General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's not 3 dimensional chess. It's a kick to the gut.
Even if President Obama is absolutely sure that republicans in the House and Senate will reject his budget because of the minor tax increase proposals (something I NOT believe), this budget proposal is harmful. It further legitimizes cutting Social Security and Medicare. This budget fucks old folks.
The President is proposing 80% cuts to 20% tax increases, further widening the gap between rich and poor.
Now we have to hope that republicans will be stupid and recalcitrant to the point that the number rejecting this proposal, combined with dems who have pledged not to support cuts, will be able to defeat this in the House.
Thanks for fucking us over, Mr. President.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)
CrispyQ
(36,464 posts)
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Not that many years ago, Barack Obama would have been a Moderate Republican based upon what he offered. That he is Democrat is just a testament to how far to the right this country has moved in the lat 30+ years. I voted for him with my eyes fully open. He was not in my mind the one I wanted, but he was the best choice of what was offered on those November days. Anyone who thought they were getting a Liberal Democrat really wasn't paying attention.
That said, I am completely disappointed in hearing that SS cuts have been put on the table. I am not at all surprised, but very disappointed.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Look at gay rights, pot legalization, support for SS, Medicare and higher taxes. All indicate the Country is much further left than the rulers.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)we have reached a point where the primary system is hurting the process and no populist or progressive candidate, of either party, could survive it anymore.
the gop had a handful of better candidates before the primaries, but romney emerges as winner.
i am starting to believe the open convention path might yield better candidates
just let them make their case and let the assembled party representatives vote on it
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)The difference lies almost entirely in how smoothly or roughly the government is engaging in figurative sexual congress with its citizenry.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I think it might also include the degree to which it occurs in this case, but you have hit the nail on the head.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)I'm waiting for people to explain to this admittedly ignorant-of-the-arcane-ways-of-Washington guy (me) WHY this is being proposed. Convince me this is good policy. Convince me that I and many others on this site are wrong on these issues.
I voted for President Obama TWICE but I did NOT vote for this kind of BS.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)How did that Nader NH 4 delegates to Bush do in 2000?
Gore had 267
4 of NH meant 271
270 is needed
steve2470
(37,457 posts)yea, who cares that I did that, but I DID NOT FUND THIS.
I don't care about Ralph Nader and never voted for the man.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and FDR never said the #s would stay the way they are forever either.
However, nothing is set in stone about this, because most likely the repubs won't take the offer and it's a bluff, and it's one of three parts that have to be hammered out if it does happen.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)We should not wait and see how it plays out. We need to contact or reps ASAP and tell them we do not support cuts to ss or Medicare. We should lower the age of Medicare and raise the cap on ss if we are serious about strengthening these programs. Cuts are a recipe for bankrupting this programs. It is sad that the president would legitimize these wrong headed notions at all.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)The post above has contact info for President Obama.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)for Obama's campaign and who paid the Social Security that meant generous benefits for their parents and on top of that paid extra in order to save for their baby-boomer retirement.
No. Obama is absolutely wrong on this. He is betraying a large segment of his party -- dooming many to eating beans from the day they retire to the day they die.
This is unacceptable. It is a double-cross.
The minute Obama, Kerry and Hagel announced they were returning 5% of their pay, I knew this was a done deal. That's their conscience money. They know very well that this will harm not just seniors but America on the whole.
And they are doing this in order to be able to restore money to the bloated military budget.
This is pretty close to evil -- breaking promises to helpless old people in order to spend more on newfangled killing machines like drones, etc. Pretty close to evil.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)OBAMA REJECTED IT. HE SAID HIS PROPOSAL WAS TO RAISE THE CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF INCOME THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAX.
There is no crisis in the Social Security Trust Fund. (And yes, by law, it very definitely exists. The Secretary of the Treasury is supposed to be protecting it.) And if there were one, the answer would be to raise the cap.
If people feel uncomfortable about the future of Social Security, they should raise the cap.
Generations of Americans will pay a terrible price for these proposed cuts. AND THEY WILL HAPPEN.
The entire developed world is under attack from Fascists who want to destroy the safety nets that keep the middle class living in dignity to the end of life. The rich want to impose the burden of caring for elderly, living parents on the children of those parents. The rich hide their money in tax havens around the world, buy yachts and mansions in out-of-the-way places that you and I never see.
Even the Obama children -- just kids -- get to spend their vacation in one of these otherworldly resorts.
Meanwhile, people in nursing homes receive inadequate care, and we are not adequately addressing the problem of dementia in the elderly.
What kind of country are we that we have the money to keep troops in South Korea for some 70 years now but don't have the money to pay Social Security benefits that keep up with inflation?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)including twice during the primaries.
Obama "I've been very clear on this"
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)that comes to $19,200 a year.
If I have to put a few hundred more into SS til I qualify it a few years from now,
I will have come out ahead over $100,000 to $200,000.
