If you're displaying all of this outrage over CCPI to help the President

[veganlush]

have his "Sista Solgha" moment, then I won't condemn you , it may help. But if this outrage is real, i gotta say you are just wrong. We have divided government in part because many of you didn't vote in the midterms to teach dems a "lesson" .the fact that we have divided government means that we can't get everything we want.

The President is not just President of the Democrats, he's everyone's President and he has to compromise. He has to get things done. We criticize the right for digging in on "principal" on such issues as taxes, we just cant understand how they cant see that the rich have to pay their share. That's their principled stand though, and we have to convince them to break it just as they have to get something that we don't want to give.

The executive branch doesn't make legislation, the congress does, Many of you proudly profess to having help turn the legislative agenda over to the enemy by staying home in 2010.

The CCPI is not the end of the world. I'm in my 50's, have worked all of my adult life, and came from humble beginnings and am still just living check-to-check but i never just threw all of my faith for the future onto the idea of living solely on SS. It wasn't designed to be the end-all be-all.

[Rex]

1. Good to see what the next talking point will be.

Thanks.

[veganlush]

2. oh

you called it a talking point. It's a talking POST. But really it's a post that you read, it doesn't talk.

[kickysnana]

30. r.i.g.h.t.

[bigtree]

48. 'talking point'

= something you disagree with.

But, I'm sure the op is sufficiently shamed now.

[robinlynne]

128. ought to be.

[Faygo Kid]

3. He didn't even bargain for it. He just gave it up.

What else do you think he ought to give up re the budget to the GOP without even bargaining for it?

[dkf]

4. The latest election wasn't a "midterm" and D's showed up.

And still there is divided government. We really can't blame turnout anymore.

[bigtree]

49. right. d's did show up

It seems like that was the case, if you dwell on the internet opposition, but Democrats showed up. More dissatisfied republicans looking to make up for the election of the first black president showed up, as well.

[Isoldeblue]

5. Ahhhh, a breath of sanity! Thank you!

I'm retired (66) and had to collect early SS, losing some benefits. Both myself and hubby were out of work for almost 2 years before our 65th and had to, to survive. Then our IRA came due and our finances eased up some. Even if this CCPI does got through, it won't affect those making under $34,000.00 @yr., I don't think. So it really is a lot of propaganda and undue hysteria.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. It will effect you absolutely. Not only in that your COLAS will be smaller

but also, because your income is high enough, more of the SS could be subjected to income taxes, the formulas for those things are also based on a cpi and the chained cpi will boost your tax bill. The exemptions are for people under the poverty level. Here is the poverty levels for Two people 14,657. Your income is more than twice that. So I'm sure you are fine with all of that, but you might as well know the facts instead of foisting assumptions.

[Isoldeblue]

18. My income is NOT that much over the poverty level....

"Your income is more than twice that. So I'm sure you are fine with all of that, but you might as well know the facts instead of foisting assumptions. "

No, it's not. Where did you get that?
It isn't even close to 25,000. Your comments seem to be assumptions and maybe's with no truth or basis. All of this is moot, as it will not happen.
Look who making ass-umptions?

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Uh, you said 'under 34K' which I thought applied to you because that figure is not

a break off point for anything. Why did you use that figure, an assumption or just riffing?
Unless you are at poverty level, 14k and change, your COLA will be computed with chained CPI.
This is all a matter of public record, you can look it up, instead of citing 34K or whatever figure springs to your mind.
My intention was to inform you of the facts. What was the 34K figure referring to? Where did it come from?
From your post: 'Even if this CCPI does got through, it won't affect those making under $34,000.00 @yr., I don't think. So it really is a lot of propaganda and undue hysteria.'

So where did you get all of that raft of assumptions? It is not true that it only affects those making over 34K. That is false. And you follow that misinformation by declaring others as speaking propaganda.
Where did this 34K figure come from? Got a cite? Got anything to prove that anything I said is not accurate? Because your statement was far, far from accurate.
So cute 'ass-umption' name calling, very sweet. But from where are you pulling your figures?

[Isoldeblue]

134. Straight from SS

Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension skills.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/taxes.htm
Some people have to pay federal income taxes on their Social Security benefits. This usually happens only if you have other substantial income (such as wages, self-employment, interest, dividends and other taxable income that must be reported on your tax return) in addition to your benefits.

No one pays federal income tax on more than 85 percent of his or her Social Security benefits based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. If you:

file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your combined income* is
between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.

more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income* that is
between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits

more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
are married and file a separate tax return, you probably will pay taxes on your benefits.

[Yo_Mama]

83. It certainly will affect you!

I've read the budget.

C-CPI-U will be used to reduce your SS, Medicare gets further cuts, Medicare cost-sharing is increased, etc.

I suggest you read at least this out of the president's budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/reducing.pdf

If you think this won't affect you, you have swallowed some propaganda yourself!

The decrease of the IPAB limit alone will mean that Medicare coverages will effectively be removed for some treatments and procedures.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. That poster is just making stuff up, that 34,000 number is pulled out of the ether

and is not at all accurate, but accuracy is not the objective.

[PA Democrat]

140. She's not even close. Here is the actual detail from Whitehouse.gov

Benefit Enhancement for the Very Elderly and Others Who Rely on Social Security for Long Periods of Time

•The benefit enhancement would be equal to 5% of the average retiree benefit, or about $800 per year if the proposal were in effect today.

