MoveOn Calls Obama’s Proposed Social Security Cuts ‘Unconscionable’

[Hissyspit]

Source: TPM

MoveOn Calls Obama’s Proposed Social Security Cuts ‘Unconscionable’

TOM KLUDT 11:12 AM EDT, FRIDAY APRIL 5, 2013

The liberal advocacy group MoveOn on Friday blasted President Barack Obama's budget, calling the proposed cuts to Social Security "unconscionable."

Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn, said in the statement that Obama's proposal is especially baffling given that "Republicans in Congress aren't even asking for this Social Security cut."

"President Obama's plan to cut Social Security would harm seniors who worked hard all their lives. Under this plan, a typical 80-year-old woman would lose the equivalent of three months worth of food every year. That's unconscionable.

It's even more outrageous given that Republicans in Congress aren't even asking for this Social Security cut. This time, the drive to cut Social Security is being led by President Obama and Democrats.

Millions of MoveOn members did not work night and day to put President Obama into office so that he could propose policies that would hurt some of our most vulnerable people. Just as we fought and defeated President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, we will mobilize and stop this attempt to diminish the vital guarantee of Social Security. MoveOn's 8 million members will not stand by and watch a Democratic President chip away at one of the most successful government programs of all time. Every member of Congress -- Democrat or Republican -- who votes for this proposal should expect to be held accountable."


Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/moveon-calls-obamas-proposed-social-securtiy-cuts-unconscionable

[hobbit709]

1. so do I

[grahamhgreen]

27. +1

[840high]

46. +2

[RufusTFirefly]

2. Pay no attention. They're just a bunch of Obama haters

We need Third Way Manny to clarify things and set our minds at ease over this.

[rhett o rick]

3. The Pres said he wanted us to hold his feet to the fire. Millions of us DONT WANT SS AND MEDICARECUT

We are speaking out but, so far, he isnt listening.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

12. Perhaps he is finally wearing his comfortable shoes

made from asbestos?

[rhett o rick]

22. Good one. nm

[calimary]

49. Well, we have to speak louder and more constantly and more repetitively:

Some ideas here, and let's be frank - it comes down to DE-PROGRAMMING.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022619428

[kelliekat44]

58. Ok, show me the cuts. Show me one SS payment that will be less than it is now. nt

[Octafish]

92. Thanks for reminding me, whatever happened to COLA?

The old system barely counted stuff from the real world. What will Chained CPI really cover?

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/chained-cpi-will-reduce-your-social-security-benefits

[OnyxCollie]

4. MoveOn never loved him!

[tblue]

50. Why not, do you think?

???

[OnyxCollie]

54. Irrational haters like MoveOn

operate under a crippled epistemology. There's no point in wasting time trying to understand them.

Instead, they must be mocked and ridiculed for failing to see that this President is the most liberal, progressive President ever.

Same goes for the ACLU.

Haters. All of them.

[AndyA]

57. What's irrational is President Obama expecting people to not remember his words

“To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.”

That was from his January 25, 2011 State of the Union address. Now, two years later, it's President Obama suggesting we do the very things he found so objectionable. President Obama knows all he needs to know about SS, and the devastating effects cuts will have on current recipients as well as those reaching retirement age in the coming years.

Subjecting America's elderly to additional hardship is what sounds hateful to me, and I don't think it's hateful to expect the President of the United States to keep his word.

[dflprincess]

78. On January 25, 2011 he was running for a 2nd term

Now that he's been reelected he doesn't need us anymore and it's time to start sucking up to his Wall Street buddies so his retirement will be secure.

[24601]

97. Adapting another's post, show us the slash. Put the numbers out that show it's a cut and not

a reduction in the rate of growth.

An separate argument can be made regarding what increases are needed, but mislabeling them doesn't carry the debate.

[AndyA]

103. What difference does it make?

SS hasn't kept up with the cost of living in decades, if it ever did. A cut in benefits or a reduction in the rate of growth makes no difference. Many respected people are already on record as saying this will be bad for seniors, it will mean less money in the future for them. Period.

Do you think the cost of food, utilities, etc. is going to not increase because SS recipients have had their benefits cut, or the "rate of growth" has been reduced?

There is no mislabeling, except your attempt to distort what's really going on.

[24601]

104. It makes a difference only if you value truth and credibility. I'm a civil servant and President

Obama has frozen our pay since 2010. But his OPM, which approves Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) premiums, also let our premiums rise each year even though our pay was frozen.

