Once again, Obama offers to cut Social Security

[MannyGoldstein]

Superlative CPI, a.k.a. Chained CPI, a.k.a. "Granny won't miss eating those meals each month... Probably help prevent diabetes... and anyway, why don't I get more credit for giving all of those yummy peas to the old folks, and the rest of the 99%..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2416164

It's a sickness with this White House.

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R Imagine the outrage if BUSH were suggesting this

[iemitsu]

25. I feel twice the outrage toward Obama for repeatedly suggesting this

than I would if it had been Bush. At least he is an overt enemy not someone who masquerades as my friend.
Obama was not re-elected to do this and if he manages to pull it off Democrats will be forever cursed in the ballot box.

[MotherPetrie]

44. That's exactly how I feel. You EXPECT betrayal from the likes of Bush.

[MNBrewer]

57. A Republican can never "betray" a liberal. Only Democrats, who pretend to be a friend, can BETRAY

a liberal. Like Paul Wellstone and his vote for DOMA.

[840high]

49. That's how I feel.

[Generic Other]

95. +1000

How many times does it need to be said? Democrats do not support cuts to Social Security.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

244. Is there a diffrent word than cut or slash to define the process now?

[TheDebbieDee]

204. Psssst! Do you think maybe Pres O keeps offering to cut SS bcuz he knows these

mouthbreathing repukes will reject it!?!?!?!?

[MotherPetrie]

205. No

[BlueCaliDem]

276. Then you haven't been paying attention in the past 4+ years. eom

[MotherPetrie]

277. Oh, yes, I have. I've never seen Obama be anything but serious with Repugs.

If you think Obama isn't serious about cutting SS, you are the one who hasn't been paying attention. He's been bleating about the non-existent SS "crisis" -- i.e. echoing Repug talking points -- since his first run for president. It's absolutely absurd to attribute Obama's many statements and actions (i.e. the SS-hating assholes he appointed to chair the catfood commission) to an attempt to fake out the Repugs. Talk about wishful thinking.

[BlueCaliDem]

278. Do you know what's wishful thinking?

To believe SS doesn't need reform. You do know that SS is scheduled to run out in 2033 and benefits will be cut 25% according to the latest actuary's report, right? Or are you waiting for a Republican president and Congress to "fix" social security because they'll be SO much better than President Obama? Or don't you believe any of this is true? Or is it that you simply don't care as long as you get yours?

I would rather trust President Obama to fix social security for the long run than wait for a Republican president to try.

[MotherPetrie]

279. So you would support the Chained (excuse me, Superlative) CPI if Bush proposed it during his

administration?

[BlueCaliDem]

283. Again,

"I would rather trust President Obama to fix social security for the long run than wait for a Republican president to try." So the answer to your question is NO. I wouldn't trust Bush with launching a war in the M.E., and didn't although many MANY Democrats here and elsewhere, did. Initially.

That's why we need to fix social security NOW, while we have a Democrat in the WH who actually wants to strengthen and extend the life of Social Security, not realize the Republican dream of destroying it.

[MotherPetrie]

286. And I don't - repeat don't, as in DO NOT - trust the founder of the Catfood Commission.

[Sheepshank]

295. Transparent manufactured outrage

getting mad over and over, over the same topic when the reality is that nothing has ever happened in the past. The game of chess will continue.

At some point, even the mouth breathers realize its a negotiating game and lack a basis in reality....can you not grasp it?

[FogerRox]

290. SS is not "scheduled to run out in 2033" unless youre predicting 20 more yrs of recession

The trustees report, each year, issues 4 scenarios, Stochastic, low cost, intermediate cost and high cost.

You just picked the scenario based on some very unrealistic assumptions. No "real" wage growth, recession level GDP, and no "real" job creation, for 20 years.




There is nothing wrong with SS that a real jobs bill and raising the min wage wont fix.



Lets stop assuming the GOP is right when they claim the SS trust fund will be depleted in 2033.

[Maraya1969]

237. YES! That is what he did in the Fiscal Cliff negotiations that made us view him with such

admiration! He played those GOP like fiddles. And he is most likely doing it again.

I will never misjudge President Obama again as I see too many on this thread are doing. He is way too smart for that.

[putitinD]

245. that is what I think we are seeing here too.

[cui bono]

246. Ugh.

Sheesh. Blind followers is not what is needed. We need to take to the streets and demand this is never offered. EVER.

It is utter bullshit for a Dem to EVER mention cuts to SS. But Obama has mentioned it so many times that it is okay now to talk about it. It used to be the third rail. Now it's commonplace. And that means it will soon be cut and it will, in large part, be Obama's fault.

He is NOT a chess master.

[Maraya1969]

273. Really? Then how come at the end of the fiscal cliff negotiations we got the tax increases

and the GOP got nothing! It was all the President's playing on their own stupidity. I can see it and others can see it. The GOP can't see it.

[MotherPetrie]

258. So Obama's Catfood Commission, with Simpson trashing retirees dependent on SS,

Was all just to fake out Repugs? And it's OK for Obama to take the chance that they don't fall for it each time he again offers SS cuts without being asked?

I think he's totally serious -- but were he just trying manipulate them, I'd consider it just as reprehensible.

[forestpath]

2. A sickness that will only be fatal to the elderly and vulnerable.

[xtraxritical]

59. I followed all the links and I saw no references to "chained cpi"?

[MannyGoldstein]

67. "Chained CPI"="Superlative CPI"

Now check again?

[jberryhill]

3. "With protections for vulnerable"

Awwww, damn. Granny might get all her meals.

[forestpath]

4. How many people living only on SS AREN'T vulnerable?

[bluestate10]

8. Agree. That is exactly why more fortunate people should get less out of the system when they

retire. If that is done, more will be left for the less fortunate.

[forestpath]

10. What does "more fortunate" mean? An extra can of beans?

[cheapdate]

31. Not all retired people on Social Security...

are eating canned beans. Some have enormous wealth and eat the finest meals expertly prepared by their personal staff.

[HiPointDem]

52. and 2/3 of them rely on SS for 50% or more of their total income. 1/3 rely on SS for 90% or

more.

Half of beneficiaries get <$13K a year.

Medium to high-income beneficiaries are taxed on 85% of their SS already -- a Reagan & Clinton innovation, with this admin proposing to tax them on 100% of it, while reducing benefits.

[cheapdate]

58. I have no doubt that your statistics are accurate.

But, my earlier post was obviously talking about a more exclusive class of Social Security beneficiaries.

[HiPointDem]

69. yes, maybe 1% of the top 1/3 of recipients. whose maximum benefit, like everyone else's, is

$2500/mo. Subject to income taxation on 85% of it, soon to be 100%.

so wow, maybe they get $2000/mo, this top 1%.

how much do you think you're going to save v. what you're going to lose when they say. "fuck, who needs this headache? let's just go to vouchers!"

these are the people who already pay the lion's share of the cost of SS. They're mostly highly paid workers.

Capitalists may get salary, but most of their income comes from CAPITAL, which isn't subject to SS taxes.

Furthermore, the superrich can arrange to get their income in any way in which it's most beneficial
tax-wise -- something highly paid workers are less able to do.

You want to tax those highly-paid corporate execs more for SS? They just arrange to take more of their compensation in stock or other stuff SS can't tax.

[bluestate10]

88. I call pure bullshit. My current benefit will be $3600 per month and I still have many

years to work, so it's only going to grow larger. Why pull numbers out of one's ass? I know my number because I get a damned summary every year. When provable facts meet bullshit, facts win every time.

Will you now claim that me benefit will be cut dramatically by some nefarious Obama inspired plan? Or will you simply dismiss me as 1/3 of 1%, whatever that means?

[HiPointDem]

108. maybe you should take a look at the SS website.

Maximum Social Security Benefit: Worker Retiring at Full Retirement Age: 2012 $2,513/mo

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/colafacts.htm

That's $30,156 a year MAXIMUM.

Not to mention:

If you:

- file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your combined income* is between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.

- more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.

- file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income* that is between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits

- more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.

- are married and file a separate tax return, you probably will pay taxes on your benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.htm

Before Reagan, SS was not subject to income tax (as people were already taxed when they originally earned the money). Clinton raised Reagan's 50 percent to 85%.


I have no idea when your estimated future retirement date is, but NO ONE is getting paid $3600 a month ($43.2K a year). NO ONE.

SO the only one pulling numbers out their ass is YOU.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. Facts are bullshit.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery?
Extrajudicial execution is constitutional.
Etc.

[bluestate10]

160. No. I know that letters that I get are facts. The figure gave seems pulled out of the air.

A person's maximum benefit depends upon how much that person has put is. My maximum benefit is now at over three thousand per month, with many years for me to work. That is FACT, not bullshit.

[MannyGoldstein]

165. $2,513, it seems

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/colafacts.htm

[HiPointDem]

173. apparently. even linking to the SS website doesn't dissuade the poster. people used to be ashamed

when they were caught in a misstatement.

these days they just bullshit right through it.

repeat it enough, people will believe it seems to be the operative principle.

[bluestate10]

161. You should determine between median amounts and person dependent amounts.

I TOLD you that my benefit is already over three thousand per month and I am far from retirement. That is FACT, not bullshit.

[HiPointDem]

172. that's an estimation of your *future* benefit, with estimated inflation adjustments wrapped into it.

No one gets that benefit now.

Not sure what's so difficult to understand.

Your number is indeed bullshit, because you're implying people are getting that now.

[HiPointDem]

177. the SS website clearly states what the current maximum benefit is. that you choose to continue

your pretense is telling.

[kath]

143. Do you still get a summary every year? I thought they stopped sending those a few years back.

[bluestate10]

162. I got a summary last year or the year before. My benefit then was already over 3 thousand

per month.