•It would phase in over 10 years, beginning at age 76, or (for other beneficiaries, such as those receiving Disability Insurance) in the 15th year of benefit receipt.

•The benefit enhancement would begin in 2020, phasing in over 10 years for those 76 or older (or in their 15th year of eligibility or beyond) in that year.

•Beneficiaries who continued to be on the program for an additional 10 years would be eligible for a second benefit enhancement, starting at age 95 in the case of a retired beneficiary.
Because of the benefit enhancement for the very elderly, the Budget proposal would not increase the poverty rate for Social Security beneficiaries, and would slightly reduce poverty among the very elderly according to SSA estimates.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-protections

That's all the "protections" that are detailed. Not even an increase for the bottom 20% like some are claiming. look like it's all based upon either the age of the recipient or the length of time they have been receiving benefits.

[PA Democrat]

136. You are confusing the income levels at which SS is taxable with

the income at which the proposed chained CPI would kick in.

I have not seen an exact figure for the maximum income before the chained CPI kicks in but the proposal is to exempt only the bottom 20%. The median SS income is under $15,000 a year, so the cutoff would be much less.

[Laurian]

6. I take exception to your statement that many of US did not vote in 2010.

I vote in every election and I bet most everyone on this board did, too. We are not the usual slackards when it comes to voting. Because I vote and am politically active, I don't appreciate being sacrificed for the benefit of the banks and corporations.

[femmocrat]

23. Agree.

I also took offense at that generalization. I always vote, twice a year.

[Skittles]

46. it's one of their talking points

they don't get that it was moderates who didn't vote, not liberals

[bigtree]

51. or, just a misunderstanding of the results

. . . likely not any more of an agenda believing that than you can be accused of when you're wrong on facts.

'talking point'=the new talking point

[Skittles]

52. do you even listen to yourself?

[bigtree]

80. I'm 52 years old and fully aware

. . . you're just a jackass trying to yank someones chain. I almost feel sorry for you, but I'm full up with jackasses and clowns determined to ruin someone's day to make them feel like a hero on this message board. You're pathetic.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. Wow, a string of insults and personal attacks, that really proves your point

Really, no one should ever speak to another like that. There is no excuse for that sort of thing.

[Rex]

94. No let him keep it up.

I like it when they act like children and stomp all over the place, it shows their agenda and how weak it is.

[bigtree]

98. I'm not going to tolerate people who post to me just to ridicule and bait

. . . and nothing you can say can shame me away from defending myself.

[Rex]

105. But that is all you have done!

You really need some mirrors in your house...your projection is at an all time weakness.

[bigtree]

110. there's some poster using your acct. who started this thread with an attack on the op's credibility

you might want to check into that.

'talking point' = 'talking point'

[Rex]

113. YAWN.

Now you are so lame and without any excuse that you try this...totally pathetic.

I am glad that it pissed you off so much! Nothing like watching you act like a child.

[bigtree]

115. started with that; makes sense to bring this 'debate' around to the op

. . . and your own initial assholery.

[Rex]

116. That all you got?

You obviously cannot win an argument so you stomp around like a child...I love it...keep it up it is really embarrassing for you.

[bigtree]

119. again, I feel fine. Not 'embarrassed' in the least.

. . . what a grand fantasy you've constructed around yourself. Hope it's safe in there for you.

[Rex]

120. Yeah right, I know by now you are

and wishing that this would have never happened. It is okay most children are like that, you will get over it in time. Now sit back and let the adults handle this...pat pat.

[bigtree]

124. I usually do regret arguing, but my concern, in those cases is for the recipient

. . . of my words.

Funny you should mention this, I was thinking of you right now and wondering if all of your bravado was just a mask, or if you're really as comfortable with the back and forth as you seem here. When you made the remark about 'punching hippies' it hit home for a second. i was thinking, 'Did I really feel like punching that long-haired bearded guy in the mirror this morning?' Naw! 'Hippies' are family; probably my doing/influence.

I just end this with an admonition that, from here on, you'll be talking to yourself posting on my posts or threads. . . . just a small consideration, offered for what it is.

[Rex]

133. Yes I know you ran off, no problems

you had no argument to speak of just hatred for the Left...bye bye now...pat pat.

[Skittles]

137. LOL

[Union Scribe]

73. Not when they've been corrected so many times.

It is used as a cudgel, a litmus test, and a deflection. It needs to stop.

[Skittles]

138. I agree

it is very insulting on a political board to insinuate we don't vote so we are to blame

[Rex]

78. All this projection from you.

Really amusing to watch you lack the ability to handle reality. You put on a real good show.

[bigtree]

82. reality?

. . . you're seeing subversive motives in the op; you're suggesting that I'm 'putting on a show.' You're deep, deep, into the DU clique mentality.

To you, I'm not a union worker who just finished one of my 6-day a week night shifts, looking for discussion and conversation . . . I'm some sock puppet, just here for you to ridicule and posture off of. That's supposed to be what? Advocacy? Protest? Activism?

Or, is it just old-fashioned assholery?

Seek help.

[Rex]

92. That is all you got, old-fashion assholery.

Since your hippie punching only makes you look petty and small...now you resort to names because The Left handed you your ass in this debate...now stomp off like a good child and let the adults handle this.

