Reuters: Great Betrayal Is In Play; Obama Puts Medicare & Soc Sec "Compromises" On Table

[kpete]

Reuters: Great Betrayal Is In Play; Obama Puts Medicare and Soc Sec "Compromises" On Table:

Obama renews budget offer to cut social safety nets
By Richard Cowan
Reuters
WASHINGTON | Sun Mar 3, 2013 10:48pm EST

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama raised anew the issue of cutting entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security as a way out of damaging budget cuts, a White House official said on Sunday, as both sides in Washington tried to limit a fiscal crisis that may soon hit millions of Americans.

Signaling he might be ready to explore a compromise to end automatic spending cuts that began late Friday, Obama mentioned reforming these entitlement programs in calls with lawmakers from both parties on Saturday afternoon.

"He's reaching out to Democrats who understand we have to make serious progress on long-term entitlement reform and Republicans who realize that if we had that type of entitlement reform, they'd be willing to have tax reform that raises revenues to lower the deficit," White House senior economic official Gene Sperling said on Sunday on the CNN program "State of the Union."...
...

...Neither Sperling nor White House spokesmen would provide further details on Obama's conversations on Saturday with members of Congress, and they did not identify the lawmakers to whom the president spoke...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/04/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE91P0W220130304
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/04/1191389/-Reuters-Great-Betrayal-Is-Official-Obama-Puts-Medicare-and-Soc-Sec-Compromises-On-Table

[LiberalEsto]

1. Before messing with our pre-paid "entitlements,"

start cutting the tax loophole entitlements of the 1%.

[randome]

9. Obama can't do that. Congress can.

The GOP stink in the House of Representatives isn't going away for another 2 years.

[bvar22]

70. Maybe....Maybe not, but as other Presidents have shown,

...Obama CAN take a Leadership Role on protecting Social Security,
like THIS former President:

Is THAT too much to expect from our "Democratic" President?

[SugarShack]

60. Soc. Sec is secure for 30 yrs...why do anything like they are talking about it's not necessary.

[SugarShack]

80. The true entitlements are the Pentagon and the Defense Department and the Banking system

I am sick of the linguistic farce that calls Medicare and Medicaid "entitlements," when people have paid into these programs for years. The true entitlements are the Pentagon and the Defense Department and the Banking system with the billions - and trillions - for their war games and destruction of our economy.

[99Forever]

2. If President Obama wants it...

.. it must be good. Who are we to question anything he wants or does?

[djean111]

11. +1,000

Looking forward to the about-face - from "he is just toying with the GOP" to "It's a GOOD thing!"
When I read that chained CPI will replace a "more generous" formula, and that more generous formula provided a 1.7% increase over two or so years? I started returning DNC appeals for donations with no, sorry, saving up for the Good cat food, don't bother me again.
My new formula for campaign contributions is replacing the old, admittedly miniscule, one.
If he's playing chess with anybody, it is Democrats. If 2014 is another bloodbath, it is his own fault, methinks.
Oh, and I could care less about his legacy, and if his legacy is more important than the people who voted for him - WTF?
Legacy-centric admonishments have a really negative effect on me.

[99Forever]

32. I'm sorry Djean...

... but all good Democrats know that President Obama is only responsible for things that turn out well. If there's a Democratic bloodbath in 2014, it is teh Dirty Hippies and Progressives fault.

[GoneFishin]

36. That is "f%#king retard" dirty hippies to you, sir.

As noted by Rahm Emanual.

[99Forever]

44. I must have forgotten.

I promise to do an appropriate penance for my transgression.

[JDPriestly]

33. True. True. True.

[Lasher]

3. He wants to cut social programs so he can spend more on the military.

I never thought I'd see a Democratic President try to do such a thing.

