Social Security belongs to the American people. It is not Obama's to bargain with.

[Triana]

Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:49 PM - Edit history (5)

I voted for Barack Obama twice, however I can no longer defend him since he is advocating unfair and unnecessary cuts to Social Security.

President Obama OWES the American people a clear explanation:

• WHY he is choosing to advocate for cutting SS after repeatedly promising not to?

• WHY he is buying into the debt/deficit propaganda and the austerity bullshit when it's clear that austerity has not worked anywhere else in the world and when virtually EVERY economist says it's JOBS that ought be priority #1 for fixing the economy, NOT cuts!

• WHY he is insisting in coupling the need to "do something" about SS with talks about the deficit, when SS has not added ONE CENT to the deficit. Talks about any "fixes" to SS ought to be separated from debt talks and any fixes to SS can wait since the program is fully solvent for at least another 20 years. Why now?

• WHY he insists on CUTTING SS when other options that most Americans support and which are MUCH less damaging are available - such as raising or removing the FICA cap, or raising FICA tax rates - yet these options are NEVER mentioned or discussed by his admin. Why is that?

Social Security IS OUR MONEY. It is not an "entitlement". It is an EARNED BENEFIT and we have every right to an explanation as to WHY this president is CHOOSING to "bargain" it away in some unnecessary, immoral, unfair, and ill-conceived plan which we know has its roots in a group of very wealthy men who have sought to destroy the program since it was created. WHY is he helping them do it?

President Obama needs to be cornered with these questions. Preferably by some very angry voters who supported his (re)election - however I doubt he has the guts to face them after what he's done on this issue - which he surely knows is wrong, unfair, and grossly immoral.

It is unconscionable to force our nation's elderly, sick, disabled vets, and our poor to suffer even more to pay down a debt which THEY didn't create and which Social Security hasn't added one cent to.

I KNOW this president knows better than this. The American people certainly do. But he likely won't face them on this issue. I wonder how he can even face himself.

He's lost my support. If I wanted policies like this, I'd have voted Republican. I don't want them. I didn't vote for them. And I never will.

In the clip above, Barack Obama said:

"John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost of living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either."

In regards to this, a friend commented thusly: "I find him scary, because his image/words/speeches do not match his deeds."

This comment says a lot. I've had people in my life like this: Jekyll-Hyde types. They were two-faced, not trustworthy. You don't want them in your life and you don't want them in power. President Obama's Jekyll-Hyde problem in regards to Social Security is one example of why.

We expect Republicans to conscienceless and diabolical. Not Democrats. And that's what this proposal to cut Social Security is: conscienceless and diabolical. Particularly so since it was Democrats who created and have consistently protected this program. And mark my words, Republicans will use Obama's willingness to cut it as part of their 2014 campaign against Democrats. They've already started.

I wrote previously about Pete Peterson and his "Fix the Debt" lobbying apparatus, and about how Obama's two appointments to the "catfood commission" are its top leaders - Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. You can see my post about that and other issues here.

Though he made these appointments, perhaps many people thought that they were just some sort of window dressing and that surely a Democratic President would not seriously advocate cutting Social Security. No Democrat has ever done that. They were wrong about him. I was wrong about him.

This issue is a defining one for Barack Obama and his betrayal is worse than just betrayal. It's a Chicago gangster-style knife in back of the majority of Americans for no reason other than achieving a "grand bargain" with obstinate Republicans who've been hellbent on destroying Obama, Social Security and this country practically since their existence.

I can assure President Obama that Americans do not appreciate his presumptuously bargaining away their retirement savings needlessly and unfairly as part of a package to appease the most extreme, greedy, dangerous, unethical, hostage-taking, uncompromising contingent of our government and business sectors who want their hands on our money, and have for decades.

These money-hoarding, greed-driven factions don't care if any middle-class or poor Americans live or die from one day to the next. But most Americans rightly expect an allegedly Democratic President to care. It turns out he doesn't. Some goddamned "grand bargain" with the most greed-driven, impossible and unproductive contingent that has ever existed in Congress is more important to him.

And there's no other reason for this. None. Well, except this one, very nicely pointed out by TheNation magazine:

In fact, there is an even bigger lie concealed by the fiscal scolds and ignored by witless media, too. Again and again, self-righteous critics have portrayed Social Security as the profligate monster borrowing from the Treasury and sucking the life out of federal government. Guess what? It's the other way around. The federal government borrows from Social Security. The Treasury has been borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund for 30 years, and the debt to Social Security beneficiaries now totals nearly $3 trillion. The day is approaching when that money will be needed for its original purpose: paying Social Security benefits to the working people who contributed to the fund.

That is the real crisis that makes the financial barons and their media collaborators so anxious to cut Social Security benefits. They would like to get out of repaying the debt—that is, giving the money back to the people who earned it. The only way to do this is cut the benefits—over and over again. Count on it. If the president and Congress succeed in this malicious scheme, they will come back again and again to cut more and more. If the politicians join this sordid conspiracy, voters should come after them with pitchforks and torches.

You can read the entire article here: http://www.thenation.com/blog/173771/will-voters-forgive-obama-cutting-social-security

And as for the question of whether voters will forgive Obama for cutting Social Security - the answer is a resounding: "HELL NO!"