Did the President cut our pay? No, he didn't. Salaries have remained constant. Do we have less money after paying our premiums? Yes. One is not dependent on the other. If our salaries remained frozen and premiums went down, I wouldn't claim we got a pay raise.

You can side with the President that the freeze was necessary because of the budget. Or, you can take the other side that pay increases should have matched premium increases. Both arguments have merit. You can say that with economic conditions - like gas prices and FEHBP increases we have less money to spend for other things like food and housing - that is in fact true.

But if we go around claiming that the President cut our pay, it simply is not accurate. We are entitled to our beliefs about what should happen, but redefining a pay freeze as a cut is to ignore facts. Redefining a slower rate of growth as a cut also is inaccurate and it damages the credibility of one who makes that claim.

[AndyA]

108. The bottom line: SS recipients will have less money to live on

Chained CPI will mean there will be even less than there otherwise would have been, had Congress and President Obama left SS alone.

You can try to justify Obama's abuse of seniors any way you like, but this is Obama's budget, and he's the one who has put chained CPI on the table. This will harm seniors, and Obama is the one doing it.

Obama could have said that SS was off the table, which would be the proper thing to do, since it doesn't contribute to the deficit, and therefore shouldn't be sacrificed to pay down the deficit.

Having less to spend than you otherwise would is indeed a cut. Spin it however you like, but seniors will view it as a cut, and rightly so. Leading economists have characterized it as a cut.

It's all a piece of the pie, and giving someone a smaller slice and telling them that it's really not smaller doesn't change the fact that it is--indeed--smaller.

Truth and credibility are two things President Obama is rapidly losing with the American people, and he alone is responsible.

Enough already.

[GeorgeGist]

68. Snort.

[OnyxCollie]

76. Calm down, man.

I've been here for nearly eight years; you should know me by now.

It's

I will take the temper you displayed in your vitriolic outburst as a gauge to determine how convincing my delivery was. (Nailed it.)

[tblue]

83. You really had me there.

Thank God! I really thought, 'Oh no! Another one bites the dust.'

[Dragonfli]

80. You never read onyx before have you, chill out man, he gets it and is ridiculing the cultists

[Mnemosyne]

5. It's a heinous move. nt

[HereSince1628]

8. I'll second that.

[Mnemosyne]

77. I cannot believe I was almost less fearful for the future under jr's regime.

My heart weeps for my three year and twelve year old grandsons, for all grandchildren and for their grandchildren, for likely decades. If things recover much before the planet kicks their asses.

Just heart-breaking...

[George II]

6. I read the link in the link........

...specifically,

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-budget-social-security-cuts.php

I don't see any proposed "cuts" to Social Security.

And before I get bashed as not caring or not being affected, I am receiving Social Security benefits.

[danbeee46]

10. There are cuts

The president is proposing a chained CPI to determine future cost of living increases to social security. This would serve to decrease the amount of future increases. The current method of using the usual CPI would give you a bit more spending money each month to help you meet rising prices in food and services. Chained CPI supposes that when you can no longer afford (for example) certain food products, you will move to lower cost products. Therefore, they say, you don't need as much of an increase. The problem is that lower cost products are often inferior.....and worse, what if you are already using the lower cost products. Where do you go then?

[George II]

18. "This would serve to decrease the amount of future increases. "

So you admit that there are no proposed cuts, just lower increases. Big difference!

At no time will a monthly payment be lower than any previous monthly payment.

You guys are playing with words.

[GitRDun]

24. I understand and agree with your point, but

you won't see Chained CPI applied to defense or other subsidies. For me it's about twisted priorities.

[George II]

62. Not really, unless military pensions are not considered "defense"......

http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/the-military-retirement-system.html

As a matter of fact, military COLAs have been based on the CPI for a while, and one segment of military pensions is based on a the CPI LESS 1%!

[GitRDun]

64. I was refering to defense spending as a whole...

They are certainly not slowing down weapons purchases, etc.

[grahamhgreen]

30. No, failure to adjust for increased costs is a cut.

[George II]

102. Not really but.........

....do you know how the "Chained CPI" might stack up against the current method of calculating the annual increase? You might be surprised.

