General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't think Obama is going to cut Social Security.
I can't be sure, but either way he's got my vote.
The other guys really suck.
Who's with me?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)It means a lot coming from you because you've said it often.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,381 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)They suck more!
"They suck more!"
...it's true: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1128424
but after 4 years my take is obama campaigns well to the left of how he acts; i hope he proves me wrong
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Defending seniors and the 99 percent.....Or not!
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)We are so screwed.
pa28
(6,145 posts)I'd always considered Shakespeare's Henry V speech to be really inspirational . . . until now.
Looks like somebody just raised the bar. Woot!
dsteve01
(312 posts)Let the final battle begin between Austerity and Activist Government!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)[font size=18]EITHER WAY![/font size]
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,653 posts)That's one thing the Repub congress would have slid through like a greased pig.
They were complaining about exactly this when they carped that "Obama won't lead". It was because they wanted him to "reform" Social Security so they could plaster his name on it and serve it up to the seniors.
He didn't take the bait then, and I don't see why he'd want that in his legacy in the future.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)But the many roadblocks don't always only come from the cRazies... (sigh)
elleng
(131,159 posts)He wants to adjust pay-outs for wealthy, and adjust or remove the income cap, I think, and I'm ALL FOR those changes.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)to these commissions and "gangs" would be quite different and he'd probably stop pushing them at with the make up of Congress. No way are those changes reasonable to expect from any austerity gang yet.
"Eat your peas" in no way alludes to raising the cap. How would that be "peas"? I don't see the counter-weight that is off setting all actions and words?
msongs
(67,453 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Obama could come right out and say he WON't but that's committment & leadership nt
...if he said it wrong in a semantic sort of way or appears to wink while he said it, that wouldn't do.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)We have an obligation to keep that promise; to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities, and all Americans today, tomorrow, and forever.
One thing we cant afford to do though is privatize Social Security an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market.
That agenda is wrong for seniors, its wrong for America, and I wont let it happen. Not while Im President.
Seventy-five years ago today, Franklin Roosevelt made a promise. He promised that from that day forward, wed offer quote some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against poverty-stricken old age. Thats a promise each generation of Americans has kept. And its a promise America will continue to keep so long as I have the honor of serving as President.
Those are snippets from the piece with the video I posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1115331
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)medical and health professional take the government to the cleaners with their fraud.
speedoo
(11,229 posts)I trust Obama to take care of SS and Medicare.
Totally.
dkf
(37,305 posts)He won't affect Medicare much.
He can't protect it if he does nothing.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)that they won't be happy unless it actually is cut. They're in effect cheering for the SS cut they so claim to oppose.
It boggles the mind.
Sid
Tarheel_Dem
(31,241 posts)still_one
(92,422 posts)That if the repukes would raise taxes on the 1% he would consider cuts
I am troubled by that, but I would like to think if he gets in especially with some coat tails in Congreve he will do things right this time
He knows now he cannot compromise with the repukes, and that should also motivate him to the left
eridani
(51,907 posts)--the chained CPI, which sure the hell is a CUT in Social Security.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The shift from denying that cuts will happen to defending them has begun!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Obama 2012!
You in?
rudycantfail
(300 posts)Fucking amazing.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"These clowns are somehow still influential around here."
...they make great straw men.
Think about it: If you don't accept the mischaracterization of the cuts to Medicare (the same characterization being made by the RW) and don't believe that Obama is going to cut Social Security, you're Third Way.
Doesn't make much sense, but it is accepted logic.
rudycantfail
(300 posts)by the moment - "I can't be sure, but either way he's got my vote."
Get your shit straight Chuckles.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You yourself are sounding less convinced"
...interpret the OP to suit your position. It's cool.
I'm just pointing out that I'm voting for Obama.
rudycantfail
(300 posts)it's cool.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and fuck seniors who can't afford healthcare or housing.
It's all good, either way!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The only way Obama will win their trust is to end don't ask, don't tell. But it may be too late for that.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
ProSense
(116,464 posts)proud of myself.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)for sure.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)Seriously, imagine how that scene would play out.
PB
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I was imagining them going door to door with that slogan!"
I mean, I'm sure some people are buying into Romney's "Obama sucks, vote for me."