It goes hand in hand.
And as the years go by, wellness for those in their 20s and 30s will reduce trips to the doctor and surgery in their 50s and above.
So a little sacrifice now for those younger reaps major advantage later.
All self-employed especially.
BTW, when companies give health insurance and the last 40 years ones monthly health insurance during all that time (we are talking about today's senior citizens who now get medicare) they received a tax-free benefit all these years if their job paid their health insurance or a good portion and the monthly was a few hundred dollars.
compared to the self employed who pay thosands and thousands a month out of pocket.
Seems like that is something never taken into account.
And thank the Demcoratic people who in 1980 ditched Jimmy and voted for Reagan.
Some of our senators and congressmen did just that. While I don't hold it against them,
had everyone voted for Jimmy, we would have probably gotten France's health care system by now.
So the Reagan voters deserve a big chunk of the blame.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we are now concerned about all the others, the poor, the disabled, seniors and dependent children.
I did not and will not support Hillary because she told the truth about her intentions regarding policies such as SS and wars etc. Obama otoh, told us he would fight to preserve SS, something we expect from Dems anyhow.
We will now focus on Congress, it doesn't matter who is president so long as we fill Congress with Progress Democrats. No more third way candidates!
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I would prefer if the candidates who end up in congress are all anti-gun,
therefore the 35 people a day and the 100s wounded, can grow up and become senior citizens
One would think that reinterpreting the 2nd is the most liberal thing one could do, as there are far more gun deaths in 6 months than in all history of collateral drone deaths.
The disconnect is amazing if you ask me, it should be a given.
Without guns and bullets, Angela Davis' brother never would have had the connection to get Angela in trouble all those years ago.
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #79)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Some states have it earlier.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)In 5 years, that is $95,000 out of pocket I will save.
NOT only that, but my split went to 70/30 from 50/50, so my out of pocket is 20% less on any after deductible money.
BTW, my deductible also drops from $5000 to $2500, another $2500 a year savings.
Why shouldn't I be able to offset the bash Obama on health care and everything else,
when sole-proprietors and self-employed are going to finally have a break.
Our health care has always been so many times higher than the large corporations pay
(funny in a way because the anti-Obama people are also- anti-Corporations so someone like me and the tens of millions of self employed and small business people who don't work for a large corporation now have major actual out of pocket savings
100% thanks to the initial move forward of President Obama.
And something Ted Kennedy knew which is why he was so upset back in 1993ish times that zero happened and it took 15 more years to get any movement at all.
It proves, 10% of something is indeed better than 0% of nothing.
as I keep saying but I am indeed drowned out by the small but very vocal anti-Obama contingents who have only great things to say about Ralph nader, but zero good things to say in 4 plus years now for President obama.
Even the vast majority of Hillary 2008 people are now very happy, knowing that Hillary now earned my vote and every Obama 2008 core voter who wants more than anything to continue the agenda of President Obama after he leaves office and before Hillary nominates him to the US Supreme Court (like President Taft did when he left office).
Skittles
(153,160 posts)
you are seriously deluded
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)you special. You are saving twice what I get a month on Social Security. I'm not asking for a whole lot, just enough to get by on and I'm damn close to that now, thanks to Food Pantries. And thanks for shifting the subject from SS to healthcare.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)But the big picture is EVERYTHING. One can't separate anything out, it is all together.
One cannot separate a savings that soon the vast majority of those under senior age Americans will save that over the years will 10x any future small rise, therefore making in time SS less needed anyhow, because everyone will save tens of thousands of dollars.
And everyones kids and grandkids will reap benefits unheard of fifty years ago.
And eventually there will be universal health care, and a paid forward method, which aside from health insurance, will save nationwide billions for the average person.
If one now has say $20,000 a year in medical bills, and it is reduced to zero, ontop of the lower health insurance, you do the math.
It's all coming.
And, btw, any mention of an increase also mentions seniors will be grandfathered in their old rates, so no senior is going to get less anyhow.
IMHO
lark
(23,099 posts)but this sounds strange when the average cost in MA and ND, the only states I know where there are exchanges, is around $900 per family of 4 per month. I don't know how you can just assume there will be big cost savings, except for the indigent or near indigent. For the healthy uninsured, this will be a huge increase. I know in FL, they are not expanding Medicaid and most states in the south it's the same - they want to provide programs with little guaranteed coverage at all - how is that good for the lower wage earner?
I have not seen anywhere that chained CPI wouldn't affect all SSI recepients. When they talk about raising the age, that's when they say not for people currently on or very close to retirement age.
There's no way that chained CPI is not a total betrayal of the working class in favor of the 1%ers, no spin can change that fact.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Our insurance a few decades ago was from corporation very cheap
Then went into other things first took CobraServ after that ended, we kept the same policy,
but now on our own, and every year after it went up 15% (Aetna).