[Progressive dog]

243. According to the ss website, max. at full retirement age is about $2400 per month

If you have dependents, like a spouse, they can collect under your account. I started collecting recently so if you are going to get 50% more than the full retirement max., how long after full retirement age will you be? You get to pay medicare part B, drug costs, supplemental insurance, deductibles, and co-pays out of your benefits too.
And, if you really saved for your retirement, you'll have the pleasure of paying income tax at a higher rate than Mitt and the rest of the 1%.

[TheKentuckian]

51. Then there would be no cut or "savings".

Nothing is fed back in to benefit the hardest hit in the system, even accounting for kicking down some crumbs on an adjustment to provide cover for taking money OUT OF THE SYSTEM.

No matter how it is spun and what shiny objects are pointed at or how many promises to help the most at risk.

No matter what the money is coming out of the program, it is a rearranging of the deck chairs justified by a little extra for the very worse off in a hostage taking emotional jack move (why do you wanna screw over the super poor?) To draw down the overall buying power of the overall benefit. Many if not most seniors are struggling now, how tough a row will we all have to hoe over the decades as we are whittled away at on the wings of a provision to screw the most destitute as much, kinda?

Now this is the critical point to get the context of the magnitude of the pile being sold on this shit...The same folks that are pulling the scheme off will tell you the program doesn't have enough money and then again on yet another hand sold a "holiday" on a portion of the revenue stream.

This is all full on, no fucking bones bullshit. It is a slow poison to devalue the program over time to either kill it or make it a mockery. You know, a slush fund for the ruling class but little to lean on for us "small people" unless the most destitute somehow live long enough to get you know...what they might get Prue-scam (aka next to nothing) instead of a cut (that they probably have to suck up for a while).

This really, really comes off the rails when the exact same rationale was presented the last time when they raised the retirement age, increased our pay in, and raised the cap.

More left for our less fortunate my ass! What phony nonsense.

[woo me with science]

138. +10000

[bluestate10]

163. Wrong, there would be savings.

When a wealthy person fore-go SS benefits, that money can be use partially to increase benefits to less fortunate people. And some can be saved. So, benefits to those that need benefits can be increased AND the entire system can save money that would have been paid out.

[TheKentuckian]

217. In Voodoo mathematics land. The wealthy people don't exist in enough numbers nor pay out enough

to bolster everyone else's benefits that leans heavily or completely on Social Security to increase AND save tens of billions of dollars.

Plus, what you are pitching isn't even the plan. What we have here is a cut for everyone by further eroding the buying power of all recipients of the program with a promise to kick back to those at the very bottom of a huge shit pile should they live long enough (which statistically they are especially unlikely to do).


This is a scam to cut Social Security and devalue the program to those that depend on it. "The most at risk" are those at the bottom margin, not virtually everyone as you are trying to portray here to sell the scam.

Wait till they get a load of who is "wealthy" for the sake of this argument, most will never see their "protections" and you know it because the protections are not for them. The program will become more of a joke for all that depend on it with each passing year.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Only after she gets less money for a decade or so.

If she makes it for years without starving, she gets a bump up.

Awesome.

[jberryhill]

7. Are you quoting verbatim.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Perhaps you should read up on Obama's plan

Then get back to us.

[Demo_Chris]

38. It's not scaled to any individual retiree, the reduction is over TIME

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2013, 04:12 AM - Edit history (1)

So current seniors will be fine, mostly. But future retirees can kiss the program goodbye for good. They are already being asked to retire later and with less than current recipients, and now we want to torpedo the program completely.

[HiPointDem]

26. 2/3 of SS recipients rely on it for more than half of their income. 1/3 rely on it for more than

90% of their income.

so how vulnerable are we talking here...?

you seem kind of flippant about it.

*most* people on SS are poor to low middle income.

the average monthly benefit is $1230/mo.

Half of recipients get less than $13,376/year.

http://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/income-social-security

[rhett o rick]

76. So we can assume you are against the Chained CPI? nm

[truedelphi]

215. What "protections" for the vulnerable?

Have you ever been vulnerable? And to get anything from the government in terms of social services, you have to fill out reams of paperwork, to PROVE you are vulnerable
Bet you don't think about all that.
Right now, the vulnerable who live in my county can plan on sometimes waiting as long as 75 days to get Food Stamps and the benefits of other programs such as AFDC and MediCal. People who need emergency help are supposed to receive emergency food stamps, but that doesn't always happen. Just imagine an elderly person waiting 75 days before having the ability to have their diabetes medications, like insulin, for instance. And Lawdy Lawdy Lawdy, if you forget to tell the PTB about some aspect of your life, you can be in big trouble.

[bluestate10]

6. When one makes a bullshit claim, it is a good idea not to post information that

prove the claim for what it is, bullshit. There is nothing in the White House document about chained CPI. There is a line item on asking wealthier people to take less back from the system when they retire - what is wrong with that? You can't both hate the rich and high earners now and coddle their asses when they retire.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. One of us is reading challenged

Or are you just trying to trash talk about me?

You really don't see "superlative CPI" in the very stylish White House austerity poster?

Really?

[Autumn]

14. It's only visible to some.

Funny how that works.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Casual character assassination has become rampant on DU.

Really too bad.

[bluestate10]

91. Exactly how is calling speculative bullshit character assassination?

Is making speculative claims about a person's motives when there are not facts to back up that speculation not the most gross form of character assassination? Or is it better to deflect the light of truth away by making wounded outcries when confronted?

[MannyGoldstein]

120. You wrote "There is nothing in the White House document about chained CPI"

As I wrote in the OP, "superlative CPI" is the same as the "chained CPI".

E.g. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417077

You don't see "superlative CPI" in the White House austerity plan that the OP links to?

[Marr]

133. No answer.

I'm really getting sick of apologists who dismiss points-- and malign critics, then disappear in a puff of smoke when asked to back up their bullshit.

[bluestate10]

164. I sleep at night, I don't troll the web all the time like some. As a matter of fact, I don't troll

at all, I have too many other issues going on.

The CPI covers many areas of government. To apply the term to just SS is speculative bullshit. May be you and Manny should wait to see what the hell is being referred to before shitting your pants. Heaven knows people like you and Manny have been wrong before about the President's intentions. But being red faced wrong hasn't stopped you.

[Marr]

201. That may be the most non-sensical excuse I've heard yet-- congratulations.

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

"The CPI covers many areas of government"?

Oh, brother.

[FogerRox]

291. That person either has head in sand or cant or wont read.

[Marr]

296. Frankly, I consider it a sign of low character to simply walk away

from an exchange like that-- particularly after the insults they so casually tossed around. He/she needs to apologize to the original poster at the very least, and I should think, acknowledge the silliness of that last desperate excuse.

[FogerRox]

297. Yes indeed.

[markpkessinger]

187. To say the White House document says nothing about "chained CPI" is rather like saying . . .

. . . that the Constitution doesn't call for separation of Church and State because the exact phrase, "separation of Church and State" doesn't appear in the document!

[Summer Hathaway]

116. Well, you should know

you have casually been assassinating the character of the President on a full-time basis for as long as I've been here.

[jazzimov]

19. You mean the one that says "with protections for

the vulnerable"?

THAT one?

I think that jumping to conclusions without details is a bad idea.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Wait. Does it say "superlative CPI" or not? And have you

read Obama's actual plan for "protecting the vulnerable"? If not, then think about who's doing the speculating here!

[bluestate10]

85. What "actual" plan? You posted a document that you said was the "plan". Now, do you

say there is some other plan? Is that plan protected by some secret society that communicate by unfathomable code and meet only at high moon?

[HiPointDem]

27. Median SS income = $13K/year. 1/3 of recipients rely on SS for >90% of their income; 2/3 rely

on it for >50% of their income.

So "vulnerable" = MOST RECIPIENTS.

[bhikkhu]

39. Exactly, so the savings come from reducing the benefits to the wealthy

though that seems be be a less popular talking point, as its harder to bash the president about it.

[HiPointDem]

41. the highest benefit is $2513/mo. people that get it are already taxed on up to 85% of it, with

plans to make the full benefit taxable if beneficiaries are over a certain income limit.

So in reality, the benefit those 'wealthy' recipients get to keep is already less than the full payment.

Nope, there's no taking from the 'wealthy' here. There's a plan to reduce benefits by stealth.

[bhikkhu]

102. You have no details on the president's proposal

I am assuming, as I've been unable to find any details myself. What you have are stories based on a study of the effects of chained cpi, which the president himself has never specifically endorsed. He has promised that any changes won't effect those most in need.

So, I assume his plan will work as he says it will, if it is approved by congress. That would mean that the only reductions in benefits would come from the highest earners, the minority who get social security along with an abundance of other income from private sources.

You assume that he will gut social security based on...the repetition of the meme here that Obama wants to gut social programs, based on what?

[HiPointDem]

105. in fact, obama has had chained cpi on the table several times. from the horse's mouth:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: ...but I already have, David, as you know, one of the proposals we made was something called Chain CPI, which sounds real technical but basically makes an adjustment in terms of how inflation is calculated on Social Security. Highly unpopular among Democrats. Not something supported by AARP. But in pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the long-term I'm willing to make those decisions.

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/gop-rescue-chained-cpi-who-would-have-t

[MannyGoldstein]

234. But other than the President's own words, you got NUTTIN'

Nada.

And those words might have been planted by CHINESE HACKERS.

[caseymoz]

81. That would mean that it would make more people . . .

. . . into "the most vulnerable." But that's only if your understanding is correct, which it isn't.

[Skittles]

101. you are SOOOO naive

[bhikkhu]

103. To believe the president's proposal is what he says it is

?

We don't have any exact details, but we have promises on the president's side, and persistent fear on the other. Personally, I think the president's word has a pretty good track record, and I don't see any reason why he would do anything other than what he said he would. Assuming congress would approve it.

[Skittles]

106. do you get paid for this?

you don't see any other reason?

[bhikkhu]

111. As we've both been here for a long time you might notice

that trusting the president at his word has a better record than the alternative. And he has had some serious and persistent critics here, which is fine. I just think that when he says that any changes will not affect the most vulnerable - those who rely on SS as their primary income - I take that as a promise, and I think that's what he would do.