Social Security belongs to the American people. It's OURS. It does not belong to President Obama or Wall St. It is not HIS or THEIRS to bargain with.

How dare you Mr. President.

© 2013 Seven Bowie

SOURCE: http://www.sevenbowie.com/2013/04/social-security-belongs-to-the-american-people-it-is-not-obamas-to-bargain-with-how-dare-you-mr-president/

(I am the author)

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. "How dare you Mr. President."

[woo me with science]

50. +100000

[Scuba]

2. K&R

[Oilwellian]

3. Excellent post

K&R

[woo me with science]

4. That is

an outstanding piece.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. "...Chicago gangster-style knife in back..."

Ooffffaaaah.

And it was going so well...

Some people just can't help themselves, I guess.

[xtraxritical]

40. Two words - Revelations/antiChrist

[loudsue]

109. One word

bullshit.

[wendylaroux]

6. so true!

He has pissed off everyone,both dems and repubs,will this outrage make our "leaders" in Washington listen?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

61. They ARE listening. To the rich....

Top priority to the rich is the deficit and "entitlements" with a hair on fire attitude that America contains people that actually EXPECT to get a free ride on their dime.

Top priority for the 99% is jobs.

The rich really believe that being poor and homeless is a lifestyle choice.

[Life Long Dem]

7. Nancy Pelosi is not calling this a "cut".

"Nancy Pelosi... said Wednesday (December 19, 2012,) that it doesn’t count as a benefit cut."

"I consider it a strengthening of Social Security," the California Democrat told reporters.

http://tinyurl.com/bubtmlj

[Triana]

8. Horse shit. We all know this is a cut. COLA adjustments downward are cuts. n/t

[Life Long Dem]

12. What about the poorest elderly?

The poorest of the poor will be lifted above the poverty line. Those are the poorest elderly and the ones who are "hurting" at this moment being below the poverty line. They eat cat food right now. What about them?

There are protections in place for the poorest elderly on SS in this bill that are NOT in place NOW.

Are they getting "cuts" being lifted above the poverty line?

[Triana]

15. It's great that such protections might be included. However....

.... Seniors would see smaller Social Security checks under Obama budget

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/news/economy/chained-cpi-social-security/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Senior citizens would see their Social Security checks shrink under President Obama's latest budget proposal.

The budget plan, released Wednesday, calls for changing the way the annual cost of living adjustments for Social Security and other federal programs are calculated. Shifting to "chained CPI" from the current inflation measure could reduce the federal debt by $230 billion, but it would also mean that seniors would get smaller increases in their Social Security payments each year.

The president's proposal would provide protections for the oldest seniors, low-income seniors and veterans, and those who are disabled. Seniors ages 76 to 85 would receive a supplemental payment annually to offset some of the slowdown in growth. Also, programs that are geared for those in or near poverty, such as the Supplemental Security Income, would be exempt from the switch to chained CPI.

_ _ _ _

My question: Why not add these protections WITHOUT the cuts? Again, WHY ANY CUTS at all? Why not raise FICA rates or raise the cap?

It's still quite senseless and wrong-headed. Social Security is NOT the problem. JOBS are the problem. Social Security is solvent for another decade or two. Small tweaks (NOT cuts) are needed to make it solvent beyond that ie: raise FICA or the cap. Why the rush to CUT it in tandem with budget negotiations now?

Senseless.

[DhhD]

17. Population growth in America has been below Zero for many years now. Cuts are not necessary.

[OnlinePoker]

44. I don't know where your're getting that.

The U.S. Census bureau predicts the U.S. population will keep increasing and hit 400 million in 2051.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html

[Life Long Dem]

19. Yeah great

[woo me with science]

27. Fuck "PROTECTIONS" from the President's policies.

Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2013, 12:49 PM - Edit history (6)

Howzabout a Democratic President doesn't propose legislation that people need to be "PROTECTED" from?

Howzabout a Democratic President refrains from assaulting us in the first place?
.
.
.
In fact, here's a novel thought:

Howzabout a Democratic President works ON BEHALF of the people who elected him?!

[lark]

42. Right on!!!

How about a Dem president who actually puts forth policies that favor the working class instead of the investor class? How about a Dem president who is not a trojan horse?


There's no way to portray this other than a MAJOR BETRAYAL of everything he has ever campaigned for.

[tokenlib]

83. The "protections" ( I read them) are A JOKE.. and you are correct!

Sorry I don't have a link to the "protections"..but they are posted in a few threads..
Read them and weep...

There is no excuse for this to be offered in the first place..damn Third Way/ Democrats for the Leisure Class

[AllyCat]

86. I agree with YOU. We should be raising the payouts, not making cuts

and those cuts need to come from the goddamned rich, end of story.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Why cut from others who are not much better off to accomplish that? Where are your posts from the

past calling for higher SSI payments, because that is what we are talking about. Not Social Security, the poorest are on SSI. Have you any evidence that you have ever advocated for raising benefits for that group in the past? All this change does is retain the COLA they get right now while taking it from others. It is interesting that you think that the amounts will lift people out of poverty but for people making say 13K, the amount as a cut is supposed to be negligible. Current income considered 'poverty level' is $11,107, above that you get no COLA. Let's just be clear here. You are saying a person making 13K is not poor and should not get protections.

