The president's attacks on America's social safety net are destroying the soul of the Democratic par

[Why Syzygy]

Fast forward to 2011: it is now beyond dispute that President Obama not only favours, but is the leading force in Washington pushing for, serious benefit cuts to both social security and Medicare.

This week, even as GOP leaders offered schemes to raise the debt ceiling with no cuts, the White House expressed support for the Senate's so-called "gang of six" plan that includes substantial cuts in those programmes.

The same Democratic president who supported the transfer of $700bn to bail out Wall Street banks, who earlier this year signed an extension of Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and who has escalated America's bankruptcy-inducing posture of Endless War, is now trying to reduce the debt by cutting benefits for America's most vulnerable – at the exact time that economic insecurity and income inequality are at all-time highs.

Where is the "epic shitstorm" from the left which Black predicted? With a few exceptions – the liberal blog FiredogLake has assembled 50,000 Obama supporters vowing to withhold re-election support if he follows through, and a few other groups have begun organising as well – it's nowhere to be found.

(snipped)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/21/barack-obama-social-security-cuts

[ClarkUSA]

1. WTF is the op-ed writer babbling about? Does he have access to the final budget bill?

[LaydeeBug]

15. If Obama cuts social security at all, would you think that he's gone back on his word?

I mean, per the campaign. What will you say then? I am just wondering how to reconcile this.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Autumn]

2. Just the fact that he put them on the table

shows me that.

[ClarkUSA]

11. What did he put on the table exactly? Did he plot to cut SS and Medicare in secret like Clinton did?

[Hand_With_Eyes]

25. No, he is quite open about it

[babylonsister]

3. What a bunch of horseshit. Sorry, but who is actually attacking what?

I'm seeing a lot of attacks "on" the Prez and/or issues he cares about. No spin in this OP. :boring:

[Why Syzygy]

4. Take a look at the article.

I don't think it's an "attack". I believe it is fair.

[ClarkUSA]

12. I'm looking. It's long on rhetorical bile and short on factual details re: the final plan.

[bornskeptic]

22. Many here seem to be really enraptured by the automatic 22% cut

which is scheduled to occur in Social Security in about 25 years under current law. Any attempt to prevent that cut being made is regarded as an attack on Social Security. Of course the fact that President Obama has already presided over the largest expansion of Medicare and Medicaid benefits since thoseprograms were created is totally iggnored.

[babylonsister]

28. So much ignored by so many supposed intellectuals.

I thought those here were anyway, for the most part. The knee-jerkers are bugging me, so thanks for not being one. :hi:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

7. Moronic! n/t

[DevonRex]

13. Fucking disgusting.

[polmaven]

16. A leaping monkey???

Really????

[OHdem10]

6. jYou have to be blind in one eye and not be able to see out of

the other, much less have a hearing disability
not to know that when Obama put SS Medicare and Medicaid
on the table and has said on TV--everyone is going
to feel pain--he has effectively said cuts are coming.

Now he may talk very carefully, but if you think for
one moment he can stop serious GOP cuts, I have to bridge
to sell you.

His language has in every way indicated he will compromise
with GOP.

It would have been simple to say SS has not contributed
to the Deficit, therefore we can reform it in a stand
alone bill.

Today it was reported that there have to already be reforms
in Obama Care. This means changes in Medicare.

[Leontius]

8. He's not compromising with the GOP, He's leading the

way.

[Why Syzygy]

9. +1 gazillion. nt

[OHdem10]

10. The Compromise was coming out from the get go and putting

SS Medicare and Medicaid on the table.

[ClarkUSA]

14. Really? Is that why Boehner whined to Limpballs that "Obama is driving me up a wall"?

[Mimosa]

17. Clark, how did Lieberman stop the public option?

Still waiting to learn how one Senator could have stopped public option if the President and the Democratic party was for it. I want to know.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Read all about it.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Lieberman+killed+the+public+option&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[OwnedByFerrets]

19. tick, tick, tick

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. Not according to Gallup, who polls "actual Democrats", not message boards.