[Skittles]

112. uh...yeah, ok LOL

bye bye

[TheProgressive]

12. So... Democratic President Barrack Obama is hell-bent on cutting Social Security benefits...?

Did anybody tell him that We the People 100% fund our Social Security and that We
the People don't want a cut to our earned benefits?

Hmmm.... since we the people pay 100% for Social Security, why would he want to cut it????????

I say, We the People just want the cap removed....

I, TheProgressive, move that the cap on Social Security cap be removed as a 'dollar is a dollar' and there
is no speciality to any dollars earned above an artificial ceiling....Otherwise that would be discrimination...

[iemitsu]

29. I second your motion TheProgressive.

That is a much better and more fair solution to address any shortfalls that Social Security might have in the future. The suggestion that the poorest Americans should suffer so that the richest don't have to contribute, what amounts to pocket-change for them, is criminal.
Obama needs to remember who elected him.

[TheProgressive]

32. The motion has a 2nd to 'remove the SS cap'.... all in favor --->

Type Yea.......

[iemitsu]

34. Yea.....

[TheProgressive]

36. Duly noted...

And thanks iemitsu...

Social Security is our money. I say 99% of Seniors need, repeat need, that money to live a dignified
life as they age.

If we are lucky, we all will die old and till then, it is nice to have funds (that we paid into)
to allow us (or soon to be us) be self financially sufficient.

[iemitsu]

97. I know that seniors need the money because

my mother-in-law lives in our home. Her Social Security and a piddling retirement check from the military is not enough for her to both pay rent and eat.
Every time that Social Security got a cost of living adjustment, that added a few dollars to her check, the rent would go up twice that amount. Eventually, we could not afford to subsidize the cost of her living alone and so she moved in. That was nine years ago.
I'm not complaining about the living arrangement but about the necessity to do so.

[HiPointDem]

42. no. It's a stupid and unnecessary idea. Stupid because doing so winds up making a small

group pay the majority of SS taxes while receiving comparably little in return = diminishing political support of this group (who don't actually *need* SS themselves) for the program.

And needless because 1) it's decades until SS supposedly spends down the TF, so there's no need to do *anything* now, and 2) since about 85-90% of SS-taxable wages are already taxed, the gain of ~11% more in the pot isn't going to do what proponents claim it will.

Instead, it will just give the government *MORE* money to borrow to fund the general budget for decades, thereby keeping rich people's income taxes low.

[DiverDave]

122. yea

eom

[putitinD]

248. YEAH

[bvar22]

60. If you support Raising the Cap, you should have voted for THIS guy:

What ever happened to that guy?



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

[MannyGoldstein]

63. I voted for that guy - enthusiastically! But

sadly, he never made it into office.

[Honeycombe8]

114. But...I don't see "cut to Social Security" in that list. ???

[SidDithers]

13. Speculative outrage is the best outrage...nt

Sid

[bluestate10]

73. The OP is a master at that. And to surmise from his amen corner posts, there are many

that are just as clueless. They read rather clear documents and see stuff that a reasonable mind don't see, then they accuse other people of misunderstanding.

[rhett o rick]

78. So do you favor chaining SS to the CPI or not? Cant tell from your post.

You apparently choose to disparage other posters and not actually enter into the discussion.

[bluestate10]

93. There was nothing in the document about coupling SS to the CPI. I see facts where

others are seeing ghosts of their own making, IMO.

[rhett o rick]

121. Yes, but how do you feel about chaining SS to the CPI? You must have an opinion. nm

[bluestate10]

166. SS should not be indexed to the CPI, but some services offered to the SS administration

naturally get indexed to the CPI. Dollar amounts to beneficiaries should never be cut, even during periods of disinflation. There are ways of reducing SS spending that doesn't hurt people that need it, changes like limiting benefits to high earners and using the savings to increase benefits for people that need SS to live.

[rhett o rick]

171. I agree. That's why I am disappointed that he isnt arguing from higher ground.

He should suggest that we raise the cap.

[markpkessinger]

198. Here . . .

[JoePhilly]

135. It's feeds on its self every couple months like clock work

[bluestate10]

167. Yes, my fellow DU member and Mass resident Manny is as predictable as a broken clock. nt

[Jakes Progress]

208. Non-specific snark rant is the best rant

for those who really don't know what is going on.

[one_voice]

15. So one thread on this...

posted just a little more than one hour before you posted this wasn't enough. Nope. We needed another thread on the EXACT same subject--without anything new added.

Of course your subject line is more juicy and will get more attention, but then again, that's the whole point of posting the exact same subject/thread you posted about in the thread you linked to 6 minutes before you posted this.

[HiPointDem]

28. we need lots of threads about it, even more. it's a hell of a lot more important than pictures

of the president's pretty wife, or comments about the latest faux pas of the latest republican punching bag.

[one_voice]

35. YOU may need lots of threads..

about it. YOU may need to read the EXACT same thing multiple times, but I don't.

I'll thank you not to tell me what is and is not important.

As for pictures of the president's pretty wife, sometimes after and ugly day or and ugly week, or after multiple ugly threads looking at something pretty is nice. Maybe that's important to someone, and not for YOU to decide.

Anytime a republican can be used as a punching bag**.....


**figuratively of course.

[HiPointDem]

37. By *we* I mean the majority of the population for whom SS is one of the crucial issues of the

day; not the washington crowd who could care less.

[one_voice]

40. SS is very important to me...

I have parents who are on SS. Medicare is important to me, again my parents who both have medical issues. I email my Senator/congressman at least once a week. I'm involved.

I just didn't see the reason for the exact same thread and that's what it is, nothing new. It was, imo, to add another negative thread.

I'm of the mind there are some people on here who thrive on posting as much negativity as possible.

Just my opinion.

[HiPointDem]

43. better negativity than to take one's eyes off the prize and get fucked on a weekend.

i personally am sick of threads about how cute the first family is; how stupid republicans are; dogs and cats; reality shows; high-profile crimes featured on nancy grace, etc.

but unlike some people, i don't consider it my mission to visit one of these threads every time it comes up & say how stupid it is, how many there are, and personally demean the poster of same.

[one_voice]

46. Well if you need to read the same thing multiple times...

to 'keep your eyes on the prize' then have at it. My comprehension is just fine.

By the way, just how many times did you read the DOMA thread? That's rhetorical. Quite frankly I'd be surprised if it was once.

Enjoy your mud puddle of negativity.

[HiPointDem]

48. It's not 'the same thing' multiple times. The news changes on a daily basis. it's not 'the same

thing,' only the same general policy issue.

I didn't ask *you* to read *any* thread if you don't want to. Ergo, how many times I read the DOMA thread, or any thread, is pretty irrelevant.

[one_voice]

54. This thread is the same thing as the thread he linked to...

He spiffed up his comment from that thread and that's it. It's the same freakin' story..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2416378

My comment had to do with Manny re-posting a link that was posted a little more than an hour before his thread. WTF are you talking about not the same thing...yes it is. This was just over an hour, hell Manny posted in the other thread 6 minutes before his started his thread.

You came at me talking about how important shit is, now you're saying it's not the same thing when it is. You need to go back and read what I wrote originally. It had NOTHING to do with content, but rather THIS story was posted an hour before Manny posted it, he even linked to it.

It is the same thing, the same story, it's Manny's comment from the other thread he spiffed it up,,,,,that's called wanting attention. He offered NOTHING new in his OP.

You got it now?

[HiPointDem]

55. bfd

[one_voice]

64. Well obviously you thought it was...

you wanted to tell I was wrong and to keep my eye on the ball, now you're all pissy cuz you were wrong and now you're left with a sophomoric three letter answer.

You lose.

[HiPointDem]

68. no, i didn't think it was. *you* thought it was; i thought the opposite.

[just1voice]

72. Remind me to change my ID

Why do people just attack others instead of the topic? The topic was cutting the social safety net in America and a democratic president suggesting that it be done.

[one_voice]

84. Don't forget to change your ID

[sabrina 1]

150. For those who will be negatively affected by the Chained CPI, you are correct, reading

about it is not going to do much good. Other than making people aware of what is going on so they can then become active to make sure it doesn't happen.

Do you support this policy btw? It's hard to tell from your comments.

[datasuspect]

197. i wish manny was the only poster on DU

i might put everyone else on ignore.

[byronius]

82. Actually, I'm more here for those than the Obama-bashing.

Not for a second do I think SS is going to be cut. Sorry. Lots of words, lots of emotion, not going to happen in my opinion.

He's the smartest, most ethical, most moral American leader of my lifetime. His motives are clear, and acceptable to me. He's not up to anything. I don't see any reason for the outrage.

Punching Republicans, however -- thumbs up from me.

Maybe I've got more scars or something. I see the crisis clear as day, and it ain't Barack.

[HiPointDem]

109. So somebody else put that up on the President's website as his proposal & he doesn't know about

it?

"The president's plan: $4 trillion of deficit reduction.....Spending savings from superlative CPI with protections for vulnerable"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2416164

Or is it just 'obama bashing' to notice?

[MannyGoldstein]

139. Chinese hackers, no doubt!

Which is why we need to pour money into <expensive security program that we can't tell anyone about or else the terra-ists win, and we'll need to drone some folks without the courts meddling in our sensible, legal, and moral actions>.

[byronius]

179. Strategic kabuki, designed to embarrass the GOP. Not going to happen. Nothing he offers will be

accepted, you know it and I know it. He could offer to hang himself on a cross, and they would refuse over the placement of the nails -- they hate him that much.

I'm willing to bet ten bucks that SS will not be touched, not ever, not in any way.

Really, I'm serious. Not going to happen.

Obama knows his GOP too well.

[HiPointDem]

181. The proposal is up on the white house website. Whatever it is, it's up there representing the

administration's proposal.

The rash of posters trying to shut down discussion is amazing.