[Life Long Dem]

22. It's interesting that you would allow the poorest to suffer

By not lifting them above the poverty line. The difference between below $11,107 and $13,000 in trying to make ends meet is huge.

[djean111]

23. "allowing"? Why are we getting a Sophie's Choice when it is NOT necessary?

[Marr]

25. Now *THIS* is hiding behind the poor.

In recent days, I've seen the Defense Brigade try several jabs at suggesting that anyone who was upset about Social Security was only feigning concern for people who rely on those programs. Threads like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=297857

But the above post by Life Long Dem here is what hiding behind the poor really looks like. And it's sickening.

[woo me with science]

28. Amen.

Sheesh.

[Life Long Dem]

35. Thanks.

Yes it is sickening. That's what we have been seeing from this certain group on the left (emoprogs) who threw Obama under the bus 15 minutes into Obama's first term saying Obama didn't accomplish everything in the first 15 minutes.

[Dragonfli]

62. Your straw man needs some work little "Republoprog"

Are all of the 80% of the population that don't want cuts to SS emoprogs or just those that you come across on a board that are not easily bullshited? You made a schedule for your little poppet and everything! This emoprog straw man took exactly fifteen minutes to throw him under the bus in 2009 giving the reason "Obama didn't accomplish everything in the first 15 minutes." so he even talks! There is more work to do on him, since your poppet talks, put words in it's mouth that say things that are actually said somewhere by someone. Or at least invent more believable fictitious dialog if you are going to use him as a prop to misrepresent people for not goose stepping to a parade of earned benefit cuts.

Informal survey
How does it feel to support Pete Peterson in his goals?
Have you always sounded like a dissagreeable teanager?
Which of the think tanks do you use most for talking points?
How may one formerly address your position, as a "republoprog" or Fix The Dept spokesperson
Also, do you get a tingle up your leg when you here lies spoken with a straight face by a Deified politician?
(please take my survey as I am studying the differing species of Fix The Dept apologetics trolls)

[JDPriestly]

90. The poor now get food stamps, rent subsidies and other programs that

supplement their income. From what I can tell, Obama's plan would take money from the Social Security Trust Fund which was put into that fund to compensate for the stress on the system when the large generation of baby boomers retired to cover those additional benefits for the very poor. Those who would receive them are the people who did not put enough into Social Security during their working years to qualify for a larger benefit.

Looked at it objectively, it appears that Obama wants to take money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for the food stamps, etc. for this very poor group of seniors RATHER THAN FROM THE GENERAL FUND which is where it comes from now.

Thus, Obama claims to be raising the benefits for the poorest seniors, those under the poverty level, but what he is not saying is where that money will come from. And unless someone shows me evidence that I am wrong, I am saying that the money for the poorest is to be found by transferring the burden for the food stamps, etc. onto Social Security. To impose that additional burden on Social Security, as I understand it, Obama proposes to reduce the benefits for the people who paid enough in payroll taxes to qualify for the slightly higher benefits. Remember the average benefit is only between maybe $1200 - $1300 or so per month. The people getting the average benefits are only barely getting enough to be above the poverty level.

It's a scam on the lower middle class people (most Americans) who rely on Social Security for at least 90% to 100% of their income as they age.

Had this been introduced at a time when interest rates were high and those seniors who had saved could depend on income on savings beyond Social Security, then this plan might be acceptable and people would be hoodwinked. But everybody is hurting. Seniors have complained far less than others even though many of us would not have retired yet if jobs were plentiful. We have just accepted Social Security and drastically reduced our lifestyles.

But the chained CPI and the missed and reduced COLAs are just too hard a blow. This is why we are so angry.

And on top of it all, our children face huge debts for school and dare not start families or buy houses. And we do not want to burden them.

The military demands too much, far too much of our national income.

[unrepentant progress]

101. Yep. It's a shell game.

One minor quibble though -- this might actually hurt the very people it's supposed to help. It's conceivable that by kicking in another $200-$300 of Social Security income, the poorest of the elderly and disabled could lose more in SNAP and other benefits than they're getting extra from Social Security. It could be a net negative for them. But we don't know because all we can see is hand waving in Obama's budget proposal -- chained CPI for COLA adjustments, oh and "protections." Those protections aren't spelled out. So who knows what the House and Senate Budget Committees would deem an adequate protection.

[dflprincess]

30. You're assuming that those protections won't be negotiated out of the bill

not unlike the public option (which Obama said Health Care Reform had to have).

And aren't those "protections" tied to the minimum wage rate? If that doesn't go up neither will the amounts the poorest receive.

If Obama and Pelosi and any Democrat actually cared about the program and Seniors the change to how COLA is calculated would be to start including items that Seniors actually spend money on - medications would be a great place to start.

[brentspeak]

46. Somebody else responded to your bull$hit on another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2651551

[Hoyt]

80. I agree with you completely. Further, all those calling for Obama's head are forgetting that we got

improvements in Medicare prescription drug program, more "free" preventive services, expansion of Medicaid for states smart enough to take advantage, no increase in Medicare or SS age, more emphasis on quality under Medicare, and a whole bunch of stuff that helps everyone not just us.