[grahamhgreen]

116. Yes. It cut benefits

[George II]

117. As a matter of fact, for 2012 the chained CPI would have yielded a HIGHER increase!! Surprise!!

[grahamhgreen]

118. Not to be believed.

[kelliekat44]

56. And with the help of the media they will make millions bellieve that SS is being cut.

The President is really hated by both sides although the left won't admit to their smoldering bigotry. he can do nothing right for anyone so he should continue to do what he believes is right for all.

[roomtomove]

70. 'smoldering bigotry'???

'Smoldering bigotry'?? Ple Please!!!! Sounds like a sound bite from fauxnews. A reduction in benefits is a cut. Study your math.

[George II]

87. I wouldn't even characterize it as "smoldering"....more like blatant....

...and dragging in Fox News to toss your insult is offensive - I believe Fox News is included among those exhibiting bigotry in that comment.

Ok, you said it........please detail the "reduction in benefits" - explain REDUCTION, thank you.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

93. Hello from Juror #2. Thank you for trying to stop the hate machine.

---

At Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:05 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

And with the help of the media they will make millions bellieve that SS is being cut.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=445747

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Smoldering bigotry'?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:13 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Keep up the good work. The constant attacks on President Obama here are getting out of hand and I do think bigotry has something to do with it, unfortunately.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: sadly I think I have seen examples of what the poster is talking about
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I wish kelliekat44 backed that claim up, but as it is, I don't think posting that opinion is against community standards.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[alarimer]

73. But it will not keep up with the cost of living

Not that it does now, even, but the chained CPI makes it even worse.

[George II]

89. That is false.....people should do some research before they panic and start bashing...

...the President and the so-called "Chained CPI".

I did. I looked back at the last 38 years of history (figured those years proved my point, I could go back further if anyone wants)

It turns out that in those 38 years, the annual increase of Social Security benefits were:

Equal to the CPI in 6 years
Lower than the CPI in 18 years
Higher than the CPI in 14 years

So, it turns out that if the cost of living allowance was tied to the CPI, the annual increases would be GREATER than the increases as calculated using the current method in more years than if it wasn't tied to the CPI, and in six years it didn't matter if it was or not.

So the big, bad, ominous "CHAINED CPI" (ooooh!!!) isn't quite as horrible as some "progressives" would like us to believe. I've seen lots of posts around here bashing Democrats as not being "true progressives". Well, if "true progressives" are going to cry wolf and rail against the President and new ideas, maybe "true progressives" aren't truly progressives themselves?

[rosesaylavee]

91. Would you mind

outlining how you came to this and provide some links?

If true, this would be an important finding and something to spread around.

Thanks,

rosesaylavee

[George II]

96. Sure...here are the sources of my information:

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/

http://www.ssa.gov/cola/automatic-cola.htm

For the SSA COLA, I moved the % up one year - it goes into effect in January based on the previous year, but up until 1982 the COLA was applied in July, not January. I'm sure people will shoot holes in these numbers, but the bottom line is that there isn't much of a difference between the two numbers over almost four decades, so all this panic about Obama "selling out" is, as our Vice President would say, "Malarkey"!!

The first column is the SSA COLA, the second column is the CPI. So, in 2012 (January 2013) the COLA was only 1.7% whereas the CPI was 2.1%, higher. Excuse my amateurish formatted table, but the data is there.

SSA CPI

July 1975 -- 8.0% 9.1% CPI higher
July 1976 -- 6.4% 5.8%
July 1977 -- 5.9% 6.5% CPI higher
July 1978 -- 6.5% 7.6% CPI higher
July 1979 -- 9.9% 11.3% CPI higher
July 1980 -- 14.3% 13.5%
July 1981 -- 11.2% 10.3%
July 1982 -- 7.4% 6.2%
January 1984 -- 3.5% 3.2%
January 1985 -- 3.5% 4.3% CPI higher
January 1986 -- 3.1% 3.6% CPI higher
January 1987 -- 1.3% 1.9% CPI higher
January 1988 -- 4.2% 3.6%
January 1989 -- 4.0% 4.1% CPI higher
January 1990 -- 4.7% 4.8% CPI higher
January 1991 -- 5.4% 5.4%
January 1992 -- 3.7% 4.2% CPI higher
January 1993 -- 3.0% 3.0%
January 1994 -- 2.6% 3.0% CPI higher
January 1995 -- 2.8% 2.6%
January 1996 -- 2.6% 2.8% CPI higher
January 1997 -- 2.9% 3.0% CPI higher
January 1998 -- 2.1% 2.3% CPI higher
January 1999 -- 1.3% 1.6% CPI higher
January 2000 -- 2.5%(1) 2.2%
January 2001 -- 3.5% 3.4%
January 2002 -- 2.6% 2.8% CPI higher
January 2003 -- 1.4% 1.6% CPI higher
January 2004 -- 2.1% 2.3% CPI higher
January 2005 -- 2.7% 2.7%
January 2006 -- 4.1% 3.4%
January 2007 -- 3.3% 3.2%
January 2008 -- 2.3% 2.8% CPI higher
January 2009 -- 5.8% 3.8%
January 2010 -- 0.0% -0.4%
January 2011 -- 0.0% 1.6% CPI higher
January 2012 -- 3.6% 3.2%
January 2013 -- 1.7% 2.1% CPI higher