[villager]

5. they all do it. we dont have "two" parties anymore

Just a mainstream wing, and batshit crazy wing, of the same corporate party

[Frosty1]

56. Bologna

[Lasher]

89. Gospel

The sequestration in question provides for the following cuts in discretionary spending over a 10 year period:

$600 B in defense spending

$600 B in non-defense domestic spending

Mandatory (AKA non-discretionary) spending is currently exempt from these reductions. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are notable examples of mandatory spending.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/politics/cnn-explains-sequestration

Obama's alternative to the sequestration

Obama says his last offer to Boehner is still on the table as an alternative to the above cuts. They include the following discretionary spending cuts:

$100 B in defense spending

$100 B in non-defense domestic spending

That's a difference of $1 T in spending cuts that Obama needs to make up elsewhere in his alternative. They all come from mandatory spending - mostly Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan

[forestpath]

4. Throwing the weak and vulnerable under the bus to get a deal. That's my POTUS!!!111!!!1

[Angry Dragon]

6. I need the president to explain to me what SS has to do with the budget

[backtoblue]

29. ^^^this^^^

[HereSince1628]

7. Well, he's consistent, you've got to give him that.

[bowens43]

8. No surpise here he offered up social security and medicare a long time ago

[ProSense]

10. Talk about

"Reuters: Great Betrayal Is In Play; Obama Puts Medicare & Soc Sec "Compromises" On Table"

...hyperbole. Even the Reuters headline is BS: "Obama renews offer to cut social safety nets"

The Sperling quote is the same talking point about "entitlement reform":

"He's reaching out to Democrats who understand we have to make serious progress on long-term entitlement reform and Republicans who realize that if we had that type of entitlement reform, they'd be willing to have tax reform that raises revenues to lower the deficit," White House senior economic official Gene Sperling said on Sunday on the CNN program

Reuters then adds it GOP-shill talking point:

These include the Social Security retirement program and Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs for the elderly, disabled and poor that are becoming more expensive as a large segment of the U.S. population hits retirement age.

The President has offered no such cuts. They're taking the proposal and distorting it to be all encompassing when it is not.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. In that case he should stand up and advocate strongly against all such cuts.

But he does not do so. It has now been years of this same crap. If he has something to say, he should and could simply say it, clearly and with precision.

[randome]

16. He can do NOTHING without GOP help in the House. Nothing.

And even the GOP doesn't want entitlement reform. They simply want to run their campaigns on that promise knowing that it will never happen.

Obama dangles this piece of red meat in front of them and they don't bite. What does that show?

[Bluenorthwest]

19. First it shows him making that offer. That image remains.

At a certain point, his Presidency needs to be about more than making the GOP look foolish by offering them their own agenda so they can refuse it. We all know Congress is fucked up, look at their popularity ratings.
Any President is able to speak his own mind to the People, that's why they call the office the Bully Pulpit. Which is why I said he could advocate his own position. Which he can, could, should and would if it was so different from that which he offers them.

[randome]

21. I think you're right that he should be past this stage of not speaking his mind.

The push for gay rights has proven that the time for progressive ideas is here. But on financial matters, I'm guessing that Obama has way more tea leaves to read than we do.

It's just a guess, of course. But we have the GOP controlling the House for at least the next 2 years. How do you get them to cooperate? Or do you simply sit on your hands for 2 years and hope things change in 2014?

[patrice]

26. Republicans will double-down on anything that comes out of his mouth. At this point it's like

baring your throat for the vampires.

[JDPriestly]

48. So, please tell us, precisely what is the President's proposal.

I want to see his words in writing.

The process for passing a budget is in Article I, section 7 of the Constitution. President Obama's job is to sign or veto a bill that comes out of Congress. He should let Congress bear the onerous burden of cutting the lifelines for American seniors if he thinks it has to be done.

Again, what precisely are the words of the President's proposal?

I don't see anything on the Whitehouse.gov website. Is he being sneaky about this?

Here is what the chained CPI would do:

Using the “chained” Consumer Price Index (CPI) to calculate Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), military and federal civilian retirement and veterans’ benefits cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) would reduce projected benefits for the oldest and most vulnerable Americans, often older women, who would be least able to afford it. The Social Security Administration estimates that application of the chained CPI would result in a decrease of about $130 per year (0.9 percent) in Social Security benefits for a typical 65 year-old. By the time that senior reaches age 95, the annual benefit cut will be almost $1,400, a 9.2 percent reduction from currently scheduled benefits.

For SSI beneficiaries, the benefit would be reduced even before the person has applied. The COLA for the need-based SSI federal benefit would be reduced by 0.3 percentage points every year. For example, if the chained CPI is implemented in 2015, an applicant in 2030, 15 years later, would receive an initial SSI benefit more than four percent lower than it would be without the chained CPI.