[byronius]

232. Not trying to shut down discussion; just advocating for the continuance of Republican-punching.

Really, freak out all you want. I had a specific point.

[HiPointDem]

265. i'm happy to punch republicans for stuff that matters. like their plans to institute chained cpi.

just not for stupid stuff like they drank too much water during a speech.

[byronius]

269. You're a fairer lefty than I, then. That was a ridiculous display of political ineptness.

And so many in the middle love the shiny objects that are internet memes.

I myself laughed at the I'm-not-really-doing-this look on his face, a phenomenon that belies the fact of his bizarre internal world, the one that allows him to ruthlessly pursue an ideology that poses the most serious threat to continued human existence ever known.

Asteroids? Heh. The unchecked GOP is the ultimate mankind-killing force in history.

[JoePhilly]

184. Don't worry, this thread will be repeated every 3 months until Obama leaves office.

At least that's how its been since the day Obama took office.

Every 3 months or so, DU becomes "Hair-on-fire-Underground" as Obama plans to unleash his evil plan to kill granny.

[HiPointDem]

191. good.

[JoePhilly]

193. I figure if Obama wanted to kill granny, he could just use the Death panels

that my Tea Party fiends keep talking about.

Just so long as we all agree Obama plans to kill granny I guess.

[HiPointDem]

199. nothing to do with anyone 'wanting to kill granny'.

[woo me with science]

274. Thank you.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. Perhaps if the White House proudly called it "cutting Social Security by 5% or so"

Instead of the WTFish "superlative CPI", then a translation and repost might not be useful.

[one_voice]

65. Well gee Manny aren't we all lucky...

that you think we're stupid and couldn't figure it and needed you to explain it. Could you be a little more freakin' condescending?

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for helping DU understand, what you think only you could.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. Well, given that multiple known-smart DUers on the thread you reference

asked "WTF is a superlative CPI?", I'm probably not too off-base here.

[one_voice]

70. With an ego like that..

I guess you did need your own thread.

Wow, just wow.

[bluestate10]

169. Gee Manny. Try not to shame those of us that work with finance and budgets regularly.

CPI adjustments apply to a shit-load of government functions. You somehow appear to be claiming that it applies solely to SS, what utter bullshit. Stay out of the rain/snow, whatever you get in your part of Massachusetts.

[Hissyspit]

71. Really, kinda beside the point.

Nothing wrong with redoing a post.

[bluestate10]

77. It's called sizzle without steak. Or more to the point, it's called pure bullshit.nt

[rhett o rick]

79. So are you saying that chaining SS to the CPI is a good idea or not? nm

[tpsbmam]

168. Actually, we did.....I spotted this one, I didn't spot the other BY A DIFFERENT DUer

until I spotted Manny's linking to Willy's. So yup, we needed two. I note that you don't specify that Manny linked to another DUer's post, not to one of his own.

[limpyhobbler]

17. You obviously don't understand eleventy-dimensional chinese checkers.

The President has to offer the opposite of what he really wants to draw out the emo-progs and see who has really got his back.

:duh:

[Whisp]

18. Once again, Manny offers his offerings.

Obama, the stealth granny killer. At Large.

[truebluegreen]

21. Our Progressive President.

Is this truly the best we can do?

[pasto76]

22. blah blah blah 'h3r3 comes 3rd way manny blah blah blah'

dont you guys ever feel stupid? 'the sky is falling!' but wait nope. In the last round -during which all of you started screaming the same thing - The President spanked the shit out of them and we got the FIRST tax increases on the uber rich in 30 years. And none of your hysteria came to pass.

The President has a pretty good track record, especially if you consider the teabagger controlled house, which few of you do.

[snooper2]

23. Manny! I missed you!!!!

How did those new solar lights work out in the front?

[tblue]

24. Oy.

Agita. Hi Manny!

[EastKYLiberal]

30. "With protections for the vulnerable."

But I'm supposed to believe some anonymous people on a message board over The President of the United States.

[caseymoz]

87. A wise person keeps an eye on anybody in authority.

Because authority is corrupting, and corrupted people in authority are horrible to deal with. Especially one that can have you killed with no legal consequences.

Yes, I'd think about what the random guy on a message board says. Or at least I wouldn't waste my time making snarky answers if I wasn't going to. Aren't your reasons for ignoring the people on the message board so they wouldn't distract you and waste your time?

I call that a Fail.

back at you.

[rhett o rick]

174. I agree. That is so much rhetoric."protections for the vulnerable". How stupid do they think we are?

Who gets to decide on the definition of "vulnerable"?

[Omaha Steve]

33. And yet....

Republicans won't touch it because it is tied to tax increases for the rich.

[rhett o rick]

45. Manny I wouldnt call it a "sickness", it's a tactic. One might wonder what the hell Simson-Bowles

was all about. Well it's like artillery fire. It's intended to soften you up. Pres Obama knew full well what two conservatives like Simson and Bowles would recommend. So why did he choose them? Well maybe to soften us up. THe next wave that suggests cutting SS wont be such a shock.

I see the "group" is out in force to spank you for daring to challenge a politician that we elected TO FUCKING REPRESENT US. Sorry, got a little emotional. You see I get a little testy when people try to keep me or anyone from speaking out re. our ELECTED officials.

But one thing I notice about the "group". They wont say whether they favor chaining SS benefits to the CPI. They really have a hard time actually speaking to issues. They challenge you personally. I guess they hope they can stifle you by challenging your loyalty to "The President".

[HiPointDem]

47. they can't speak to the issues because they *know* most americans don't support chained

cpi, cuts to SS & MC, etc.

THE PEOPLE ARE AGAINST IT. BY LARGE MAJORITIES, DEMOCRATS *AND* REPUBLICANS.

That's why all they got is personal attack, twisting posters' words, demeaning people & diversions.

[ProSense]

53. Not worried.

I don't see the point of proving that Obama wants to cut Social Security. Every proposal he has made hasn't panned out.

This will never pass the Senate. I expect Democrats, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to vote against such a proposal.

In fact, in the last Congress Senator Sanders had a coalition of 29 Senators who stood against cuts. That coalition has likely grown with the newly elected Democrats.

We'll know in a few weeks. Likely there will be push back, but simply restating this gotcha about the President wanting to cut Social Security is pretty useless. It may feel good, but it doesn't mean a damn thing.

[just1voice]

80. So nothing on the White House website means a damn thing then?

Explain how what's posted there doesn't mean a damn thing, and imagine you're explaining it to someone who already has to choose between food and drugs.

[ProSense]

90. Here:

"So nothing on the White House website means a damn thing then?
Explain how what's posted there doesn't mean a damn thing, and imagine you're explaining it to someone who already has to choose between food and drugs."

...from the WH site:

And he's laid out a specific plan to do more. His proposal resolves the sequester and reduces our deficit by over $4 trillion dollars in a balanced way- by cutting spending, finding savings in entitlement programs and asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share. As a result the deficit would be cut below its historic average and the debt would fall as a share of the economy over the next decade. Just two months ago Speaker Boehner said there was $800 billion in deficit reduction that could be achieved by only closing loopholes and reducing tax expenditures. So we know we can get this done. Let’s be clear: the President’s proposal to Speaker Boehner is still on the table. Here it is again.

We can't just cut our way to prosperity. Even as we look for ways to reduce deficits over the long term, we must grow the economy in a way that strengthens the middle class and everyone willing to work hard to get into it.

So the choice in front of Congressional Republicans today is simple: will they let these devastating cuts happen that will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs simply because they refuse to close one tax loophole for the wealthy? Or will they compromise and work with us on a balanced solution to get this done? We hope they come to the table for the sake of middle class families, our national security and our future today.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/21/balanced-plan-avert-sequester-and-reduce-deficit

First, Republicans have to accept the proposal. Secondly, it's designed to avoide the sequester, which is bad (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288230). Finally, I think the President's goal is to help people (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415967), and he done a lot to expand benefits for seniors and strengthen Medicare (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2411216)

So while it maybe gratifying to some to engage in the "Obama wants to kill or starve granny" debate, I find it utterly useless.

As I said, we'll see in a few weeks how this plays out.

[patrice]

104. The problem with considering your question is "nothing ... means a damn thing" which is an

over simplification of the WH website content at whatever chronological point a particular content/issue is addressed within its own living political context, and by whom, and relative to and affected by the statuses of other content/issues each within its own context.

Think NESTED flow-charts here, all affecting one another, input/output, content, processes, resources, decision/conditional points and such.

[JaneyVee]

56. It would start in 3 years. A 65yr old would then see a $130/year decrease, about $10.25/month

at age 95 the average decrease will be about $1400/year.

[amandabeech]

94. That $130 a year mean a month without medications for many seniors.

At age 95, those elderly women, and most will be women, will be in extreme financial difficulty while they are in failing health.

Let's hope that their children, if they have them, will be able to fill the gap, because it will be substantial.

The CPI already underestimates increases in the cost of living due to the heavy use of hedonics and substitution.

What is being proposed will make it even more unrealistic.

[madfloridian]

100. That's not ok.

The feds are giving millions to companies that run charter schools, millions to groups like TFA, even more for defense.

Cutting a penny is dead wrong.

[JaneyVee]

118. No its terrible. No reason to hurt people already struggling to survive when the rich do nothing

for our Nation. They're paying the lowest tax rates in 50yrs and still complain.

[Jakes Progress]

210. + 100

Always the voice of a true liberal.

[Skip Intro]

61. Maybe we're all supposed to be too busy arguing about guns to notice?

[Progressive dog]

62. You are right, the President did offer to cut SS

Hopefully this is a negotiation ploy but if it is, it's a risky one.

[blkmusclmachine]

74. He'll get his Grand Compromise to blast SS, 2014/2016/Beyond BE DAMNED.

It's all about "Compromise," as long as the GOP/Wall St. is satiated.

That's what an '80s Republican would do, right, Mr. Prez?

[world wide wally]

75. WTF?

[Octafish]

86. Our food bill ran 15-percent higher in 2012 over previous year.

I get the feeling SS COLA doesn't keep up with the actual cost of living.

