ABC News: President Obama Has Written Personal Checks to Letter-Writers In Need, Author Says

[dennis4868]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/president-obama-has-written-personal-checks-to-letter-writers-in-need-author-says/

[grilled onions]

1. Have Other Presidents Done This?

Truly a man OF and FOR the people. How many politicians do we have that really give a damn?

[customerserviceguy]

2. If they did, they made sure we didn't know about it

I'm a bit surprised that this came out, especially while his Presidency is still going on. It's not good to have the President seen as some sort of Santa Claus.

[Voice for Peace]

4. setting an example .

[mzmolly]

11. I'd vote for Santa.

:hi:

[customerserviceguy]

12. I think that's what happened last time

Only no mortal man can be Santa Claus, and give everybody what they want from their lists.

[mikekohr]

3. President Kennedy quitely donated his salary to charities,

President Obama is a special man and this is just another reason why.

Obama and 25 in '12

[Ilsa]

73. Yes, there's a story about Ronald Reagan doing that for someone. But

When the check didn't clear, his staff called her to ask if she had received it and why she hasn't deposited it. She said she wanted to keep the check because it had his autograph on it. So they sent her an autograph and then she deposited the check.

I don't know how many people he did that for. It was reported that the check was for $500.

[quiller4]

78. In recent history both Carter & Reagan also sent personal checks

Going further back in history Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln sent funds to desperate letter writers

[slay]

5. A "feel good" story that helps a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the huge number of people who need it

unrec for propaganda

[woo me with science]

6. Insulting propaganda, at that.

As though a few personal checks can make people forget how devastating his cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be to millions of Americans.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/pentagon-looking-safe-super-committees-cuts/43974

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2164954

[dennis4868]

7. I was waiting for someone to go in the gutter....

you win...yayayaya!

[Number23]

9. Pay them no mind. No one else does!

Rec'd

[occupyeverywhere]

57. Clearly, you do.

You responded to the post.

[Number23]

77. And clearly you have problems reading a thread tree

[ClassWarrior]

16. Really? You post a positive thread, but only respond to the negative replies?

And even after another poster kindly asked you to ignore the nonsense?

Hmmm... What was your purpose in posting this in the first place?

NGU.

[dennis4868]

8. did not know Obama actually cut...

SS and medicare....that's news to me...HYPERSPECULATION IS DISGUSTING ON THIS WEBSITE...it's like dog shit...stay away from it.

[woo me with science]

10. He put them on the table, where they remain.

And it should be no surprise to anyone that the Super Committee begins with cuts the President has already signaled he will accept.

[mkultra]

15. so you admit your post was a lie?

You said he made cuts that haven't been made.

[woo me with science]

17. You might address the substance of the post and what Obama actually did

instead of playing third grade rhetorical games. How does it make you feel that his cuts are now being acted upon by the Super Committee and that millions more are likely to be impoverished in this economy?

[TheWraith]

42. Your statement remains full of shit.

Obama has not made any cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

There will not be any cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

And you are attempting to create the false perception that this is happening or certain to occur.

[woo me with science]

45. "There will not be cuts to Social Security and Medicare."

On what do you base this? The President put 600 billion dollars worth of cuts on the bargaining table during the budget debate and made repeated public statements defending cuts. We also have his statements prior to election about wanting to reform entitlements. Multiple news reports quoting people involved in the process have confirmed that the proposed cuts include a chained CPI that will reduce projected benefits for millions of SS recipients. And now we have a report that the Super Committee is meeting and on the verge of making up to 550 billions of dollars of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and that those cuts do, in fact, include a chained CPI.

How can you possibly state with such certainty that they won't happen? The weight of the evidence indicates that they are very likely. How do you come to this conclusion?

[dennis4868]

22. That's not true...

stop HYPERSPECULATING!

[woo me with science]

26. Of course it's true. He put them there, and the Super Committee is now considering them.

We now have a report from the Atlantic that they are near consensus in accepting them.

I have the words of our own President and a major news source to back up what I am saying. On what do you base your hyperspeculation that this is all a mirage?

Why wouldn't we expect that the Super Committee would start with cuts that the President has already signaled that he will accept?

[11 Bravo]

46. Somewhere, someone may be considering kicking your ass. By your logic ...

they should have already been jailed for assault and battery.

IF the cuts are proposed, and IF the President signs them into law, then your statement will have merit. Until then it is just one more example of the speculative unmitigated bullshit that has come to permeate this place.