Thanks.

[bigtree]

102. funny, I don't feel small

. . . and don't delude yourself that what you're doing here is 'debating.' Throwing around your small feelings is the most you're accomplishing here.

Again, 'reality.' "The Left?' More cliquish nonsense better suited for a junior high school cafeteria than a Democratic message board. And you think your drivel is going to run me off? Talk to me when this web site becomes Rex's Underground.

[Rex]

103. My, my and just the other day you accused the Left of being emotional

blah blah...is there anything you really stand for or is it just fluff for you? Don't worry I could care less if you are here or not, you obviously have no impact on anything that goes on here...just anger and fluff from you. How totally boring


Have fun with your hatred of the Left, it is sad and pathetic and shows you for what you really are.

[bigtree]

104. liar. show the post.

show the fucking post. liar.

[Rex]

107. You said the Left is all emotions and now you deny it?

How incredibly sad for you must be horrible constantly moving those goal posts.

[bigtree]

112. so all you have is your word? pathetic lie.

show the post, liar.

[Rex]

114. You said it since having a temper tantrum

aww did the 'talking point' piss you off! GOOD! You obviously cannot handle reality much.

[bigtree]

117. what?

more gibberish. pathetic.

[Rex]

118. Yes that is all you have left.

Nothing. Kinda like your entire argument, nothing. Kinda like what you give back to DU, nothing.

Have fun hating, you are really good at it.

[bigtree]

121. I don't hate you, Rex. That's really impossible.

I know nothing of any substance about you. Have a nice life.

[Rex]

122. Again, delfecting away from the point.

Never said ME...wow you seem so lost and now are fumbling around for more to say...how sad for you.

[bigtree]

125. thought you were 'The Left' as you wrote in the post above

my bad, see ya!

[Rex]

132. Oh he made a funny!

Ya right 'cya'!

[Zoeisright]

127. My god you're rude.

On the old DU, that post (and you) would have been tombstoned.

[Rex]

130. You mean replying back with the exact same thing?

Nice cherry picking...next...

[Art_from_Ark]

58. Yeah, the "moderate" mushy middle

who vote in presidential elections like they are beauty contests and are easily swayed by whatever political wind happens to be blowing in the mid-terms.

[sabrina 1]

7. Here, let me fix that for you:

The President is not just President of the Democrats,

The President is not just President of the Republicans!

There, that is better. You do know that it was Democrats who elected him?

Did you know that millions of Democrats asked him to keep SS out of this deficit debate because it is a Republican Lie to connect them in any way?

What did he do after all those millions of Democrats elected him then contacted him about this proposal?

He ignored millions of Democrats.

His spokesperson says he included it in the budget because Republicans asked him to.

He did not ignore a few Republicans.

The President is a Democrat. Democrats do not play with SS no matter how many Republicans ask them to. Democrats fight to keep Republicans' hands off SS.

[Isoldeblue]

16. Carter cut SS and Reagan raised it. Go figure...

So to say dems don't isn't true.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Some real revisionism there. Reagan did NOT increase benefits. What Reagan really did:

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

"The reforms enacted under the 1983 act worked well if one was only concerned with Social Security's finances. The number of people mandated to participate was expanded, creating a larger pool of participants. Revenues increased faster than expenses after the deal was made, creating a huge surplus to raid for other purposes. But make no mistake, this wasn't a good deal if you're someone who planned on retirement in relative comfort.

The regressive payroll tax was increased, which hits lower-income people especially hard. The retirement age was raised by two years, to 67. Let there be no doubt, raising the retirement age is cutting benefits. The "windfall" of collecting both a pension and Social Security was curbed. The new law introduced taxation on Social Security benefits for "windfall" earners. While Social Security may have looked great from 50,000 feet after these reforms, on the ground the situation was nothing more than a tax increase and a benefit cut.

So where exactly did the good deal for people coming in? In hindsight, it now appears that all that Tip O'Neill agreed to do is mostly cut benefits and raise taxes on regular folks. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/20/947379/-The-Reagan-O-Neill-Social-Security-deal-was-
a-bad-deal

But don't let the facts stop that spin cycle! Reagan raised FICA taxes, raised the retirement age, taxed SS benefits.

[PA Democrat]

97. Thanks for the info.

I was just a few years out of college at the time and remember the increase in the payroll tax.

It was especially tough because inflation had been really high in the previous years (6.2% in '82, 10.3% in '81, 13.5% in '80 and 11.3% in '79) and people's wages were not keeping pace with inflation. Then they got hit with the hike in the payroll tax in '83. If you were self-employed and under the cap, you saw your payroll tax rates DOUBLE.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. We are about the same age. We remember. We paid those rates.

I was paying up to and over the cap in my mid twenties. I always knew all of the rates for everything. I have opposed the cap since I first earned over it at 23. My tax preparer thought I was insane, I could not believe such a thing existed. Of all the taxes to cap, of all the petty dollars they whined about in other areas, why the tax that supports our elders, including our future selves?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Why did YOUR State fail to have turn out in 2010?