If the true reason for a change in the COLA calculation is to more accurately reflect changes in the cost of living, and not simply to reduce the nation's debt, then the CPI-Experimental Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) would be a better alternative. The CPI-E factors in the disproportionate amount seniors spend on health care and the more limited opportunities their patterns of consumption allow for making purchasing substitutions.

http://www.ncpssm.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases/Release/ArticleID/1098/Protecting-Social-Security-Medicare-and-Medicaid-in-Deficit-Reduction-Budget-Talks

Under the Constitution, it is not the President's job to lead on the revenue and budget talks. If he really doesn't want to shortchange seniors and the disabled, he should let Congress do what they will do and then veto any bill that would cut our benefits.

In 1985 at the close of yet another recession, the Reagan administration raised the Social Security taxes to cover the benefits of the baby boomers.

And now that baby boomers and everyone else paid higher payroll taxes for all those years specifically to cover the eventuality that has now occurred -- the retirement of the baby boomers -- Obama and Congress tell us there isn't enough money.

THIS IS A BETRAYAL. IT IS UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE.

Here in Los Angeles, I see older people, people 50 and over, who are homeless, sleeping in their cars or on the streets. UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE. We have not seen this since the 1930s. I know. I used to work on a project that helped the homeless.

Young people need to remember that these cuts mean that their parents will rely on them to supplement Social Security.

Remember:

Almost half of our nation’s workers have less than $10,000 in savings and 30 percent have less than $1,000. Barely half of all workers have access to retirement plans through their employment and millions retire without enough private savings to provide an adequate income.

http://www.ncpssm.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases/Release/ArticleID/1098/Protecting-Social-Security-Medicare-and-Medicaid-in-Deficit-Reduction-Budget-Talks

And people who have more than that but are elderly can become destitute very quickly. Assisted living and nursing homes are not cheap. Average assisted living costs range from $1,900 in Tennessee to $6,300 in Washington state PER MONTH. How would you like to have to pay that for your mother who is suffering from Alzheimers?

(Remember the average Social Security benefit is just between $1200 and $1300 per month, not enough to cover the cheapest assisted living monthly cost.)
http://www.assistedlivingfacilities.org/articles/assisted-living-costs.php

Nursing homes? That's even worse.

The average daily cost of a private room in a nursing home in the United States is $70,080 a year, or $192 a day, according to the 2004 MetLife Market Survey of Nursing Home and Home Care Costs. This is a more than $4,000 annual increase over last year, when the average daily rate for a private room in a nursing home was $66,065 a year, or $181 a day, according to MetLife.

http://www.elderlawanswers.com/average-cost-of-nursing-home-room-tops-70000-a-year-3417

The recent recession has reduced the savings of all Americans. The poorest, the most elderly have the least chance to recover.

It makes utterly no sense to cut Social Security or Medicare because it will mean that older people spend their personal money faster and have to move into either state- or federal-funded assisted living or nursing homes all the sooner. It makes good financial sense to keep funding Social Security at livable levels and encourage the elderly to live on their own as long as possible. It is cheaper.

Attempts to cut Social Security benefits will cost more in the end.

No cuts to Social Security. No cuts to Medicare. These are life and death matters not just for the elderly but for their children.

Young people will recover from the recession. We did it when we were young. But older people and the disabled will not.

[airplaneman]

59. I agree 100%.

In fact I think we should double the payout of SS and fund it properly.
Read Steven Hill on this subject.
The USA is rapidly becoming a nation that does not care about its citizens or its infrastructure for that matter.
USA capitalism is rape them all for a profit without any regard to human consideration.
It disgusts me to no end that charities like the American Cancer Society and Not-For-Profit Hospitals have CEO's making multi-million-dollar salaries.
A stark difference to the rest of the world.
-Airplane.

[dreamnightwind]

85. Great post! - nt

[Skittles]

98. worthy of its own thread

[ProSense]

104. How hard

"I don't see anything on the Whitehouse.gov website. Is he being sneaky about this? "

...did you look: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

"The recent recession has reduced the savings of all Americans. The poorest, the most elderly have the least chance to recover. "

FYI: America's problems predate 2009, and President Obama is working to improve the country.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022461547

[Marr]

13. He's been maneuvering and pushing for these cuts since very early in his first term.

Social Security/Medicare cuts are THE big goal of his administration.