:rofl:

[Vattel]

21. He has offered to cut SS and medicare benefits.

The Lawrence O'Donnell theory that he is bluffing seems less plausible every day. And the article correctly states:

"Obama has continued the Bush/Cheney terrorism policies – once viciously denounced by Democrats – of indefinite detention, renditions, secret prisons by proxy, and sweeping secrecy doctrines.

He has gone further than his predecessor by waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, seizing the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process far from any battlefield, massively escalating drone attacks in multiple nations, and asserting the authority to unilaterally prosecute a war (in Libya) even in defiance of a Congressional vote against authorising the war."

I might add that he has been to the right of Bush on immigration reform and border enforcement, an issue that is very close to my heart. He has done a lot of good things too, but I'm in a bad mood.

[ClarkUSA]

23. Prove it. Provide the full quote where he said exactly that.

[Vattel]

26. Haven't you been following the news?

Inside Health Policy’s Sahil Kapur wrote that negotiators may consider raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as part of an effort to reach a deal with Republicans on increasing the debt ceiling, and Sam Stein confirmed the report, noting that five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations have said that “the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues.” When asked specifically about those reports, WH Press Secretary Carney responded that a lot of what has been reported about the negotiations is true. Is that conclusive proof that the President offered to raise the eligibility age for Medicare? No, but the evidence is pretty darn strong.

I'll let you find the evidence that he offered to cut SS too. google "social security Obama chaining"

[Why Syzygy]

32. I can't believe

this is being debated!

I know you get it.

Obama has said that SS checks might not go out. That is a bald faced misstatement of facts.
Why would he be pushing that talking point? Why does he feel no commitment to a program that is fully funded?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=189943

[ClarkUSA]

34. Prove your claim.

[Why Syzygy]

37. Which claim?

It doesn't matter because if you really want the TRUTH you will look it up yourself.

That's what I heard/read. Disprove it.

[ClarkUSA]

38. This ->"Obama has said that SS checks might not go out. That is a bald faced misstatement of facts."

[Why Syzygy]

40. That's TWO claims...

He said it? Or it was a 'misstatement of facts'?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

July 12, 2011 12:30 PM
Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576458294273264416.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

JULY 22, 2011

Obama's Debt-Ceiling Scare Tactics

I already posted the link detailing what the financial situation REALLY is.

[ClarkUSA]

41. One is a statement of fact. The other is your rhetorical claim.

Why are you linking to an op-ed from the Murdoch right wing nut rag WSJ? What do you think they're gonna say?

That's your proof? Boy, you sure trust Republican spin for someone who decries Republican policies. :sarcasm:

Here's what Pulitzer-Prize winning PolitiFact says on this issue:

If the Treasury was low on cash, however, there could be delays in honoring checks and disruptions in the normal flow of government services... This is because the government receives both cash, including tax revenue, and bills at irregular intervals. So it doesn't always have enough cash on hand to pay all its debts at any given moment. (Families and businesses will recognize this as the always-dreaded "cash flow problem.")

The Treasury Department has argued that failure to raise the debt limit actually would have more dramatic consequences than a government shutdown. "If Congress fails to increase the debt limit, the government would have to stop, limit, or delay payments on a broad range of legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and many other commitments," the department said in a statement.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-social-security-and-other-federa/

[Vattel]

49. PolitiFact rated Obama's statement as being only "half true."

[ClarkUSA]

52. Politifact debunks the OP's claim: "That is a bald faced misstatement of facts."

I'm sure they would say your claim is pants on fire false.

[ClarkUSA]

33. I have and your rhetoric is false. No quote, eh? I didn't think so.

[Vattel]

44. I offered evidence. You can ignore it if you like.

[ClarkUSA]

45. You offered rhetoric, not evidence. Where's the quote by Pres. Obama that backs up your claim?

Your claim:

"He has offered to cut SS and Medicare benefits."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=717461&mesg_id=717551

Where's the quote? Hmm?

