquiesces in the name of 'bipartisanship' or 'getting things done' the net effect is the same. Given the record so far the smart money says he will.

More dog & pony show.

[EFerrari]

88. The Waho article says he won't endorse OR take it off the table.

That's pretty clear: he's taking no position.

[EFerrari]

87. 44 recs and people aren't reading the WaHo article that the Kos diary is based on.

Oh, well.

[woo me with science]

191. +1 for a necessary reality check. nt

[blindpig]

81. The pattern is there

The disingenuousness of this administration is monumental.

In this way opposition to diluting Social Security will be stymied until it's a done deal.

[Catherina]

136. Thanks for pointing that out. For a minute there, I wanted to believe the OP's wording. n/t

[decidedlyso]

174. That's the way I see it, too. Can they do that without a public

vote? If they do this, you will have people rioting in the streets. I among them. This will be another secret deal like the one in February, 2009, the one made with the healthcare and pharmacy creeps.

[shimmergal]

207. This does have the potential

to spark a revolution, if we could frame it right.

Don't just start people thinking about whether they can wait another two years to collect full benefits. (Most ss beneficiaries already start drawing them earlier, in spite of it permanently cutting their benefits quite a bit.)

Also ask, Will you be able to support your aging parents if the social security system is destroyed? Do you want to see your children or grandchildren have to work till they drop dead of old age? -- (Those are the people who'll really pay if the changes kick in "after another forty years.") Or do we establish affirmative action hiring laws for 60-plus people, since otherwise they'll never be the ones hired? (If this were enforced, it'd be damn near impossible for young people to get a timely start on their careers.)

And what's wrong with our economic system, anyway, if we can't manage to get the full employment and expanding economy that would make funding social security no problem at all? If we can't, maybe we ought to try another system.

Alas, I don't expect Democrats to make these arguments. Not even the first, which is more than reasonable and would really hit home. We're too "civil"? And why aren't people picketing Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, for trying to meddle with Social Security anyway, when it wasn't part of their commission's charge. Simpson said he's really looking forward to the debate. Well, let's give him something to "enjoy"!

[decidedlyso]

211. Great post, shimmergal. I agree with everything you said. I hope

to talk to you a few more times before I get booted.

[Laelth]

70. Inaccurate thread headline. n/t

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

73. The cuts are "not off the table." Why is that?

From the WP link.

"Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources."

[mzmolly]

133. Because he's going to allow Ryan and others to draw a contrast

with Democrats, that's why.

[madfloridian]

77. Hoyer willing to "adjust" SS for present retirees. Take it OFF the table.

Don't just say you won't endorse the cuts.

Just simply take it off the table. Then shut Hoyer up.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/steny_hoyers_adjustments_warni.php

"Should seniors on Medicare and those about to join the program be worried about benefit cuts? That was an issue in the midterm elections, when the GOP positioned itself as champions for the senior set, and painted Democrats as the bad guys. Last week Politico’s Brett Coughlin broke news when he asked House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer whether Democrats could be counted on to protect Medicare benefits and control premium increases. Said Hoyer:

“It is our belief that you can—as was done in 1983 on Social Security—and as we are committed to doing, we can adjust Medicare provisions, and we can adjustment those in the future, and perhaps we can make some adjustments for present recipients.”

Adjustments? How’s that for euphemistic code speak? What adjustments did a top Dem have in mind? Was he signaling benefit cuts for the “present recipients,” or not? If so, then current beneficiaries need to take note and think about how they will pay for their medical care should Congress go along with any cuts. The press has to tell them, though. The MSM apparently hasn’t yet realized that perhaps Medicare isn’t as sacred as the Dems made it out to be on the campaign trail. Hoyer amplified his thinking for Politico:

“We want to make sure that the benefits that are available to recipients, which they need are protected, so within that context, just as we did with Social Security in 1983, we need to address Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, to ensure their continued availability and sustainability over the long term.”

[EFerrari]

79. OregonBlue, Obama did not say "No" to anything.

You might want to edit your subject line.

[Arkana]

97. Seems to me he said no to the deficit commission's recommendations.

Maybe YOU ought to read more closely.