So the old Aetna mont ly cost is just the normal 15% upward, compounded yearly.
As the years went on, with this and that we now had things that wouldn't be insured had we left so we were forced to stay with what we had.
Last year we tried to move and again found we could not move and get unlimited lifetime cap and have preexisting conditions covered.
This year (our policy yearly ends at this time of the year), we again needed to look into it as we couldn't afford it and found we could switch as we did to Horizon.
NJ and NY are two of the most expensive states, but some of the companies are in advance doing things that others will be forced to do next year at some point.
But at least in our family, we have to have insurance and can't not have it.
On Aetna, we had the lowest possible (so the $3100 figure is the lowest (A level) amazingly it rises to $9000 (and that's monthly) if one wants the cadillac plan, with the only other option being a bare minimum with a cap of less than $100,000 which if one has a major illness, is used up in the first month alone.
And there were other companies we looked into that hasn't yet changed their policy, so those companies were out.
It may take a number of years, but the system as it is can't remain this way and IMHO probably in the next decade what people wanted four years ago will happen (corny as it is, if we move forward, not backward). Either that or everyone will have to move to the states that on their own (like Vermont/NY/NJ) that have a better system and one that will even get better.
Just wish I discovered wellness years ago, over doing nothing for too long and having it catch up to me last year.
Guess we will all see what happens as 2014 rolls in.
What Aetna needed was more levels than the 4 they offered. But they had no catastrophic insurance for a cheap price.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)poor bastard who drags him self to work every day and is just about ready to start collecting his ss now?
the guy who worked for 50+ years and every week the govt took a portion of his pay with the promise to repay when his time came?his time approaches and he will not have the privledge of socking away a pile to tide him over.
he was told he would be taken care of with every paycheck he earned.
so good for you but we are not talking about you specificly we are discussing people who have paid all their lives and now will be told "no...sorry....none for you... get along now"
and where will it stop?
if he can live on less money maybe he wont need so much medicine?
ss and medicare pair up at a certain point in your life and once we cut ss ,then the knives turn to medicare
this is bad stuff mainly because i know from my own life that once you "put something on the table" its always on the table
until its consumed
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Social Security is in post #73.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Your irrationality doesn't hold to the facts that Gore sucked.
And Obama sucks too for even suggesting it.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Gore.
Nader blew the elections. He couldn't have expected to win. Nobody voting for him could have expected him to win, and he could have only taken votes from Gore. He was a vote for a dream that a 3rd party was viable in national politics. A protest vote, basically, against a lack of choice. It was hardly the most pressing issue at the time, in fact, it was the very worst time for it.
But Nader's voters are hardly as guilty as the voters for Bush and the SCOTUS. They royally screwed us along with the whole world.
Webster Green
(13,905 posts)The US Supreme W. Court stopped the vote counting. Nader is not to blame because he decided to run for president.
And Ralph Nader makes much more sense than Obama does, that's for sure. Ever listen to what he has to say? He is right on.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)And 2000 made me suspect to any prior ulterior motive he might have had all those years ago. Nader and Bob Woodward are two equals.
I prefer Bernstein and President Obama.
Nader's words "both are the same" are lies.
Gore would not have nominated Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and rehnquist.
and President Obama has given us two of the alltime great justices, Justice Sotomayer and Justice Kagen.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)The SCOTUS wouldn't have gotten near it without Nader. If you take Nader out of the race, do you think Bush v. Gore would have happened anyway? How? Take Nader out of that race, Gore wins.
Nader says a lot of right things, but he was wrong about one thing. (And who isn't wrong about at least one thing?) Our Constitution isn't set up to accommodate political parties. Remember, the Founders wrote the Constitution to have no factions. In other words, they had in mind what's now known as a one-party state. We're lucky we've got two. Other countries will deal with political parties in their main operating documents. Not the US.
This problem cannot be addressed by forming a third party and trying very hard. It has to somehow be addressed on the Constitutional level.
Nader's failure to see this was a gross miscalculation at the very least. Whether it involved dereliction for emotional satisfaction is a matter of conjecture. The failure of his followers to grasp that his victory was hopeless, and the consequences of voting for him anyway out of "principle" is indefensible.
Except it's much more apparent in hindsight. Really, the only defense I can think of for Nader supporters is they had no way of knowing just how awful W would be, and just how many people paid not only with their livelihoods but by their very lives by having him in office. I'm guessing a lot of people were too dazzled by the light of the greater good to give the opportunity for the greatest evil much thought.
No matter what you thought of Gore, however, I don't think he would have ended his years in office with a wrecked economy, 7,000 or so Americans dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis dead, many more wounded, maimed and/or disabled, people being imprisoned with no charges . . . I can go on and on. Gore did not have that kind of potential evil in him.
Webster Green
(13,905 posts)I can't really argue much with either of the replies to my post.
