President Obama isn't just destroying the Democratic Party and the country,

[ProSense]

he's doing it intentionally. He's worse than Bush. No. He makes Bush look like a saint. In fact, according to his critics, he's more evil and dangerous than Reagan and Margaret Thatcher combined!!!

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/barack-obamas-2nd-term-it-bill-clintons-3rd-or-it-ronald-reagans-9th

Who else can Obama be compared to in order to convey just how horrible he is? (On edit, how about Cheney, without the heart?)

Obviously, I don't agree.

President Obama has done more to help the poor and middle class than any President since LBJ
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022660715

[trumad]

1. other than the Drone and SS thing...he's been outstanding..

He sure can rouse the trolls here on DU.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

13. +1

The trolls forget:

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Increases in stimulus spending that saved or created millions of jobs during the worst months of the worst recession in 70 years

Health Care Reform (including the largest
Medicaid expansion ever)

Wall Street Reform

Overseeing the withdrawls of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while dealing with Libya in a way that did not involve boots on the ground

Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Being the first President to support gay marriage

And now pushing for comprehensive immigration reform and gun control

[1ProudAtheist]

48. How About

Gittmo?

Afghanistan?

Failing to do away with the Village Idiot's welfare for the rich?

Now, chained CPI for SS?

The BP disaster?

Wall Street crooks?

The previous administration's War Crimes?

Just a few of the broken promises........I know, he is far better than the alternative, but I contend that he is far worse than what the Democratic alternative in 2008 was. I voted for him twice, and have no remorse, just am bewildered by his lack of resolve to actually effect the changes that he campaigned so hard upon. I am sorely disappointed with him now because he never has to run for office again, so his current actions reflect his core beliefs. Politicians........you just cannot trust them........period.

[JDPriestly]

50. And soon we may be adding the Keystone Pipeline to your list.

Should we add the Exxon spill?

[Doctor_J]

20. and Heritage Care instead of PO

and the budget-busting tax cut extensions. And half-assed attempt at gun control. And more bashing of Dems than Repukes. Keystone XL is coming. As Republican presidents go, I guess he hasn't been awful.

[Larrylarry]

84. It's not like he has to deal with Congress

I wonder if you even understand that a public option or single-payer could not pass Congress

Do you understand that simple concept ?

Go ahead and tell us all how the Pres. could get strong gun reform and Public option or single-payer through Congress

Certain people sure know how to complain when asked for an answer or the solution they shut the fuck right up

[pasto76]

27. what "SS" thing

oh you mean something that hasnt happened. Despite all the doom and gloom. Again. Again, again. I dont believe this president will ever sign a bill that has these kind of changes.

[trumad]

35. did he suggest cuts to SS...

Yes or no

[Summer Hathaway]

54. No.

He didn't 'suggest' anything of the kind. The GOP 'suggested' it.

So Obama offered them a proposal which included CPI - with conditions attached which everyone knows they would never accept.

And they - Surprise! To! No! One!! - rejected it.

I know there's a lot of revisionist history going on here of late. But let's at least try to keep the facts straight.

[trumad]

80. lets rephrase the question.

Did Obama offer up CPI?

[Recursion]

81. Every budget includes a CPI formula

So, yes, like everyone else he has "offered up CPI".

[trumad]

82. Really...?

So the CPI won't cut SS?

[Recursion]

83. Which CPI you use defines what a "cut" or "increase" is in the first place

So, by definition, no.

[trumad]

85. Wow---

So Krugman, Reich, and about a gizillion other economists are wrong and you're right.

Gotcha.

[Recursion]

86. No, they'd all agree that the CPI chosen defines what a "cut" would be

And I would agree that under current law, the chained CPI would be equivalent to a cut, it just stops being a cut once it's law itself.

[hfojvt]

90. so making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent

was outstanding?

THAT's the one that chaps my hide. I could give a fuck about drones.

[Deep13]

2. Hitler. Don't forget about Hitler.

For the record, being better than Bush doesn't say much.

[Control-Z]

14. Well, he IS trying to kill off seniors.

From another thread: "And the chained CPI which will kill of(sic) seniors and thus save a lot of money."

[BumRushDaShow]

17. And he exploits the parents of children who were

spattered all over their classrooms because he is "manipulating and exploiting grieving parents" as a "professional politician" and "is using this horrible disaster to further their ends".

[Arcanetrance]

3. I'm not going to compare him to bush or regain over a disagreement in policy

I think the president has been a mixed bag he has done some things I think are very good and some I completely disagree with. But I think disagreement is healthy as long as there's respect.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

4. When I first saw this with your name on it...

I was like
Then I read it.