Oh well, a long as the rich get theirs America will be just fine.

[Blue_In_AK]

92. Not only that,

but the utilities go up all the time, too. A couple dollars here, a couple dollars there, and pretty soon you're talking real money ... Especially because we pay utilities on our rental unit, too.

[Octafish]

157. Fact: Costs more to live every year.

Fact: Apart from the wealthy and their property, Government isn't serving the needs of the People.

[kath]

151. RIght - the COLA they use now is ridiculous, and drastically underestimates real inflation.

To make it even worse by changing to a chained CPI or "superlative CPI" or whatever bullshit name they give it is an utter abomination.

[Octafish]

156. The most billionaires and millionaires in history are here and now.

And they can't be "disturbed" to make life better for those who made them that way.

[FogerRox]

292. To further illustrate your point, in 1983 the cap was at 90% today its at 84%.

Create jobs and raise the min wage, SS is then likely good thru 2090

[OceanEcosystem]

89. Is this a cut to Social Security? Or does it merely prevent Social Security from increasing?

Although maybe some could argue that they are the same thing, but does this mean that Social Security will not increase to keep pace with inflation?

[MannyGoldstein]

96. It's a cut from what's currently promised.

The federal government already admits that the current COLA formula doesn't keep pace with inflation. This would make it worse.

[madfloridian]

99. You are right, Manny. Check out this link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417077

It's Obama's name for Chained CPI.

[MannyGoldstein]

123. Thank you for your post!

It's important for the 99% to know what's being done to them, whatever it happens to be called this week.

[woo me with science]

98. K&R Obama explicitly campaigned on opposing Social Security cuts

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:27 PM - Edit history (2)

... -- and he just endorsed them (AGAIN)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022019860

Obama's Promises on Social Security: His OWN WORDS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022031544

*************************************************

Bernie Sanders: Chained CPI: An Economic and Moral Disaster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022381690

Guess what? Chained CPI is the bright idea of Third Way, the (Corporate) Dem "policy shop."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022021626

wall street pulls the strings: social security under attack in february
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022155427

***************************************************

Top 1% get 121% of income gains since 2009 (100% of new income + 21% from your old income)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022384139

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246632

Obama Orders Pay Raise For Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095402

"Struggling to make ends meet" on $174K a year?? Really Nancy???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022392954

Incomes Flat in Recovery, but Not for the 1%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014400736

****************************************************

Robert Reich "we should be cutting military spending & Corporate welfare"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022045904

Inequality Rages as Dwindling Wages Lock Millions in Poverty
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022198286

Two-thirds of Americans are against touching Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022050249

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022065493

Poverty, hunger among retirees increasing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002748342

[MannyGoldstein]

130. Great compilation Woo!

I'm bookmarking so I can refer people to it later when they tell us that black is white, etc.

You should consider posting it as an OP!

[woo me with science]

272. Black is white. "Superlative" is vicious.

And drone assassinations of Americans are "legal, ethical and wise."

Thanks, Manny. I don't know whether to say I'll post an OP or not. Language is misleading and dangerous these days...

[cliffordu]

107. Back to that canard, eh, Manny??

Seems like it was only a couple of months ago.....

Oh, that's right, it WAS!!!!!

[bluestate10]

170. Manny has been wrong so much, he may get something right one of these days.

But, of course, a stopped clock is right two times each day.

[alp227]

110. Weird, last week I posted at V&M a clip of Thom Hartmann predicting the return of chained CPI

Got only 3 recs, no responses http://www.democraticunderground.com/101798853

the video has 545 views on YouTube. Thom made these comments the day after SOTU:

[napi21]

113. Has Obama actually said he's proposing the chained CPI?

I've been thinking about this and I'm believe there are at least some cuts in SS that we couldaccept. i.e. Those with assets/income over ?$$$ would receive reduced monthly benefits, adjusted by asset/income amount. At some point, someone like Romney, Gates, Buffet, etc, would forefit their SS payments completely.

I dn't know if YOU would accept this, but I could!

Somewhere, over the past several years, I've heard thing like that suggested. It would aid SS and not really harm anyone!

[Demo_Chris]

115. The killer here is the MESSAGE. Even Obama thinks we need to cut SS.

It's bipartisan, both parties agree that baby needs to be chainsawed, everyone -- or all the responsible adults anyway -- agrees that social security needs to be cut. So now the only question is how much and how soon.

The elite are banking on the greed of today's seniors to make this a reality. They believe that a good many seniors don't CARE what happens to their kids and grandkids so long as they get paid today. They believe this because, if history is any indication, it's pretty much true. That's what the elite are banking on.

But I say this. If we are going to destroy it, then let's just freaking destroy it. None of this BS where only future recipients get shafted. I think we have fucked the future enough already. If we are gonna push the plunger and demolish it, do it now. Immediately. Stop collecting my money, stop sending out checks, and we can all share the misery together. Let's do that and see how long it takes before every one of these bastards is recalled, and we finally get our priorities straight in this country.

[madville]

117. They know it's going to be tough

They know its going to be tough for the Treasury to pay back the 5 trillion or whatever it is that they have borrowed from social security, pretty much impossible without severely inflating the dollar or just getting the federal reserve to create some more money out of thin air.

[MannyGoldstein]

124. Not so difficult. Restoring *all* tax rates on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels

would add another $1 trillion over 10 years.

We should be able to get another trillion in military cuts.

That's two trillion per decade, without even breathing hard. Unless, of course, hyperlow taxation of the wealthy and coddling the military-industrial complex are more important than working Americans.

[madville]

125. That doesn't help much when we are running

Trillion dollar deficits every year, so at the end of that decade the national debt might be 24 trillion instead of 26 trillion.

It's especially not pretty since we have crossed the peak where social security pays out more than it takes in now.

Some major changes will have to occur, really major, not a trillion here or there, that won't make a dent being in this deep.

[MannyGoldstein]

128. The only way to truly fix the debt is to grow the economy.

FDR style. Not "a little less than the Republicans" style.

[ProSense]

134. Interesting

"Restoring *all* tax rates on the wealthy to Clinton-era levels would add another $1 trillion over 10 years."

So your solution to this problem is to tax low- and middle-income Americans? Aren't we suffering enough?

CHART: Remember When Poor People Saw Their Incomes Grow Faster Than Rich People?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417514

This President did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.

<...>

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

Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304

Obama's Deal From a poor Person's Perspective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022111266

Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407211

Oh, remember this:

Gingrich, Clinton, Obama... and Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002227973

[MannyGoldstein]

142. Did "on the wealthy" not show up in my post when you viewed it?

Obama campaigned on increasing taxes on the wealthy back to Clinton-era levels (which are still, historically, quite low). That would have raised $1.6 trillion in a decade. Instead he settled with Republicans for $0.6 trillion.

Am I off base here?

[ProSense]

149. My bad, but

"Obama campaigned on increasing taxes on the wealthy back to Clinton-era levels (which are still, historically, quite low). That would have raised $1.6 trillion in a decade. Instead he settled with Republicans for $0.6 trillion."

...this is inaccurate as Krugman shows.

The biggest progressive gripe about the legislation is that Mr. Obama extracted less revenue from the affluent than expected — about $600 billion versus $800 billion over the next decade. In perspective, however, this isn’t that big a deal. Put it this way: A reasonable estimate is that gross domestic product over the next 10 years will be around $200 trillion. So if the revenue take had matched expectations, it would still have amounted to only 0.4 percent of G.D.P.; as it turned out, this was reduced to 0.3 percent. Either way, it wouldn’t make much difference in the fights over revenue versus spending still to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html

That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account. The deal was a coup because it extended benefits and aid to low-income and unemployed Americans with no spending cuts, and it neutered Republicans.

Not With A Bang But With A Whimper
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022215606

[sabrina 1]

254. Not hard at all. Raising the cap on SS would solve most of the future problems

and they ARE in the future. Right now, SS is the only solvent fiscal program in this country and it belongs to the people who paid into it. They did borrow from it to pay for their illegal wars and to bail out their buddies on Wall St. Well too bad, when we borrow money, we are expected to pay it back. Why on earth do we treat these corrupt, greedy people differently than we treat ordinary working class people?

Aside from raising the cap, as Manny said, raise taxes on the non-tax paying wealthy and END the futile, illegal and inhumane wars they are all profiting from. We could pay SS benefits with increases every year for the next several decades and beyond if we took just those few steps.

If Democrats go along with this CPI/cuts to SS, they will risk losing their most loyal supporters. SS is still the Third Rail of politics, and whoever is advising this President otherwise, should be fired. Not that he doesn't know better, he should as a Democrat absolutely refuse to even consider this Republican attack on the elderly, the disabled and orphaned children. I absolutely hope he does or he will be endangering his own party.

[jsr]

126. Obama will offer to cut Social Security even after he retires

[JoePhilly]

189. Probably because its not going to happen.

But why let that spoil the outrage du jour.

[jsr]

127. Manny, it's one of the 7 Habits of Sensible People

[tridim]

129. Ahh.. Another hyperbolic Manny claim that will never happen. Everyone panic!!!

As I've pointed out many times, you are wrong about everything. None of your predictions ever come to pass. None.

I thought eventually you'd get tired of it, but obviously you're not giving up. Congratulations on your delusion.

[MannyGoldstein]

140. So Obama's proposal was put on the White House site by Chinese hackers?

I'm not sure what you're disputing here.

[tridim]

145. I'm disputing your constant bullshit.

It never stops.

[MannyGoldstein]

154. Link to a specific "bullshit" post, or apologize, or

be a coward.

Your choice.

[bluestate10]

175. Manny if the poster linked, the poster wouldn't have time for any thing else.

You are constantly sending up panic balloons that end up being exactly flop-sweat, unjustified panic. Maybe you should apologize to the people that you have scared the shit out of with your constant hair on fire screeds.

[MannyGoldstein]

180. So we can file you under "coward"

Thanks for playing.