For what it's worth, I voted for Nader, but not because I wanted to see him (or thought he could be) elected. I did it to support the Green Party, and did it with the luxury of living in a "safe" state (CA).
Had I lived in the shit-hole known as Flori-duh, I would have voted for Gore.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)And under the unrelenting misery of the Bush Administration.
I'll never make the mistake now of thinking we live in a Progressive Democracy where all things are possible.
I just remember, for example, that the Civil Rights movement was not peaceful. That MLK succeeded only partially, and amidst great violence and strife. While the government made concessions and compromised, it's almost forgotten (because it was done almost secretly and with a news blackout) that the more radical wings of the movement were brutally suppressed. The Black Panthers were decimated and only the more fortunate ones received a trial.
And look at how the Occupiers were treated, and how their treatment was coordinated. How are we going to fight this impoverishment conspiracy called austerity now that they've been beaten back?
The US was founded by the wealthy to protect the interests of the wealthy. The Preamble "We the People . . ." was written by 51 wealthy, white men who appointed themselves to do it, and called themselves "the people" as public relations.
If you haven't read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States, I encourage you to do so.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Progressive party won seats in a lot of legislatures of small states, mainly because neither of the national parties cared too much about what happened in South Dakota and such.
However, the only time a third party has risen on the national level is when one of the two establishment parties is dying. From the States, they might send the occasional 3rd party rep or senator, but don't you think people noticed before our age that the two party system was pretty stifling? Don't you think they tried?
You just make a mistake when you believe our country was founded on democratic principles. The Founders had no faith in Democracy, and they wrote the Constitution specifically to give as few democratic compromises as they had to for stability and appeasement. And unfortunately, that's still the way our country is run.
You only accommodate two parties in such a system: a conservative party preserving and enhancing the position of the wealthy, and the party of everyone else. Or in our case, the conservative party and the party of everyone else run by other, perhaps weaker, conservatives.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I think we're still in the Denial Phase, FYI. So the "be patient and wait" line is still the talking point of the day.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)the people sold LBJ down the river, as they sold Jimmy Carter down the river and want to do the same to President Obama.
(let alone Adlai Stevenson).
How many times does one go round in circles and not realize what harm happened because of all those past times?
People scream out, no dynasties (when talking about President Obama, Clinton and on the other side Bush), yet FDR had 4 terms, repeat 4 terms to get it right.
Not everything happened the first term. He had 3 more(or parts of the 4th term).
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)However, we've watched for some time now and can expect Obama to be consistent with the past. Which isn't good - unless Dems think Romneycare is a great leap forward, back room deals with the pharmaceuticals are progressive, etc.
What everyone can see is that this is Obama's *opening move*, laying the table, so to speak, for the so-called "US left" to play out its hand. And no, the R's have never shown the least inclination for conceding ground they've already won without even a token battle. They *will* demand and get more, again even before real negotiations start. And this isn't "3D chess", a metaphor that's long past its expiry date. More like this is the now traditional "pre-emptory cave" (tom tomorrow), the preferred term of those who don't want to come right out and claim that Obama isn't engaged in anything bipartisan, he's colluding.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I told him NO democrat votes to cut Social Security and I'd give NOTHING
to any so-called democrat who backs him on this. 
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)by having five markers in a row vertically on Nader?
If you can, I'm calling BINGO
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
Matariki
(18,775 posts)That's the lamest deflection I've seen in a while.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Come up with some new material, and for fucks sake try to write things that make sense!
Your longer posts in particular are strange non-linear incomprehensible word salads that mostly just make people laugh (fyi ).
A good hall monitor should at least make sense, lack of credibility aside.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)You are obsessed with Ralph Nader. You remind me of another DUer I used to know...
daybranch
(1,309 posts)a helpful comment?
Response to cali (Original post)
Post removed
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)make it disappear.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)This is a blatant FUCK YOU to the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Social Security has NOTHING to do with the deficit and Medicare benefits should be untouched.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)You just repeated what the media has been saying for the past several months, and it's not true. It's not just the base of our party that is against cuts to SS & Medicare. A large majority of ALL Americans are against these cuts. Please stop repeating this mind-bending attempt at lessening the opposition to this fucked up proposal. Thanks!
On edit: 3 edits. Sheesh. I'm so pissed about this betrayal I can't think straight.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)I'm angry. My bad, sincerely.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)It's an example of how insidiously effective the corporate controlled media has become. Thanks for responding.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)You were 100% correct and I'm glad you corrected me.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)telling you we were right all along.
I drove to Ohio to canvas for him in 08. I voted for him in 2012. So don't tell me I can't criticize his decisions.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)and a lot of pissed off Democrats.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)It's now the Wall St. party, or maybe the Third Way party. The rich need our money, all of it.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)BTW, not for nothing but JFK once said, "Ask not what the country can do for you,
ask what YOU can do for YOUR country.