In 2010, my State of Oregon, rather liberal by American standards, had record setting midterm turn out. Some other States had dismal turnouts, but it was the more conservative Democrats that took the big hits, and their districts that had the low turnouts. People don't vote for candidates they don't care for, and that's just politics. The only person to blame when voters do not turn out is the candidate in question, that's politics too.
Your assertion that many people here say they did not vote in 2010 is not something I agree with, I don't see that around here, and you don't cite any examples, of course, you just declare it to be true and proceed to characterize.
The only person I have ever seen say they were not voting in a primary on DU was a poorly informed 'Super Obama Supporter' who thought there was no primary in her State last cycle because Obama was already nominated. 'We don't even have a Democratic primary!' And that is the sort of voter who did not come out in 2010 just as that one skipped 2012, the 'only show for O' crowd and the always hard to book 'youth vote'.
But here, we had huge turn out and will again, our Democrats will run strongly against these proposals by the President. We don't elect all that many Third Way Demopublicans.

[Union Scribe]

9. "Because many of you didn't vote in the midterms"

Again with this bullshit? There is absolutely no objective proof of liberals staying home costing Democrats the 2010 elections.

That, combined with the new "CCPI is no big deal" talking point leads me to dismiss your OP as wrong-headed.

[Rex]

14. That's okay someone accused us of voting for Nader in 2000

and so therefore causing all this horrible economic and social chaos. It is a simple formula for the center-rightists in the party - admit no fault, blame the Left.

It worked at one time, not so nowadays.

[One of the 99]

19. I wouldn't say no proof.

[PA Democrat]

22. Did you post the wrong poll?

That's not voter turnout. Even if it were voter turnout you cannot assume that those figures are in any fashion predictive of DU.

[One of the 99]

24. No but...

it is indicitive of overall voter additudes in 2010. And I never said that it was predictive of DU, so don't put words in my mouth.

[PA Democrat]

28. First, voter attitudes does not equal voter turnout.

Second, we were talking about the OP's claim that people on DU sat out the midterm election. Go back and read the post you responded to. You stated "I wouldn't say no proof."

I don't have to put words in your mouth. It's there for all to see.

[One of the 99]

56. Why are you so angry?

You seem to be taking this very personally. Why?

[Union Scribe]

63. It is rather personal when people keep blaming you

for costing the party 2010. Aimed at people here, it's very personal, and it's insulting.

[One of the 99]

65. I never blamed you

I'm just trying to offer some facts.

[Union Scribe]

72. No, but many are

as a way of deflecting from policy issues. It's a myth that needs to die yesterday.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. No, you are foisting off figures about voter attitude as being about turnout

That's not being an honest broker. Is you claim that Google couldn't find you any figures about turn out? In that case, let's look at election results, liberal Democrats did much better than blue dog, third way conservmoderates. What does this tell us?
My blue State of Oregon had record setting turn out in 2010 so this turnout issue is apparently a State by State issue.
How was turn out in your State?

[One of the 99]

100. No need for the hostility

I just found what I could in the time I had.

[Bluenorthwest]

106. You introduced this information as 'facts'. That's hostile. Because it is not about the subject

at hand. You voluntarily posted that as 'facts' about voter turn out. When called out on this, you say 'hey, I'm just pointing out facts' when the point is you are not pointing out facts. You are substituting one set of polling for another in order to make a point you can not otherwise support.

[One of the 99]

139. I posted what I found in a google search

No hostile intent on my part. So no need for hostility from you.

[PA Democrat]

69. No, anger is a waste of energy.

I'd say that the OP is a much better example of anger. Accusing people with long track records of support for Democratic policies and candidates of losing the 2000 and 2010 elections. That's misplaced anger.

[Union Scribe]

44. And how does that translate to voting?

One could just as easily say that liberals were feeling good after 2008 and weren't "giving much thought" to the midterm. That doesn't mean they didn't vote. You'll notice also that moderate and conservative Dems polled even lower than liberals, so if that's your proof then I have to conclude that the centrists were the ones who cost us 2010.

[One of the 99]

55. So you're saying that people with a low interest

still voted at the same level they did in 2008? They didn't.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-plRKziH0gvg/UH3Vzt4P66I/AAAAAAAADr0/wy5tHlzHtWs/s1600/Daily+Kos+Poll+10-16-12+Likely+voters.PNG

[Union Scribe]

62. That graph shows liberals more engaged than other Dems.

So, again, how does that indict liberals for 2010? If it is true, then liberals were least of all Dems to blame.

[One of the 99]

68. Go back an look at it again.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-plRKziH0gvg/UH3Vzt4P66I/AAAAAAAADr0/wy5tHlzHtWs/s1600/Daily+Kos+Poll+10-16-12+Likely+voters.PNG

[Union Scribe]

70. And now let me end this

First, I was talking about your first graph. Now this one contradicts it? So which is telling the truth? You've posted two graphs that tell opposing stories. And neither one is polling data. I happen to have that data thanks to Ichingcarpenter

In the last two midterms:

From 2006, Votes by Ideology:
Liberals made up 20% of the vote and voted 87% for Democats
Moderates made up for 47% of the vote and voted 60% for Democrats

In 2010:
Liberals again made up 20% of the vote and voted 91% Democratic
Moderates fell to 38% of the vote and only voted 55% for Democrats

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html


Liberal turnout was the same in 2010, and liberals even voted more for Dems that year. It was ideological moderates, the unicorn the DLC is always chasing, that did not show up in 2006 numbers.