[Jakes Progress]

213. Not just coward.

Uninformed and clueless go in there somewhere. That might be harsh if these people ever actually had a real argument or any point other than knee-jerk snark.

[Jakes Progress]

212. You are just sputtering for sputtering's sake.

It never stops.

Try posting something that actually proves your knee-jerk reactions.

[Autumn]

141. Actually Manny's post is not predicting anything. Manny's post is pointing out

that once again, from the White House's own web site, Obama has put the chained CPI, which harms seniors back on the table in this phony deficit problem.

[tridim]

144. Manny has been predicting Obama will cut SS and medicare for years.

He has never been right about anything.

[Autumn]

147. The OP was not a prediction. As for being right, the offer is on the White House web site.

So that's proof that Manny's OP is right.

Maybe Manny hacked the web site and put it there.

[MannyGoldstein]

155. So link to a few of my predictions that were wrong.

You wouldn't want DUers to think that you're full of poop, would you?

[One of the 99]

263. Stop picking on Manny

Everyone here knows he suffers from ODS, Obama derangement syndrome.

[JoePhilly]

183. Manny has decided its better to suggest, than to predict.

Early on, it was predictions.

But after multiple failed predictions through out Obama's entire first term, it became clear that you can generate just as much outrage by via the simple suggestion something might happen.

And you can declare evil motives, even if nothing ever actually happens.

Just the suggestion of Obama's evil plan to kill social security is enough to turn DU into Hair-on-fire-Underground.

It has happened about every 2-3 months since Obama first took office. By getting re-elected, Obama gave Manny another 4 years of bites at the outrage apple.

[Autumn]

186. I don't think Manny is in charge of the White House policy or their web site

and I'm pretty sure he didn't put the superlative CPI on the table or on the White House web site. So put the blame on Obama, I'm very sure he is the one in charge of policy.

Yeah some are going to be outraged that once again the White House announces a chained CPI is on the table. Again.

[JoePhilly]

188. Every 2-3 months, same exact hair on fire thread. Again. And again.

The perpetually disgruntled go crazy.

They are absolutely sure the evil event is going to happen at any second. THIS TIME its going to happen. Obama is going to CAVE!!!!

AAHHH!!!!!!!

Then, nothing.

This particular outrage goes silent for a few months, then BOOM. Repeat the cycle.

[Autumn]

200. It's a simple fix. Obama can take it off the table, and mean it.

Seriously all he has to do is take the chained CPI off that fucking table and not put it back on. Then those of us on the left who are perpetually disgruntled over him offering it up to the fucking pukes in the phony deficit talks will all be happy happy. Easy peasy.

[MannyGoldstein]

242. All I predicted is that Obama was going to offer/call for cuts. And he did.

Which didn't take great vision, since a week before his first inauguration he basically said he would.

Unless you can show that I said otherwise, you can either apologize or slink off like a coward.

[Number23]

230. It is so tedious, isn't it? I sometime wonder when the 100 or so rec'ers of this tripe

will get tired of being played. Or thinking they're playing everybody else.

[uponit7771]

267. +1

[daleanime]

132. Missed this yesterday....

wish it wasn't around to be missed.

[Hekate]

136. No.

This gets tedious

[blackspade]

137. Every door seems to be a rabbit hole.

[bluestate10]

176. A rabbit hole that many on DU happily hop down behind Manny. nt

[Marr]

146. I remember when the apologists said Obama would *never* push for a chained CPI.

He would *never* push for SS cuts. He only offered them (repeatedly) as some kind of BRILLIANT chess move.

Now they just say "it will never happen", which is a different thing entirely. Sure-- recalcitrant Republicans may, with sheer partisan squabbling, sink an Obama-endorsed, 1%er policy. But that wouldn't change the fact that he endorsed it.

[ProSense]

152. I fully expect

"Sure-- recalcitrant Republicans may, with sheer partisan squabbling, sink an Obama-endorsed, 1%er policy. But that wouldn't change the fact that he endorsed it."

...Boehner to save us, but as I said up thread.

I don't see the point of proving that Obama wants to cut Social Security. Every proposal he has made hasn't panned out.

This will never pass the Senate. I expect Democrats, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to vote against such a proposal.

In fact, in the last Congress Senator Sanders had a coalition of 29 Senators who stood against cuts. That coalition has likely grown with the newly elected Democrats.

We'll know in a few weeks. Likely there will be push back, but simply restating this gotcha about the President wanting to cut Social Security is pretty useless. It may feel good, but it doesn't mean a damn thing.

Still, Boehner and House Republicans are likely to make a Senate rebuff unnecessary.

[Doctor_J]

148. Did you expect anything else from a "moderate Republican"?

The stages of denial among the Kool-Aid drinkers

1. Are you going to believe Fox "News"?
2. Are you going to believe the NY Times?
3. This is just an initial trial balloon - it has no chance of passing anyway
4. Politically astute - by swerving to the far right, the president is painting the Repukes into a corner. You just don't understand chess
5. It's the best we can do with this Congress
6. Fine, vote (R) next time

[Octafish]

158. + Infinity

Linse. Rather. Perfeet.

[Cleita]

153. Bad move for the Democratic Party.

Many seniors, who vote Democratic, because they see it as the party that will protect them and their interests, might vote for Republicans in the future because they will feel betrayed if this happens. Republicans can get their vote by lying to them, like they always do to get votes from low information voters. Influential Democrats need to sit President Obama down and have a heart to heart talk with him about this.

[MisterP]

202. doubt it: it's not about whether the GOP may or may not hypocritically use this as a bludgeon, but

that there's no line anymore: as long as the Dems don't blame gay marriage for hurricanes, they can do anything to anybody and their followers will still argue whether the Presidential crush du jour should be the fifth face on Rushmore or just replace all four faces in one fell swoop

[WillyT]

159. K & R !!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

178. It's just a rumor. Obama will veto any cuts, whatever they're called, to SS. Won't he?

Or, will he sign cuts into law and then tell us it was for our own good?

[Doctor_J]

257. How can he veto them after HE PROPOSED THEM???

It's amazing how deep into denial the KoolAiders will sink

[Sunlei]

182. mind explaining why you post a 'Superlative CPI with protections' means no food for ss people?

edited to add, you can food stamps if your income qualifies.

[n2doc]

185. For all those defending Obama

Why would he do this if he couldn't save a lot of money? And the only way to save a lot of money is to hit a lot of recipients with the adjustment. Otherwise, it is just a few billion and really not worth the uproar it causes.


I notice he only cuts the military 100 billion. That's probably the savings from the Afghan pullout. Where's real savings in that bloated area?

[JoePhilly]

190. So he's going to do it THIS time?

I mean, here on DU, Obama's evil plan to kill social security comes up every 3 months or so. Has happened since his first year in office.

Is it going to happen THIS time?

[n2doc]

192. I have no idea. Neither do you.

It is telling that he is willing to put it out on an official graphic, though.

Given how Obama operates, he will back down if he gets enough backlash over this. He doesn't like controversy.

[JoePhilly]

194. I've been right every other time its been predicted.

Its not happening.

That's my prediction.

But the bi-monthly outrage threads are fun.

[n2doc]

195. And I hope you are right. n/t

[Marr]

218. You don't get to say, "I told you so"-- sorry.

The initial argument was that Obama would never even *try* to cut Social Security. He has offered to. Repeatedly.

The fact that his efforts have been stymied every time by a GOP that's too moronic to take "yes" for an answer doesn't validate your position, and if anyone here looks like a sucker, it's the people who have been defending Obama as a champion of Social Security.

[JoePhilly]

284. Let's say I have a mint condition Babe Ruth rookie card ...and you want it.

So I say "Ok, what will you give me for it?"

Does that mean I actually want to trade you my Babe Ruth rookie card?

Yes or no?

The OP, for the last 3+ years, has been posting this same basic "hair-on-fire" thread. Obama plans to kill Social Security. Here it comes.

Social security exists. The GOP hates it. Given that, its ALWAYS on the table.

The fact that Obama is willing to let them make their demands specific does not, in and of itself, mean he WANTS to do anything to Social Security. Well, unless one has already decided that Obama does in fact have an evil plan to kill SS. Which the author of the OP, does. Thus the phrase "sickness".

Manufactured outrage, month after month, even though nothing actually happens. With the implied demand "Prove Obama ISN'T going to kill social security".

Since you can't prove a negative, there can be no end to the manufactured outrage, until Obama leaves office. Probably not even then.

[Marr]

288. Actually, you're the one making the irrational argument here.

You're essentially arguing that it's paranoid to believe Obama's offer to cut SS is sincere, and that the rational position is to simply reject that bit of information-- even though it's now right there on the White House website.

I mean, I remember when the argument was that he'd never make such an offer, period, and anyone suggesting otherwise was paranoid. You were on more solid ground with scoffing then. Now that he's very openly doing it, it's pure, blind faith.

By the way, if this were some kind of brilliant chess move and not a sincere offer... why rebrand it with the friendlier title and reassuring tag line, "Superlative CPI with protections for the vulnerable"?

[JoePhilly]

289. My irrational arguement has held true ...

for over 3 years now. It survived Obama's entire first term.

Now, if I see an actual piece of legislation with actual cuts (not just a single "tag line" with no details), then I'll complain. But as usual, a single phrase is enough to cause full blown hysteria around here.

I've watched the hair-on-fire game here for a long time. We've had this exact same thread dozens of times now.

Obama said "reform" that means SLASH!!!!!

And the reason I think some are PARANOID (your word) is that they flip out. They take one phrase, assume the worst, and lose their minds. And again, this is a repeating pattern. I'm not just talking about THIS thread. It has happened over and over.

Obama was supposed to cave in DECEMBER and make SS cuts during the fight over the Bush tax cuts. Didn't happen.

He was supposed to CAVE over the debt ceiling and make such cuts (this January AND last summer). Didn't happen.

He was going to do it in his budget in 2010, 2011, and 2012. Didn't happen.