K&R!

[FLyellowdog]

18. Me too...I was getting PO'd.

Sorry I almost overreacted.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

5. What you linked to doesn't say that at all, and I thought call out threads were not allowed (ALERT)

What it points out is how American policy both foreign and domestic has been held captive by the military and the bankers, which is hard to deny, considering the past 4 decades.

[ProSense]

7. Bruce Dixon doesn't post here.

He's an asshole.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

8. The OP Does

[ProSense]

11. Bruce Dixon wrote the commentary. n/t

[quinnox]

6. Let's just say I think the "hope and change" slogan has proved to be sorely lacking

And nobody said he is more evil than Reagan, just that he seems to be continuing a lot of Reagan policies, and that critique is aimed at all the presidents after Reagan, not just Mr. Obama, in the article linked to.

[ProSense]

9. Actually,

"And nobody said he is more evil than Reagan, just that he seems to be continuing a lot of Reagan policies, and that critique is aimed at all the presidents after Reagan, not just Mr. Obama, in the article linked to."

..the entire premise of the piece is that Obama is worse than Bush and Reagan.

If either George Bush, or if Ronald Reagan had openly deployed US troops to Africa on anything like the scale President Obama has, black America would be up in arms...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2673738

I mean, WTF is the author talking about?

[reformist2]

10. As usual, the truth is somewhere between the extremes.

[Newest Reality]

12. I am not polarized on this

for many reasons.

Rather than be on a predicable side my expectation is:

Obama should be forging a NEWER DEAL. We now need, desperately, the NEWEST DEAL. Call it the ULTIMATE DEAL for the PEOPLE.

If we cannot reverse three or four decades of reversing the last New Deal, (and we are at the end of that rope and going deeply into a Worse Deal Than Ever), then it really doesn't matter how much people want to quibble about chess, or I'm on his side, or I am not. Really, it is all chit-chat while you spin in the vortex as you go down the drain.

We needed an ultimatum to the Oligarch class. They need to be told, boldfaced, you made a fortune off of this and us and now, you are going to pay for the betterment of the rest of us or deal with the outcome which looks pretty bad for everyone in the end.

Stop the psychopaths for their own sake. That's what we are not getting in the middle of a great crises. Corporate tyranny is unchecked and I feel it will accelerate its tendency to turn EVERYTHING into a commodity and that will destroy everything that has any other kind of value, (love, art, aesthetics, true spirituality, philosophy, critical thinking, etc.) Greed is the icon and your children will probably be drugged-out and working and living in tiny cubicles with few thoughts, on psychoactive control drugs, and thankful for their cold, dim, thoughtless world of servitude as the human robots we allowed them to become thanks to our participation in our own subjugation.

So we get the much needed, NEWEST DEAL EVER, or we end-up with nothing really at all. No matter how much rhetoric or media you throw at it the statistics show: small number of mega-elite, (gods, rulers, etc.) huge numbers of deeply impoverished and suffering people, and no middle class to speak of really, except for a very few who push the buttons on the technology that whips the rest into submission and administer the drugs that make it somewhat tolerable and and acceptable.

Obama is going to disappointment me there. Well, my appeasement does not matter, but his place in our history does. He may very well be pivotal in influencing, (or having a lack of it) in just how the rest of this goes for decades to come. His acquiescence to the powers that be and their current machine may harden a mold for much misery and Serfdom to come. I would not want that legacy if I were President, even if my life or the life of my family were at a stake. Is he totally naive to that, or is he aware and unconcerned about our plight as workers and as a people? That's my most important question right now concerning his presidency.

Let's stand up and stand out for a DEAL. A deal for the 21st century based on all the promises and technical rhetoric of the past, i.e., more leisure and wealth for all, not just a few.

[Doctor_J]

15. Yes, the apologists are always blaming Congress

but one of the things Obama is/was supposed to do was lead a repudiation of the Bush years. He has done nothing of the sort. I think most of us knew within a month of his first inauguration that he'd either been bought off or actually was just another in the progression of neocons given to us to finish off the American Dream. He refused to arrest Bush & Cheney, kept Gitmo open, didn't pardon Don Siegelman, and announced that we would "move forward". Since then it's been a series of half measures, cave-ins, excuses, and flat-out Republican initiatives. He has fought against the real Dems far more often than he's fought the Repukes.

A historic wasted opportunity - probably our last chance to take the country back from the neocons.

