It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    In response to jri37's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Not commenting on anyone's views - they are what they are.  That said this is a topic more appropriate for discussion in a political forum.

    Even wanting the banana avatar back???



    Well the world would be a much better place with the banana avatar reinstalled I must confess.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    In response to Godvernment's comment:

    Mark this day. For the first time in history, a Democratic president has officially proposed to cut the Democratic Party’s signature New Deal program, Social Security: President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials say.

    In a significant shift in fiscal strategy, Mr. Obama on Wednesday will send a budget plan to Capitol Hill that departs from the usual presidential wish list that Republicans typically declare dead on arrival. Instead it will embody the final compromise offer that he made to Speaker John A. Boehner late last year, before Mr. Boehner abandoned negotiations in opposition to the president’s demand for higher taxes from wealthy individuals and some corporations.

     

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/05-10

    You left out the rest of the article which explains why this is MORONIC. 

    The way this was explained to me is that the liberal Democrats in the House put out a leftward proposal and the Democrats in the Senate put out a moderate proposal, which the president tacitly endorsed. The Crazy Republicans then came back with a rightward proposal so now the president has simply set forth a compromise between the Senate Dems and the Crazy Republicans. And it’s his final, final offer this time.

     

    God help us if the Republicans wise up and take this deal. After all, it’s a more conservative budget than even their hero Ronald Reagan ever submitted.

     

    This is what he proposes: (there is a video here explaining why basing SS on an adjustable CPI is bad for seniors)

     

    I’m going to quote Mike Lux here:

     

    If Obama includes it in his budget, he is claiming this as a policy idea he supports before he even starts negotiations with the Republicans. This is terrible policy and terrible politics at the same time. In a budget document that has no actual policy impact but that symbolically represents what he stands for and who he wants to fight for, he will alienate senior citizens and the families who worried about taking care of them, he will split his political party down the middle, and– by being the first one to formally propose cuts to Social Security– he will hand Republicans a big political weapon to hurt Democrats in 2014.

     

    I understand the president has political reasons he wants to do this. He wants to look like the most reasonable guy in the room, and he wants the Republicans to look like they are the extremists who won’t compromise. He doesn’t want the attacks that will come from the deficit hawk crowd if offers nothing on “entitlement reform,” and he feels like this is a modest cut compared with the budget ax the Republicans are threatening. He feels like he can lessen the impact of the Social Security cuts by adjusting the formula to protect the oldest and poorest recipients.

     

    But, folks, this is rotten public policy, and all those political reasons pale in comparison to the damage he is doing here. With the demise or curtailment of most pensions, the drop in family wealth due to the collapse of the housing sector in 2008, the big unemployment numbers cutting into many families’ life savings, the flattening or decrease of wages for most workers, and the inflation in many essentials among those who are working driving down the ability to save for retirement, this is the absolute last time we should be looking at cutting incomes for retirees.

     

    As to the idea that Obama will keep the most vulnerable low-income seniors from harm, I am very appreciative of that fact that he cares about them and is trying to preserve them from cuts. Obama’s compassion for the poorest of the poor is something to be lauded, one of his best values. But I used to do a lot of organizing with moderate income senior citizens, and I know a lot of middle-income seniors. I can tell you that even for those a little above the cut-off line but still living mostly on Social Security, they are not living in luxury, they are in fact just making it. When groceries or utilities or out-of-pocket health care expenses spike, it hurts and hurts bad. I have been in the apartments of seniors when utility prices were going on one of their periodic jumps, have seen what they can afford to eat, have felt the cold in their apartments in the winter because they can’t heat their place. I know in my heart, because I have seen the evidence up close and personal, that for a lot of seniors the $500 a year they will have lost from chained CPI a few years from now if this cut goes into effect will result in more seniors dying of hypothermia or malnutrition.

     

    Most Americans, over 80 percent in polls I have seen, understand that cutting Social Security benefits is a terrible idea, and I believe that if that is what happens people will be angry. But even if the politics were not on our side, this is a moral issue pure and simple. The president should not propose cutting Social Security, and Democrats in Congress should raise hell and oppose him if he does. As Democrats, according to all that rhetoric I kept hearing during the campaign last year, we believe in fighting for the middle class, and this proposal punches the middle class– both older Americans and the families who care for them– in the gut.

    Ok, so what do we do now?

     

    First, we cannot simply sit back and expect the GOP to do our dirty work for us. After all, the way things are going, the Prsident or could start offering up new tax cuts for all we know. He’s either a terrible negotiator or he really, really wants these cuts. Either way, counting on him holding the line is probably not a good idea.

