Is it me, or is Obama as bad a "listener" about Social Security as Bush was about invading Iraq?

[villager]

In other words, public opinion be damned.

[DearHeart]

1. You are correct. So much for being able to "hold his feet to the fire"

If he was listening and it was working, he would have "No mas pantalones!" (as on the Progressive commercial)

[villager]

4. If we are the leaders we've been waiting for... why is our President refusing to follow?

[DearHeart]

6. Good question! We are his bosses, but he's being insubordinate!

[tblue]

29. His GPS keeps saying, "Recalculating"

every 10 feet. But I guess he can't hear it. Quick! Somebody run over to Costco and get him a new one!

[MisterP]

40. a Solution

... the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

[xtraxritical]

39. "All hat no cattle".

[unrepentant progress]

2. Neoliberalism is the only liberalism we got now

[duffyduff]

17. Which is far right policies bordering on fascism

The "alternative" is batshit craziness.

Pick your poison.

[unrepentant progress]

24. Exactly

When Ronald Reagan is to the left of the "Socialist In Chief," (as a right wing neighbor of mine called him the other day) you know you've got a problem.

[femmocrat]

3. I don't know what the hell is going on.

He insults the Atty Gen. of CA and throws seniors under the bus all in the same day.

Where did the Barack that we "used to love" go?

[villager]

5. He shows up during campaigns, then is quickly retired

n/t

[Raksha]

27. Well, I do know what's going on and I've known it for years.

I voted for Obama in 2008 but NOT in 2012, because I knew he was going to do this. It's been "the plan" all along. I did a little research, and discovered that cutting entitlements was always on his agenda, even before he was elected the first time. I got raked over the coals by my fellow "progressives" every time I tried to confront them with his hypocrisy. Before every single one of his "capitulations," the faux liberals were always telling me to take a "wait and see" approach. Yeah sure, wait until it's a done deal, wait until it's TOO LATE!!! It happened over and over again.

I mostly stayed away from DU during the election, because I couldn't oppose Obama openly here and yet I couldn't support him and knew I wasn't going to vote for him. After a lifetime of voting a straight Democratic ticket, I voted for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. It helped that I live in California, which was solidly in the Obama camp, so I didn't have to feel guilty about throwing my vote to Mitt Romney.

I'm 67 years old, and my SS widow's pension is my sole source of income. I'm one of those seniors Obama is throwing under the bus, just as I knew he would. So now I finally get the grim satisfaction of being able to say "I told ya so!" which is the sole reason for this post.

Big, big thrill.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. Same here.

[rateyes]

45. +1

[djean111]

7. In my opinion, Obama decided to do this years ago, and has no interest in public opinion,

now that he has been reelected. By the same token, since it is obvious that Obama has an agenda that is neither progressive nor even Democrat, he has become irrelevant to me. Since he cannot be reelected again, why do some here even bother defending him?
What does it matter if he is criticized? Do you think anyone in Washington gives a rat's ass about Obama's approval number or whatever? Do you think Obama really cares? And the legacy talk is ridiculous. Who cares, and why would some guy's legacy be more important than the people who worked to elect him?
Looks like he is now just spoiling Democrat chances in 2014.

Obama doesn't 'listen' to the electorate at all.

[unrepentant progress]

26. Oh, it definitely predates his election

We knew this in 2007.

Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a “crisis” in Social Security — most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.

But Mr. Obama’s Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you’d expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age when that’s neither possible nor desirable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html

Where I differ from Krugman, is I don't think it was a mistake. Cutting Social Security has always been one of Obama's goal.

[Raksha]

30. It will be very difficult, but it's important not to spoil the Democrats' chances in 2014.

If we possibly can, we have to elect as many Democrats as possible and not give Obama the excuse of a Republican-majority House. Remember 2010? With 20/20 hindsight, we can see that was EXACTLY what he wanted! Some of us realized it at the time too.

Afterwards, between 2014 and 2016, will be our turn to get revenge on the sellout Democratic Party. Change the name of this website to Progressive Underground and throw THEM under the bus!