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)That's awesome
veganlush
(2,049 posts)Why does no one get this? SS solvent til at least 2037. After that, it's reduced by 25% if nothing is tweeked before that. lifting the $107,000 cap would take care of it. no one is going to cut SS . Medicare is the one rto worry about as it is funded differently
Cha
(297,733 posts)that sucks in the low information voters.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)definitely went out.
I haven't seen you in a while. Good to see you!
Cha
(297,733 posts)posts like an ol' friend's.
SunsetDreams!
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)I see what you did there.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)he ever cut Social Security. You were adamant that he'd never do such a thing, and anyone suggesting otherwise was just a Republican mole, out to undermine this great progressive President.
Now you're 'not sure' on whether he'd make such cuts, and completely blasé about it?
he ever cut Social Security. You were adamant that he'd never do such a thing, and anyone suggesting otherwise was just a Republican mole, out to undermine this great progressive President.
Now you're 'not sure' on whether he'd make such cuts, and completely blasé about it?
He hasn't cut Social Security so why would I have dropped my support? The OP states that I don't know what he plans to do, but I'm voting for him. I'm not going to withhold my vote base on speculation. If Obama came out before the election and stated emphatically that he plans to cut Social Security, he'd lose anyway. What would be the point of voting?
Have you dropped your support already or are you planning to vote for the President despite the speculation?
Marr
(20,317 posts)You've gone from being absolutely certain he'd never do such a thing and being indignant at those who think otherwise, to adopting a sort of, "ho-hum, who can say? I like him anyway" sort of attitude.
Is your statement in the OP merely a rhetorical one? Do you remain convinced that he would never do such a thing, and plan to withdraw your support if he does?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)You've gone from being absolutely certain he'd never do such a thing and being indignant at those who think otherwise, to adopting a sort of, "ho-hum, who can say? I like him anyway" sort of attitude.
Is your statement in the OP merely a rhetorical one? Do you remain convinced that he would never do such a thing, and plan to withdraw your support if he does?
It's rhetorical, but does that matter? I mean, isn't that the position of those who adamantly believe he wants to cut Social Security?
I'll vote for him because the alternative is worse. Isn't that a "ho-hum" sort of attitude?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)*Then* justify it!
It's the Third Way Way:
[font size=5] EITHER WAY!
<--------> [/font size]
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Harkin slammed his own president and party for hatching the payroll tax cut deal that is expected to pass Congress Friday, saying he's "embarrassed" the Democrats are pushing a measure that begins the "unravelling of Social Security." The bill will extend a 2 percent break in the tax that goes to fund Social Security for the rest of 2012, saving families $1,000 on average.
That lost revenue will be replaced in the Social Security trust fund from the nation's general tax collections, but the plan has attracted opposition from both the left and right on grounds that it sets a bad precedent and adds the $100 billion cost to the deficit. Harkin (D-Iowa), who has long been a staunch defender of Social Security, hammered it as the beginning of the end for the program.
"This Congress will be making a grave mistake -- a grave mistake -- and reinforcing a dangerous precedent," Harkin said in a dramatic Senate floor speech late Thursday. "And Im dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this, and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security." Harkin argued that Social Security had always been strong and protected because it was funded by its own dedicated tax stream that ensured every American would be guaranteed a basic income in their retirements, and that the program added not "even one dime to the deficits or the national debt."
But he said now that Congress was going to pay for this cut with borrowed money from the general treasury funds, the best argument of the program's defenders was gone. "With this bill, we can no longer say that. We can no longer say that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit," Harkin said. He argued that a far better plan would have been to simply grant working Americans rebates on their income taxes, the way Presidents Obama and George W. Bush had done in recent years.
Hauling Social Security into the equation, he said, betrays the legacy of Democratic presidents who started the program and strengthened it over the years, from Franklin Roosevelt to John Kennedy.
"This, I believe has been the hallmark and the underpinning of the party that I've been proud to belong to," Harkin said. "Cutting the payroll tax is a bad idea, terrible idea. I'm embarrassed that it's being proposed by a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/payroll-tax-cut-tom-harkin_n_1284334.html
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Sadly, no matter how the think-tank clan brainiacs spin it, he already has!!!"
...not a single dollar of benefits cut. Harkin makes no mention of benefits cuts. The argument is one of creating the perception that Social Security is tied to the deficit. It is not about cutting benefits.
Besides, the funding is being replaced:
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Thanks.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)wasn't as entertaining: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128680
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)He also ran on ending Federal income tax for seniors making less than 50k and that is also a winning idea.