End of argument.

[PA Democrat]

75. Thank you!

[One of the 99]

79. Good points

But why not compare to 2008, the previous election?

[myrna minx]

86. Because both are mid term elections and not skewed by Presidential years.

2006 is when Nancy Pelosi and the Dems were swept to victory and took control of the house. If you compare the two midterms - apples to apples - it shatters the urban legend that liberals sat out the midterm to "teach Obama a lesson".

[brush]

144. No one said liberals sat it out . . .

Some dems was the term used . . . and that could include moderate dems. The links say that some moderates sat out 2010. Wouldn't that include moderate dems? They do exist. Every Democrat doesn't define themselves as liberal or progressive.

What about the blue dogs also?

[brush]

143. End of argument?

There are no moderate dems?

[Zorra]

145. Woot! You get a star *

Thank you.

"Moderates fell to 38% of the vote and only voted 55% for Democrats"

[cthulu2016]

11. This blizzard of meaningless talking points certainly addressed my concerns!

[ljm2002]

12. Oh Goddess help me, not another one...

...telling us we didn't vote.

What a load of bullcrap.

YOU don't know ANYTHING about the people on this board and whether we voted or not. I'd wager the vast, vast majority of DUers voted in the midterms. Come to think of it, did YOU vote in the last election? I see no reason to assume that you did. In fact, I think the reason we have divided government is that YOU didn't vote! Yeah, that's the ticket: It's all YOUR fault and now YOU're whining about it!

Get a fucking clue.

[Isoldeblue]

15. +1 n/m

[Jamastiene]

38. We should start answering OPs like this with a simple subject line of

I voted. What is your excuse now?

If each person who assumes the rest of DU did not vote (which is highly unlikely) and makes an OP about it got about 50 replies of, "I voted. What is your excuse now?" they would quit this nonsense.

[Skittles]

53. it's their way of shifting the blame for losing the House

[PA Democrat]

13. How generous of you not to condemn me.

Please provide links to back up your claim that "many of you didn't vote in the midterms to teach dems a 'lesson' ".


What other parts of the Democratic platform and of our social safety net are you willing to cut to negotiate with lunatics?

[markpkessinger]

36. Thank you!

See #35 below on this point.

[One of the 99]

17. Well said!

The right demands ideological purity, we shouldn't. I don't like CCPI but it is not 'gutting SS' as many are claiming. We need to avoid such extremist rhetoric as well.

[PA Democrat]

21. Who is claiming that Obama is "gutting" Social Security?

People have stated the chained CPI cuts Social Security benefits (in terms of buying power) but no one has claimed that it guts Social Security.

Pretty unfair to accuse people of "extremist rhetoric" when people have made no such claim that SS is being "gutted."

[One of the 99]

25. You should read more

There are those saying this.

[PA Democrat]

26. I googled it. ZERO results.

Post a link with a claim that Obama is "GUTTING" (a direct quote) Social Security. You made the claim. Back it up.

[One of the 99]

54. Zero results?

http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2013/04/theyre-gutting-social-security-but-want.html
http://www.correntewire.com/another_secret_deal_obama_gutting_social_security_and_medicare_no_congressional_hearings_after_mid_t

[PA Democrat]

66. The accusation was people on DU.

Not sure what your Ron Paul video is about but last time I checked Ron Paul was not a member of DU.

[One of the 99]

67. I never accused anyone on DU.

That was you, not me.

[PA Democrat]

71. Are you for real?

The OP was complaining about people on DU. The entire thread is about people on DU who are unhappy with the President's chained CPI proposal. The topic was not about what Ron Paul or some yahoo on some other website had to say about the topic.

Thanks for the chuckle.

[Dragonfli]

74. You were so busted.... show a little dignity, if you couldn't back up your implication

you shouldn't have doubled down by posting a libertarian idiot as representative of the posters you were trying to slander thus digging even deeper.

The biggest loss of dignity however was when you still didn't stop digging, but increased the depth of your hole by accusing the guy that busted you with your bullshit, that was just sad man.

[PA Democrat]

29. Just as I thought. CRICKETS.

[One of the 99]

57. 13 Minutes???

13 Minutes and your claiming crickets? Sorry that I have a life.

[bluestate10]

33. You clearly have not been reading posts. Or you simply have chosen to attack any viewpoint

that doesn't match yours while acting like gross claims by those you agree with never happened. DU has been replete with claims, some of them overly long and always hysterical that President Obama was going to starve grandma, if she didn't like to eat cat food. There are four posters in particular that has incessantly posted wild claims and eight others that have been nearly as bad. So, how could ANYONE miss those posts unless such a person is either morose or disingenuous?

[PA Democrat]

39. That poster claimed people were saying Obama was "gutting Social Security"

When you put something in quotes you should be able to provide a source.

There have been many very emotional comments on both sides of this issue. I tend to have a little more empathy for those who have genuine concerns over cuts to the social safety net. A lot of seniors are barely scraping by as it is.

Is it not disingenuous to claim that many of the people who are critical of the chained CPI sat out the the 2010 election as the OP claimed? Lots of emotional rhetoric and very little discussion of FACTS. I've tried to do that but I am frustrated with people who put personality over policy. Imagine if George Bush had proposed this.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660049

[bvar22]

61. That looks like a"gutting" to me.

Of course, ANY cuts at all for the many living on Social Security WILL reduce their already minimal standard of living.
I call THAT "Gutting".