And on numerous other occasions since his first year in office probably starting when it was predicted that he was going to make huge cuts to SS based on the Simpson-Bowles report, again, didn't happen.

Maybe the 10th time will be the charm and his evil plan will finally be realized.

[JoePhilly]

196. And once again, its not happening.

[markpkessinger]

203. IT'S IN THERE!

Look folks, we can argue all we want about whether it will, in the end, happen. But the fact of the matter is, chained CPI (a/k/a superlative CPI) is in the plan put forward by the White House. Maybe it won't happen; but then again, maybe it will. Personally, though, I think if the President does not intend for it to happen, then he is playing a very, very dangerous game by including it in his proposal. So much of the ire directed at Manny here amounts to little more than shooting the messenger. But lest there be any doubt as to whether or not it is, or is not, in the document . . .

"

[MannyGoldstein]

209. It was apparently placed on the site by CHINESE HACKERS, not Obama

and everyone knows that Manny sucks, so no harm done.

But thanks!

[markpkessinger]

249. Oh, right . . .

Sorry, I keep forgetting about the Chinese hackers . . . and that you suck. Thanks for reminding me!

[woo me with science]

270. But he obviously didn't mean it.

It's like when his attorneys went all the way to the Supreme Court to argue against strip searches for any arrestee, and they accidentally ended up arguing for the wrong side.

Stuff happens.

[markpkessinger]

271. LOL! n/t

[FogerRox]

293. Knee jerk, "shoot Manny" is now deflated. Yall got to admit Manny got it right

if yall are willing to do the right thing... an apology woiuld be in order.

[markpkessinger]

299. +1 n/t

[Demo_Chris]

207. If the offer wasn't a cut... why mention "protecting the vulnerable"?

Protecting them from WHAT?

I swear, if Obama proposed replacing the Lincoln Memorial with a statue of Ronald Reagan, within an hour there would be a thousand posts here praising Reagan as the greatest President in modern history. He could name every third sunday National Kitty Kickin' Day and folks here would be grabbing their boots and cheering.

Hell, half the people posting here think insurance mandates and drone strikes on Americans are liberal ideas.

[ProSense]

211. You know,

"I swear, if Obama proposed replacing the Lincoln Memorial with a statue of Ronald Reagan, within an hour there would be a thousand posts here praising Reagan as the greatest President in modern history. He could name every third sunday National Kitty Kickin' Day and folks here would be grabbing their boots and cheering."

...for a Hillary fan, you sure talk a lot of nonsense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022409893#post26

[Demo_Chris]

220. This is, I think, the second time you have called me a "Hillary fan"

Considering that I have almost never posted anything about her that I can recall, this seems a bit odd. Where are you getting this "Hillary Fan" thing from, and why would you care? Is this some political or forum referrence that I am not understanding?

Who ISN'T a Hillary fan?

Since you seem to be following me around bringing this up, I would appreciate an answer. And to this as well: How in the hell can you possibly keep track of who is posting what? I don't even look at the names of the people I am responding to. The only reason I recognized you was that Hillary thing. Do you follow posters and database them into groups or something? Not knocking your hobby if you do, but... why?

Anyway, if you want to know what I think about Hillary, and it seems you do, it is simple: I think she is strong and intelligent, I think she has a resume that is unmatched in Washington at this time. I think it is POSSIBLE that, if elected, she might actually try to fight for liberal solutions to our problems. She has the strength and guts to do it. During the primaries I liked both Obama and Hillary, but I was leaning towards Obama because I believed him. I saw him as an outsider, a civil rights activist, and a man unafraid to challenge the power elite in Washington -- a man who would fight for the people rather than the corporations and the billionaires. And boy was I fooled. Twice.

NOTE: I suspect Hillary would be exactly the same -- her husband sure was -- but you never know.

So anyway, that's where I stand on Hillary.

[ProSense]

221. Here

"Considering that I have almost never posted anything about her that I can recall, this seems a bit odd."

...reminders:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2102176
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2106230
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022247697#post1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2411000

[Demo_Chris]

223. Okay? So in over a thousand posts you have found the following:

I went ahead and posted every comment you linked to save others reading this from the bother of clicking the links.

You have found FOUR posts -- out of over a thousand posts I have made in total -- that mention Hillary at all, and one of those was in response to your last "Hillary Supporter" accusation. So I ask again: how exactly does that make me a Hillary supporter, why would you care if I was, and what does that label even mean to you?

Obviously it means something. You keep throwing it out there like it's some kind of insult. But I don't understand why it would be. So since I am new here, why don't you stop with the foreplay and explain it.


MY POSTS BELOW:

Would you expect Hillary to fight for them if she said she would? I would.

I expect that Hillary would fight for them even if she thought she might lose. I think she would go to the American people and make her case there. I think she would fight beyond exhaustion. And if she lost, well, no one would say she didn't try.

You know what I wouldn't expect from President Hillary?

I wouldn't expect her to campaign as the defender of social security then a month after reelection propose cutting it. I don't know Hillary personally, but she strikes me as someone who means what they say. I suspect that if Hillary promised to end the wars, she would end the wars. Not four years down the road, not five, but immediately. If she campaigns on gay rights I believe that you can take it to the bank that she means it -- she won't need vice president Warren to give her a shove.

Hopefully we find out! She has my absolute support.

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

Did she not work hard for Obama? To the point of physical collapse? What more evidence do I need? (that she is a fighter)

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

No doubt

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

How is saying Bush was the worst in a century "Hyping Bush"? I don't know who I support as our candidate in 2016. I guess I like Hillary, but I like Biden as well. I liked Obama until I saw he was full of shit -- he didn't just fool me once, he fooled me twice, so I am just as responsible as anyone else.

My objection here is painting Obama as something he is not.

[ProSense]

224. Yes,

"You have found FOUR posts "

...one of them was yesterday. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2411000

Yet you claimed: "Considering that I have almost never posted anything about her that I can recall, this seems a bit odd."

Another, "No doubt," was in response to this:

"After seeing Hillary today I pray to God that she would consider being Americas president... "

You know, it's OK to admit you're a Hillary fan, especially when it's obvious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022409893#post27

[Demo_Chris]

225. Why do you keep dodging the question? I am gonna put it in bold for you

WHAT DOES BEING A "HILLARY FAN" MEAN TO YOU?


I have never denied being a fan of the lady. You clearly believe that this means something, and I am asking you what you think it means. You are using this as an insult and I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY. To me it sounds as nonsensical as following me around posting that I like the color blue. 'OMG You're a BLUE FAN! You like blue haha!'

So either you are nuts, which I choose not to believe, or the label means something. You don't need to tap dance around it, just say it. It's okay. I am not going to bite your head off.

[ProSense]

226. Well, it means

"WHAT DOES BEING A "HILLARY FAN" MEAN TO YOU? "

...making these two claims:

"I have never denied being a fan of the lady."

"Considering that I have almost never posted anything about her that I can recall, this seems a bit odd."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2419471

[Demo_Chris]

228. You are still dodging a very simple question

Why are you using the label "Hillary Fan" as if it were an insult?

I am NEW here. I do not understand the inside jokes or old flame wars. I am hoping that you can explain this one to me. I am not bothered by your comments, we are not having a debate (though you seem to think we are), and there is nothing you (or anyone else) can say or call me that would inspire me to even waste my time alerting on your post -- let alone sprinting off to Meta to cry. I am just trying to understand what this label means here.

So just answer the question.

[ProSense]

231. Interesting

"Why are you using the label 'Hillary Fan' as if it were an insult? I am NEW here. I am NEW here. I do not understand the inside jokes or old flame wars."

...you're "new here," but you think that there are "flame wars" involving Hillary that you don't understand? Fishy! LOL!

"...there is nothing you (or anyone else) can say or call me that would inspire me to even waste my time alerting on your post -- let alone sprinting off to Meta to cry."

Are you having a weird discussion with yourself? Do the people who go "sprinting off to Meta to cry" know you dislike them?

FYI, not everyone here is a Hillary fan: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022403121

There are Hillary fans, but the majority of them don't pretend otherwise, i.e., denying that they've ever posted about Hillary.

[Demo_Chris]

236. Can you just answer the question? n/t

[ProSense]

239. Can you

explain your confusing posts?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2419745

I mean, why do you think pointing out that you're a Hillary fan is an "insult": http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2419377

[Demo_Chris]

240. LOL! Okay, I give up. Can anyone ELSE explain what the hell he is talking about? n/t

[ProSense]

241. LOL! "She"

Speaking of an "insult," did you intend this as one:

I swear, if Obama proposed replacing the Lincoln Memorial with a statue of Ronald Reagan, within an hour there would be a thousand posts here praising Reagan as the greatest President in modern history. He could name every third sunday National Kitty Kickin' Day and folks here would be grabbing their boots and cheering.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2419323

"I give up. Can anyone ELSE explain what the hell he is talking about?"

Maybe someone can explain what the hell you're talking about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2419721

[Marr]

251. Random misdirection.

That's this person's primary MO. Just lots of changing the subject and invitations for people to leave troublesome threads by way of lots of little blue links that, half the time, lead to completely unrelated material.

I have no idea what the "Hillary fan" bullshit it supposed to mean-- particularly since she's part of Obama's administration.

[Demo_Chris]

255. Gotcha, thanks. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

264. It is not to be taken seriously.

No one on DU that thinks does.

(Some discussion that the poster is a rotating cast of characters. Every once in a while there is a drastic change in style and manner. So the indefinite pronoun seems appropriate.)

[ProSense]

280. I don't take you fucking seriously.

It is not to be taken seriously.

No one on DU that thinks does.

(Some discussion that the poster is a rotating cast of characters. Every once in a while there is a drastic change in style and manner. So the indefinite pronoun seems appropriate.)

You have the fucking nerve to refer to someone as "it" after posting that idiotic comment.

[Jakes Progress]

301. I take my fucking seriously.

You don't know me well enough to be worried about my fucking. (It's fine, thank you.)