[djean111]

31. Great idea!

Some days I think this website should be called Obama Underground - which would make no sense unless it was a fan site.
Oh, and I don't think it will help get votes if we praise Obama no matter what corporate tripe he proposes. I want to vote for Dem candidates who disagree with him.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

38. Nah. It's a very vocal minority...

in no way representative of DU as a whole. As of right now, BOG has only 279 subscribers, with 13 trashing and 30 blocked.

[villager]

32. +1

Strip away all their excuses -- then find out, finally, the truth about our Democratic party.

[forestpath]

34. +1

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. Exactly.

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. Stone deaf re. education. Doesn't know; doesn't WANT to know... n/t

[duffyduff]

19. He DOES know, and in fact thought the GOP had the right ideas on it

Duncan isn't acting by himself here.

A disaster on this and many other fronts.

[Wwagsthedog]

9. You aren't alone in making that assumption.

[Autumn]

10. Bush and Obama are both damn good listeners.

When it come to the elite.

[whathehell]

11. Public Opinion in BOTH parties on Social Security is "Do Not Change Anything"

So who could he possibly BE listening to on Social Security and "entitlements"

but shadowy, corporate forces whose names and faces we'll likely never know?

[OldDem2012]

12. I don't want to appear insulting, but you do understand that the President can SAY anything....

...he wants about ANY legislation, but he has ZERO power to actually create legislation?

The President has stated that he wants to present a compromise that includes cuts to earned benefits and increased taxes on the wealthy. There are two ways this suggested legislation is dead on arrival:

1. The Dems in the Senate will NOT agree to cuts in earned benefits;

2. The GOP Tea-Nazis in the House will NOT agree to increased taxes on the wealthy.

Is it just me, or do some DUers just like to trash the President no matter what he says or does?

[villager]

13. So why not SAY he isn't going to cut Social Security then?

Or is he entirely feckless when it comes to the "bully pulpit" part of the job, too?

[duffyduff]

21. He wants to gut it. That's the point.

Peter J. Peterson OWNS Obama.

[OldDem2012]

23. LOL. Nonsense. It's a wedge issue. nt.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. You're sadly minsinformed. He's not "gutting" anything.

A little in-depth reading would tell you.

On the other hand, the RightwingWooWoos, including Boehner, are saying the same thing you are. Friends of yours?

[OldDem2012]

22. Because he's using this as a wedge issue to go after all of those GOP voters who....

....are retired or about to be retired in the next five years. He wants them to know that the GOP Tea-Nazis in the House are continuing their efforts to attempt to cut earned benefits. He also knows the Senate Dems will never allow the earned benefits to be cut.

[Dragonfli]

37. I don't want to appear insulting, but if this is a wedge issue to go after GOP

voters who are retired or about to retire and he wants them to know that the GOP tea-nazis in the house are continuing to attempt to cut earned benefits, then his strategy is ill advised, counter productive and more than a little stupid.

His Strategy appears to be to propose these cuts himself and trick the GOP into not voting for cuts because he knows they hate taxes and tax increases would be part of the deal.

This strategy will not point out to the GOP retirees that the tea gopers want cuts (even tho I concede they do) but that HE does as HE is the one putting them on the table. It will show them instead that the house tea nazies hate taxes and will not vote to increase them, something GOP voters including those of retirement age agree with.

In addition, a problem is created by this strategy that would not be a problem If the President did not offer cuts to earned benefits as a Democrat. It will become a wedge issue that will work against HIM (and by extension our party). A wedge affecting BOTH party's retired or about to retire. They will see HIM offering cuts to their earned benefits, not the tea nozzles. Many of the NOW angry seniors in OUR party may even credit the GOP with stopping him from achieving these cuts by refusing the deal (they may not care why, that it is only to avoid tax increases, they will just be glad someone stopped it, that they were defended somehow), the GOP elderly will believe wholeheartedly that the GOP protected them almost unanimously.

This has no other possible outcome but to backfire against him and by extension against the Democratic party.

Unless, they call his bluff, then He will be known as a Democrat that achieved cuts to earned benefits with the help of bipartisan support and not just a Democrat that made the callous proposal.

That outcome may be slightly better politically but only because the GOP nuts don't get to act the heros that prevented cuts. It will still be a large net loss for the Democratic brand because it will cause a great deal of anger to be directed towards Obama and by extension the Democratic party by the elderly of both parties.