A Democrat would be fighting to INCREASE Social Security benefits in these times of escalating prices,
at least the Democrats I remember from the 50s, 60s, and 70s would be doing that.
THAT is WHY I decided to join the Democratic Party.


[font size=1]I supported you, won’t you support me. Support Social Security with NO CUTS and support Medicare with NO CUTS. Cut MILITARY and Defense spending instead. Build more roads, bridges, schools, etc



Dear President Obama:

I am deeply disillusioned and angered but what feels like, no, not feels like, IS, a betrayal of the promise you made to protect social security. Social security benefits are for many seniors a lifeline that makes the difference between living out ones years with dignity, or in fear and poverty. After all the promises you made to us in your campaign, how dare you change your tune now for political reasons and expediency.[/font]


http://savesocialsecurity.tumblr.com/

[still_one]

111. Perhaps, however the President ran that he wouldn't do it in 2012. Also, I have to wonder if it is

such a good deal why are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders so opposed?

[mick063]

20. Could not disagree more.

This is common folk verse the .01 per cent.

This is obstructionists verse problem solvers.

This is greed verse common good.

You do not compromise with evil.


Now is not the time to compromise.


Now can you quit scolding me for not voting in 2010 when I actually did?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. If you're going to have a talking point, can't you make it shorter?

[KoKo]

31. The person is from perhaps another sphere of our universe?

Whatever...

[bluestate10]

32. The complainers don't take responsibility for any mistake they make, how ever large

and crippling. They insisted on voting their "conscience" during the key 2000 Presidential race and got us two wars that didn't need to happen, 9/11 that could have been prevented, a trillion dollar plus annual budget deficit from a surplus, 11 trillion dollars more debt, 10,000 American soldiers dead and tens of thousands having their lives, minds and bodies permanently damaged. One would have assumed that with some introspection they would have learned. But then came the critical 2010 midterms, they had not learned.

The "principled" set would have given the country a shape shifting President had enough Independents who swallowed republican lies during the 2010 midterms not recognized the error of their ways and voted for President Obama and democrats in mass. And what happens after President Obama is returned to office with more democrats in Congress? The "vote their conscience" set ignore the contributions of moderate democrats, left of center democrats and Independents in their rush to claim credit for the victories, even as their contributions were minimal when compared to the afore-mentioned groups.

I frankly am tired of dealing with the "principled" set. I want to see more Independents make their home in the party so that moderate-left people like me can push the complainers out of the party and into their own, tiny little world.

[PA Democrat]

42. Pretty outrageous claim to make that anyone complaining about a chained CPI

sat out the 2000 election and the 2010 midterms.

Honey, I'll put my track record up against yours any day of the week. I've haven't missed an election in more than 20 years, voted loyally Democratic, donated thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates that I really couldn't afford, made hundreds of phone calls, knocked on hundreds of doors.

And here's a newsflash. You are not going to win over independent voters by advocating cuts to Social Security. You'd better go check the polls Mr. "moderate left."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200866/-Newsflash-Even-Tea-Party-Voters-Oppose-Cuts-To-Medicare-Social-Security

[WorseBeforeBetter]

60. Yeah, that's a winning strategy -- rely on "Independents."

"I voted. What's your excuse now?" (Kudos to Jamastiene...)

[green for victory]

85. "I frankly am tired of dealing with the "principled" set."

Thanks for making that perfectly clear. The feeling is mutual, though the opinions of the "principled set" are obviously worth less than yours- to you anyway. Maybe one day everyone will agree with you. OR, maybe not. I'm guessing...

"I frankly am tired of dealing with the "principled" set."--bluestate10

famous quote

[myrna minx]

90. Are you "going Galt" on the "principled" set? The people who are the ones who

volunteer to do the door knocking and phone banking for those Dems running for office? Who will you get to do all of that volunteer work when you "push" Democrats out of the Democratic Party?

[Bluenorthwest]

99. If you're counting on attracting 'independents' it is a bad choice to bad mouth liberals while

chattering about personal responsibility because those independents will hear the same thing from Republicans and when faced with the real thing vs a simulacrum people always go with the real thing.
Here in liberal Oregon, we had record breaking turnout in 2010. What do you think your State did so wrong that you had such poor turnout and results? Did your State 'moderate' Democrats or conservadems get sent packing? Is that what this is about?

[Marr]

135. That's like blaming the general public because your turd candy shop went out of business.

If a politician loses an election, it's because he or she employed a losing strategy-- by definition. Blaming the voters is not a realistic response.

If you truly believe it was liberals' failure to turn out that caused these various election losses, then the fault lays with the party and the candidate, for failing to attract these voters in significant numbers.

[scarletwoman]

34. Balderdash, fiddlesticks, and horse hockey. *I* voted in 2010, as did all dedicated Dem partisans.

The folks who DIDN'T vote were the mushy middle, "independents", and LIVs (low information voters). I'm sick to death of this bullshit meme.

Furthermore, you can take THIS:

i never just threw all of my faith for the future onto the idea of living solely on SS.

and stick it where the sun don't shine. There are LOTS of people in this country for whom there is NO CHOICE but to depend on/hope for SS to provide their sole retirement income.