But yep, on the slim chance that no good President actually reduces my SS a [b]little bit, I think we ought to run him out of the country – unless of course, I’m on the lower end of the scale, on SSI, or benefit from other protections in the budget proposal.

[JDPriestly]

85. Do you think $1200-say $1700 is middle class? Or does it still qualify

as poor? Because only a minority of people get more than that?

[eridani]

103. Will you centrist shills PLEASE quit pretending that Census "poverty" has something to do with REAL

--poverty? If you really gave a bloody goddam about these people, you'd insist that Congress just adjust the initial benefits calculation upward right now, which is an adjustment to the current practice alreasy favoring lower income people. This process has NO FUCKING RELATIONSHIP to chained CPI and could be done at any time. Besides which, the additional pittance will damned well NOT lift the lowest quintile above real poverty.

You and the Census Bureau do not live in the real world. You believe in the idiotic fantasy that if you take a bare bones rice and beans budget and multiply its cost times three, that this reflects life in the real world. In our world, we have rent, utilities and medicine to worry about, which in your world do not exist.

And this stupid fantasy is somehow worth pushing the second and third quintiles into REAL poverty. The fourth and fifth quintiles won't (unless something catastrophic happens) be poor--they will merely be stripped of discretionary income. That income helps to maintain demand in an economy which is still a major depression for all but the 1%.

[Fuddnik]

29. Had not EVERY President for the last 40 years not fiddled with COLA calculations.

SS benefits would be nearly double what they are today.

Read a book by Kevin Phillips called "Bad Money" for full details on how COLA and GDP are calculated and fixed to make every President look better.

Here's an excerpt:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/hard-numbers-the-economy-is-worse-than-you-know/473596


Ever since the 1960s, Washington has gulled its citizens and creditors by debasing official statistics, the vital instruments with which the vigor and muscle of the American economy are measured.

The effect has been to create a false sense of economic achievement and rectitude, allowing us to maintain artificially low interest rates, massive government borrowing, and a dangerous reliance on mortgage and financial debt even as real economic growth has been slower than claimed.

The corruption has tainted the very measures that most shape public perception of the economy:


• The monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), which serves as the chief bellwether of inflation;

• The quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which tracks the U.S. economy's overall growth;

• The monthly unemployment figure, which for the general public is perhaps the most vivid indicator of economic health or infirmity.

Not only do governments, businesses and individuals use these yardsticks in their decisionmaking, but minor revisions in the data can mean major changes in household circumstances — inflation measurements help determine interest rates, federal interest payments on the national debt, and cost-of-living increases for wages, pensions and Social Security benefits.

And, of course, our statistics have political consequences too. An administration is helped when it can mouth banalities about price levels being "anchored" as food and energy costs begin to soar.

The truth, though it would not exactly set Americans free, would at least open a window to wider economic and political understanding. Readers should ask themselves how much angrier the electorate might be if the media, over the past five years, had been citing 8 percent unemployment (instead of 5 percent), 5 percent inflation (instead of 2 percent), and average annual growth in the 1 percent range (instead of the 3-4 percent range).

(snip)

[eridani]

104. And not a single one of them was dealing with the worst depression since the Great Depression

And all the fucking cheerleaders want to slash consumer demand just as the jobs picture is getting wobbly again.

[haikugal]

33. Keeping the 'powder' dry I see....n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. If it is not a "cut," why is Obama pushing for it?

[emsimon33]

64. Nancy may find herself with a Democratic challenger--a real Democrat!

[Life Long Dem]

66. Don't flatter yourself

You only think emoprogs have power. Obama won by the way. And we'll survive just as we have after you sat out 2010.

[Dragonfli]

78. Are you saying you are not a real Democrat and onlty faux Democrats voted in 2010?

All you appear to do is insult every Democrat you meet that does not agree with fiscally conservative policies, unless "emoprog" is some sort of flattering term.

A Democrat suggests a primary, preferring the primary winner to be a "real Democrat".

You can disagree with the poster's belief that Pelosi should be primaried and his/her interpretation of her agreeing with cuts to SS as making her less than a real Democrat. Your response did not do that, you used a straw man to describe any such "real Democrat" as an "emoprog" and suggested that such a Democrat no longer has power, you then painted your straw man as sitting out 2010, blaming what I assume by your insult to be progressives for faux Democratic centrist positions that disillusioned voters. You also appear to feel quite confident that the center right new Democrats have lots of power and don't need progressive Democrats. A bit arrogant for a third way fluffer that only has the power to disrupt and insult.

[dflprincess]

92. What I notice about the corporate "Democrats"

is that they spend most the time telling those of us in the Democratic wing of the party that we're not needed and are opinions don't count because there aren't enough of us to matter.---Until an election goes badly then we're so powerful and numerous it's all our fault.

[emsimon33]

118. LOL

So very right! Very insightful!

[JDPriestly]

84. She is rich. What does she care?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

117. "strengthening of Social Security" - will be interesting to see how many fall-in with that?