[Hissyspit]

98. View:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022619137

[George II]

101. All well and good........

I understand that Social Security benefits don't keep pace with healthcare costs. No argument about that.

This discussion is about the method of calculating annual benefit increases. I have two problems with the points being made in the discussion.

1. Even if the "chained CPI" is used and and assuming that it results in lower annual increases (which isn't necessarily true, as I've demonstrated), Social Security benefits will NOT be "cut", they just will not be increased as much. If I'm getting $2000 per month this year, and the current formula calls for a 3% increase, I'll be getting $2060 next year. If the CPI is only 2% and is used, I'll be getting $2040 next year - the benefit is HIGHER either way than this year. People are falsely claiming that my benefit will be "cut". How is $2040 lower than $2000? My benefit will be going up either way, $60 in one case, $40 in the other. That is NOT a "cut" no matter how you look at it.

2. Although the two numbers vary from year to year, there have been more years in the last four decades where the CPI would have resulted in a higher increase in benefits than the actual increases that occurred. It's all in plain black and white in my previous post.

Finally, and unfortunately, people are using a skewed argument as yet another excuse to attack President Obama. It's sad and counterproductive in my eyes.

[rosesaylavee]

110. Thank you for this table

I am thinking this will all turn out to be Malarkey too at the end of the day. I think the fear mongering is just too lucrative for even the left leaning groups to ignore. Sadly that.

[amandabeech]

106. The proposal means that cost-of-living increases will be set so that they do not keep

up with inflation.

Over time, you will NOT be able to buy with your social security payments what you can now.

Your spending power will be reduced over time.

You may be okay with that, but seniors who are barely making it now will have a harder time making ends meet in the future.

The older you live, the more you will notice that you cannot buy the same things that you could with your social security payment.

The older you are, the more you spend on health care, so more people at the lower levels of social security payments will be trying to figure out what to cut.

My Mom, who has enough, knows older ladies who already can barely afford their medicine and their food.

What will they do if they live longer? Every penny is precious to these ladies.

[George II]

111. If the CPI was used this past year....

Those ladies would have had a 2.1% increase instead of the 1.7% they received. In fact, over the past 12 years the CPI exceeded the normal COLA in six of those years and was exactly the same one year.

Do you know what the net difference in benefits would have been over those 12 years if the CPI was used instead of the current method?

Based on a monthly benefit of $2000, the difference over those TWELVE years would have been a total of $120.00, only $10.00 a year, or eighty three cents a month!

Is that worth all this clamor that Obama is a bum, a liar, a republican stooge, etc. etc. etc.?

[rosesaylavee]

114. +1000

[zipplewrath]

11. Chained CPI

Reduce rate of increase. In economic terms, that's a cut.

[George II]

14. Oh, so the "cut" is actually an increase. I thought so.

[eomer]

20. No, it's a decrease in benefits provided by the program.

Current law specifies the future stream of monthly benefits that you can expect to receive. That future stream of benefits will be lower if the president's proposal is enacted. The dollar amount of your benefit at, say, age 80 will be lower than it would have been, so it is a cut in the benefits provided by the program.

[zipplewrath]

21. Not in economic terms

But if you want to believe it is an increase go ahead, especially if it makes you feel better.

And you can believe that you will "save" money when you buy that new couch that's on sale, go ahead there too.
And all you minutes on your cell phone plan are "free" too. Heck, the phone is "free".

[bitchkitty]

38. Are you being deliberately stupid?

Because that's how you're coming off.