     

    So, we have to buck up the Democrats. I know, I know. But they still have to face voters while the president has run his last election. They should be made very, very aware of what they are contemplating: attacks from both the left and the right in the next election. Any incumbent Democrat who could face a primary challenge will be facing withering criticism for voting to cut SS, veterans benefits and medicare. And if they are lucky to fight them off and win they will be attacked by the Republicans challenger on exactly the same issues. These are very, very popular programs which, by the way, don’t actually need to be cut. Anyone who votes for this will hear about it. If you have a Democratic congressional rep, give them a call and let them know that you will hold it against them. (Also too, if you have a Republican representative. They have to face voters too and it can’t hurt to remind them of that. And after all, they are just looking for reasons to oppose this …)

     

    And call your Senators starting today. The pattern so far has been that Speaker Boehner will only suspend the Hastert Rule (allowing legislation to the floor without a Republican majority) if it is already passed with a bipartisan Senate vote. Best to try to stop it here first.

     

    Meanwhile prepare for a barrage of savvy, world weary commentary from your fellow liberals telling you that this is no big thing and that Democrats will not suffer even a tiny bit if they vote for a common sense proposal like this one. You will be shushed and told to calm down and take a chill pill. In other words, you will be gaslighted by fellow liberals who are embarrassed that you aren’t being coolly accepting of something that is completely unacceptable. This is how this works. Tell them to STFU and move out of the way.

     

    And recall this:

     

    Responding to a flood of angry phone calls and letters from their elderly constituents, a growing number of Congressmen and Senators are seeking to repeal or revise the “Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988″ enacted in June of that year. The amount and the tenacity of elderly opposition to the law, particularly to the new taxes that will fund it, took many Congressmen by surprise. It also has provoked an open and widespread grass-roots rebellion within the nation’s largest senior citizen lobby, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), whose national office pushed hard for the original legislation. Already, some 30 bills have been introduced to repeal the catastrophic act in whole or in part or to change the way it is financed. More bills are expected.

    The cool kids should think twice before predicting a complacent acceptance of this proposal because sometimes the people do stand up and object. Especially when it comes to these programs. They don’t call it the third rail for nothing.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    In response to xxxcrwn's comment:

    It would be so much easier if he just handed the piece of paper over so the press could physically have it in their hands, instead of playing blow it off as long as he has. A computer generated image is not a BC. Hopefully he's smart enough to know that.

    http://www.science.co.il/Obama-Birth-Certificate.htm



    Your intelligence is incredible, huh? Brilliant man you are!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    Move it to the politics forum please, where other eggheads are eager to bash this around with you. Have fun.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from xxxcrwn. Show xxxcrwn's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:

    And I believe it was a 2 term Republican that put this Country in 2 Wars and we are still looking for the supposed Weapons of Mass destruction.




    That's an old wives tale, & they found them. Most of them were shipped out of Iraq & in to Syria. They just haven't said much with a Democrat as POTUS. There were plenty of Democrats that came out at the time, & previously, who said there were WMD's, including Bill Clinton. Now they clam up. This is not a Republican thing. There's also the possibility that the WMD originated from the US military. Wouldn't that be a nice thing to broadcast to the world?

    “At another location, we found barrels of chemical material that was intended for use as biochemical weapons. Everyone talks about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they seem to be referring to completed nuclear bombs, not the many deadly chemical weapons or precursors that Saddam had stockpiled.” -Chris Kyle NAVY SEAL


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from xxxcrwn. Show xxxcrwn's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    In response to dreighver's comment:

     

    In response to xxxcrwn's comment:

     

    It would be so much easier if he just handed the piece of paper over so the press could physically have it in their hands, instead of playing blow it off as long as he has. A computer generated image is not a BC. Hopefully he's smart enough to know that.

    http://www.science.co.il/Obama-Birth-Certificate.htm

     



    Your intelligence is incredible, huh? Brilliant man you are!

     

     



     Actually, you got something right today. I was able to retire young almost 10 years ago thanks to that brain. Say hello to your boss for me today.;-)

     Since you don't seem to understand what a forensic deconstruction of a document is, I'll make it simple for you. Link me to anysite that has someone with an Obama BC in their hand. I bet you can't. ;-) Failure to do this means you lose.

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    In response to Godvernment's comment:

    In response to xxxcrwn's comment:

     

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:

     

    And I believe it was a 2 term Republican that put this Country in 2 Wars and we are still looking for the supposed Weapons of Mass destruction.

     




    That's an old wives tale, & they found them. Most of them were shipped out of Iraq & in to Syria. They just haven't said much with a Democrat as POTUS. There were plenty of Democrats that came out at the time, & previously, who said there were WMD's, including Bill Clinton. Now they clam up. This is not a Republican thing. There's also the possibility that the WMD originated from the US military. Wouldn't that be a nice thing to broadcast to the world?