[MotherPetrie]

9. K&R.

[Autumn]

10. K/R Great article.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. K & R

[RKP5637]

13. K&R !!! n/t

[KoKo]

14. Absolutely! It's our money...not a Poker Chip! Recommend

[byeya]

16. Wonderful post! Agree 100%

[closeupready]

20. AMEN. K&R

[Paper Roses]

21. Agree: K&R

[Fuddnik]

24. Look at what he surrounds himself with.

All Wall Street thieves and Goldman Sachs alumni.


http://www.alternet.org/147-people-destroying-world


March 25, 2013 |




Can 147 people perpetuate economic injustice – and make it even worse? Can they subvert the workings of democracy, both abroad and here in the United States? Can 147 people hijack the global economy, plunder the environment, build a world for themselves that serves the few and deprives the many?

There must be some explanation for last week’s economic madness. Take a look:

Cyprus: The European Union acted destructively – and self-destructively – when it tried to seize a portion of the insured savings accounts of the citizens of Cyprus. They were telling anyone with a savings account in the financially troubled nations of the Eurozone: Forget your guaranteed deposits. If we need your money in order to bail out the big banks – banks which have already gambled recklessly with it – we’ll take it.

That didn’t just create a political firestorm in Cyprus. It threatened the European Union’s banking system, and perhaps the Union itself. The fact that the tax on deposits has been partially retracted doesn’t change the basic question: What were they thinking?

The Grand Bargain: The President and Congressional Republicans reportedly moved closer to a deal that would cut Social Security and Medicare while raising taxes – mostly on the middle class – without doing more to create jobs. A “Grand Bargain” like that would run counter to both public opinion and informed economic judgement.

(snip)

[L0oniX]

26. After this shit I am wondering what unpleasant surprises might come up with ACA. n/t

[earthside]

31. What is the problem?

That is still my first question about this proposal of Pres. Obama's ....

What problem is cutting Social Security benefits supposed to solve?

Secondly, I'm sure seniors spend virtually all of their Social Security check every month -- so Social Security is clearly economically stimulative. So, why is Pres. Obama promoting a proposal that will have a negative effect on the economy?

Third, I know almost all politicians want to be loved by everyone, but what is this weirdness with Barack Obama that he so desperately seems to want the Repuglicans to be nicer to him?

Finally, it was demoralizing the progressive/Democratic base that led to the 2010 election disaster for Democrats. This Obama Social Security proposal would appear to be having a similar effect on the base. Is there something self-destructive with Pres. Obama? Why would he be doing a 2014 version of the 2010 'abandoning the public plan option' that caused so many Democrats and liberals to just stay home?

[randome]

68. Perhaps the only point of it is to peel off a couple of Republicans to vote for revenue increases.

I very much doubt any actual 'cuts' get past the Senate budget committee, the House budget committee and the inevitable House/Senate reconciliation committee.

Perhaps the more immediate goal is to end sequestration.

Only speculation on my part, of course.

[earthside]

71. We are all speculating ...

... because this proposal just doesn't seem to make much sense.

And I agree, this plan will never actually happen -- Democrats in Congress need to unify and say loudly and clearly that they are not for any cuts in Social Security benefits.

Obama never has to face the voters again, so cut him loose on this issue ... Democrats need to make that very clear.

[dgibby]

81. I think that his father abandoning him

at such a young age has caused him to have a pathological need for approval from authority figures, so needing approval and acceptance from the "daddy party" would make perfect sense in a weird sort of way. Notice how often he invites the repukes to the WH? Remember how many times he's invited progressives? Me either.

[earthside]

87. That makes as much sense as anything else.

Why not?

There has got to be something too in Pres. Obama's purposeful lack of public passion and/or anger (when necessary) in defense of progressive, traditional Democratic ideas. This gun thing and Sandy Hook is the closest he's ever got to being 'human' in public.

You'd think he'd be passionate about Social Security because of his closeness to his grandparents.

Who knows.

[haikugal]

32. K&R!!!!

Well done. Obama is a Trojan Horse.

[Festivito]

34. Actually, we own EVERYTHING, ... as long as we fight for it,

vote for it, or have our representatives vote for it.

But, if we won't fight for it, it does not matter if we fight now and don't fight later. We can still lose it.

Americans rightly expect an allegedly Democratic President to care. It turns out he doesn't. Some goddamned "grand bargain" with the most greed-driven, impossible and unproductive contingent that has ever existed in Congress is more important to him.

And there's no other reason for this. None.

Yes there is reason for this. Some. Okay, you don't think so. Fine. Truth is, we have not fought for our own money. And, as long as we don't fight for our money and even more, fight those who do fight for even more than they deserve, they will not respect us and will continue to try to take our share -- and then some.

[Triana]

37. The whole reason I wrote this ....

...is BECAUSE I AM FIGHTING for our money.

I also sent it to the White House via their contact form and tweeted it to them @whitehouse and @BarackObama

Anyone else can do the same and/or write their own rant and send it!

EDIT: At LEAST 2.3 million people have signed petitions to President Obama about this issue. I expect millions more have written and called. There should not be ONE PERSON who hasn't, if they give a damn keeping about social security or anyone on it.

The question then is: will all this fall on DEAF ears?

We'll see.

[Festivito]

45. We're fighting, fighting hard for this ONE CRUMB!

Yes, we deserve this one crumb. We grew it, harvested it, put it together, cooked it and now the master wants to eat it even though it was promised to us.