[George II]

59. Explain yourself, or don't insult people.

[Occulus]

109. Stop insulting everyone else's intelligence FIRST.

[George II]

112. If you weren't so busy insulting people here you would have seen that I posted REAL facts....

...that disprove the claim that using the CPI would be worse than the current method of calculating the COLA. Of course, that would take work and it's much easier to fling insults.

Have at it!

[dflprincess]

79. The way the Social Security COLAs are calculated now are inadequate

not coming anywhere near to keeping up with inflation (and there have been years where there was no increase).

If any change to the COLA calculation is made it should be one that includes items that Seniors spend their money on. Adding prescription drugs into the mix would be a good place to start.

[vduhr]

15. I also receive SS.

The "cuts" he is proposing, is the Chained CPI, which, from what my limited understanding of the Consumer Price Index is, will effect the COLA raises for SS and may result in smaller increases each consecutive year. I started collecting SS last year, and have only received a total of 5.3% in increases (about $55 total, whoop dee doo!). Prior to that (before I was collecting SS), there had not been a COLA for two years because they claimed inflation was too low. Oddly, those were the only two years since COLA was enacted that there were no raises. I may be wrong, but my concern is that we will continue to get smaller raises anyway, regardless of Chained CPI or not, or we may get none. I don't know if the Chained CPI will guarantee at least some raise each year, as prices will continue to grow? Does anyone with a better sense of CPI know the answer?

[amandabeech]

107. Chained CPI means that the cost of living increases will be less than inflation

as calculated now.

It means that over time, since Chain CPI is designed NOT to keep up with inflation, particularly inflation in health costs, you will be able to buy less with your social security payment.

Those who are barely getting by will have a harder time making ends meet.

Those who live a long time, and that might be me due to heredity, will really see less buying power at the end of their lives when their medical costs are the greatest and they are the least able to to bring in more income.

[George II]

113. The current method of calculating the COLA results in increases less than inflation too....

...there is practially no difference between the two over time. One year the current method yields a higher increase, the next year the CPI yields a higher increase. Virtually no difference.

But the CPI gives DUers a perfect opportunity to bash Obama on yet something else.

[disndat]

7. Caveat Emptor

MoveOn has become a money raising blog with their urgent calls for money contributions.

[L0oniX]

31. That tact is so old. Don't like what's said ...then attack the messenger. Pffft. n/t

[disndat]

48. The messenger wears no clothes.

[grahamhgreen]

32. Total FAIL: Ad Hominem attack. (definition)

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. +1. And you have to wonder how many of those "8 million members" are active. Why didn't they......

show up for Jill Stein? I haven't responded to a MoveOn request since Bush left office, and I'm almost certain there are many more just like me. MoveOn = SEND MONEY NOW!!!!

[eridani]

85. Because they are mostly Democrats who expect Democrats to defend the--

--social safety net that Democrats created.

[Jakes Progress]

9. How dare they speak negatively about an Obama move? Under the bus with them.

Next they will want to raise billionaire taxes and fund public schools. So who cares what they think?

[Smilo]

13. They are correct.

Why is he really doing this? He is not an ignorant man - he knows that it will hurt the ordinary American - so why? Could it be his republican side is winning?


If it is worth anything I have sent an email to Harry Reid saying no cuts to SS.

[xtraxritical]

16. Raul Gravilla and the House Progressive Caucus have our six.

[grahamhgreen]

34. Why? Because he is a soft sell shill for the ruling elite. He must be pushed.

[rtracey]

17. Its a ploy

The Republicans are not going to pass any budget put forth by the Obama administration. The President knows what he is doing... when the repubs refuse to pass his budget, Obama can then say "see, I even offered to cut medicare and S.S, and they still refused....vote them out in 2014"...... keep your eyes open.....

[proverbialwisdom]

19. And the public needs to weigh in LOUDLY, either way. nt

[L0oniX]

29. So the GOP stands for not cutting SS and Obama does. Yea that worked out great. n/t

[Union Scribe]

41. Exactly. It would have to be the dumbest ploy ever.

'Gee, let me permanently mar my party's integrity on Social Security AND make the GOP look like the good guys. Brilliant! How do I come up with this stuff?!'

[L0oniX]

43. Instructions from the corporate sponsers of the "good cop bad cop" show. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

40. Absurdulous.

[lark]

47. Flawed logic

Repugs will not switch their votes because of this and it will turn off the Dems so it's a net loser. Repugs can then run against Dems with the message that Dems want to cut SSI & Medicare and our way is better. Depress Dem turnout and Repugs win. Obama knows this so why is he giving them the fodder they need? That's the real question.