[woo me with science]

48. That's a very interesting approach to public policy.

So the people really should not speak out or protest until AFTER a policy is implemented.

Did you also feel that way about the Patriot Act?

[11 Bravo]

51. By all means, speak until your vocal cords are frayed. Just don't expect us ...

to pat you on the back for demonstrable falsehoods.
You presented the cuts as a fait accompli, bemoaning the "devastating effect that his cuts 'will' have". Not "might" have, not "would" have; but "will" have. This represents the cuts as a done deal, which they are clearly, categorically, and unambiguously NOT.
If you want to hate this President, knock yourself out, but try to confine your rationales to that which has actually transpired. In other words, if you wish to express concern about how "x" MIGHT follow "y", go for it. But to state that "y" is already in place when it is not, is intellectually dishonest.

[woo me with science]

61. What a ridiculous argument.

It is a fact that this Democratic President put 650 billion dollars worth of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table. These cuts are now being considered by the Super Committee, and current reports indicate that up to 550 billion of them may be enacted.

All the spin in the world and all the denial in the world cannot change that reality.

This feel-good anecdote about a few personal checks is just that: a feel-good anecdote and a commercial for election season.

THIS is why we have people in the streets now protesting. They see an administration that is more interested in corporate commercials and corporate policies that impoverish them, than in making policy to help them.

[Fruittree]

32. What cuts?

Oh right...the ones that don't exist.

[woo me with science]

38. Could you clarify your point, please?

Do you acknowledge that the SuperCommittee is considering these cuts, but you think we should not speak out about them until they are already signed into law?

Or are you trying to suggest that they aren't being considered?

Because if it's the former, I cannot understand that reasoning. Why would we remain silent about an impending policy that would impoverish millions?

If it's the latter, I am incredulous. I have the President's own words and the reports of a major news source that they are being considered very seriously. What is your evidence that they are not?

[TheWraith]

41. You mean the Social Security and Medicare cuts that DON'T EXIST?

Good God, you want to claim a news story is propaganda, and then you pull shit completely out of your ass which simply has never happened and will not.

[tweeternik]

13. your cynicism disgusts me ....

:puke:

[woo me with science]

18. And your comments on Obama's cuts in Super Committee? nt

[tweeternik]

34. which has to do with what, specifically ??

to actually GOVERN in a system as screwed up as ours is now has become incredibily over-complicated when the other sides primary goal is to defeat the President, not help the country.
I'm not happy with any CUTS now ..... but, this post concerned Obama's personal benevolence. why should there be an attempt to spin that into a negative thing? c'mon ya'll!!

[woo me with science]

72. No, it's not benevolent to write a few personal checks

when you are also pushing policies that will impoverish millions. He did not have to put these cuts on the table. It was his choice. There is nothing complicated about it.

[ecstatic]

23. +1. some people are so bitter and jealous,

it's ridiculous. I would love some help too, but I'm not going to get mad if someone else gets helped first!

[Empowerer]

24. So sad . . .

[tweeternik]

35. just to clarify ... what is sad, Empowerer ?

[slay]

49. It's called paying attention to reality - and not hero worship

writing checks to a few people makes for great propaganda, but does nothing to help the millions and millions who really need it. wake up.

[tweeternik]

52. no hero worship here. my objective observation has been

that Obama has been trying to "help the millions". "wake up!?" "paying attention to reality!?" wtf??? you sound like you want some kind of nirvana existence in THIS political environment. have you noticed the "bipartisanship" being exhibited in our congress these days? how about you waking up and paying attention AND getting a clue as to how the system works! talk about the pot calling the kettle black!! Again, the original post simply pointed to Obama providing some help to a few people directly. of course, there are millions more who need help .... why do some need to make it, "yeah, but what about all the shit that he SHOULD be doing?". like the guy is a dictator who can just issue a decree and make it so. can't we just agree that what he did is simply a nice personal gesture? there should be nothing negative there.

[BklnDem75]

14. For every Santa, there's a Scrooge

Rec for your unrec

[woo me with science]

20. And your comments on Obama's cuts to SS, Medicare, and, Medicaid

now being considered (and by report near consensus for acceptance) in the Super Committee?

[BklnDem75]

21. lol! Cling to that

When it doesn't happen, I'm sure you'll be there to raise the victory flag.

[woo me with science]

25. They are being considered right now because of this President.

LOL is your response, really?

Really?

[BklnDem75]

27. LOL is my response

You keep bringing it up like you're hoping you get your wish. Nobody's talking about it but you and a select few. It's a non issue that you hope to keep alive. It's dead Jim!