Are we to be happy if we just get our crumb back? We earned more than that crumb than the master earned his by being born in the luckier womb. It shouldn't be about luckier wombs. If we do not respect ourselves enough to get more of we we all deserve, no one else should should respect us either.

The House Republicans have us over a barrel. If we give them nothing, they destroy the economy hurting all of us from unlucky wombs while further destroying how much we can put into SS making it more vulnerable than the predictors predicted.

As to which is worse for us, I do not know, I wish we had the numbers calculated by those predictors.

This might be like voting for a Democrat, not because one likes the particular Democrat, rather, we vote for the Democrat because we have to vote against the Republican.

Do we here have to shout for a crumb, so we don't end up with an even smaller portion of crumb than we certainly deserve? Or, do we have to wait until we are even more destitute than we were when Republicans kept, by winning, the House?

2 million signed Bernie's petition out of 200-300 million. It should be 2 million that didn't sign it and 200-million that did. We are the voices of one crying in the wilderness as of yet.

It's a nice piece you wrote, a great piece, we want the same end. I just wish it looked to me like we are really heading there.

Be well, good soul. I have to go back to work.

[lark]

47. We aren't the people that matter

We don't fund the pols campaigns and steal money from already empoverished people. He only cares about those folks - the 1% - and all talk to the contrary was plainly a lie to win another election. All the people on the board who said this would free him to be the liberal he truly is - were wrong. This allowed him to be the Reblican he always was. Remember when he praised Raygun - that was obviously from the heart.

Yep, he's a giant trojan horse.

[bread_and_roses]

38. K&R - with !!!!! + 1000snds (n/t)

[think_critically]

39. Wow

So limiting increases relative to inflation is somehow and egregious sin. You may disagree with the policy but the melodrama on this site regarding this is insane. If people want to blame somebody they need to blame themselves for not voting in 2010 because there was no public option. Furthermore, this is what happens when you have divided government. There is no getting around it.

[ljm2002]

52. "they need to blame themselves"...

..."for not voting in 2010".

Whoa there l'il buddy. I certainly voted in 2010, straight Democratic. I'll wager that 99% (at least) of the people you are addressing also voted in 2010, and voted Democratic.

And limiting increases relative to inflation is very relevant, more so to an aging population whose sole or primary income is Social Security, since their expenses tend to rise faster than inflation.

If this is such a miniscule adjustment, then why is Obama bothering with it in the first place? If it is a "difference that makes no difference", why risk political capital in proposing it?

Because it does have an impact, that's why. Unfortunately, the impact on the deficit is nil, since Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. But the impact on those receiving Social Security is quite real, since most recipients aren't exactly living high on the hog to begin with.

[AgingAmerican]

53. "There is no getting around it"

Bullshit. The Republicans didn't ask for this. Obama offered it up out of the blue, because he knows that the GOP don't like Social Security and they want it destroyed.

The only explanation for him offering it up is to impress the Republicans. They are already starting to beat him over the head with it politically.

Bush attempted to destroy Social Security and it cost him the 2006 midterms. It's the stupidest proposal ever by a Democratic president.

[Fuddnik]

54. You obviously didn't read my post upthread about fixing official rates of inflation.

Kind of like Bush fixing the Iraq intelligence.

And no, don't blame themselves, blame the Democratic Party for backing shitty candidates. Down here in Florida, as I'm sure in many more states, they actively recruit Republicans and undermine Progressives. I've seen it first-hand, several times.

[Marr]

60. The Chained CPI calculation *assumes* an ever lowering standard of living.

It assumes that the recipient will stop buying steak, and start buying chicken. And then less chicken.

It is most certainly a cut.

Nice try blaming liberals for it, though. If I understand your pretzel logic, you're arguing that the populace, who was naturally less enthused about their Democratic President after he chose to take a decidedly corporate tack in his policy-making, is to blame for his later push to cut Social Security?

Brilliant thinking there.

[treestar]

77. +1

this is the millionth irrational thread on the subject.

[The Blue Flower]

41. It belongs to us, it is not yours to bargain with

Those were my exact words in my letter to the White House.

[think_critically]

43. higher taxes

Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to support the growing number of older baby boomers retiring?

[lark]

51. False flag

Social security has enough money to pay out 100% of benefits for many years to come - think it's around 30 something now. This is a total false allegation, very troll like IMO. WE don't have to pay higher taxes and if you are even somewhat intelligent and aware, you know this. Raise the cap and the issue is taken care of forever, no problems, no tax increase except for the very well off. Win - win. Why isn't this even considered by the president? It's because he's not on our side. Now, maybe, you are one of the 1% and don't want your taxes increased? Well, too bad. You can afford it if so, my mom can't afford the loss.

[Dragonfli]

65. We already do, Have been since 1983, the tax increase was specifically implemented

"to support the growing number of older baby boomers retiring".

Were you sleeping that whole year?
Why do you think there is a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus? (it was part of the plan to cover boomers)

Now they want to repurpose that money so that have to use as little as possible of it on the retirees it was intended for.

[eridani]

105. The ignorant young need to understand that FICA was DOUBLED in 1983

--precisely so the trust fund would have a surplus for boomer retirement. Boomers paid for their parents as well as themselves.