[ProSense]

19. Here are

"Since then it's been a series of half measures, cave-ins, excuses, and flat-out Republican initiatives. "

...somethings that are not a "half measures" or "flat-out Republican initiatives"

Four years of EPA achievements: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2673874

Medicaid expansion.

Long before this Supreme Court decision, through the Affordable Care Act, seniors began to see positive changes in their prescription drug costs, access to preventive health care, and more. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision the following provisions will continue to be provided to seniors:

Medicare Improvements

The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.

1) Closing the donut hole

a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.

b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.

c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services

a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.

b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.

c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.

d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

<...>

Medicaid Long Term Services and Supports Improvements
Several provisions in the ACA will make it easier for seniors to get long‐term services and supports at home and in the community. Medicaid provides funding for long‐term care services in institutions, such as nursing homes and in the community. Seniors prefer to receive care in their homes, and it is generally less expensive, however, most states spend their Medicaid primarily on institutional care. The ACA includes incentives to encourage states to shift Medicaid spending from institutions to the community, so that individuals who require long‐term care services may receive care in least‐restrictive environment. These incentives are not directly impacted by the Court’s decision to limit the Medicaid expansion. Elements of the ACA that enhance home and community long‐term care include:

1) Community First Choice Option (CFCO) provides participating states with a six percentage point increase in federal Medicaid matching funds for providing community‐based attendant services and supports to individuals who would otherwise be confined to a nursing home or other institution.

2) Balancing Incentive Payment Program targets increased federal matching funds to states that spend less than half of their Medicaid long‐term care expenditures on community‐based care. This spring, six states received grants to improve their community‐based care.

3) Extending Medicaid’s spousal impoverishment protection provisions to spouses of individuals who seek long‐term care in the community. This rule goes into effect in 2014.

- more -

http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf

[iemitsu]

25. Obama is totally behind the corporate goal to destroy public education.

That alone is enough for him to be ashamed of without taking from the elderly to appease his uber-rich friends.
He has been an absolute disappointment to people in need of a courageous leader. He is neither a leader nor courageous, he is just a man.
Better than Romney but not who we needed. Obama is hostile to working Americans. There will be nothing left for working Americans to save by the time he is done giving away our patrimony.

[ProSense]

31. Actually,

Obama is totally behind the corporate goal to destroy public education.
That alone is enough for him to be ashamed of without taking from the elderly to appease his uber-rich friends.
He has been an absolute disappointment to people in need of a courageous leader. He is neither a leader nor courageous, he is just a man.
Better than Romney but not who we needed. Obama is hostile to working Americans. There will be nothing left for working Americans to save by the time he is done giving away our patrimony.

...NCLB was Ted Kennedy's initiative

No Retreat on School Reform
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500910.html

President Obama has been working to improve it

[zeemike]

46. "President Obama has been working to improve it "

Yep...that is what they all say...even the ones that want to destroy it are working to improve it.
Ether that or they are fighting to improve it...but of course never winning any fight and never actually improving it...but it keeps us believing that someday they just might win...if we send them a donation so they can afford to fight and work some more.

No matter how many times we have seen this plot we pretend the movie will turn out different this time....the sign of madness some say.

[Skittles]

51. CORRECT

[ProSense]

52. What?

"Yep...that is what they all say...even the ones that want to destroy it are working to improve it. "

Even the ones who "want to destroy" NCLB say they are "working to improve it"?

My comment was about the President working to improve the NCLB law initiated by Kennedy.

[zeemike]

62. And my comments was about the boilerplate language.

Propaganda is filled with it...Fighting to save....Working to pass...fighting for you...and so when I hear it I think propaganda.
It is just worn out for me...no longer works...

[JDPriestly]

57. It is a shame that the ACA has been introduced piecemeal.

Nobody knows what the ultimate verdict of those who need healthcare will be.

It's very hard to determine what the ACA has done or will do.

I understand how complicated it would have been to implement it more quickly, but no one really knows what the status of the ACA is or what it will mean or has meant to Americans. There was, again, less than full transparency perhaps even less than honesty, who knows?, about the ACA.

[zeemike]

43. The sad but unavoidable truth.

But for the first few years...well really until just this year, I made excuses for it all...appointing Wall Street and all...and was sure he had some plan to secure the democratic party into a majority party where we could have some real change...I could not believe he would betray us there.
I dropped that illusion when he suggested we cut SS in exchange for nothing (as soon as he no longer needed our vote)...then I knew...he is as you say, a sell out or a wolf.
Don't matter which really...we HAVE been fooled again.

[JDPriestly]

55. Thank you, Newest Reality.

I worked very hard to get Obama re-elected.