Those weren't a sound byte, but had meaning
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Because it is all paid forward
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bush borrowed the money from the trust fund to give tax breaks to the rich and to fight two wars. Then the banks borrowed in order to keep afloat after successfully carrying out the biggest heist in history.
Our system works. Baby boomers' big mistake was trusting our government with its paid forward money and not taking Al Gore up on putting it in a lock box.
clydefrand
(4,325 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)I cannot believe he is going to do this. I gave him money TWICE but I did not fund this kind of BS. Yes I'm angry.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)I told the President that he is gambling with our futures and
that the American dream is a nightmare. (Thank you George
Carlin). I suggested he build more low income housing and
be prepared to pay for more food assistance for the elderly.
nenagh
(1,925 posts)It was difficult to voice the extent of my feelings of betrayal an anger and stay civil.
susanr516
(1,425 posts)Emailed a message expressing my disgust and checked the box requesting a reply. I'd contact my Senators and my Congressman, but they're all teabaggers.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)though I have serious doubts that it will do any good.
Obama can't run again - he doesn't need us anymore.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)I feel better even though I know it won't do much/if any good.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is now very clear to the American people that SS is a big part of the problem. That is what is really wrong with this. The leader of the Democratic party is solidifying the republicans wet dream that SS needs to be cut.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)The idea that he is somehow playing political chicken is delusional. That this is an official budgemt item is serious.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." - President Barack Obama
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Makes me sick to think I voted for a man who did what even Reagan, a man I voted against twice and who I hated with the white hot heat of a thousand suns, wouldn't do.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)That's a real quote! Googled it. God damn it.
I refuse to accept the premise of his statement. Center-right or whack-job-right is not mainstream. It's where those babyfuckers are pulling us but it's not where we're at.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I guess he does admire Ronnie. I still remember how he compared him favorably over Bill Clinton.
"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," he said, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
City Lights
(25,171 posts)RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)C'mon, people... The man is a corporatist!
I think he's a good human being, I voted for him twice, but I knew all along that he was a corporatist.
A corporatist with a nice smile, a pretty family and a mostly pragmatic approach.
Didn't you people know that?
Of course you did...
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)I suspect that you feel duped by Mr. Obama, that you thought he was going to be a Hopey-Changey "socialist" and now you are defensive. You are going to take it out on me, and I really couldn't give a shit.
I like Mr. Obama, particularly considering the alternatives we could have been saddled with in 2008 and 2012. I think he's a great president. But I never, for a moment, thought that he would radically change anything.
Actually... I've decided to take your Maroon comment as a compliment.
Queen Mother Granny Nanny is one of my heroes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maroon_%28people%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_of_the_Maroons
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The Trans Pacific Partnership will be a battering ram to the gut.
The guy's got a post-partisan legacy to think about.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Democrat to serve two terms as a republican.
I still say he is nothing but a reagan democrat who dresses up as a liberal every four years. I fell for it. I knew better the second time, but Obama was lucky that the only option was another stupid rich white guy.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Reagan did the Keynsian/FDR thing and spent us out of a serious recession. Obama, by contrast, has been a strict Hooverian with a few trickle-down stimuli, massive aid to bankers, and austerity otherwise.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)He is the most right-wing president in American history.
The country isn't going to survive long on this neoliberal bullshit.
Response to Jakes Progress (Reply #47)
Post removed
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)She said the administration is "giving the Democrat Party's base the back of the hand" and expressed concern that Obama is moving to the right, like Clinton did after the 1994 elections.
Maddow called Clinton "probably the best Republican president the country ever had, if you look at the policies he passed."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/90187-irritated-at-obama-maddow-calls-clinton-best-republican-president-ever
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)a lot of us aren't and won't ever and we will vote any SOB out of office to dares to touch SS.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)and continue the drone war, etc
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Which translated means all public assets will be sold off to private interests.
Look what he is doing to public education. It is a fucking scandal.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)The overreaction is strong with this one.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Such a good little woodchuck. After all, why worry about anything?
Your underreaction is very telling. There are Democrats and their are those who call themselves such.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Yet he continues to succeed.
I am so glad he's where he is and you are where you are.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Are you a sock-puppet or are you a zombie?
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)
They always "out" themselves on the end.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)And doesn't count.
Skittles
(153,160 posts) Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Just why do you sign on to DU? Do you know what the D stands for?
Did you watch me support and campaign for him? Did you watch me knock on doors and tell people what turned out to be lies to help get him elected? You don't know shit.
Yet he is not succeeding. He is presiding over the biggest rightward movement of the Democratic agenda in our lives. He negotiates by giving in as a starting point.
So forgive me if I'm not glad. I don't like cutting SS when we should be expanding it. A president with knowledge and guts would say so and make it happen. This one doesn't know and doesn't know how to get things done if he did.