[supercats]

48. Very Well Said

Your post got me to call The White House comment line, and I gave them my two cents on this issue.

[Liberalynn]

49. K and R

[99Forever]

55. Oh Hell yes! n/t

[colorado_ufo]

56. Well said, Triana.

Disappointment upon disappointment.

[avaistheone1]

57. Politicians both right and left for decades used to be mindful of not scaring old folks

about losing or diminishing their Social Security benefits, but not President Obama, our master negotiator.

[sabrina 1]

58. 'How dare he' is correct. This sense of entitlement these politicians have is truly upsetting.

To even talk about SS in the same sentence as the Deficit is pushing the Republican lie we have fought against for so long.


As for this:

"John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost of living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either."

So much wrong with that, and I remember the uneasy feeling I had when he would make such statements.

This part eg:

John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security

There he confirms the scary republican lie that SS is in terrible trouble and it's only getting worse. What he should have said that McCain has lied about SS. That the way to keep it working as successfully as it always has and still is for the next 25-30 years without doing anything to it, is to raise the cap and increase employment. Doing those two things will ensure the success of this program for the next century.

In the most subtle ways he says things like this. You really do have to watch everything they say very carefully.

Be prepared for someone to come along and tell you that he 'didn't mean what he said there, he was just baiting McCain to trap him into lookiing bad.

[Triana]

59. Agree w/ all you said. And yes speaking of "entitlement"...

... that these schmucks feel "entitled" to bargain away the most successful savings/retirement program we have and that millions critically rely on -- and to do so as a means to cut a deficit that said program doesn't even contribute to -- and to do so when the money put into it is NOT even theirs to bargain with - THAT is "entitlement".

Oy.

[woo me with science]

73. +100000 I complained a while back

about the trend toward describing politicians as our "leaders" rather than our "representatives."

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1522513

Now I really think we need to start remembering to use the term, "PUBLIC SERVANT," because too many of these clowns seem to have forgotten that they work for us.

[Triana]

79. "too many of these clowns seem to have forgotten that they work for us."

EXACTLY!

I think it's time to start reminding them WHO pays their exorbitant salaries, healthcare and retirement.

[emsimon33]

63. K&R

So well said.

I am amazed at his betrayal.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. It's a good thing that Obama was elected from Illinois and not Blagojevich.

[kentuck]

69. BINGO!

Well said!

[zentrum]

70. Why?

Because the group he was dying to not be beholden to, due to second term freedom--is us! He feels at last free to let out his inner Reagan and not have to answer any more to that pesky Base.

We thought it would be the other way around--that his inner FDR could come out once he didn't have to make promises to Wall Street anymore.

We thought that in his second term he'd really make his mark and be free to the transformative liberal we all believed him to be.

Woe is us.

Call the WH. Call your democratic Senators and express your wrath.

[just1voice]

72. So do torture camps, for-profit health scams and criminal banks

All in our name whether we support the crimes or not. Too bad nobody in power outside of E. Warren are willing to do a damn thing about it.

[truedelphi]

74. Why is it tha there is usually only one person who gives a damn?

The PTB with assistance from their Corporate Controlled media took out Dennis Kucinich. And now we have Elizabeth Warren.

Wonder how long before she is asked about her belief in space people?

[Peregrine Took]

75. Double Amen! What hutzpah! Its not "HIS" to compromise!

What an ego! He's our president not our King.

[whathehell]

89. Correct. I sent him an email weeks ago that said "It's not yours to 'bargain' with"

at which point I'm sure he sat up and re-thought it all, lol.

[treestar]

76. Yet another thread on this

There are many things in the budget.

The title is just emotional. There is a basis in statute for every social program. They were passed, modified and can be repealed.

this is why we have to keep Republicans out of office.

[asjr]

82. I can't believe what I am reading here. Is there some contest going on to see who can be

more snarky about the president? Has this already passed the Senate and the House? Is it now the law of the land without anyone even
reading any budget? Would you rather have had Romney for president? Some of the proclamations I read here sound very Republican
I am an 80 yr old senior on SS only. I manage. No, it is not '"Pres Obama's money" and he isn't stealing yours. You can trash him
if you want--I am sticking with him. He is the best thing to happen to us in several years. Maybe if you used some of the above language against Ryan, Boehner, Cantor, Cruz, etc. you could accomplish something.

[Number23]

88. Nice post. I'm starting to think that everyone with the capacity to reason

should just sit DU out for a few days until all of the gnashing has passed.

Is this an important issue? Yes, and it has the potential to become even more so. But does that justify the 7000 DAILY threads, attacks on the president and some of the most disgusting attacks on DUers that try to talk about any of the 4 million issues that affect us as a country? Hell no. The response to this is so overheated as to be completely beyond absurd.

I've seen this place at its worse (which it seems to be on a bi-quarterly basis) and this has been particularly bad. I think it is the constant highjacking of threads that dare to talk about other issues that's just made me realize how completely divorced from reality many remaining posters on DU are. Thoroughly explains why so many have left.

Maybe if you used some of the above language against Ryan, Boehner, Cantor, Cruz, etc. you could accomplish something.

Love it. In other times, I'd ask you to post your experience as an 80-year old senior on SS as an OP so that others could read about your experiences. But I have no doubt that if you did that now, you'd be attacked by the pack of hounds that have pounced on this issue and are peeing all over GD staking their territory.