It is a really really bad strategy, that is why I do not think it is strategy, I think Obama's Ideology really sucks regarding entitlements, I think he really wants to cut them.

[Marr]

41. I see it the same way-- that argument makes no logical sense.

The argument is that any budget Obama proposes is DOA anyway, and he only submitted this one for political gain.

Well, how does proposing items that are massively unpopular with the majority of Americans-- not just Democrats, but Americans in general-- gain him anything politically? The whole "it makes the other party look bad" line is nonsense, as it isn't the other party party who proposed it. Recalcitrance isn't going to cost them anything politically if they can just tell voters they were defending Social Security. It'll be a huge boon, in fact (assuming they don't just say "yes&quot .

If you wanted to use a DOA budget bill for political gain, you'd propose *popular* things. Like... well, like the things he talked about during his campaigns. The things that won him elections. Seems sort of common sense to me.

These tortured explanations for why black is actually chartreuse and up is actually sideways have only grown more and more removed from reality.

[Dragonfli]

47. It is either extremely bad strategy, or revealing of his personal ideology

It may even be simpler than either of those, he may be nothing more than another purchased politician that does the bidding of the Pete Peterson's of the world for simple shallow personal gain.

Whatever the motive, it is already damaging the party before the midterms and once the full fallout is known and the negotiations finished, we may be dealing with more damage than can be overcome.

The tortured explanations are something to behold, I don't know if the people making them are self deluded, or if they are desperately and purposefully trying to misrepresent things in order to trick as many as possible into supporting really bad policy decisions. Reality does not get in the way of their rationalizations or crazy arguments, I think they may even believe powerful men create the reality that we may only observe and discuss, like the neocons claimed to believe.

[duffyduff]

20. Explain his education policies, which haven't gone through Congress

and are highly questionable legally because they haven't gone through there.

Public education is being destroyed in this country, and it is being spearheaded by "Democrats" in the White House and in the education department.

Race to the Top is a thousand times worse than NCLB.

[OldDem2012]

25. Hmmm. What exact education legislation has been created by the White House?....

If you want someone to blame for the destruction of public education in this country, look no further than GOP-controlled state and local governments who have been working this angle for the last 20-30 years.

[CTyankee]

36. for the life of me, I can't understand why he did this. There appears to be no up side

only a downside to doing this.

Or you thinking that he felt it was the "lesser of two evils"?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. Why?

If he was a local politician in Chicago, some of us in Illinois (but not me) would think that it was due to graft and corruption. Some would say follow the money, if you can find the trail.

Since he is not a local politician in Chicago, we'll just have to wonder why he is doing this.

[uponit7771]

14. unnnn, this is logic be damned, at least Bush could blame his adivsers Obama on the other hand

...isn't being rational seeing that MOST Americans want to tap the rich and not the poor and elderly.

[duffyduff]

15. Try his rotten education policies, which are even worse

His most ardent fans will not go there because it is plain from those policies where his allegiances truly lie.

[Cleita]

16. Sure it appears to be. I mean he is totally ignoring people's opinion on the issue.

I wrote him a letter specifically about it and the White House sent back a form letter about the ACA and totally ignored my concerns about Medicare and the chained CPI.

[jsr]

18. Obama has been talking about "reforming" Social Security since before he took office

He obviously doesn't give a damn.

[forestpath]

33. Good comparison, and Obama will end up as reviled over this as Bush has been over Iraq.

But he won't care any more than Bush did. Whatever he is getting out of this will richly compensate him.

[Dryvinwhileblind]

35. It ain't U,V. >>>that is all.

[agent46]

43. It's not Obama's fault.

We let him down. We're just not praying hard enough to him. If we don't show our support constantly and keep telling him what we need, he can do nothing of himself.

[Dragonfli]

48. like tinkerbelle he will fade away if we don't believe hard enough, don't let tinkerbelle die!

[DirkGently]

49. He has adopted or pretended to adopt a false view of SS.

Obama has repeatedly lumped SS in with spending issues. He uses "entitlement reform" to mean the same thing Republicans mean.

He is wrong in this entire area, whether it is a political tactic or his actual view.

It's disappointing and destructive.