[Skink]

17. Not at the 08 campaign event I was at

Raise the cap on social security was as far as he would go.

[Marr]

24. I'm not talking about public rhetoric-- words are free.

If you look at what he's actually *done*, it's been one long processes of maneuvering these cuts into position, beginning with Simpson Bowles.

[patrice]

46. Yeah, Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with that, nor to do with whatever portion of that

cohort of young 3rd-whateverish activists wants self-indulgent ignorant Boomers to take their hemlock for Mother Earth - and don't tell me that is an attitude we have never seen net-tender$$$ cultivating on this board along with the rest of their e-astro-turf fields.

Re President Obama: Talk about triangulating triangulations here: "preservation" of Social Security; reform of Medicare/Medicaid & implementation of PPACA (which is turning into Single Payer in some states); the student-loan bubble; alternative-energy & environmental protection; DoD/Pentagon cuts; home-mortgage crises & the derelictification of our inner-cities; "justice" & the war on drugs . . . . and, oh yes, jobs!

[Myrina]

45. You'll also recall he told the world, in his first Inaugural:

"We don't torture". Cough, cough Liar cough cough.

[AzDar]

14. Jesus wept.

[840high]

49. We wept with Jesus.

[JaneyVee]

15. OH HELL NO!

[sadbear]

18. Is there no chance that it's a bluff?

Yeah, it's not something that should be bluffed, but still, there it is.

Republicans have proven themselves utterly incapable of accepting any concession from President Obama, and as such, why should he continue to negotiate with them in earnest?

[randome]

20. I think it could be a bluff.

Not nth-dimensional chess, mind you, but forcing the GOP to put their money where their mouths are. They won't do it. So they look even more like the intransigent assholes we all know and detest.

[sadbear]

23. I, too, think this may be the case.

It doesn't matter what the President offers as long as he doesn't offer them EVERYTHING they want because it seems they'll accept nothing less than that.

[GoCubsGo]

86. Looks that way to me, too.

The republicans are not going to agree to ANYTHING as long as getting more revenue is involved. And, I don't see the President backing down on his push for more revenue. He has the backing of nearly 3/4 of the country on that.

[Demo_Chris]

62. No, there is no bluff here

Even making the offer significantly undermines the security of these programs. Obama is reinforcing the message that we are spending too much on these programs and they need to be cut.

When was the last time you have heard any GOP leader saying that taxes on the wealthy are too low? When have they ever agreed to something like that? The answer, of course, is never. It's not their party platform. Their official party position is that taxes on the wealthy are ALWAYS too high.

Our official party position is that you do not touch Social Security. EVER. It's the third rail. Even with Obama offering it, the GOP is scared to touch it. But not our guy. He doesn't go a week without floating another offer to trash the program. No one, NO ONE, is doing more to undermine these programs. It's unbelievable.

[bvar22]

72. Our official party position....

is WAS that you do not touch Social Security. EVER. It's the third rail.
That has all changed now.
The precedent has been established.
We can't go back.

"Entitlements" will NOW be On-the-Table in every future Budget negotiation,
until it is GONE.


It took a Nixon to go to China.



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]

[Demo_Chris]

79. Yes. That was my point

I can hear Rush now...

"Even the socialist radical Obama thinks we need to cut social security! That's how bad it is folks!"

[bvar22]

90. Yes. I know.

I was just restating for emphasis.
The smoke screen from those who would try to hide this point is thick in this thread.

[840high]

96. Unhappy to agree with you.

[magical thyme]

22. "reform" and "cut" are not synonymous. I refuse to panic.

Reuters is putting words into President Obama's mouth.

If and when I hear President Obama talk about cutting benefits, then I will react. Until then, I simply refuse to panic. I have a limited supply of energy. I will not allow Reuters to waste it while they chase readers.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

30. this. --^--

Media spinning Obama's words to take the blame off repukes?

They wouldn't do that! They're totally not owned by the gop, and the gop totally doesn't want liberals in despair and con-servatives stirred up with even more hate, blaming the black guy.....

[JDPriestly]

54. Obama appointed Tim Geithner to his cabinet, his moist trusted advisers as Secretary of Treasure

during his first term.