But his action on Social Security has completely disappointed and disillusioned me. It suggests to me that his heart is not big enough or wide enough to allow him to fight for people who really need his help. What good is yet another president with no moral compass. And quite a few of his actions suggest that is the case. People say we are angry. I am mostly very sad.

I posted about the actual incomes that seniors are paid from Social Security. You may be able to find that thread since I posted it today. It is also on my journal.

It must be remembered when we talk about the chained CPI, which will gradually reduce Social Security benefits, that many, many seniors rely on Social Security for about 90% of their income.

Obama is not defending those most needing his help.

And the fact is if you watch the RealNews video posted on DU with Richard Wolff debating Obama's chained CPI proposal, the general fund owes the Social Security Trust Fund. There is agreement on that point.

A simple way to resolve the uncertainty about Social Security's future and balance the budget is to tax to the extent money that was not taxed for Social Security or Medicare and that used to be taxed for the general fund like income from capital gains, certain bonuses, etc.

That money should be collected specifically and solely in order to repay the Social Security Trust Fund from the general fund. So the money would be paid into the general fund and then used to repay to seniors via the Social Security Fund the money that was borrowed from the Trust Fund.

It is quite simple. It just takes a willingness to reinstate taxes that were reduced by borrowing from Social Security in the first place. That will make it possible to pay COLAs that reflect the price increases that seniors have to pay.

[freshwest]

16. Thanks for the thread... Good title.

[Arctic Dave]

21. Another, My feelings got hurt thread?

I believe there is a form you can fill out and cream you can apply to your backside..

[ProSense]

33. "I believe there is a form you can fill out and cream you can apply to your backside."

It's always fascinating the reactions that pop up when anyone posts that Obama isn't evil or even a positive comment about the President.

My "backside" is fine, thank you. I just think Dixon's anti-Obama screed is downright silly.

[Orrex]

22. He also put an empty milk carton back in the refrigerator

Is nothing beneath this monster?

[sheshe2]

23. Kicked and Rec'd!

[GoneFishin]

24. I don't agree with the over-the-top comparisons but your dismissive treatment

of legitimate criticism is bad too.

He droned a 16 year old U.S. civilian.

Loaned banksters trillions at 0%, or near 0% interest with no commitment from them
to free up the credit markets or help troubled mortgages, which was ostensibly what necessitated the bailout. Predictably, the banksters gave themselves multi-billion dollar bonuses with our money, and pissed on the homeowners. When Occupy protests gathered momentum, their camps were busted up. (Simultaneously, in multiple locations in the country. Don't tell me it wasn't coordinated.)

Bargained away the public option before the healthcare debate got started, then explained on TV that it would be too hard to make such a great change as implementing the public option. All the while forgetting to mention that he had already bargained it away to the health insurance industry.

Raiding medical marijuana dispensaries. NDAA. Misrepresenting the number of civilians droned.
Chained CPI. Crackdowns on whistleblowers instead of the wrongdoers. Banks laundering terrorist and drug money without prosecution. Allowing oil companies to threaten reporters with arrest if they photograph the Deepwater Horizon leak or the recent Arkansas leak, including imposing a no-fly zone.

Other than that, everything is peachy.

Oh, and as far as the wars go, I would like to know how many private contractors are being paid 100K each to maintain a U.S. presence on the sly, with no pesky military chain-of-command accountability thingy to worry about.

[Skip Intro]

26. You started a thread to advertise another thread of yours? nt

[BumRushDaShow]

28. Thread nanny much? n/t

[Skip Intro]

29. That tickles. nt

[Marr]

30. Your unconditional praise is just as cartoonish as any outright condemnation.

It's odd that you're calling something out that is essentially an upside-down reflection of your own posts.

Why didn't you just make your argument in that thread?

[BumRushDaShow]

32. More thread nannying? n/t

[Marr]

34. That seems to be what you're doing, actually.

I mean, I suppose we could all just start our own threads every time we wanted to respond to another thread, but it'll get messy quickly. And since this seems awfully close to a call-out, which is, I'm told, against the rules... well, why not point it out?

[ProSense]

37. Wait

"Your unconditional praise is just as cartoonish as any outright condemnation."

...snark that the President isn't as evil as Reagan and Thatcher combined is "unconditional praise"?

I guess it burns some people up that others not only support the President, but also don't consider him more horrible than Reagan.

[Marr]

42. Oh c'mon, don't play coy.

You have a well-earned reputation for spinning every negative story about the Obama Administration into some kind of great victory, or at least, as something he had no choice in. You excuse everything, and make excuses for everything they do.