[Vattel]

47. I don't think you know what "rhetoric" means.

Why do I need a quote from Obama to back up my claim? I am appealing to the reports of people who were at the negotiations and to the words of Obama's own press secretary. You call that rhetoric. That's why you don't seem to know what "rhetoric" means.

[ClarkUSA]

48. lol! You made a claim that you obviously cannot back up. And I nailed you.

Your claim:

"He has offered to cut SS and Medicare benefits."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=717461&mesg_id=717551

Where's his quote? Hmm? In the absence of that simple fact, your claim has zero credibility.

[Vattel]

50. So let me see if I understand you.

You think that if I don't have a quote from Obama himself, then I can't possibly have evidence that he offered something during the debt-ceiling negotiations. OK, well, gee, um, isn't that sort of obviously false?

[ClarkUSA]

51. Your claim: "He has offered to cut SS and Medicare benefits." Quote?

Your claim:

"He has offered to cut SS and Medicare benefits."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=717461&mesg_id=717551

Where's his quote? Hmm? In the absence of that simple fact, your claim has zero credibility.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

54. You have no quote to back up your bogus claim. Gotcha.

Glad to see you self-deleted that unwise personal attack against me. :)

[Vattel]

55. Well, I guess I'll just leave it to the good folks at DU

to decide whether I need a quote from Obama himself to back up my claim. Quotes from Carney and others don't count as evidence on your view, which is, of course, silly. Have a good night.

[ClarkUSA]

56. Anyone who makes such a claim about Pres. Obama & can't back it up w/a simple quote is not credible.

Jay Carney has gone on record to refute claims such as yours (as OPs in GDP has shown) so don't try to mislead people further.

[Vattel]

58. i did back it up with quotes. But you demand a quote from Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

60. Your quotes do not prove your claim. Nor can you provide even one quote by Pres. Obama.

Your claim is bogus.

[Vattel]

61. My quotes obviously do provide evidence for my claim.

I never claimed to have a quote from Obama.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vattel]

63. So the five reports to the contrary are all false?

And Carney's failure to deny the truth of the reports is meaningless? You just keep flailing away, don't you?

[Speck Tater]

24. This quote really describes so many DU posters:

"So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, or at least tolerate, any and all policies their party's leader endorses – even if those policies are ones they long claimed to loathe."

[madfloridian]

27. Explain your use of the term "tribal loyalties."?

[Why Syzygy]

30. Glenn Greenwald

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x716941

[Speck Tater]

46. Not my use. The quote is from the UK Guardian. Ask them.

But I think it's pretty self-explanatory. If some leader sticks a label on their suit that reads "I'm a Democrat" then most democrats will follow blindly whether the self-proclaimed Democrat really a Democrat or not. Obama has made it clear he's not really one of us. He's in the pocket of big business just like every other politician in was is fast becoming the most corrupt government on the face of the earth.

[babylonsister]

31. Please describe people who predict what will happen and bemoan

it prior to happening, then you never hear another word from them after it happens despite what they predicted. Just asking here, because there's a lot of that going on.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Excellent query. Waiting for a reply...

:thumbsup:

[Adsos Letter]

57. Tell it sister.

:hi:

[treestar]

29. The REPUBLICANS' attacks

:banghead:

[Tarheel_Dem]

36. Not sure why I should care what the Guardian has to say about my president.

I mean, didn't we fight a whole war so we wouldn't have to give a shit what the Brits think of us? :shrug:

[Why Syzygy]

42. No.

We fought the King of England because it was tyranny. See if you can spot what's "different".

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTvS-kyHzs

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. None of that says why I should give a shit what a Brit "journalist" has to say.

You know, they've got some issues over there with journalistic integrity. :rofl:

[creeksneakers2]

39. The editorial got one major fact wrong

It says, "This week, even as GOP leaders offered schemes to raise the debt ceiling with no cuts," There are no such GOP schemes.

[Sheepshank]

64. Scheming maybe...but schemes?...nah they have nothing n/t

[StarsInHerHair]

65. media suppression-the people are there