The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for managing the Social Security Trust Fund.

Timothy Geithner was appointed to the Fed by a committee headed by Pete Peterson, Social Security's and American seniors' greatest foe.

For me that has been a big, big red flag with regard to Obama's attitude toward Social Security. Obama is not a friend of Social Security. He answers to the elite, wealthy group who want to grab our retirement money.

I know someone who at 95 has to balance her checkbook and manage investments. She hates it. It gets really, really hard to do that when you are older. But very few people have enough money to pay someone to handle it for them. That is especially true of 95-year-olds. And while some children do it for their parents, very often that is impossible. In many cases the very elderly have no children to rely on or the children cannot do it for their parents.

When an elderly person can't manage his/her money, the next step is either assisted living or a nursing home -- and the costs are onerous. In addition, many of the facilities for the elderly are substandard and nightmares to live in. Finally, it is much cheaper to pay higher Social Security to a senior and keep them living independently than it is to maintain them in nursing homes or assisted living.

Is Obama ignorant when it comes to the problems of the elderly? Yes. His parents died before they reached 65. His grandmother was not as poor as most when she died, and his mother-in-law lives in comfort in the White House. He knows nothing about the problems of seniors, and most seniors are too proud to talk admit to just how scared they are about cuts to Social Security.

[Kolesar]

101. Ohio has some programs to help elderly people "figure out" money

I discovered that when I helped my mother with finances.

For that matter, the AARP puts volunteers into the library to help seniors do their taxes.

[JDPriestly]

110. Thanks. She used to go to the library, but it is too difficult for her

to get inside now.

Really. Expecting elderly people to handle 401(K)s instead of getting monthly Social Security checks is unrealistic.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

105. JD, it's been on my mind to reply for weeks now

But I wanted to think and have time.....

Which I havent had lately.

Don't have right now, but it's been bugging me that I havent gotten back to you.

Now I'm runn ing late for work.......

[kenny blankenship]

108. Obama also appointed the Great Larry Summers - I refuse to panic!

An oft heard refrain: Obama appointed Rahm Emmanuel, I refuse to panic! Obama appointed Wall St lawyer Eric Holder to DoJ, do I refuse to panic? Yes, I refuse! Obama appointed Robert Gates and Stanly McChrystal, doubling down on Afghanistan and I refuse to panic!
Obama also appointed David Petraeus, I refuse to panic! Obama appointed Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, and I refuse to panic!



Steady as she goes - refuse to panic - all will be well! Take off those ridiculous looking puffy orange vests and get out of those lifeboats -it's unseemly! Wait, where are
you all going???

[DCBob]

34. +1

[L0oniX]

39. I agree ...Reuters ...and AP are becoming worthless for undistorted news. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

76. The powers that be are upset that Obama has a bunch of supporters out there....

So they are doing all they can to claim he's a turncoat in the hopes that his supporters will abandon him in disgust.

It's an old tactic that's worked in the past.

[L0oniX]

84. Well there are plenty of people waking up to how we are being played by corporate interests...

whether its Obama or others in our government but you are welcome to think that Obama is above that ...and to lump anyone who thinks other than your way that they are with your enemies. There's always people who want to stop the truth ...thanks for playing.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

87. I'm not blind to Obama being too willing to compromise...

His supporters are much more Liberal than he is and they have projected a lot of their desires onto him.

What I'm saying is the supporters he has assembled represent a real threat. Especially to the conservatives that got into the Democratic Party during the Clinton/DLC era.

The attitude in Washington is that only Republicans have "serious" ideas.

Obama supporters are seen as "a bunch of kids living in la la land".

[JDPriestly]

53. How do you know that Reuters is putting words in Obama's mouth?

I remember the Friday or so before the American Care Act was agreed to, Obama stated in a speech to his campaign supporters that he favored a public option.

Did he really?

If he did, he sure changed his mind awfully fast.

Don't believe for a minute that Reuters is putting words in Obama's mouth.

It is time to let the President know that Americans will not accept cuts to Social Security. This is not a generational issue. Every American from the youngest to the oldest will be hurt on this.