So, tell us now. Are you happy and glad about cutting SS? Or are you too much like our president and too cowardly to stand up and say.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)<a href="
.html" target="_blank"><img src="
" border="0" alt=" photo OBINGO_Page_3_zpsaea1a3f1.jpg"/></a>
(Thanks to Captain Obvious for this, hope he doesn't mind.)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)"Obama Hater" is a free square though. 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And the Republicans will end up accepting this. This is a done deal. This announcement follows months of negotiations.
This is a betrayal.
Obama has an appeaser. I have lost faith in him. And I worked so hard to get him re-elected.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)And you've been doing it for a long time. Long before the last election.
cali
(114,904 posts)Disgusting to support the President on this against the people.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Look, I'm not the President, and while I support some of what he's done in office, this is a seriously bad proposal with huge negative impact on the lives of many.
It's that simple, genius.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Cutting SS in any way shape or form is a major betrayal. Got links where Obama says he will never touch SS?
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)by someone they trust, this kind of thing tends to happen. If a friend of yours, who you thought you could trust, stole part of your life savings away from you, are you telling me that would be ok with you?? If Obama cuts SS/Medicare, how is this different from a friend stealing a portion of your savings and now you may not be able to survive without it and you don't have any other provisions because you trusted that friend not to raid your savings the minute your back was turned. The politicians claim to be your friend when in fact, they are not really your friends at all because their actions do not reflect their promises. With the exception of a handful of good democrats who do try to work for what's best for the 99%, the rest of the government doesn't give a flying toss about you, me or anyone else but themselves and the corporations they cater to.
I'm a long way from being eligible for SS, a good 25 years away - but my dad is 62 and had to retire early due to health issues late last year. I worry that once he is eligible for SS (you know that thing he paid into for a good 40+ years?) will be greatly reduced or non-existent. I sure as hell won't be able to take care of him financially unless things change mighty quick with the economy. I can't even take care of myself at a satisfactory level at the moment. I find it terribly troubling. That this is even being discussed, much less seriously considered, by democrats no less, is a travesty and not what we voted for.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I would say he betrayed us before he was even sworn in for a 2nd term by making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent, including about $1,000,000 a year for Mitt Romney.
But that's just me.
cali
(114,904 posts)I was wrong to suspect the mother. So the fuck what, honeypie? What does that have to do with this? I'll tell you? Jackfuckingshit.
Oh, and for the record, I sure as shit have not hated on Obama as you accuse me of. Now go cheer for social security cuts and Medicare cuts, hon.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)And you have bashed Obama for a long time. I have witnessed it. Why pretend otherwise? The evidence is all over this place.
Just because you think you are doing it for his own good doesn't make it right.
Raster
(20,998 posts)Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: This is a personal attack. I am NO cali fan, however, I have NOT seen cali "bash Obama for a long time." In fact, I've seen the opposite. And while I agree cali may well be a "blowhard," this poster did violate the rules. Hide the post.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm going to give this one a pass. Dem bashers beware.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
--------------
I want to reiterate: I have NOT seen cali "bash Obama for a long time," in fact, quite the opposite. And frankly, I must agree with cali. ANY CUTS to SS or Medicare are aimed at those persons that can least afford them, and ARE WRONG.
This is a kick in the nuts from President Obama and the corporate democrats. They do not lead the party of FDR, nor do they act like they want to.
It's high time that all of us that consider ourselves Dems reevaluate where we stand -- and where the leaders of our party stand. I do NOT like the direction we are heading.
cali
(114,904 posts)You're calling me the same name the poster is, but because you disagree whit his/her politics you voted to hide it.
Not that I give a damn one way or the other, but it is amusing.
Raster
(20,998 posts)amusement cuts both ways. have a nice day.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)as I understand the rules of DU2, it was against the rules to call a liar a liar and to call an idiot an idiot, etc. That the insult was true was no defense against it being against the rules.
Thus if a juror follows those rules, then he/she should not allow an insult to stand even if he/she thinks the insult is true.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)Just because some have had additional complaints in the past about Obama doesn't make this topic any less valid. I'm willing to bet most, if not all the people here voted for him and some even donated financially and they've got every right to be outraged. On something this important, how could anyone think that if this indeed happens that it's ok - why, because a democrat did it? If a republican was president and wanted to do this, every single person on this board would be furious and that includes you.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Have you thought through that contingency? What are you going to say to the poor having to live with less, to the sick who have care either denied or botched due to the cuts?
You think they won't go through, Obama doesn't mean this, but I suggest you think of and rehearse your contingency excuse now for Obama now just in case. Because you might think he's not going to do it, but even the smartest people can be mistaken and unlucky with their expectations.
And what he'll do he'll do no matter if you have faith in him or not.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)that Obama saved social security and made it more progressive.
Just like we were told his extension of the Bush tax cuts was a victory and then we were told that making them permanent, including $1.5 trillion for the richest 5% and $2.4 trillion for the richest 20%, that actually makes the tax code MORE progressive.