I can recall only one instance in which you were critical, and it was something you've now reversed course on; Social Security cuts. You once said, IIRC, you would "personally kick Obama's ass" if he tried to cut SS, but now you make diversionary threads about how the proposal wasn't so bad after all, and he's actually doing 'more for the middle class than anyone since... whatever'.

You're a salesman-- no more credible than a person who claims Obama is worse than Reagan and destroying the country. It's exactly the same hyperbole, just turned upside-down.

[ProSense]

47. Wow,

"You have a well-earned reputation for spinning every negative story about the Obama Administration into some kind of great victory, or at least, as something he had no choice in. You excuse everything, and make excuses for everything they do."

...I'm flattered. I still think chained CPI sucks, but it's still a proposal that has no chance of passing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2671482

That doesn't change the point in the OP.

[JDPriestly]

59. Thank you. There are one or two people on DU who seem to post

pro-Obama propaganda beyond a sensible point.

Obama has done some good, and I voted and worked for him and am glad that Romney was not elected. But I know what the chained CPI and charter schools, drones and more and more military involvement across the world will mean for our future.

Obama should do far better.

[ProSense]

60. Here,

"pro-Obama propaganda beyond a sensible point."

...more "pro-Obama propaganda":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022674410
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022674502

[JDPriestly]

68. I appreciate your honesty. There is nothing wrong with those who

really agree with what Obama does on a particular issue, but when someone agrees with every single thing Obama does -- even the obvious mistakes -- even the things that will cause enormous injustice and pain -- then one really wonders why. Especially if the DUer with this endlessly, never failing positive view is clearly quite intelligent.

Same is true of those who disapprove of everything Obama does. Again, one wonders why.

My point about chained CPI, my point that it is a terrible mistake, that a line has been crossed that should not have been crossed, is a valid one based on my experience during my not-so-short life and my analysis of our economic situation.

If our economy improves in the fairly near future, and I hope it does and think it very well may, seniors will be left behind. Lower middle class seniors will suffer the most from the inflation. And those are the people who receive enough from Social Security that they will not receive relief under what is purported to be Obama's plan, but who do not have enough personal savings or assets to get them through an inflationary phase.

Clinton crossed the line when he started welfare-to-work and signed the bill ending Glass-Steagall. That he did many good things will never make up for the fact that his signing that bill regarding Glass-Steagall set the stage for the 2008 crash. Thanks to Clinton's changes to welfare rules, a lot of people have had a much tougher time and are homeless during this economic downturn.

Even Clinton has acknowledged that repealing Glass-Steagall was a terrible mistake.

Failing to stand up for Social Security will erase some of the good, a lot of the good that Obama did with the ACA. It's a crying shame. He began this second term with a record that, as you point out, made him quite outstanding. But this budget proposal has wiped it out. So sad.

What is done is done. Obama is young and will live to rue the day he allowed himself to be persuaded to propose the chained CPI.

[ProSense]

70. Isn't that

"Even Clinton has acknowledged that repealing Glass-Steagall was a terrible mistake...Failing to stand up for Social Security will erase some of the good, a lot of the good that Obama did with the ACA. It's a crying shame. He began this second term with a record that, as you point out, made him quite outstanding. But this budget proposal has wiped it out. So sad...What is done is done. Obama is young and will live to rue the day he allowed himself to be persuaded to propose the chained CPI."

... a tad dramatic? I mean, Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, an action that in part set up the economic crisis.

As for chained CPI, you're talking about a proposal that hasn't passed and isn't likely to pass.

"Obama is young"? I doubt he will live to "rue the day" a proposal is rejected, especially in the context it was proposed. Clinton also made actual changes to Social Security

<...>

Legislative Changes in 1996 & 1997

Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-121).

This bill, signed by the President on March 29, 1996, made a change in the basic philosophy of the disability program. Beginning on that date, new applicants for Social Security or SSI disability benefits could no longer be eligible for benefits if drug addiction or alcoholism is a material factor to their disability. Unless they can qualify on some other medical basis, they cannot receive disability benefits. Individuals in this category already receiving benefits, are to have their benefits terminated as of January 1, 1997. Previous policy has been that if a person has a medical condition that prevents them from working, this qualifies them as disabled for Social Security and SSI purposes--regardless of the cause of the disability. Another significant provision of this law doubled the earnings limit exemption amount for retired Social Security beneficiaries, on a gradual schedule from 1996 to 2002. In 2002, the exempt amount will be $30,000 per year in earnings, compared to $14,760 under previous law.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