With company funded pensions gone the way of the dodo bird, and 401Ks demonstrated to be a cruel hoax - with many, many people's 401K "savings" lost by the crash of 2007/2008 - SS is the only life raft they have.

So, go ahead and try to rationalize this utterly disgusting betrayal of everything that lifelong Dem voters like me have believed in and fought to preserve through the decades - but I tell you straight out that your OP is nothing but the sound of a fly buzzing in my ears. All it inspires in me is the desire to reach for a fly swatter.

Feh.

[TheKentuckian]

77. They cannot admit that their schemes supposedly to attract independents seems to have

them running for the hills.

They must do so because the lie is central to papering over their agenda no one wants save the parasite and predator classes. The flunky ass "small people" think they will get their beaks wet or granted some boons for their loyalty. Silly buggers.

[markpkessinger]

35. Stock Obama Defense (and unfounded myth) #17: "we lost in 2010 because the left stayed home"

Sorry, that one has been debunked. Nice try, though.

See: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout

[neverforget]

37. So because we have divided government, Obama must give in to Republicans on C-CPI?

Huh? What kind of negotiating strategy is that? Start from the compromise position?

As for the 2010 Midterms:

The Republicans relied on differential turnout. Among Tuesday's voters, 46 percent voted for Obama in 2008, 45 percent for John McCain -- an election Obama won by 53-45 percent. Thirteen percent of Obama voters defected to Republicans for Congress, while 8 percent of McCain voters favored Democrats. And among other voters -- the 8 percent who either didn't vote, or voted for someone else, in 2008 -- Republicans won by 57-36 percent.

GOP candidates scored better than they have in decades among some key demographic groups. Consider:

Women voted 49-48 percent for Democratic vs. Republican House candidate -- the best for Republicans among women in national House vote in exit polls since 1982. Obama won women by 13 points in 2008.

Democrats and Republicans were at parity in self-identification nationally, 36-36 percent, a return to the close division seen in years before 2008, when it broke dramatically in the Democrats' favor, 40-33 percent.

Swing-voting independents who, as usual, made the difference, favored Republicans for House by a thumping 16 points, 55-39 percent. Compare that to Obama's 8-point win among independents in 2008. It was the Republicans' biggest win among independents in exit polls dating to 1982 (by two points. The GOP won independents by 14 points in 1994, the last time they took control of the House.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739&page=2#.UWi7A7XBOSo

Ends up we turned out so that "we didn't turn out" meme doesn't fly. We lost independents big time. You should direct your anger at so-called "independents" and not us.

[avaistheone1]

40. Wow! How I am glad that I don't feel like you!

I really don't want to eat cat food. Nor do I want to worry about every penny. No thanks!





The president IF he wants to be everyone's president needs to start working for senior citizens. So far he has completely disregarded them.

[Jamastiene]

41. I voted. What's your excuse now?

I vote in every election, even right down to the liquor by the drink vote back in the 90s in my county. We won that one and the No votes, aka the church vote in my area, for that came up to exactly 666 against the idea of allowing liquor by the drink. Do you have any interesting poll results to share from all the elections you have voted in?

[truebluegreen]

43. Bull.Puckey.

We have a divided government because after 2010 the Repukes gerrymandered the crap out of districts in the states they controlled. They lost the popular vote for the House by 1.5 million votes. We picked up seats, but we would have to beat them by 6 or 7 percentage points to take control.

And thanks to the Grand Bargainer in Chief, who seems more interested in his bipartisany image than in the actual lives of people in this country, I doubt if we have much chance of taking the House in 2014. Unless we do it in spite of him, not because of him.

[awoke_in_2003]

45. Another post blaming us for 2010...

I am shocked. We need "unrec" back.

[JDPriestly]

47. I voted in the mid-term elections in 2010.

[myrna minx]

50. My first vote was for, I'm proud to say, Senator Wellstone in 1990.

I've voted in every election and primary (even if it's for school board and even when I've had pneumonia - because that's where the sneaky Michele Bachmann types find foot holds in MN politics) and I've even been a local delegate.

Liberals tend to be election judges, volunteers, drive the elderly to the polls, do door knocking, stuff envelopes, phone bank etc. Do you have any empirical evidence that it was we liberal folks who are shocked by the President's proposal of chained cpi who didn't vote in 2010? This has become such an urban legend to bash "libruls"and it's offensive. What were your GOTV efforts in 2010?

Yes, the President is the President of us all, not just the wants and desires of the Republicans. I find it sad that you're willing to give up THE major plank of the Democratic Party, the plank that is a huge selling point for people to vote Democratic to "get things done" and because to you it's not the "end all be all". Well, for many it is. For many it's everything.

Just what do the Republicans offer? What was that? Nothing? So we chip away at the Democratic Party's legacy for nothing? That's unconscionable. This is eating the seed corn well before winter.

[just1voice]

59. So being outraged about Soc. Sec. being stolen is wrong, OK, thanks, LMFAO!

Go any more? You here all night? LOL.

[840high]

64. bs

[HiPointDem]

76. "i never just threw all of my faith for the future onto the idea of living solely on SS." who cares?

seriously, i could give a damn what *you* did.