Oh. and plus Obama got Republicans to agree to tax increases, so he is eating their lunch.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)he is just way smarter than we are, and we just need to trust that he has an end
game that will make it all worthwhile. 
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and it also continues to blur what distinctions remain between Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans will f*** over the 90% to enrich the 10%. They are pretty up-front about their policies although they will never admit in so many words that is what they are doing.
Democrats will do the same but not quite as harshly. They will spout platitudes about the middle class and once in awhile they will mention the poor. But when the dust settles, their policies also benefit the 10% to the detriment of the 90%.
That's what is happening today in the Corporate States of America. Where a food company can be sued and LOSE in court for putting TRUE statements on their labels. Where a news company can be sued and WIN in court for insisting on broadcasting LIES to their audience. Where an oil spill is not an oil spill, so the government and not the company has to pay for cleanup.
It's a crying shame. I don't even recognize our Democratic Party anymore. They have given up their heritage and we are left with the 3rd Way policy mish mash. It's thin gruel indeed.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)that their most prominent leaders are corporatist frauds. Partly because of the obscene power structure in this country.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but where are they on this issue? Bernie Sanders has been a consistent defender of Social Security against the depradations of the corporatists in both parties. I don't recall one Democrat who has been as consistent as he has on this issue.
You are so right about their prominent leaders being corporatist frauds, and about the obscene power structure we have.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Thats about the only thing they'll listen to. Otherwise, they'll just give your money to the banks, oil companies, private prisons, billions to illegally spy on you.
They only get to do this shit because we voluntarily cooperate with them.
Up next: Your tax dollars at work in Iran.
jRus61
(12 posts)The President needs the entire country to be PISSED OFF about cutting social security and medicare. I mean mad enough to scare the crap out of Republicans.
Hopefully the majority of people who don't know who the vice president is or thier senator, or thier congressman will start paying attention for a while. Obama is simply bringing this to the boiling point and if the country rolls over then it's not his fault, it's ours.
I think he's begging the country to get mad and push Washington, especially republicans, into a reasonable solution that doesn't hurt our earned benefits. I hope he finds a way to bring up Nancy Pelosi's democratic caucus budget. I'm just saying....
The current stalemate simply looks like 'typical washington politicians' to most people. They need to know what the argument is really about. It's a gamble, but if someone doesn't bring this to a head soon we are guaranteed to lose anyway.
G_j
(40,367 posts)no surprise. And though I desperately hope not, I expect the next shoe to drop will be approval of Keystone.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)Smilo
(1,944 posts)sorrowing and totally, totally wrong.
LoisB
(7,206 posts)Hopefully, there will be some Democrat in the Senate with enough guts to say NO to this.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)of his actions thus far.
Obama’s Budget: With Job Growth Tepid, Is Now The Time To Cut Spending?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022618893
JEB
(4,748 posts)cluster fuck. Thank Gawd for the Boehner's blind obstruction.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)the point is that these cuts are now officially "on the table" for whatever negotiations are down the road. Can't unring that bell by saying "yeah, that chained CPI thing was a bluff because I knew you repukes would reject it anyway". The Senate may be a firewall for now (*may* be) but if we lose seats in 14, forget about it.
One of these days Boner et. al. are going to call his bluff, and then we're well & truly fucked.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)Call the WH and tell them what you think
Phone 202) 456-1111
Call Congress and tell them what you think
http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)If they accepted half of the "compromises" they've been offered these last several years, we'd all be in deep trouble.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Instead of pointing our finger at the Republicans for not taking a deal to get us out of this mess, we point our fingers at Obama for offering this deal in the first place. And some how when all is played out, we let the Republicans off the hook, for not taking this deal.
cali
(114,904 posts)Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)"GOP Rejects proposal, seen as party of 'no' while Obama is seen as compromising and willing to disappoint his base."
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html
treestar
(82,383 posts)The Republicans are the reason it even has to be needed to make a deal of some kind. There is a down side to not making a deal, and then it would still be the President who gets all the blame/credit. People need to learn about the separation of powers or find a way to emotionally accept its reality. It's getting old and tired. Get the damn Republicans out of office in 2014. Instead, they'll just indulge in this kind of venting.
markpkessinger
(8,396 posts). . . I mean, if they actually said "yes" to it, we'd be royally fucked. The President is playing with fire on this one.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Of course we're glad they didn't take the deal. But why didn't they take the deal? Answer that, and you will be pointing your finger where the blame belongs.
markpkessinger
(8,396 posts). . . and the point you are missing is that by continuing to offer cuts S/S, regardless of how well this ultimately plays out, the President gives the argument, in the public discourse, a credibility it should never be given.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)You can put something on the table, and you can take it off the table.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)“Number one, I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security,” Biden said, per a pool report. “I flat guarantee you.”