    “At another location, we found barrels of chemical material that was intended for use as biochemical weapons. Everyone talks about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they seem to be referring to completed nuclear bombs, not the many deadly chemical weapons or precursors that Saddam had stockpiled.” -Chris Kyle NAVY SEAL


     

     



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

     

    "the main reason why we went into iraq was that we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. turns out he didn't..." -George Dubya




    I'm amazed at how gullible and easily influenced people are by the propagandarist newspapers of this Country. I need to sell you some swamp land!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    In response to xxxcrwn's comment:

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:

     

    And I believe it was a 2 term Republican that put this Country in 2 Wars and we are still looking for the supposed Weapons of Mass destruction.

     




    That's an old wives tale, & they found them. Most of them were shipped out of Iraq & in to Syria. They just haven't said much with a Democrat as POTUS. There were plenty of Democrats that came out at the time, & previously, who said there were WMD's, including Bill Clinton. Now they clam up. This is not a Republican thing. There's also the possibility that the WMD originated from the US military. Wouldn't that be a nice thing to broadcast to the world?

    “At another location, we found barrels of chemical material that was intended for use as biochemical weapons. Everyone talks about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they seem to be referring to completed nuclear bombs, not the many deadly chemical weapons or precursors that Saddam had stockpiled.” -Chris Kyle NAVY SEAL


     




    Thanks for your service - I was in Recon back in the 70s. That being said I believe you have drank the cool-aid. If you really believe that America is a squeeky clean Country and does/has not exploited, killed and controlled other Countries for Financial profit you are deluded.Same goes for that greedy Country England that seems to be in everyones Country( GET OUT OF IRELAND!!),, just because they can. We used Noriega and Saddam until they were no longer needed--BTW Iraq under Saddam actually kept surrounding Countries like Iran in check-now it's a mess. Lastly how can you make a judgement in favor of a Regime unless you are given ALL the facts, not what biased American newspapers tell you? Again thanks for the service-Best to you and your family!

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

    In response to Godvernment's comment:

     

    In response to xxxcrwn's comment:

     

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:

     

    And I believe it was a 2 term Republican that put this Country in 2 Wars and we are still looking for the supposed Weapons of Mass destruction.

     




    That's an old wives tale, & they found them. Most of them were shipped out of Iraq & in to Syria. They just haven't said much with a Democrat as POTUS. There were plenty of Democrats that came out at the time, & previously, who said there were WMD's, including Bill Clinton. Now they clam up. This is not a Republican thing. There's also the possibility that the WMD originated from the US military. Wouldn't that be a nice thing to broadcast to the world?

    “At another location, we found barrels of chemical material that was intended for use as biochemical weapons. Everyone talks about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they seem to be referring to completed nuclear bombs, not the many deadly chemical weapons or precursors that Saddam had stockpiled.” -Chris Kyle NAVY SEAL


     

     



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

     

    "the main reason why we went into iraq was that we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. turns out he didn't..." -George Dubya

     




    I think what he means by that is workable, built weapons. There is no doubt they had the components and had used them in the past.  They clearly didn't have full intelligence on if he did or didn't still because of bim not following UN sanctions in the 1990s.  I don't think we even know if the cuckoo bird in N. Korea has the capability or if it's mostly rhetoric.

     

    It's quite pathetic to pretend Husssein didn't use chemical weaponry in the 1980s on the Kurds, because we know he did.

    Get over it.  You defending or praising mass murderers, apparently for attention on the internets, is pathetic.

     

     




    And you don't think it's "quite pathetic" to use weapons and kill thousands of innocent Iraqi CIVILIANS? You might want to stop watching those America is ALWAYS the good guy movies and open your eyes. Just like the Catholic and Christian churchs killed thousands of people in the name of God America has much blood on it for the killing of thousand if not millions of INNOCENT civilians and all for money. I'm not saying America hasn't been in Wars for the good, like WW2,they have. But America is by no means covered in White,quite the contrary.And don't tell me you are so naive to believe that America is only trying to spread Democrocy! Stick with football you sound much less silly and actually make some good points.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security

    In response to Godvernment's comment:

    After years of UN inspections, and a comprehensive 15-month search by the Iraq Survey Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group), following thousands of searches and interviews by close to ten thousand US military, intelligence and scientific inspectors, it has been definitively demonstrated, and at last admitted by President George W. Bush, that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction (or even of useful national defense).

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The "Duelfer Report"

    Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, and its capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector in Iraq said in a report made public today.

    The report, by Charles A. Duelfer, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The findings amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration's prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators concluded were the facts on the ground.

    At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them.

    The White House portrayed the war as a bid to disarm Iraq of unconventional weapons, and had invoked images of mushroom clouds, deadly gases and fearsome poisons. But Mr. Duelfer concluded that even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

    "Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war," Mr. Duelfer said in his report, which added that American inspectors in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

    Hours before Mr. Duelfer's report was made public, President Bush appeared to try to deflate some the political impact of its core findings.