This "welfare reform" legislation, signed by the President on 8/22/96, ended the categorical entitlement to AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) that was part of the original 1935 Social Security Act by implementing time-limited benefits along with a work requirement. The law also terminated SSI eligibility for most non-citizens. Previously, lawfully admitted aliens could receive SSI if they met the other factors of entitlement. As of the date of enactment, no new non-citizens could be added to the benefit rolls and all existing non-citizen beneficiaries would eventually be removed from the rolls (unless they met one of the exceptions in the law.) Also effective upon enactment were provisions eliminating the "comparable severity standard" and reference to "maladaptive behavior" in the determination of disability for children to receive SSI. Also, children currently receiving benefits under the old standards were to be reviewed and removed from the rolls if they could not qualify under the new standards.

Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

Requires that all federal payments (including Social Security and SSI) be made by electronic funds transfer (no more paper checks) effective January 1, 1999, unless a waiver is granted by the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997

This massive omnibus spending bill contained SSA's budget as well as numerous legislative changes relating to the SSI program and to issues involved in fighting fraudulent documents in connection with obtaining Social Security numbers. The major SSI provision makes sponsorship agreements legally enforceable for the first time. In the area of identification-related documents, the law requires the establishment of federal standards for state-issued birth certificates and requires SSA to develop a prototype counterfeit-resistant Social Security card.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997

This bill passed the House on 7/30/97 by a vote of 346 to 85, and passed the Senate the next day on a vote of 85 to 15. This law restored SSI eligibility to certain cohorts of non- citizens whose eligibility otherwise would be terminated under the "welfare reform" of 1996. It also extended for up to one year the period for redetermining the eligibility of certain aliens who may ultimately not be eligible for continued benefits.

- more -

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#colas

The Story of COLAs (and amendments to Social Security)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632157

<...>

Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Let's see, under Reagan benefits of $1,500 would see about $750 of that taxed. At 15 percent, that would be about $112.

Under Clinton, the taxable amount rose to $1,275. At 15 percent, that would be about $191, an increase in taxes of about $78.

[JDPriestly]

71. The taxation of Social Security benefits is probably a fair way to

make sure that people are not getting more in Social Security than is really needed. If a person has a certain income, they are taxed on their Social Security. If not, they are not.

People are on SSI because they are either not eligible for Social Security because they have not paid into the system or because they are not yet old enough to receive regular Social Security benefits.

I strongly support SSI, but changes to SSI are not changes to the beneficiary-funded Social Security system for seniors. I don't think the changes to SSI are unfair. The proposed changes to Social Security are very unfair to people who worked, trusted the government and put their lawfully required payments into the system. It's a swindle. I hope you watch the RealNews debate with Richard Wolff as one of the debaters. It is on the chained CPI. The Congress and previous governments simply stole money from the current seniors. It's horrible.

There are supplemental programs like rent subsidies -- Section 8 -- that help a lot of people on SSI. I understand those are to be cut too. That is practically criminal, especially at a time when stocks are booming on Wall Street.

[ProSense]

73. What?

"The taxation of Social Security benefits is probably a fair way to make sure that people are not getting more in Social Security than is really needed."

Are you serious? There are seniors "getting more in Social Security than is really needed"?

[JDPriestly]

74. The tax hits those who have incomes of over $40,000 and then a separate

category for those who have total incomes of over $80,000. That is as close to means-testing as Social Security should come.

It isn't "right," but is a fair way to means-test Social Security if it has to be done. It is much fairer than cutting the COLAs through chained CPI.

It would be great if we just got the full benefits we paid for and that was the end of it. But Obama, Clinton and Reagan have not thought that such a good idea. And if they have to cut, it is better to base the cuts on the total income of the individual rather than to cut people who receive a benefit of a certain value across the board as Obama is proposing.

[ProSense]

75. That's

"t isn't "right," but is a fair way to means-test Social Security if it has to be done. It is much fairer than cutting the COLAs through chained CPI."

...absurd. The CPI is going to slow growth, taxes impact the actual benefit and all increases.

Also, taxing Social Security was not the only change under Clinton: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2674826

[JDPriestly]

78. And now Obama is carrying these attacks on Social Security yet one

step further.

Elderly people and kids -- the most vulnerable in our society. Politicians and Wall Street -- the most powerful in our society.

I cannot believe that Democrats are falling for this scam.

It is shocking to me that Democrats are not more outraged.

The tax scheme that imposes higher taxes on Social Security recipients earning more than $40,000 or $80,000 is something neither I nor much of anyone else reacted to. It seems fair enough.