[woo me with science]

28. "Nobody's talking about it."

Apparently the Super Committee is.

[BklnDem75]

30. And?

Do you know what they're talking about? And you accuse supporters of fear tactics?

[woo me with science]

31. Of course we know what they're talking about.

When did it become a "fear tactic" to speak out and try to avert a policy attempt that will be disastrous for millions of Americans?

[BklnDem75]

33. LOL

In other words, nope. The sky isn't falling simply because they're talking.

[woo me with science]

36. I'm not sure what your point is.

I am not sure if you are denying the cuts are likely, or simply don't care.

Does it bother you that Obama put them on the table? At all?

[BklnDem75]

37. Is there a reason I should be bothered?

If something can be done to improve SS, it has to go on the table, right? I'm more for seeing what happens than assuming the worst every single time. Especially when you've been proven wrong on numerous occasions. It's just hard to deal with someone who's initial response is outrage.

[woo me with science]

39. "If something can be done to improve SS, it has to go on the table, right?"

How will a chained CPI improve Social Security?

Why does Social Security need to be on the table? Obama himself has admitted that it does not contribute to the deficit.

[BklnDem75]

40. Because it's unsustainable in it's current form?

Some people don't like to wait until something becomes a full blown crisis before doing anything about it. As for your 'chained CPI' question, you have a link to the bill the super committee's working on? Care to send a link?

[woo me with science]

43. Please don't be disingenuous.

The only reports we have received from sourced articles since the debt issue hit the news mid-year indicate that chained CPI is the "adjustment that is on the table. It was true during the debt ceiling debates,

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/what-obama-was-willing-to-give-away/?utm_source=Blog&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92539/obama-boehner-debt-ceiling-press-conference-concessions-revenue
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130


and it remains true in the latest report I just posted:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/pentagon-looking-safe-super-committees-cuts/43974/

Please do not be disingenuous by demanding a link to something that you know is not yet available to the public. We operate on the information we have, and the weight of the information indicates that chained CPI is what is being considered. If you have information that disputes that, please do post it.

Otherwise, we are back to the ridiculous argument to keep quiet about these impending cuts, because they have not happened yet.

[BklnDem75]

44. So you mean you don't have an actual bill to question?

You just threw that out there from one of the older suggestions, assuming any future bill will be exactly the same.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

56. Thank you once again for participating here.

I really mean that.

It is important that people see the way this argument unfolds.

[BklnDem75]

68. Bitterness is so unbecoming...

[woo me with science]

71. Here we go again.

Policies schmolicies. It's gotta be personal. :eyes:

[slay]

50. He's the president, not santa - did he write checks to everyone who needs help?

cause that's what "santa" would do. but no, he did not - because it was propaganda - a story meant to make you feel good but which does nothing to address the systemic problems in the country.

[tweeternik]

53. and you recommend what to "address the systemic problems in the country"?

remember .... we don't have a dictator .... yet.

[woo me with science]

62. How about not offering to slash the safety nets of millions during a terrible economy?

That would be a good start.

He could have fought to prevent the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and he would have had 80 percent of the public behind him.

How about not actively pressuring attorneys general for settlements to protect banks from criminal investigations? That might give people some sense that he is actually on their side.

The "he is not a dictator" gets very, very old when the President is taking active steps that harm ordinary people and protect criminal banks.

[tweeternik]

67. safety nets will not be "slashed" as long as Obama's in the white house

AND he's got 70-80% public support NOW for a wide range of proposals, like giving states aide to keep teachers, cops and firefighters on the job; starting much needed infrastructure work, raising taxes on millionaires, etc. And what of it ?? the repugs in congress still unanimously say "NO" .... the "not a dicator" thing might be getting old, but what do you recommend for actually get these things accomplished given our political system ? "taking active steps" ?? like, traveling around the country pitching his ideas to the people ??? he's doing that! what else ?? I'd like to see a real progressive congress in 2012, along with Obama's reelection ... think it will happen ???

[woo me with science]

69. The people gave him both houses of Congress in 2008.

They are pretty damned disillusioned right now.

He is the one who put the cuts on the table in the first place, so I don't know how you can realistically conclude that he will reject them. He spent the budget debate justifying them to the American people and begging for them to be accepted.

He could make a very strong gesture by coming out now in favor of raising the cap for paying into Social Security, severing it from the general fund (instead of TYING it to the general fund as with the payroll tax cut), and saying he will reject any measure that cuts projected Social Security benefits, including the chained CPI. Do you think he will do that?