[uponit7771]

58. no direct quote of headline words

[uponit7771]

57. ****DING DING DING POST OF THE THREAD****

[CTyankee]

69. I have the same reaction as you do.

If he offers "reforms" by way of cutting waste, fraud and abuse AND shows the $ amounts of these reforms, it forces the repubs to say OUT LOUD "oh, no, we mean cutting benefits or raising retirement ages," then he's put the ball right back in the repubs corner. That won't be good for their party brand, already pretty much in the crapper. The Tea Party members, who as I recall did NOT want their Medicare benefits cut, will have fits. Back in their "safe" home districts GOP House members will be facing a revolt from their base. Those "safe" districts won't be safe any more and will be vulnerable in the midterms.

[eomer]

77. In July through August 2011 he went on a campaign to sell the cuts as part of a "grand bargain".

Most of his language in the summer of 2011 is vague enough to dispute what he meant. But there were a couple of times when he came out and said it directly enough that you can see he was talking about cuts:

We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way.

...

If I’m saying to future recipients of Social Security or Medicare that you’re going to have to make some adjustments, it’s important that we’re also willing to make some adjustments when it comes to corporate jet owners, or oil and gas producers, or people who are making millions or billions of dollars."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president

Here is a post where I compiled a number of the president's statements in the summer of 2011. Look them over to see that most of the language is similarly vague like what we hear now and then see that buried in there are a couple of blurts (that I've excerpted above) of what he really means:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1119041

[magical thyme]

100. cutting expenses is not the same thing as cutting benefits

And I'm not saying he might not cut benefits. I just haven't heard him say that yet.

Reform, as others have posted, can mean cutting waste. It can also mean lifting the cap. It doesn't necessarily mean cutting benefits. If and when he says something about cutting benefits, then I'll scream. Until then, I'm saving my energy. That way, if I have to scream, I'll have more energy to scream louder.

Reuters is not wasting my energy. Period.

In the meantime, looks to me like he's playing the GOP again.

[eomer]

103. He was clearly talking about cutting benefits.

In the first of those two quotes it's clear that future beneficiaries would be affected (would have benefits cut) because he emphasizes that current beneficiaries would be protected from those cuts:

...and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way.

And in the second quote he again says that future recipients will have their benefit cuts:

"If I’m saying to future recipients of Social Security or Medicare that you’re going to have to make some adjustments..."

[GoCubsGo]

88. Thank you!!!!

If "reform" means forcing the drug companies to negotiate drug prices for Medicare, and raising or completely removing the income cap for SS contributions, then I am all for it. And, I suspect that is what he would propose. Which is part of the reason the repugs are digging in their heels, along with their refusal to raise any sorts of revenue.

[OldDem2012]

99. Come on! You're ruining the fun of being righteously pissed off and indignant....

....isn't that what we DUers live for?

[jsr]

25. Well, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship

that St. Reagan taught us.

[iandhr]

27. Instead of complaining on a website.

Start a petition on Whitehouse.gov.

Call your representatives.

Posting on a blog won't do anything.

We have beat this back before we can do it again.

And for the record I am not a troll. I hate the fact the President is actually considering this. But posting here is not going to change anything.

And if I am wrong and there is a petition. Post the link I will sign it. I will also be a big man and admit that I am wrong.

[datasuspect]

37. NEWS FLASH

starting a petition on whitehouse.gov or calling a representative won't do jack shit either.

[dreamnightwind]

91. "Instead of" should be "in addition to"

The posts help raise awareness, and are a good thing, not something to be critical of. Actual action such as you are recommending is also good. Petitions and calls to reps are easily ignored, but they're good places to put some energy. Also actually showing up and participating in groups that are against these cuts.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

28. Got this from CREDO this morning

The sequester is a tactic to create enough pain (and the pain it will cause is real) to force through cuts that normally would be off the table.

It was designed to create a crisis that everyone would look to avoid.

And so we cannot allow Democrats to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire by agreeing to cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits in order to undo the sequester or avoid any other short-term crisis.

Hundreds of thousands of CREDO activists have signed petitions, thousands have made phone calls, and hundreds have participated in one of almost 50 in-person meetings we've organized between our members and the district staffs of their senators and representatives.

CREDO has been organizing to get co-signers on the Grayson-Takano letter in a coalition that includes PCCC, DFA, MoveOn, Progressives United, the Working Families Party, Rebuild the Dream, ColorOfChange, Progressive Democrats of American and others.