But that and the chained CPI point in a direction: the destruction of Social Security -- always with the excuse that this one measure won't hurt that much because it will only affect Social Security benefits a little, only affect the richest recipients.

And now, Obama, a Democrat, is threatening to lower the amounts of the COLAs. There is a pattern here of incremental, tiny steps toward destroying Social Security.

And now is the time to stop this.

It's time to stop the attacks on Social Security. We paid the money. We are entitled to the benefits. That's the promise of our nation to those of us who are seniors.

[Number23]

36. Why give such a moronic thread more attention? Or are you just trying to help the

"Managing Editor" (as if four idiotic "articles" a month need managing) at Black Agenda Report get some cole slaw with his sandwich this week?

[Marr]

38. *edited because I read the wrong post. :)

*edit* Pardon me, I thought you were responding to my post for some reason. Got confused with the lines there.

[ProSense]

39. Speaking of "cartoonish"

[ProSense]

41. I can see

the attempts so I remove the link for the original.

Dixon is a moron.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Team Awesome is Outraged by this Outrageous Assault on the Poor!

How is it that you DARE to post this atrocity?

Team Awesome is not impressed. A horror!

[ProSense]

63. President Obama

is the best we've got. He has done some good things. I voted for him because Romney would be worse.

Obama is worse than Reagan.

Reconcile.

[brentspeak]

44. ...

[humbled_opinion]

45. I have to say he has

been very good at promoting a progressive social agenda, that said, he lacks any real enviornmental reforms, jury still out on fracking and the Pipeline, the banking reforms were not as grand as I hoped, the tax reforms have not been accomplished, it's true he passed healthcare reform but the jury is still out on the Affordable Care Act unless the country rallies for it's imlementation it is going to be a slow painful roll out that is going to get alot of criticism especially as insurance costs go up or doctor shortages emerge. There is just so much more work that he can do and I am sure this second term will see alot accomplished.

My fear is he will use this term to bend to the will of the corporate right... I hope I am wrong.... We will see very soon as the debt debates start going full swing.

[JDPriestly]

49. Really isn't that much to brag about I suppose.

President Obama has done more to help the poor and middle class than any President since LBJ

Sadly, presidents between LBJ and Obama have been absolutely terrible with regard to helping the poor and middle classes. Just terrible.

So Obama didn't have to do much to be better than they were.

We all had high expectations for Clinton but he did not deliver. He did make people feel good while doing away with werlfare as we knew it.

And Obama, similarly, has made us at least feel good while taking the first step to destroy Social Security as we know it.

[RetroLounge]

53. Fellating never gets old.

RL

[Bonobo]

56. Whining about DU. Why was my thread locked for that reason and not THIS crap? nt

[ProSense]

58. Maybe

"Whining about DU. Why was my thread locked for that reason and not THIS crap? "

...because you were "whining about DU"? I'm calling out the author of the commentary linked to in the OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Reducio ad absudum

Actually, perhaps not.

[ProSense]

64. Zombie Reagan 2016?

"Who are you going to vote for suckers"?

[MannyGoldstein]

65. Yes, my understanding is that HillaWar will run.

But Warren will use her lightning-quick Liberal-jitsu to efficiently dispatch Her Dissembleness.

[ProSense]

66. Well,

"Yes, my understanding is that HillaWar will run. But Warren will use her lightning-quick Liberal-jitsu to efficiently dispatch Her Dissembleness."

...better start making the popcorn now.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. I'm moving my 401(k) into popcorn stock

It will be quite something.

[TekGryphon]

69. Haha, you almost had me with this :)

Thank you, ProSense. I see far too much gnashing of teeth and piling on Obama when all the man did was completely and utterly destroy Chained CPI before the budgets even got to the negotiating table.

[Zorra]

72. Helping the poor and middle class means little if the rich are not constrained from abusing them

If Obama has indeed done more to help poor and middle class than LBJ, it has not translated into the real world, judging by the large number of people I know personally who are struggling, living paycheck to paycheck, just one little accident, mistake, or misfortune away from irrevocable personal disaster.

Maybe he's helped the wealthy so much that, despite any gains by the poor and the middle class, they're actually moving backward at a faster rate than ever before.

A fifty dollar a month increase in wages means almost nothing if your average fixed monthly expenses go up by $250.

[duffyduff]

76. Black Agenda Report is correct

Time to wake up, ProSense.

[ProSense]

77. Hey,

"Black Agenda Report is correct Time to wake up, ProSense. "

...they exist because there are people who buy into their idiocy. These fools have been predicting that Barack Obama would lose since his Senate campaign.