[John2]

66. Maybe it is because he

truly believes he is doing the right thing. I think he is better than a Republican President but it is time to get a candidate more liberal than Obama after his four years are up. The Progressives need to pick their own candidate and encourage that person to run. It is very surprising a politician like Sanders never decided to run on the national level. You have some progressive politicians in Congress. Why does the choice have to be Hillary Clinton or even Biden? Run some new blood against them, and make them move further to left. They need to be threatened politically. I would vote for congressman Ellis before I would vote for the established candidate. That is because he represents my views more.

I do not agree with Obama's position on Foreign Policy and agree with him compromising positions with rightwing extremists. The Safety net needs to be increased not decreased. If we accept the right's position, the safetynet programs are wasteful spending, then you have already lost the debate. Those programs are needed to fight poverty and provide healthcare for our citizens. They can call it socialism or communism all they want but it is the kind I like.

What I don't like is wasteful spending for their warmongering. It only benefits the wealthy, not only in this country, but other countries. Our armies are used to control the Policies and resources in other countries. It does not benefit the ordinary American citizen one bit. Empire building use to benefit countries in the old days because the controlling nation could get tribute from the nations they conquered. There is no benefit to the ordinary American citizen to defend countries like Japan, Israel,Germany or South Korea. That is the argument I put forth. It only benefits the Top percent in the United States because of the Deals they can make within those countries. None of the benefits are passed down to any other American citizen but he pay the bills for defending those countries. And I would submit to you, maybe with the exception of South Korea, everyone of those countries have universal healthcare and get benefits from their Government.

[rtracey]

63. see what I mean

See a ploy....I knew this would happen......http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html?hp=t2_3


Now Obama can go to the people and say...Look, I even went as far as offering to cut Medicare and S.S to get this Sequester stopped. I dont see any Repubs offering to give up salary, do you...there is enough bullshit waste in Medicare and S.S that actually can be cut, by actually getting 1. some dead off the books that are still collecting S.S., 2. by allowing people to opt out of S.S., 3. by eliminating anyone who claims they are against the government interference of their lives. and medicare..there is more major waste in medicare then S.S. We are a people SHOULD DEMAND our congress get all the waste out of these 2 programs.....

[AnnieK401]

86. Agreed!

[buck201]

23. OBAMA'S PROPOSED CUTS

I JUST HAD MY INEMPLOYMENT CHECKS CUT 10%! DUE TO THE SEQUESTER! HE ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN WHILE BILLIONAIRES ARE SHOWING RECORD PROFITS ON WALLSTREET! HE CUT HIS OWN PAY A LOUSEY 5%. HE NEEDS TO START SHOWING SOME MORE FOR WHAT HE IS DOING FOR THE WORKIN AND MIDDLE CLASS!!

[ohiosmith]

36. This post was alerted on. The jury voted 6/0 to let it stand!

At Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

OBAMA'S PROPOSED CUTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=445572

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

obvious troll joined to post this?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:50 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Take away the capslock and misspellings and the sentiment of the post is not against community standards (nor different than the sentiments of many DUers, I'd wager). I think buck201 just needs a gentle reminder that capslock is bad netiquette and that there is a limit to the amount of criticism of the president that will be tolerated on this site. If, however, the capslock and the misspellings are indicative of something else, we will know soon enough.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm not feeling very kindly about PBO today and I'm not a troll.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Likely is a troll! DU however could use some red meat! Leave the post!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: let's play with the little mousey , what say?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: probably is a troll.. but not 100% convinced. They will show themselves soon enough. this post wasn't disruptive or hurtful.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[tblue]

53. Haha! Good job, jury!

Thanks for telling us. What's up with that alerter?

[ohiosmith]

60. My pleasure!

[buck201]

74. Obama's Proposed Cuts

I repeat. My unemployment ck. just came with a letter explaining a 10%cut due to the sequester. I am disappointed in Obama letting this happen. So far I see the well to do reaping the most benefits. I campaigned for him to win office. I would like to see more being done for working and middle class. If I am a troll for saying this maybe you should look at yourselves.

[L0oniX]

44. All caps is what they do over at freerepukeness ...and spell check is your friend. n/t

[In_The_Wind]

51. shhhh

Plz ... quit posting in all caps [img][/img] or I might remove the welcome mat.