Thus far, 24 Democrats in the House have co-signed the letter, and we're still pushing.

We need to shower these brave Democrats with recognition for the leadership they are showing. And we need to keep on fighting.

Add your name to this petition and thank the co-signers of the Grayson-Takano letter.

Note: The signers of the Grayson-Takano letter are: Alan Grayson (FL-09), Mark Takano (CA-41), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Raul Grijalva (AZ-03), Maxine Waters (CA-43), Rick Nolan (MN-08), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Jim McGovern (MA-02), Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) Nydia Velazquez (NY-07), Barbara Lee (CA-13), Jose Serrano (NY-15), John Conyers (MI-13), Jerrold Nadler (NY-10), Eni Faleomavaega (AS-01), Graciela Napolitano (CA-32), Alcee Hastings (FL-20), Corrine Brown (FL-05), Matt Cartwright (PA-17), Peter DeFazio (OR-04), Gene Green (TX-29), Danny Davis (IL-07), Kathy Castor (FL-14) and Ed Markey (MA-05).

[glinda]

31. Could you provide a link to "letter" to sign? Thanks.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

41. Found the petition.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/grayson_letter/?p=grayson_letter&r=10042934

[Iwillnevergiveup]

64. Thanks, UnrepentantLiberal

Apologies for neglecting a link.

Maybe by the end of today, the numbers of DEMOCRATS signing this letter will have soared, but right now, it's awfully discouraging. And would this have even transpired if Alan Grayson hadn't been re-elected??? This man must absolutely be kept in office for years to come or for as long as he wants.

[L0oniX]

35. Lesson: Be as greedy and cut throat as you can. You won't survive in your old age without money.

Notice: Your Wallmart employed children will not and can not help you in your old age. Get sick in your old age? ...good ...die quickly. If you are 20 your too young and if you are 40 you are too old to work here so go to Canada or anywhere but here ...fucking crusty old senior dead beats and stupid ass young brats! If you are disabled you should kill yourself because we ain't gonna help your ass. God bless America ...no go fuck off and die. Fuck old people ...because only worthless people get old.

Ahh such a wonderful sociopath future for everyone. If it's a corporation ...it's good!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. There's an easy way for Obama to squelch the worry about cuts.

Take the "compromises" off the table.

[librechik]

40. "Hey guys, guys! Didn't you see I already caved? It's on my web page! Come on!"

yeah. really.

[blackspade]

42. The apples and oranges association between the sequester and 'entightlements'

is maddening.
They are completely unrelated.
Why does Obama keep putting them in the same basket?

[treestar]

43. In return for what?

I have seen complaints about the effects of the sequester, too.

Also the article itself refers to costs of administration, not benefits.

Sorry Republicans. You are the ones who elected boner etc. we are not falling for it.

[patrice]

51. "costs of administration"? Out of date systems ARE parasites throughout our economy. & Out of date

systems lose efficiencies every time they have to interface with other systems. Cut down or diffuse human responsibility for those problems and . . . . anyone who has been around this stuff knows how it all snow-ball$$$$$ and people still get paid.

[treestar]

55. Yeah I see no problem with that

That would not be a "cut."

And not a "betrayal."

Sometimes the wording around here gets overwrought.

[Dustlawyer]

47. This is all a set up. They felt they had to manufacture this crisis

to get us to cave. When will we learn that we should be organizing a huge protest/fight for campaign finance reform. Real reform to get our Representative government back. Special interests, with the help of corporate media, run our freakin country right now! This should be the fight of our time to save our country, not fight with Repugs on each of these rigged issues. That's just what they are expecting us to do.

[HiPointDem]

50. Obama's nominee for budget director = advisor to Pete Peterson foundation (anti-SS)

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Member of:
Board of Directors, Council on Foreign Relations
Aspen Strategy Group
Trilateral Commission
Advisory Group, Nike Foundation
Advisory Board, Next Generation Initiative
Advisory Board, Peter G. Peterson Foundation
Professional Advisory Board, ALS Association Evergreen Chapter

https://www.metlife.com/about/corporate-profile/corporate-governance/board-of-directors/index.html

[G_j]

63. Add to the list

of horrible appointments

[ann---]

52. So sorry

I voted AGAIN for this clown. What a liar.