1/3 of seniors depend on SS for 90%+ of their income and 2/3 depend on it for half or more of their income.

it's not because they decided to rely on SS for their retirement -- it's because that's the way life worked out for them.

so i don't give a damn what *you* did. before SS, a lot of seniors wound up in *workhouses*. again, it wasn't because they at some point decided to end their days in a fucking workhouse.

idiotic comment.

[Blecht]

81. +1e999

"Idiotic" is too kind.

[KG]

84. who the fuck is "Sista Solgha"?

[99Forever]

87. Good grief.

What a barely comprehensible word salad screed that was.

I'm outraged because a Democratic President is doing what HE SAID he wouldn't do. That's called being lied to. You are welcome to be happy with being lied to, I am not. IT PISSES ME OFF.

My retirement ISN'T a fucking bargaining chip for Obama or anyone else "compromise" (more like capitulate&quot with. PERIOD. I fucking earned it, not Barack Obama or the fucking, gawdamn 1%er assholes he is to kowtowing to.

Nor are you qualified to tell ANYONE what THEIR Social Security is or isn't and what part it should in THEIR lives. You are out of line.

Oh yeah, and BTW, edited to add:

I have voted in every election, including primaries, caucuses, and locals since I turned 18 in 1971. What's your excuse?

[kentuck]

93. Show of hands?

How many did not vote in 2010 election, just to teach those Democrats a lesson?

[TheKentuckian]

123. They won't let go of the lie. They cannot admit their shitty policies don't attract "moderates" and

"independents" because then they wouldn't have a sales pitch for tolerating their shitty policies.

[still_one]

108. How about this, the President comes out and says SS and Medicare WILL NOT be part of the budget

deficit cutting. He got the message loud and clear.

[Progressive dog]

109. You don't compromise with yourself after

you assume what the other side's position is.
And even though I voted a straight Democratic line in 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, etc., my outrage, hissy fit, or other name of the hour has nothing to do with a loss on 2010.

Could you give me links to your claim "Many of you proudly profess to having help turn the legislative agenda over to the enemy by staying home in 2010."

[limpyhobbler]

126. "The CCPI is not the end of the world." ? For some people it might be.

[AgingAmerican]

129. If you are mad about Obama offering SS cuts you are wrong?

Because it divides government? What the hell are you talking about? He has to give it away because he has to compromise?

Is this the new third way talking point:

"but i never just threw all of my faith for the future onto the idea of living solely on SS. It wasn't designed to be the end-all be-all."

Sorry, but intended or not many many people have no choice but to live off of SS, especially with UNIONS and PENSIONS being sucked down the donut hole by right wing policies over the last 30 years.

[Babel_17]

131. "because many of you"

Well, sure, consequences are real when one doesn't vote. But your quote points more than one way.

I'm reasonably sure many young voters were disillusioned and stayed home in 2010.

They didn't stay home because of what was coming out of the mouths of reformers.

Regarding compromise: At this point in time any compromises with the right should only be done out of the most dire necessity, not out of "fair play". Fair play died out long ago and the lies and crimes of the right have pushed this nation's policies far to the right of where the people want them to be, voted them to be.

Imo the administration is full of people who don't understand what has happened over the last 30 years. Perhaps because they never suffered being accused of being traitors for opposing wars and wiretaps, or perhaps because they just "get" the concerns of the right when it comes to economics, but whatever their reasons they aren't reflective of what I thought having beaten back two consecutive Republicans for President would get us.

"Many of you proudly profess to having help turn the legislative agenda over to the enemy by staying home in 2010."

News to me, the vast majority of progressives I see here are extremely behind getting out the vote, and the word.

[Douglas Carpenter]

141. Then what is so bad about the President supporting the overwhelming bipartisan national consensus?

Most Republicans oppose any cuts in Socials Security benefits. Most independents oppose any cuts in Social Security benefits. Most Democrats oppose any cuts in Social Security benefits. This is reaffirmed by a multitude of polls- just look it up it is easy to do.

here is one - but there are a lot more:

http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/post-election-polls.pdf

◾Voters strongly oppose cutting Social Security benefits with 71% opposed to means-testing and 67% opposed to raising the retirement age
◾64% strongly oppose cutting Medicare benefits for future retirees and 59% oppose cutting payments to Medicare providers want voters support two Social Security and Medicare reforms by overwhelming margins:

Our poll also shows Americans support two Medicare and Social Security reforms by wide margins:
◾

On Social Security, voters across party lines support lifting the cap on wages above the current level of $110,100. We know from focus groups that voters see this cap as an unfair loophole that they did not even know existed. Sixty-five (65) percent of voters favor gradually lifting this cap for both employees and employers, including 75 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents, and 54 percent of Republicans.

◾
On Medicare, overwhelming bi-partisan majorities support allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. Eighty-six (86) percent of voters favor this, including 77 percent who strongly favor it. By party, 91 percent of Democrats favor allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies (81 percent strongly favor), as do 85 percent of Independents (75 percent strongly favor), and 81 percent of Republicans (75 percent strongly favor).


Lastly, our poll shows that 85% of those surveyed say Social Security and Medicare were important factors in casting their 2012 vote.
http://www.ncpssm.org/EntitledtoKnow/entryid/1953/Americans-Don-t-Support-Cutting-Social-Security-Medicare-for-Deficit-Reduction-Even-Wall-Street-backed-Third-Way-Agrees#.UWnfNTpApdh