[Le Taz Hot]

25. But I've been assured that no such proposal has been made

and I'm a "simpleton" for even suggesting such a thing.

[alfredo]

26. I've been trying to tell people that no matter what Obama proposes, it will be rejected

because it came from him. It has nothing to do with the merits of the proposal. He has proposed the same thing the Republicans proposed a few months earlier and they rejected it.

So don't get too upset over anything he puts forward. It is DOA in the Republican house. Even if it squeaks by in the house, it will face a filibuster due to the "stench" of the black man in their "White House."

[Union Scribe]

42. Then it makes even less sense to offer

when it paints him as willing to throw the vulnerable under the bus and allows the GOP to grandstand on the issue. It makes even LESS sense to make such offers if he KNOWS they won't be accepted. What possibly is there to gain by it, versus the PR disaster it is becoming?

[alfredo]

55. I think enough people know that any revenue in any plan, no matter

how draconian, will be rejected. Even the drubbing they got in 2012 was not enough to change their behavior.


Every rejection of any plan that asks the rich to pay a fair share of taxes, reinforces the narrative that the Reps only represent the rich. We want the GOP to be bent to the point of breaking so they will have little choice but to bargain in good faith.


I think they will break. Negotiation to them is weakness, and they do not want to appear weak.

[treestar]

82. +1000000000000000000000

The Republicans and only the Republicans are to blame!

[bvar22]

28. MoveOn is being kind.

I have stronger words usually reserved for sneak thieves,
and con men that prey on little old ladies.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[grandpamike1]

33. If this is

the case, then is no rational reason for anyone to vote for Democrats ever. Let's pass no gun laws, so that everyone can buy as many as they want and let the Republicans take over the three branches, and let us do what the colonists did to rid this nation of red coats, the modern day political parties, both of them.

[tblue]

52. I get what you're saying.

I do not want an armed insurrection but this that we have here is unsustainable. Has to stop. We are going backward not forward despite 'looking forward instead of backward.'

[madfloridian]

35. I agree.

[OKNancy]

39. well, moveon can relax, because just as we all knew, the plan was rejected

by the Republicans.

[DeSwiss]

61. Those drones aren't going to pay for themselves.....

- K&R

[RainDog]

65. k&r n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

67. Here is a copy of MoveOn's appeal for URGENT ACTION:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022621710




The President has told us time and time again he WANTS us to hold his feet to the fire.

He NEEDS us to hold his feet to the fire, and he NEEDS US NOW.

[disndat]

99. Yes, hold Obama's feet to the fire

while MoveOn collect $$$ from the most vulnerable.

[whathehell]

69. Chris Matthews just opened today's Hardball by lauding Obama's "courage" in proposing SS cuts.

Figures...I just took him off my DVR list, wrote him and told him it takes no "courage"

to cut disabled veterans and the elderly. What would take "courage", I told him, would

be to stand up to WALL STREET and The ONE PERCENT, and THAT he has not shown.

I also thanked Tweety for showing his true colors, but let him know I would NOT be watching him again.


Here's the contact email address if you'd like to voice your own opinion.


http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/contact.html

[BrotherIvan]

84. Thanks for calling him out

Loves war, hates the elderly: check

[whathehell]

95. Anytime.....n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

71. Obama's Chained CPI Cuts to the Social Safety Net: Deplorable.

Deplorable
Deplorable
Deplorable
Deplorable
Deplorable
Deplorable
Deplorable

[jsr]

75. Unconscionable and Obscene.

[treestar]

81. On but nothing Boner and the Rs do is!

[Doctor_J]

88. I wonder if Obama was sent to the WH to destroy the Dem party

it seems that will be his biggest accomplishment.

[green for victory]

100. a gift maybe?

[IMG][/IMG]

[George II]

90. See post #73.....

[Joey Liberal]

94. Obama and the GOP thought we weren't paying attention

They were wrong.

[Ash_F]

105. Republicans get shellacked at the polls for pushing for cuts to these...

...thereby ushering Dems into power all over the place. Now Dems want to follow in pubbie footsteps.




Logic!

[musical_soul]

115. The proposed cut to social security is disgusting.

And let's set the record straight. Social security is not a hand out. We earn it.

The elderly worked their entire lives and raised us. They deserve what little social security they're getting.