[Angry Dragon]

61. To be fair the Clown Car is the next party over

[Capt. Obvious]

68. Results of your Jury Service

At Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So sorry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2458053

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:51 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: meh
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter, if you want a post hidden, make a case. You just called 6 people to jury duty in the laziest way possible.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No room on this board for this crap.

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

[ann---]

107. Why would

anyone say there is "no room on this board" for MY opinion. Do all opinions have to support all Democrats here? This was the headline in the original post: "Reuters: Great Betrayal Is In Play; Obama Puts Medicare & Soc Sec "Compromises" On Table."

Tell me that wouldn't be a betrayal of all of us INDEPENDENTS who voted for him, thinking he was on "the side of the little people?"

I'm sorry - but between the expansion of drone use, giving medals higher in rank than the Bronze Star to computer operators who operate drones and now putting Medicare and Social Security on the table - wouldn't any normal person regret voting for someone who would do that? I vowed not to vote in 2008 - but Rmoney scared me. Obomba scares me more now.

[Angry Dragon]

65. I just off the phone to the Vice-Presidents off ice and they said that SS and Medicare ARE NOT

on the table

[MotherPetrie]

66. So did you ask them to issue a public denial on behalf of the President?

[HiPointDem]

67. +1. who's taken over the office of the president and why are they saying such terrible things

in his name?

president held hostage, day 1!

[Angry Dragon]

71. I did not .......... you can if you like 202-224-2424 vice-president

[MotherPetrie]

93. I wouldn't waste my time.

[Angry Dragon]

95. Of all the numbers I have called in the federal government

they seem to be the most responsive to questions and concerns

[winter is coming]

75. Aw, hell. I just confirmed my latest purchase from PitchforksRUs.

They get their stock from China, so I have to buy a new batch for each outrage. It's a shame you can't get American-made pitchforks any more, because they used to last a whole term.

[Angry Dragon]

92. Did you see my sig line??

[winter is coming]

94. LOL, no. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

73. YAY! Republicans on all sides now.

Gobama!

[pampango]

74. "if...Republicans...were willing to have tax reform that raises revenues to lower the deficit..."

Obama may be wanting to appear 'reasonable' and 'willing to compromise' all the while knowing that republicans cannot call his bluff. Boehner knows he cannot sell higher taxes to his tea party-controlled caucus in the House. By appearing 'reasonable' Obama allows republicans to remain the 'party of NO' and to keep painting themselves into the corner of irrelevancy by sticking to what passes for 'principles' with them.

Obama must believe that the best way to crack republican resistance is for public pressure to mount on them over time. Polls show that the public already backs him and blames republicans for the sequester. If Obama can keep the heat on Boehner - the more Boehner talks in public, the dumber the republicans' 'cut, cut, cut' approach sounds - the public will increasingly blame republicans and eventually the party's resistance will collapse.

The key will be that when that happens and Boehner comes to the table offering a 'compromise' of tax increases for entitlement reform, Obama has to be prepared to say "You rejected that 'compromise' back in March. It is no longer on the table. Here's my new offer - which includes no entitlement reform." Boehner will whine at that point and stall for a few days, but republican resistance will have broken by then. It has happened before. Since this comes down to Boehner vs. Obama my money is on Obama for this to happen again.

[eilen]

97. How that makes him look good to anyone is a headscratcher. nt

[Oilwellian]

112. LOL, isn't that the truth

It turns the argument on its head.

K&R

[Demo_Chris]

81. A reminder before we forget...

Obama has claimed he has the power to kill anyone, anywhere, including Americans, with no judicial or congressional oversight, no due process, no trial or appeals, and in complete secrecy.

Change we can believe in.

[Ganja Ninja]

82. Wow what a shocking surprise.

[Zen Democrat]

83. Don't worry. The GOP will reject everything to keep their corporate loopholes.

Obama looks good putting stuff on the table, knowing that he's still demanding closing the loopholes, which the GOP will never let happen. Until they lose Congress in 2014. Then it's a brand new day.

[TheKentuckian]

106. What kind of strange definition of "good" do you have. Looks like shit, at best, to me.

[woo me with science]

102. kick

[WilliamPitt]

109. This is almost ten days old.

[Zorra]

111. Has there been a retraction since then? nt