Oh, and it's not my nerve that I use for that. But I'm sorry if I hurt its little feelings.

[ProSense]

282. Wow

"I have no idea what the 'Hillary fan' bullshit it supposed to mean-- particularly since she's part of Obama's administration."

...you really believe that bullshit?

I'm good, but damn. When you're only argument is a CT, give it the fuck up.

"troublesome threads by way of lots of little blue links"

Oh, the horror: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022421225

I guess the "blue links" that are anti-Obama are special?

[Marr]

287. ...what?

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton isn't "really" part of Obama's Administration?

And what's a CT?

[Jakes Progress]

305. Don't sweat it.

Trying to make sense of this one is pointless (much like the posts that this sig produces)

The only job requirement for the position of PS is to blindly attack any liberal who has a problem with anything this administration does. Logic. Thought. Consistency. None of that is required. The only point is to engage thoughtful people and keep them busy trying to figure out what the hell is the point of the PS reply. There are occasionally drastic style and attitude changes from PS. For a while there was even some attempt at truthful engagement. That didn't last long. Sometimes there are a couple of months when there are a lot of OP's and some attempt to support an argument. We seem to be in a new regime where snark, misdirection, and off-topic references are the style of the current writer.

I like to engage when it bumps an OP I think needs to be read. I avoid if I want the thread to sink. But don't bother trying to understand what is being said. That way lies inanity.

[woo me with science]

266. There are a lot of commercials on DU. nt

[ProSense]

281. Yeah,

"There are a lot of commercials on DU"

...those are the post where people are not hi-fiving drivel and ignoring them cause they can't refute them.

President Obama's policies: big savings and smart spending
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022421084

[dflprincess]

227. I'm not a Hillary fan

but what Demo Chris posted is true and you'd be the first one to agree with any of the items in the list.

[ProSense]

229. You know

"and you'd be the first one to agree with any of the items in the list."

... I really don't care if you're a Hillary fan. Oh, and I hate Reagan so I really think your ODS brand predictonometer is broken.

[Jakes Progress]

306. You don't.

How about actually engaging the writer to whom you reply. I know that's not your job, but it would be more honest if you did.

[woo me with science]

285. Yeah, that line really takes the cake.

It's like announcing, "We have decided we are going to beat your family to a bloody pulp, but we are going to make sure that your youngest child does not sustain any permanent skeletal injuries.

Now, thank us."

[YOHABLO]

214. It's part of the deal with the Repugs .. so he'll capitulate .. just watch.

[judesedit]

216. Can't do it by himself, now can he. I'll wait to hear the whole plan, thank you.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

219. He is trying to stop a nightmare.

The Republicans are going to go full head to destroy jobs and what little peace of mind we have. This Sequester will hurt people in ways many are not looking at. Did you know that Section 8 hosing people have already being sent info abut how the rent payments may not make it in time and due to that many landlords have sent reminders of what will happen if it does not come through? And did you know that many have already got the memo telling them they are going to be Laid Off and that due to the Sequester they may not get unemployment?

We have people out there that is going to hurt in a way you can't dream. The Republicans find this a win-win. They are so sure their people are so stead fast they will vote them in no mater what. They are so dead set to punish the people that voted Obama back in that they will go through with this no mater what.

Doing this at lest Obama said he tried. But the Republicans are going to keep up till they hurt us. Watch what happens when the Debt Ceiling comes up. The will not stop till they send us into hell.

I suggest instead of getting all pisses at Obama, we get to work. Get groups started, write your Representatives, pass out fliers with the facts on them, use the same determination that got Obama in to back him. We need to get those hard heads on the other side to see what those elected officials of there are really doing. We have to stop letting the right use the 2nd. Amendment fight to clog ears. Stop letting the other side get away with getting us to fight with ourselves and get moving on this. None of this is over yet, not by a long shot.

[markpkessinger]

247. A nightmare proposed by the White House, in a very risky gamble

Don't take my word for it. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2416657

[Lady Freedom Returns]

250. Trying to save us from th nightmare.

The thing is that no one ever thought that the Republicans would want to punish the whole of America, but they do.

We are letting them by setting around getting all pisses off at the President instead of getting out there and making it where he does not have to fight like this. The majority of people around here anymore want to boohoo instead doing something about it.

We need to take that determination that got President Obama in and show we back him. Get out and join group, no groups in your area, make one. Get the Republicans in your area see what is going on, get them to understand that they are going down just like every other citizen if the Republicans get there way.

If we started doing this from the start we would be better off. But sadly many did not. Instead many decided to fly the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Guess what? It wasn't, not by a long shot.

[markpkessinger]

252. I think it was foolish . . .

. . . for the White House to underestimate GOP malevolence.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

256. Sane people would never think they would act...

so anti-American.
All of this is due to the public majority have said no to what they stand for. The fact that they would be so petty against the people of the U.S. is and should be looked at as treason.

[Marr]

253. Really. So why rename it with a less scary title?

Why add the "protections for the vulnerable" line?

C'mon.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

260. You C'mon.

Why is it so many will bad mouth President Obama and set around. Why not get out and do something. We have to have stop fighting each other and start working on fixing this nation.

We voted Obama in and now he is trying to fight a group of thugs and we are willing to just set back and badmouth him. We need to get back out there! We should have put the peddle to the mettle right after the election. But we didn't and the Republicans are in a place they can hurt us. Are we going to put them back in place or just boohoo about it?

[Beacool]

303. Yeah, isn't that ironic.

Proposed in the WH by Lew, the guy who Obama chose to replace Geithner.

If it wasn't so freaking serious, it would actually be funny.

[Doctor_J]

259. So conceding ground to terrorists is "protecting" us?

What would protect us is if he would, for once, stand up to them. Insurance mandates, top-heavy tax cut extensions, half-assed environmental initiatives that he caved on anyway, silence on gun control, and complete absolution of banksters are all that his "protections" have gotten us.

He is either the weakest, stupidest president in 60 years, or a right wing mole sent to the WH to put the final nail in the coffin of the American Dream. Do you have an opinion on which?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

262. It is the american people that has conceded ground to terrorists

We have backed down from the fight with the Republicans. We did not go after them the second the election was over. We needed to flood all the legislators mail and e-mail, started groups to get the issues out, get on those sites like Yahoo to get the word out.

Yet I found that the Liberal and Democratic voices are few and far between. And far to many are setting back and call our President weak and other nasty things

The President is only as strong as the People who elected him. He is not the week one. It is us that are weak for not doing what needed to be done. We ourselves are killing the American Dream by allowing the Republicans to what they are doing. We are the stupid ones for not giving our man the backing from the get-go to do the job, for it is We the people that are the power. We should have raised our voices more, to exercise our right to speak out, yet we have went silent. We are failing our President and our Country.

[great white snark]

222. Oh Manny, you're our ant. Tryin' to move that big ol' rubber tree plant.

Sing it with me!

But he's got high hopes, Manny's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie in the sky hopes..

So any time your gettin low
Stead of lettin go
Just remember his rant
Oops there goes another rubber tree
Oops he's wrong about Social Security
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant.

[MjolnirTime]

233. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? You throw the same shitfit every other month.

And Obama still has not cut SS. Not once.

[MannyGoldstein]

235. Which part of this OP is potentially wrong?

And while you're at it... which part of any of my other posts is wrong?

Good luck. We all look forward to your not badly embarrassing yourself by slinking off without an answer that actually addresses the question.

[FogerRox]

294. Ahh yes eleventy dimensional chess which only you understand.....

[CheapShotArtist]

238. From the time I started lurking here,

GD has really turned into a merry-go-round the past few years. Every now and then, there is always manufactured outrage about some supposed plan that Prez. O is hatching to cut SS, and yet it never happens. I'm surprised that this thread actually got over 100 recs. Even if he wanted to do it, there's no way that Senate Dems would let that happen.

[Doctor_J]

261. I've been hearing for weeks how Obama is much more popular than the Repukes

he's using his newfound political capital to enact a policy that even his hero Reagan wouldn't have dared.

[DeSwiss]

268. K&R

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ” ~George Orwell

[woo me with science]

275. Kick

[Sheepshank]

298. Lets at least be honest Chained CPI is NOT the same thing at Superlative CPI

creating outrage from inaccuracies is a hallmark of many here, and is actually sickening. U-CPI-U is not currently used and is is the comparable to Superlative CPI. And may be a better method of calculation for the realities of inflation and cost of living.


http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpisupqa.htm

5.Where is the C-CPI-U currently being used? Wouldn't the C-CPI-U be a more appropriate index to tie Social Security or other adjustments to?

The C-CPI-U, which in final form is said to be a "superlative" index, is designed to be a closer approximation to a cost-of-living index than other CPI measures.

That said, BLS publishes thousands of indexes each month; these indexes can vary by which items, geographic areas, and populations are covered. As different users have different needs, BLS cannot say which index is necessarily better than another. As such, BLS takes no position on what the Congress or the Administration should use to make adjustments to Social Security or any other federal program.

The C-CPI-U to our knowledge currently is not used in any federal legislation as an adjustment mechanism.

and then there is this .pdf http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2003/Files/JSM2003-000760.pdf

The first sentence after 1. "The Chained Superlative index"....

So treating others on this thread with superior disdain is a pathetic tactic and does little more than embolden a screech that has no basis.

[FogerRox]

300. They both cut 130 billion in 10 years from SS benefits, do you deny that?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/18/fiscal-cliff-chained-cpi/1778323/

[Sheepshank]

302. two comments one from the article

but the administration has not made clear exactly what programs would use the new inflation calculations

and second, the article, the OP and many on this thread are still tossing around chained CPI...and the OP is clearly stating chained CPI is the very same thing as the Fed article using Superlative CPI.

The constant "Obama is cutting SS" outrage keeps coming back...and I'd like YOU to point out how much of that has ever come to fruition.

[FogerRox]

304. Both cut 130 billion from SS benefits, yes or no..........