I'm much closer to making that my sig.
Edit: I should have posted here, this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022618217#post50
indepat
(20,899 posts)which should really not be much of a surprise to anyone. BHO, imo, had the opportunity to be regard by history as one of the five greatest president ever had he eradicated as much of the damage inflicted by junior as possible, but he has rather chosen to ratify much of junior's legacy rather than expunge it to the extent possible. The litany of examples is evident for all to see. All this said, BHO has been infinitely better for America than any Republican would have been imo, but it shows just how far to the right politics now are, thanks in no small part to the government having the apparatus in place to have been bought by monied interests and it now acts almost solely in the interest of the uber-wealthy, large corporations, and the oligarchs rather than the people. EOS, for it's the end of government of the people, by the people, and for the people that promotes the general welfare. This nation, imo, won't be recognizable in twenty-five years, but I'm of the age not to be around to see what ultimate fruits right-wing governance since the Gipper will have created by then. 
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
yourout
(7,527 posts)He just handed the Senate to the Repubs in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I can't see the value in again demonstrating the republicans are the party of NO.
I particularly can't see how the value of that rerun overcomes the cost of tremendous alienation within his party's base...a base that must turn out to make the gains in the 2014 elections Obama needs if he is actually going to achieve anything significant in this term.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I'm sure this is causing.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)not quite what you had in mind during your golden years, is it?
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)Indirectly, through closing some deductions.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Now they can have White House brand cat food, too. 
democrank
(11,094 posts)Left-right, left-right, left-right. By the time you decide which side the ball is on....whack....it`s on the other side again.
President Obama is not a leader, he`s a compulsive modifier. He goes along to get along even if it means he has to betray the very people who voted him into the White House.
AzDar
(14,023 posts) 
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022621710
(Actually, the President has said time & again that he needs us to hold his feet to the fire.)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stab us in the eye."
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Who's playing chicken? Who blinks first? Who won the Election?
Pryderi
(6,772 posts)pandadug
(4 posts)Although I don't agree with a lot of stuff here, I can agree wholeheartly about this. The corporations really rule the world. I became enlightened a few months ago about something that most of you have known a long time: all of our interactions with other countries has nothing to do about "democracy" or freedom or other such b.s. It's totally connected to how much those other countries lets capitalism get it's claws into their sociaty. I puzzled over why we hated Venezuela or Cuba and yet tolerated China. They were all communist countries so why the difference? Then it hit me: it had nothing to do with their form of government but how willing they were to welcome in capitalist corporations. It all made sense then. It explained clearly why we treat countries the way we do. Those countries that we punish or make war with are the same ones that refuse to let in our corporate masters. I'm starting to suspect our sanctions and subsequent conflict with North Korea has something to do with this as well. They don't want our capitalism and that's why they must fall.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)process people have been going through and the conclusions you have to come to once you begin to pay attention.
Welcome to DU! :hI:
pandadug
(4 posts)I come here to get the liberal viewpoint from a lot of smart people who aren't afraid of telling it like it is. I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative; my beliefs are a mixture of both. It's frustrating going to comment sections on sites like CNN: there's either liberal zombies or conservative zombies. They will never listen to the other side and can never change their minds about what they believe; like religious fanatics. Personally, I know that I'll never know the answers about the world before I go, but I'm still searching for them. 
jsr
(7,712 posts)Fucking disgusting.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)That According to the consensus of mainstream media and all respectable opinion. Not my opinion of course - but the opinion almost any of the so-called sensible and practical Democrats who are taken seriously on any of he Sunday morning infotainment roundtable discussions.
Mark my word - whoever wins the Democratic nomination in 2016 will be the same thing all over again. Whoever the media takes seriously as a possible presidential candidate in 2016 - it will be the same thing all over again.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)He is a Republican in all but name. No longer is there a desire for the GOP to rig elections; their neoliberal ilk have infiltrated the Democratic Party and driven it so far to the right it is unrecognizable.
I wish people would wake the hell up.
840high
(17,196 posts)up. Some never will till it's too late.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Even if Obama is using SS and MC as pieces in some 3-dimensional chess game (which I haven't decided if that's the case or not), you don't offer up these two programs, which basically define us as a party. It's sort of like offering up your child as bait to catch a child predator.
In a normal world we would be talking about strengthening SS and Medicare for all.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)Proof to the American people that Republicans are not serious about fixing the deficit. Opening the door for Dems to re-take the House in 2014.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)We need to strengthen SS not diminish it. Same goes for Medicare .. Hopefully Bernie will run for president. But then of course, as an independent, he won't be allowed to participate in any debates. Someone needs to stick it to Hillary on this issue. But then what keeps them from lying in the first place .. you know ''I never said that" kind of dialogue. Obama campaigned to the left and look where he sits on the political spectrum. Third Way ..Neo liberal bullshit indeed.