Their agenda and record sucks.

[JDPriestly]

79. ProSense, I'd like to know your response to the arguments from Michael Hudson

in this article on Obama's chained CPI proposal:

HUDSON: . . . .
When the government printed $13 trillion to give to the banks after the 2008 breakdown, nobody complained at all about the fact that the government can simply print the money and pour it into the economy. Nobody is complaining about the increased war spending that we’re doing, the waste that the Pentagon itself is complaining to congress about.

Why is it that these complaints focus on one particular small part of the budget, Social Security and medical care and health care? And the reason is this is pure, naked class war. There’s no other word for it. You can’t believe that people are being honest when they don’t talk about the whole budget or the overall economy when they’re singlemindedly tunnel-visioned, focused only on how do we pay retirees less, so that we can give the bankers more when President Obama continues the bank deregulation he’s sponsoring. The idea is to cut back Social Security in order to gear up for the next big bank bailout that’s going to result from current policies.

. . . .

(About Obama's proposal to raise the marginal income tax rates for the rich

It’s a fraud. It’s doubletalk. Rich people don’t make income if they help it. To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, income is for the little people. Rich people make capital gains.

So they fill out your tax returns, they don’t say that they’re earning income. They report capital gains, taxed at a much lower rate. So what Obama is doing is flimflam. The Congressional Budget Office has shown that the wealthy people get most of their rise in net worth by capital gains, not income. He’s not making a peep about that.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/obamas-cat-food-social-security-reform/

Michael Hudson puts the entire chained CPI and Social Security issue in the context of our whole economy.

I would like to know what you think about what he has to say. Thanks.

[ProSense]

87. Well,

So they fill out your tax returns, they don’t say that they’re earning income. They report capital gains, taxed at a much lower rate. So what Obama is doing is flimflam. The Congressional Budget Office has shown that the wealthy people get most of their rise in net worth by capital gains, not income. He’s not making a peep about that.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/obamas-cat-food-social-security-reform/

Michael Hudson puts the entire chained CPI and Social Security issue in the context of our whole economy.

I would like to know what you think about what he has to say. Thanks.

...ot appears the piece is cherry picking to focus on diminishing the impact of the income increases, and the point about capital gains if flat out false. President Obama not only returned the capital gains rate to pre-Bush levels, he also increased it even more with the health care tax.

Simple arithmetic shows the reality of the income tax changes in terms of addressing inequality.

Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.

Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s. Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html

Obama and Redistribution

Some notes for myself: how much impact have Obama’s policies actually had on current and prospective inequality?

The main policies to consider are PPACA (the health reform) and ATRA (the fiscal cliff deal with its associated tax rise).

<...>

Putting this together, we have a roughly 6 percent hit to the 1 percent, around 9 to the superelite. That’s only a partial rollback of these groups’ huge gains since 1980, but it’s not trivial.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/obama-and-redistribution/

Do the math.

Also, in the current budget

There are even more increases that target the rich in the proposed budget.

See the chart here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043

[JDPriestly]

93. Thanks.

[NCTraveler]

88. He is much better than Bush in most ways.

He is much worse for the Democratic Party than Bush.

[Rex]

89. No he is not, why would you believe that?

[galileoreloaded]

91. I'll give you credit, you have a decent mastery of group social dynamics

and really know how to stay on message.

I love competent people in spite of how institutionalized they become IF they are good at it. We need you ProSense, for order and authority amongst chaos. In 2013 Americans are craving it and you certainly bring the red meat.

[ProSense]

92. I am always

"I'll give you credit, you have a decent mastery of group social dynamics and really know how to stay on message. I love competent people in spite of how institutionalized they become IF they are good at it. We need you ProSense, for order and authority amongst chaos. In 2013 Americans are craving it and you certainly bring the red meat."

...impressed by backhanded compliments. Staying on "message" is easy when it's to counter extreme hyperbole that attempts to portray President Obama as more evil than Reagan and as someone out to destroy America and the Democratic Party.

[galileoreloaded]

94. yeah but thats not what you do...

you don't battle hyperbole or dramatic overindulgences. You swiftly and expertly reframe any and all dissension back to either a amalgam of positive feelings or the latest. Slick Marketing but it's still marketing that is intended to use shame and diversion away from the object of ire.

Practically, you are providing order to the orderly and attenuating amygdala hijack by driving comfortable and rational discourse towards a personal agenda, yours.

If:
you are a girl
single
and like guys....

I will ring you up because I am in love.

Smart is sexy to me and I dont patronize because I dont have to.