[EFerrari]

98. Nope. The WaHo article says he won't endorse or take them off the table.

ETA: And 49 recs for highlighting only half of the message.

[ProSense]

161. He never said they were on the table in the first place so

nothing has changed. The rumors that he was going to announce cuts to Social Security were wrong, and the OP confirms that they were wrong.

It's irrelevant that he isn't going to be specific.

Want something to be concerned about, here:

Bernie Sanders just said that he's going to force a vote on Paul Ryan's plan.

Sanders' argument is that the debate needs to happen to put an end to the nonsense.

[jtown1123]

198. Why don't you hear what a WH official said about the fiscal commission?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41256284#41256284

[EFerrari]

152. OregonBlue?

[Scurrilous]

83. K & R

:thumbsup:

[MoonRiver]

92. Yes!

:headbang: Now just keep your promise!

[Jakes Progress]

94. Not what the WP story said.

It said he won't endorse the commission or call for raising the age in the SOTU speech.

It didn't say that he categorically refused to allow it. I am encouraged by the announcement, but I remember that we were told that he would sign no health care bill that didn't include a public option also. All this really says is that there will be no public support for the commission in the SOTU message.

[fishwax]

99. k/r

:kick:

[ProSense]

102. Senator Sanders: "I applaud the president for standing up for Social Security."

Senator Sanders: "I applaud the president for standing up for Social Security."

[dionysus]

109. have you ever wondered how your post right there will be glossed over in lieu of more rage?

[EFerrari]

114. Glossed over? What about quietly ignored because the Wrong is so embarrassing?

[dionysus]

169. you seem to think you can make up your own facts.

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

123. He's clearly deluded.

:sarcasm:

[bigwillq]

103. Cool.

Thank you.
:thumbsup:

[LiberalAndProud]

104. President Obama, stand and do not falter.

There is no way that a Congress opposing this right and moral stance will come out in a good light, politically speaking. Stand strong, please.

[eilen]

108. I would much prefer to read this headline: "President Obama pledges to protect Social Security

from any cuts. He promises to veto any bill that threatens the historic popular public pension and disability program that provides support for over 40 million Americans."

That is what democrats and progressives depend on a Democratic President to do. It is the litmus test.

[mzmolly]

140. He needn't say these words until Republicans show their hand.

Best to wait until we have a clear contrast, to give a firm rebuttal.

[Cerridwen]

132. "Your lips may say no-no, but your eyes say yes-yes."

"Your lips may say no-no, but your eyes say yes-yes."

[EFerrari]

135. 60 votes for a misleading headline.

That's depressing.

[Cerridwen]

139. "Depressing"...and typical.

I fight and examine my prejudices every damned moment. Others...don't.

I'm a product of the "American" value system and I question it constantly. I'm a "throw-back" to the days in which we saw people as people rather than a demographic. It's why I left politics. Our systems are rigged; our values are unquestioned; and our prejudices are validated.

We are not "sheep." Sheep are born this way. "We" are willfully ignorant and in search of those "ideals" that allows us comfort in our ignorance.

It is painful and "hard werk" to be to the left of nixon; and many are just fine with that; just fine, indeed.

[mzmolly]

145. 114 recommendations for this crap, yet we're depressed when the President says he doesn't

support the cat food commission, recommendations? PIFF!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=261750&mesg_id=261750

[Cerridwen]

146. Shhhhhh!. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Really.

Seriously.

Honest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnjaUoR15dU

[mzmolly]

147. I'm sure your post has great meaning

to someone.

[Cerridwen]

148. Awwwwww. You don't get my use of "popular culture"?

Specific to a certain generation and age?

Doesn't that just suck?

Maybe the "Wizard of OZ" is better?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

Thank you, very much, mzmolly.

You have proven my point.

There are some references that are "universal" and others that are specific to a "generation."

Probably why we so often look back into history.

Just a thought.

No snark meant.

[mzmolly]

153. I'm not sure if you're insinuating that Obama is akin to Bush

but I assume so? We needn't look back very far to find that analogy. It applied to the resident. It doesn't apply to the President.

BTW, I'm of the Star Wars generation, I just don't find it particularly fascinating.

