To all those who have been telling us for months . . .

[Hissyspit]

75. Well, this came pretty close:

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021049049

9. President Obama has proposed reductions in social security benefits.

Specifically he has proposed changing the formula by which retirees' benefits are adjusted for inflation. This proposed change will result in the check received by retirees being a lower dollar amount than under the current formula.

In my mind any formula change that results in lower dollar amounts written on the checks mailed to retirees is a cut. But whether you can bring yourself to call it a cut or not, embrace it if you support it or else state that you oppose it if that is the case.

I support the reelection of the President. At the same time I will continue to oppose any cut in social security benefits, no matter what wording is used to describe them. I oppose cutting social security benefits because it is the exact opposite of what we need to do. Every dollar paid to a retiree is a stimulus dollar that is desperately needed. What we need to do is generate more federal payments like this to regular people and then solve the long term deficit problem (there is no short term deficit problem) by two things: stimulating the economy and taxing the wealthy.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to eomer (Reply #9)Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:23 AM
ProSense (96,441 posts)

10. Bullshit!

Post a link to such a proposal. Talking about what's being debated and making a proposal is not the same thing.

The last Democratic President to actual change the formula was Carter.

...the American story is one of perfectibility and striving for ever-greater fidelity to our ideals -- it is a journey from colony to republic, from slavery to freedom, from sexism to suffrage, from stark poverty to shared prosperity.
Thanks for the hearts.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to ProSense (Reply #10)Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:25 AM
woo me with science (18,824 posts)

12. You keep trying and trying and trying and trying and trying

Last edited Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:40 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

to rewrite history.

How pathetically sad and desperate the Third Way messaging is, when it must constantly attempt to convince people that what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears isn't really happening...


"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

President Obama
July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president
Nothing will change until Americans look clearly at how the game is rigged from the start in every single negotiation, how the possible options are artificially narrowed from the start, and how every negotiation and outcome strengthens the corporate one percent. Every. Single. One.
Reply to this post

MORE AT LINK

And then there's this:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1822385

...where the OP posted this:

Why are so many DU'ers falling for bullshit? [View all]

A casual stroll through the "latest" pages brought me to this question. It seems every fifth thread is someone barking about how the Democrats / Obama had better not cut social security or medicare benefits. Lots and lots of these threads, and they all have one thing in common...

Not a single fucking shred of evidence to back themselves up with. Nobody has referenced any source from Obama or the Democratic party that cites any plan to slash into these programs. None. And yet, here are DU'ers up in arms, in a frothy rage, as if these plans were actual, and immediate.

They are not. The only "evidence" we have is a bunch of speculation and "reasonable advice" from the very same "liberal media" outlets that spent the last week nursing on Romney's cock, trying to bring his campaign back to life by wishful thinking.

Then I posted this:

64. Matt Bai: "Will Obama Agree to Entitlement Cuts? He Already Has"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/will-obama-agree-to-entitlement-cuts-he-already-has

None of this is theoretical or subjective. It’s spelled out clearly in the confidential offers that the two sides exchanged at the time and that I obtained while writing about the negotiations last spring.

In his opening bid, after the rough framework of a grand bargain was reached, Mr. Boehner told the White House he wanted to cut $450 billion from Medicare and Medicaid in the next decade alone, with more cuts to follow. He also proposed raising the retirement age for Social Security and changing the formula to make benefits less generous.

Mr. Obama wasn’t willing to go quite that far. But in his counteroffer a few days later, he agreed to squeeze $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years, with $800 billion more in the decade after that. He was willing to cut $110 billion more from Medicaid in the short term. And while Mr. Obama rejected raising the retirement age, he did acquiesce to changing the Social Security formula so that benefits would grow at a slower rate.

This distance between the two sides on entitlement spending was sizable but not unbridgeable. In the end, the deal fell apart over the ratio of cuts to revenue. Mr. Obama wanted $400 billion more in new revenue than he and Mr. Boehner had initially discussed. Mr. Boehner couldn’t sell that number to his caucus, and he wasn’t going to try without getting even more drastic cuts to entitlements in return.

Then the OP posted this, ignoring what I had posted:

96. Thanks to the teachings of Manny, HiPointDem, Fumesucker, and Bonobo, who, according to new guy Carl

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:28 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Are the only true progressives in this entire thread (since they're the ones who were insulted) I have seen the light. Braise be to Tengri (yes, braise, dude loves Mongolian barbeque) I can now see the truth, delivered by their guiding hands.

Barack obama really is a lying, deceitful, two-faced scumbag who's planning to sell us all down the river for shits and giggles. it's true! The True progressives have spoken! The rest of you... You should all feel shame! Shame at voting for this back-stabbing, tricky motherfucker. Some of you, the worst of the un-progressive, grandma-hating lot like me, actually voted for him twice. For us, it's weekly flagellation, I'm afraid.

All this time... for a little over four years, I've seen Barack Obama as a passable Liberal president, a first step in the right direction. How foolish I was. Oh, so foolish. I... indeed, all of us, save for these four mighty prophets, voted for who we thought was a man who could deliver a generally progressive agenda. But no! No, a mere week after the election... it is revealed that in truth... In truth we elected Paul Ryan in blackface.

Thank you, Manny, Hipointdem, Fumesucker, Bonobo, Cthulu2016, and New Guy Carl... Without your help, I would have never realized what immediate danger we were in. So... What now? Rally for impeachment, right? I mean, we can't let this go on, right guys? We have to take this motherfucker down, toss him in the street. I mean he's absolutely for sure going to cut every entitlement program, while also absolutely for sure passing all the savings on to the top corporate donors, right? He's going to rob us blind, like the sneaky underhanded conman he is! We have to... we have to...

Oh... bitch on the internet? Well... Seems anticlimactic. But I guess you guys can't possibly be wrong!
Reverence two-year-old NYT articles? Really, shouldn't we... No, no, you're the True Progressives.
Vote Jill Stein? Oh, now you go too far.

- because I know I'm being too subtle for some.
The Meaning of Life is to Give Life Meaning.