There is absolutely zero evidence so far that he would.

[tweeternik]

74. C'mon ... "gave him both houses of Congress" ....

but even with them, the Senate was/is always a problem, if I'm remembering correctly, especially when you need 60 freakin' votes to do anything there! Obama would agree to raise the ss cap ..... christ, he was the only one talking about in the 2008 campaign! But, getting it approved was/is the problem. the "chained CPI" issue is not really THAT big a deal, is it? should be no problem IF "they" would agree to give something (tax increases for over 'pick a number')in return. Hey, again ... I basically AGREE with you, I would prefer no cuts .... nothing that will "hurt" the people most in need. Let's get him a progressive Congress, instead of the jack-legs we now have and then let's see what the guy would do! I'm betting it would be a hell of a lot better than you think.

[woo me with science]

75. "...the chained CPI" issue is not really THAT big a deal, is it?" Good god - did you just say that?

The chained CPI is *designed* to justify lowering the standard of living of SS recipients.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/28/1000043/-Chained-CPI-will-hurt-middle-class-families-as-well-as-seniors,-veterans

We are talking in millions of cases about retirees who are *already* unable to meet their basic expenses in this economy. And it compounds over time.

You exclaim that we need a more progressive Congress right after issuing a major talking point of the Third Way conservative Democrats.

I don't know what to say to that. Honestly. Perhaps it would help to read more about chained CPI. I honestly wish it were possible to make those who are so blithe about these benefit cuts attempt to survive in this economy for a few years only on a meager Social Security check.

This party used to be the party of compassion. It used to be the party that defended the most vulnerable among us.

Yes, it matters.

This discussion has made me sad beyond words.

[tweeternik]

79. sorry this has made you so sad ....

not my intent. but, I think you're over-dramatizing this a bit ..... which I'm sure will make you even sadder, I guess. What I was referring to was that my understanding of the chained CPI was that it would make realatively small changes to social security increases going forward. My understanding was that they would in fact be *small*. I agree, surviving on a small social security check would not be an easy thing to do, but our over-hyping minor changes does no good. I promise you I will research the "chained CPI" issue further. If I'm wrong and the issue is more than I now believe it to be, I'll seek you out and apologize. thank you for the link. don't be sad, man .... it'll be ok. peace.

[tweeternik]

80. talk to me woo ....

what are you're comments to this?

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138555779/whats-a-chained-cpi

[BklnDem75]

54. So in order for this to be considered a good deed, Obama must help everyone

"It took too long."
"He did it too fast."
"He didn't really do it."
"He didn't really want to do it."
"Some one else made him do it."
"Its good, but some one else really did it."
"Ok, he did it, but its not really that important."
"Ok, he did it, but he's planning to undo it later."
"He's going to do something really bad later, just you wait."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=803959&mesg_id=803969

Add that to the list. It really is endless

[great white snark]

55. Yes and apparently just thinking this is a good deed is "hero worship".

Another for the list.

The list grows as common sense shrinks.

[woo me with science]

63. You rarely get credit for giving someone a cookie

when you then turn around and try to steal entire meals from everyone.

Obama cannot claim to be a defender of the poor when he is taking active steps to promote policies that will impoverish millions of them. He did not have to put over 500 billion in cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table. He chose to do that.

When he chooses to use the livelihoods of millions of poor and elderly as bargaining chips, he should not be surprised when little PR anecdotes like this fall flat.

[BklnDem75]

66. The problem with coming from a position of hate...

It's pretty much impossible to take anyone seriously when they try to sound like they're coming from an unbiased position. I pretty much disagree with everything you typed.

[woo me with science]

70. Yeah, yeah, we know. It's all about "hate."

It always is. :eyes:

Never mind the fact that Obama is the one who put these cuts on the table.

[woo me with science]

60. Thank you.

I was going to say slick Madison Avenue advertising, but "propaganda" works, too.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

29. Duplicate poster.

You were tombstoned days ago.

:shrug:

[occupyeverywhere]

58. If it was a truly selfless act by Obama we wouldn't be hearing about it.

But there is a news report and an upcoming book to profile this "good" deed. It's a political ploy.

[PragmaticLiberal]

64. The book isn't about "promoting this particular good deed" per se.

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Letters-Stories-Americans-President/dp/0385534302/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319550798&sr=1-1

[DFab420]

76. Hahaha and if we didn't hear about it you would be bitching about transparency