[Cerridwen]

184. Good heavens, no!

The only thing similar about the two of them is that they're human; and that is questionable as far as shrub is concerned. I think he's lacking a few human characteristics; empathy, conscience, a "soul;" for lack of a better word.

President Obama has done, can do, and will do more than p(r)esident shrub ever could.

As to the Star Wars thingy, meh, I like Sci-Fi; grew up on it. Star Wars helped bring Sci-Fi out of the B-movie category.

[decidedlyso]

176. Ha Ha Perfecto.

[EFerrari]

149. A half truth and frankly, it's appalling to see you promoting it.

[mzmolly]

154. Is calling something crap

promoting it now? I guess that explains the logic of previous assertions.

[Obamanaut]

138. The thing about lines in the sand is they are SO easy to obliterate. nt

[lonestarnot]

144. So why would he want to bother with that anyway. Taxes being paid into SS have been slashed and

the rich don't have to pay their taxes. They've already fucked SS. Who cares how old anybody gets or doesn't get to be.

[Canuckistanian]

157. Obama says NO to tax cuts for the rich

Obama says NO to keeping Guantanamo open. Obama says NO to prosecuting war crimes. Obama says NO to the war in Iraq.

Yeah, yeah. Heard it before.

[decidedlyso]

175. Right. Some here just don't get it.

[WinkyDink]

158. Another thread says the SOTU speech's language will be much more nuanced.

[TheKentuckian]

159. Yay...a non-commitment to any course of action!

[DeSwiss]

160. Rah-fucking-rah.

So. Now we're supposed to give a rousing huzzah to Obama for saying he very likely won't giveaway the shit we had already won??? Correction: That FDR (not his hero Ronald Reagan mind you), had already won???

Even though it is all based upon the bullshit arguments coming from the boneheaded has-beens on Catfood Commission that was full of Repuke/DLC Party members (same thing) that he himself appointed???

- WTF!?!?!

[PBS Poll-435]

162. More Morsels for Morris

Told ya'll so.

[crim son]

166. This week. n/t

[SHRED]

167. You mean he was even considering the alternative??

[Deep13]

170. Thank Christ, Allah, Vishnu, Apollo, Ahura Mazda, random chance or common sense for that!

:fistbump:

[bonnieS]

173. I think I was at least

the millionth caller to the White House about this, from the exhausted attitude of the volunteer.

I and a million others should not have had to call a Democratic President to get this result. This is their signature issue, and we had to work overtime to get him to commit to it. He should not have allowed so much anxiety and fear to build up while he said nothing.

I don't have much confidence that this is the last word on this, and that the sudden return to his original candidate's position is not just for the next election.

[Orsino]

179. Not even bothering to promise a veto?

I'd like to believe that the difference between the two major parties is more than a disagreement over how rapidly we should be sold into corporate bondage, but on some days it's difficult.

I'd like a pleasant surprise tonight, but am not going to bother watching. The White House has been too full of Wall Streeters these days for them not to come for our SS...eventually. Rich men hate seeing large piles of money that they don't own. The thought aches and galls them, and prevents their being happy with their limousines and yachts. They are not of ss.

But let me hope that it won't be this Administration? Not yet, at least?

[bobburgster]

180. Damn! Didn't make it too far down the responses before ....

the naysayers started ripping Obama again.

I, for one, am very pleased to hear him back off SS changes that will hurt those who need it the most.

[jtown1123]

202. If you read the article, all it says is that it won't be discussed in SOTU

The fiscal commission proposals are still on the the table. Sorry.

[florida08]

183. ok..read between the lines here

Obama is doing what he always does. Trying to force bipartisanship. Trying to stay out of the middle. He sees himself as the negotiator in chief. He is not going to cheapen SS just because the republicans want it, and they would wet their pants if a democratic president cut SS.

From the Wapo article

Until Republicans signal a willingness to work with Democrats to raise taxes as well as cut spending, the lawmakers said, it would be a mistake for Obama to endorse painful policies that could become the target of political attack.

