POTUS Twitter just posted this tweet: "I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenges.........

[nc4bo]

But I refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced." - New Tweet from Barack Obama's Twitter Acct. @BarackObama.

My question to DU: Are we supposed to respond when we read one of these? Man, I have no idea if that's "allowed" but I had to respond.

Perhaps others can also?


https://twitter.com/BarackObama

Barack Obama ‏@BarackObama

"I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenges. But I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced." http://OFA.BO/UKwaE9
Collapse

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

307 Retweets
120 Favorites
karen saville Soloman x patrick sweeney ✨wasim✨ JH2X-SWA LAJUANA HOLT Espaço Sergio Marone

3:24 PM - 13 Nov 12 · Details
Tweet text
Image will appear as a link
36s

My Reply (not that it means anything or anyone even reads the replies)

**my name** ‏@**my twitter account**

@BarackObama Mr. President, we're concerned that cuts to SS, Medicare won't be fair nor balanced. Advantage going to GOP #CatfoodCommission

[sabrina 1]

1. Best response would be to point out that SS has NOTHING to do with our fiscal problems, the

deficit, or any other financial problems. And that it should not even be mentioned in the same sentence as the Deficit.

Let's hope the WH understands that a majority of Democrats know this and will not be fooled by any attempt to go along with Bowles/Simpson's intentions to drag SS into this discussion.

Good response, btw.

[Scuba]

3. +1,000

[nc4bo]

4. 140 character limit makes it tough to say everything you want :S

But I'd like to see us make our comments everywhere and at every opportunity we can.

Most of us did not vote for a bunch of BS.

Thanks sabrina 1.

[sabrina 1]

5. I know. But maybe we should come up with a short version of that and spread all over Twitter.

'Attn: SS had O to do w/defict. Take SS off table in Deficit talks. Fool us once etc!'

I count 82 characters there. Lol, someone can probably do better.

[nc4bo]

6. That's a good one!

perhaps change the O to "zero".

I like it and gets the point across.

I keep hearing the voice in my head saying, Who the hell do you people think you are? Not cool but I want to know who do they (and I'm including everyone who insists that SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAPS, AFDC should be part of some sacrifice) think they are?!! When corporations are experiencing record profits, big banks refusing to refinance mortgages, the almighty job creators sitting on money while the rest of us beg for scraps and all the kings look at us to make even more sacrafices.

Just no. I'm done playing this game and so should everyone else.

[sabrina 1]

8. Yes, zero would be better and it fits. I agree with you, NO ONE in elected office has the right

to meddle with SS, that account belongs to the American people. It is not part of the Federal Budget, it is a separate account.

I hope the push back will be so intense they don't dare touch it. But I'm not holding my breath. As soon as Axelrod took SS 'off the table' during the election, it was clear a deal had been made for the lame duck congress.

Same thing happened with the Bush Tax Cuts in the last election, 2010. We were told that issue was 'off the table' during the election also as was DADT. Right then we knew they were going to use DADT, a policy that should have been dealt with in Jan. 2009 as most people supported getting rid of it, but was held to bargain for the Bush Tax Cuts in the Lame Duck Congress.

The only hope is that several big Unions and dozens of other Progressive organizations along with SS advocacy groups, formed a coalition before the election, stating that while they would support Dems in this election, they did not trust them not to try to meddle with issues like SS. Hopefully they have enough power to overcome any attempts to do so.

[reformist2]

2. I'll take "balanced" to mean 1:1 spending cuts/tax increases... including defense cuts.

It should go without saying that 2:1 or 3:1 is by definition anything but "balanced."

[leftstreet]

7. A JOBS PROGRAM would solve a lot of problems n/t

[nc4bo]

9. But the Republicans say the jobs creators would suffer.

Something about those pesky tax increases again.

Why are we trying to bargain with rats?