    "After Sept. 11, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light," Mr. Bush said while campaigning in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. "Our nation awakened to an even greater danger: the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder."

    "We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons, and one regime stood out," Mr. Bush said. "The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."

    Mr. Duelfer presented his conclusions to Congress beginning with testimony at a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But his findings were described to reporters in advance of the testimony, although only on condition that they not be published until his afternoon appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, when the report was made public.

    The three-volume report, totaling more than 900 pages, is viewed as the first authoritative attempt to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq during the crucial years between the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and the American-led war that began in 2003. It adds new weight to what is already a widely accepted view that the most fundamental prewar assertions made by American intelligence agencies about Iraq — that it possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was reconstituting its nuclear program — bore no resemblance to the truth.

    Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had made fundamental decisions, beginning in 1991, to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to end United Nations sanctions. But Mr. Duelfer argued that Mr. Hussein was also exploiting avenues opened by the sanctions, including the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a long-term plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

    Mr. Hussein "wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," the report said. But the conclusion that Mr. Hussein had intended to restart his programs, the report acknowledged, was based more on inference than solid evidence. "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions," it said, using the common abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction.

    The report was based in part on the interrogation of Mr. Hussein in his prison cell outside of Baghdad. Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that Mr. Hussein deliberately sought to maintain an ambiguity about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons in a strategy aimed as much at Iran, with whom Iraq fought an eight-year war in the 1980's, as at the United States.

    Mr. Duelfer's report said that American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for secret assassinations rather than to inflict mass casualties. It said those laboratories were active from 1991 to 2003.

    Mr. Duelfer said in his report that Mr. Hussein never disclosed in the course of the interrogations what had become of Iraq's illicit weapons. He said that American investigators had appealed to the former Iraqi leader to be candid in order to shape his legacy, but that Mr. Hussein had not been forthcoming.

    The report said that interviews with other former top Iraqi leaders had made clear that Mr. Hussein had left many of his top deputies uncertain until the eve of war about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons. It said that Mr. Hussein had seemed to be most concerned about a possible new attack by Iran, whose incursions into Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88 were fended off by Baghdad only with the use of chemical munitions fired on ballistic missiles.

    Mr. Duelfer said in the report that Iraq had made a conscious effort to maintain the knowledge base necessary to restart an illicit weapons program. He said that Iraq had essentially put its biological program "on the shelf" after its last production facility, Al Hakam, was destroyed by United Nations inspectors in 1996, and could have begun to produce biological questions in as little as a month if it had restarted its weapons program in 2003.

    But the report said there were "no indications" that Iraq had been pursuing such a course, and it reported "a complete absence of discussion or even interest in biological weapons" at the level of Mr. Hussein and his aides after the mid-1990's.

    The report will almost certainly be the last complete assessment by the team led by Mr. Duelfer, which is known as the Iraq Survey Group. But Mr. Duelfer said that he and the 1,200-member team would continue their work in Iraq for the time being. He said the team had not completely ruled out the possibility that some Iraqi weapons might have been smuggled out to a neighboring country, such as Syria.

    The report did reverse an earlier judgment by the Central Intelligence Agency, saying the Mr. Duelfer's team had concluded that mysterious trailers found in Iraq after the American invasion in 2003 could not have been used as part of any biological warfare program. The trailers' manufacturers "almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen," upholding claims by Iraqi officials that linked the trailers to weather balloons used for artillery practice.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/international/middleeast/06CND-INTE.html?pagewanted=1




    Finally a sound piece, not jaded by newspaper biased rah rah Americas always right crap. You are right and the committee that researched the WMDs stated that Iraq did not have them-of course The King wants to believe what he was told in media that they got rid of them before our search. Well he is wrong our research team found NO WMDs and based on their findings did not see a reason to go to War with a Country which would cause the death of Many innocent civilians on both sides. Anyone with half a brain knows why the Bush/Cheney regime went to War--follow the money trail-it always tells you the truth!! Lastly I also believe like the french that 911 was set up by our Gov't so as to get the people behind Bush's War--if you researched that farce you would find that people at the base of the towers heard explosions at the base. A building like that would not collapse with 2 planes that high up. And Middle Eastern people were flown out just after the Event. Bush/Cheney needed the people behind them so voilla terrorists. I'm not saying there are not terrorist in the world, but it wasn't until America went over to Afghanistan for the Opium that the Taliban got pissed off because Bush/Cheny amongst others wanted a piece of the pie. And why were their NO-BID Military and Construction Contracts during the Iraq war? And who do you think were given these Billion dollar contracts and who profited---I'm amazed at how non-objective most sheeple are in Ameica--they have people all hopped up on the TV set-- people have become dumbed down--wake up America before our Country is gone and the last thing you'll be worrying about is a Pats score-more like how to find some drinking water and a peice of bread!!!

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share