SO..if they work to raise taxes then he might look at SS. It's political jockeying so he can appear to be neutral to the public. Allow them to be seen as adversaries to seniors. Obama tries not to be a hardliner. Unlike Bush who was 'the decider'. I don't always agree with it but since his polls seem to be rising it must be working for him. The public in general apparently doesn't like a president that pits himself against the opposition. If you remember Bush's approval ratings when he left office were the lowest of any departing president.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/poll-finds-americans-more-optimistic-about-nation-20110125

Bush Final approval ratings
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml

[decidedlyso]

188. Yes, that rationale has some merit, but it is diminished by

Obama's willingness to have a payroll tax cut rather than simply hit the general fund directly. That two per cent reduction in SS withholding raised income tax withholdings, btw. I hope you are correct. But all this smoke and mirrors stuff makes me weary--and wary.

[florida08]

193. I know

Don't like that either..our withholdings went up because of the 'make work pay' expiration even though the Bush tax cuts are still in place. The payroll holiday is suppose to help make up for that..for 1 year anyway. I have been pretty tough on Obama this year with some of the weak progressive legislature we've gotten. But I honestly believe the line is drawn on SS.

It would devastate the democrats and he has to know that not to mention hurt the economy. We really don't know how long this joblessness is going to last. We're still bleeding..but both right and left voters don't want SS touched. Even republican retirees depend on it. Not all republicans are wealthy, but I'm wary too because the GOP control the House purse strings now.

It's up to him to put it back one way or the other like he said he would and the reps are not going to fight him. But as far as dismantling it in anyway I don't see it. It's unwise both politically and economically.

[Orsino]

194. "Bipartisanship" between the death-to-SS Republicans...

...and the sorta-kinda-keeping-SS-intact Democrats will mean cheapening Social Security. Just because the GOP want it, and because the Dems are unlikely to defend it in its entirety.

I am afraid that our president will approval-rating his way to failure. Not his personal failure, perhaps, but toward a significant hole in our already weak social safety net. And he will be able to tout his bipartisanship every wrong step of this terribly wrong way.

Half-assed pledges are not the stuff vetoes are made of.

[florida08]

203. I understand

and somewhat share your view. Think of it this way. The republicans have scared the hell out of the country with the death panels and
medicare will be hurt bs. I personally think that's what happened in the midterm elections. Scared people reacting to propaganda.
What he's doing now is trying to build a consensus with the public who are not aware what's going on.

That's probably 1/2 of the country. Trying to earn back their trust by not being condescending to irrational fear. He's got to do that. I see no way around it for the 2012 elections to be successful. He has to at least acknowledge their fears. Once that's done then pressure will naturally be applied to the party of no who's intentions are to destroy him and the democrats, not help the country.

But yes there are times when he should be more affirmative in his responses but he will never be a tough guy. Just don't see that in him.

[w4rma]

190. "but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either." Sorry. Lame. (nt)

[woo me with science]

192. Unrec. because headline is flatly inaccurate. nt

[Hubert Flottz]

196. Yes but...

Remember Bush started a deal where the pResident stands up there and lies like a rug, so I don't put any faith in a SOTU speech anymore.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

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

[jtown1123]

201. Go take your right wing BS to a right wing site.

[shimmergal]

208. Well, bully for your dad.

But he's the exception, not the rule. How the *&%$# did he start collecting social security at 43 ?
Was he on disability, or did he just manage to lie about his age, which would have involved a whole lot of forgeries of birth certificates, etc.? If anything, this tale is proof that some state and local employees' retirement benefits are too generous, but that has nothing to do with social security.

And if he has seven-figure holdings, isn't it about time he start distributing some slivers of them, to people who perhaps haven't been as "lucky" as he has been? He can't take it with him.

And as for "if you want to work anc can work" that's fine, IF you can find a job in your mid-60s or beyond. Are you prepared to support an affirmative action hiring law for the aged, so that there's some reality to this supposed choice?

[pam4water]

200. Tune in tomorrow for his next potion on the retirement age.

[davidwparker]

204. Well, this is good to know. n/t

[truedelphi]

209. Obama says No, I repeat, Obama says No.

But he says a lot of things, once he knows the system is rigged to have the opposite happen.

For instance, while Michelle is planting her lovely organic garden, Obama is appointing the Monsanto people to help push along the genetically modified foods issue.

He governs through appointments, and through commissions, and rarely does what he says will happen happen, unless it is about helping the rich or the military