[Triana]

91. Complacency....

...is a large part of what got us into the gargantuan MESS we're in today as a nation. For 40 years we all sat there like Little Muffet on our little Tuffets eating curds & whey while the GOP, the Pete Petersons, the Kochs, the Rupert Murdochs, the Jamie Dimons, the Lloyd Blankfeins, ALEC, the NRA et al conspired (and succeeded) in yanking our very lives, human rights, wages, jobs and economic security right out from beneath us. By now, they've largely succeeded.

So, if YOU want to sit there prim and proper and be a good little submissive child while they continue this lecherous, immoral campaign of theirs - while an alleged DEMOCRAT advocates for cuts to our Social Security program (and this is something that no Democrat has ever done), you are welcome to do so.

I however, will NOT.

But here's the thing: YOU don't get to control other people's behavior. You can only control your own. Therefore, you are absolutely privileged and free to refrain from reading any other threads here - and/or any of mine in particular - on the subject of Social Security. You cannot stop me or anyone else though from posting about it, grouse as you may.

Good Day!

[asjr]

94. I rest my case.

[Cha]

100. Oh, aren't you the vicious rage insulter.

[Cha]

99. A lot of the same people were trashing him before this..

now they can dig the knives in deeper with their big bad tough talk.. and rake in the attas.

thanks asjr I'm a soon to be 69 year old on SS only, who's not jumping on the hate wagon.

[jsr]

93. Recommend

[smirkymonkey]

96. Amazing post. Thank you!

I am getting so sick of this shit!

[Beacool]

97. If the consequences weren't so bad, I would actually be enjoying the moment.

The candidate who the DailyKos and other LW blogs worked so hard to nominate just bit his supporters on the ass. There's so much hang wringing at Kos and The Nation. How could Obama betray us after all we did to get him elected????? Well, next time don't vote for the first guy who talks pretty, but has been in office for such a minuscule time that he doesn't have much of a record to his name. You really won't know where he stands. Talk is always cheap. What should have clued some people is how he voted on FISA the minute after he got the nomination.

[eridani]

106. The other candidate was a corporatist as well

--who stood by in approval after NAFTA, telecoms deregulation, repeal of Glass-Steagall and slashing welfare benefits. IMO Clinton had a slight edge on health care, and Obama on the Iraq conquest. I think most people who leaned toward Obama did so because his campaign organization was far superior. In retrospect it looks like being good at campaigning is not the same as being good in public office.

[Beacool]

112. Wrong Clinton.

Bill was president, not Hillary. She's not the sum total of her husband.

A good campaign does not necessarily mean good governance. I always thought that Obama was about Obama. Why else assume that you can handle the largest economy in the world when you barely got to the Senate less than 2 years ago? He hadn't been long enough in Congress to have the deep connections that the Clintons have. IMO, Hillary would have been more like LBJ in handling Congress. She had a good rapport with them and had know many of them for a long time. She would have known whose ego needed to be massaged, who need to be cajoled, etc. For everything I've read, Obama doesn't have a close relationship with his own party people. He doesn't call them. Bill would be calling them all the time. Connections are important in DC, you're dealing with a bunch of people who have an overinflated sense of their own importance. Politics is a game and you have to know how to play it. I noticed that from the get go Obama assumed that if he wanted to pass something the Dems would automatically agree to it. Hillary would have known better, getting the Dems to all agree on something is almost a miracle. LOL!!!

[Blue Owl]

98. Goddamn right!

[AzDar]

102. K & R

[tomp]

107. i think your expectations of democrats is unwarranted.

they have always served the rich, just like the republicans. and given the growing world economic difficulties we should expect more and more blatant collusion. we are in dark times and they are getting darker, and the veil of difference between dems and repubs is being drawn back. the only solution is to oppose both parties en masse.

[loudsue]

108. Wow! What a GREAT paragraph! This says it all...

I can assure President Obama that Americans do not appreciate his presumptuously bargaining away their retirement savings needlessly and unfairly as part of a package to appease the most extreme, greedy, dangerous, unethical, hostage-taking, uncompromising contingent of our government and business sectors who want their hands on our money, and have for decades. "

[myrna minx]

110. Yep. I cannot believe this is now on the table and being commingled with the deficit.

Just because it "won't pass" this session doesn't mean it'll go away. Its now in the bloodstream with pundits gleefully calling for its eventual inevitability.

[Triana]

111. "It's now in the bloodstream with pundits gleefully calling for it's eventual inevitability."

That's why it has to be met with the most vehement backlash EVER. Not just against Obama's suggestion of it, but against ALL suggestion of it. If it was necessary, that would be one thing. But we all know it's NOT. Some greedy thieves don't want to pay back OUR money they stole. It's immoral at its core and I don't see how anyone can sit there and let it happen - even if it doesn't pass now.

[myrna minx]

114. The new spin on this very site is that even if it does pass, its not too bad.

According to the fresh spin, it does eventually protect the very poor 85 year old people, so its actually a good thing. Unbelievable.

[fasttense]

113. Well written and backed up with data.

Well done Triana

[Laelth]

115. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[woo me with science]

116. kick