Obama's taking a strong stand against privatizing Social Security!

[coti]

So I watched Obama's speech, begrudgingly. It wasn't his greatest.

He had some good lines in it, and I think it's important for him to keep reminding people of exactly who is responsible for putting us where we are. I also liked being reminded about the changes he made to federal student loans.

But a good portion of his speech was half-truths and misdirection. Obama has a serious credibility issue now.

It was sad watching him talk about the health care bill and the Social Security cuts he's going to make (which, of course, he didn't dwell on or get all that specific about). It's funny when he "takes a stand" on Social Security by saying that no way, no how are we going to privatize it!

Sweet, though no one except for him is talking about that.

For that matter, I'm not quite sure why we're talking about cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age, either, since there's no need for it and it'll only hurt the middle class and our economy. Seems to me he brought that one up, too. Maybe it's part of one of the brilliant backroom deals he is always making.

On the other hand, I'm glad he's at least saying (who knows if he'll actually do it) that he wants to put some money into infrastructure- you know, something useful- instead of inherently destructive things only made to blow other things up. It's not just important for us to spend money in our economy. We also have to get something worthwhile out of the spending on the other end.

[sendero]

1. There's no plan to privatize it..

... the government can't afford the loss of current revenues.

No, they will not privatize, they will just chisel and chisel at the benefit itself.

[coti]

3. Right.

Does this make any kind of sense to you?

Why the hell is he doing this?

[Bluebear]

2. Yeah, they won't privatize it. Just gut it. nt

[LoZoccolo]

4. You're going to have a credibility problem if you don't document or retract

your assertion that "a good portion of his speech was half-truths and misdirection".

[coti]

6. Well, alright. I considered being more specific but didn't want

to be too negative about the speech.

Give me a few minutes to go over it and I'll reply with another post.

There's PLENTY in there.

[coti]

9. Going off of the transcript here:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/obama-on-labor-day-problems-facing-working-families-more-serious-than-ever.php?ref=fpblg

Here are five examples of half-truths and misdirection in his speech:

1) "That's why we're...fighting to strengthen Social Security for the future. And to those who may still run for office planning to privatize Social Security, let me be clear: as long as I'm President, I'll fight every effort to take the retirement savings of a generation of Americans and hand it over to Wall Street. Not on my watch."

This is misdirection. He's planning to cut Social Security benefits and perhaps raise the retirement age, and he makes no mention of that in his statement. Instead, he rails against privatizing the program, which isn't at issue.

2) "That's why we passed health insurance reform that will make coverage affordable; reform that ends the indignity of insurance companies jacking up your premiums at will or denying you coverage just because you get sick; reform that shifts control from them to you."

This isn't true. Insurance still will not be affordable for many people. It wouldn't even be affordable for them if it was $10 per month. Further, there is nothing of significance in the health care bill that prevents insurance companies from jacking up premiums. The only element of semi-real truth the statement contains is with regard to denying coverage, however, we all know that the insurance companies will still be going over every single application document with a fine-toothed comb when it comes time to actually pay our for coverage in an effort to claim fraud and deny coverage.

3) "That's why we passed financial reform that provides new accountability and tough oversight of Wall Street; ...reform that ends the era of taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street once and for all."

Again, just not true. Certainly, we've yet to see whether we will ever have to bail out Wall Street again.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/17/news/economy/Wall_Street_reform/index.htm

4) "And while we've had eight straight months of private sector job growth, the new jobs haven't been coming fast enough."

Focusing on private sector job growth being in the positive for eight straight months is misleading with regard to our overall job growth in our economy. Put another way, "the new jobs haven't been coming fast enough" is an understatement. The question is whether we are recovering jobs at all.

5) "I'm going to keep fighting, every single day, to turn this economy around..." (etc.)

This seems disingenuous considering the policies he has pushed for over the last two years, and is still pushing for, particularly with regard to cutting Social Security and raising the retirement age. His health care bill also did very little to slow down rising healthcare costs, with healthcare comprising a significant portion of our GDP. Finally, if he's considering extending the Bush tax cuts- which isn't clear- that would also work against our economy and the middle class.

[USArmyParatrooper]

13. Looking at each one of those..

"He's planning to cut Social Security benefits and perhaps raise the retirement age"

Can you substantiate this? This would require a bill to pass Congress and for him to sign it. Which members of Congress have proposed such an idea, and when has Obama expressed support for both of these... or even either?

"Further, there is nothing of significance in the health care bill that prevents insurance companies from jacking up premiums."

There are billions of dollars allocated for subsidies for low income recipients, and there are provisions putting a cap on the premiums for high risk pools.

Again, just not true. Certainly, we've yet to see whether we will ever have to bail out Wall Street again.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/apr/29/factsheet-financial-regulation-explained/

• "Orderly liquidation authority." This part of the bill sets up a panel of three bankruptcy judges who convene and decide, within 24 hours, if a large financial company is insolvent. If a big firm is teetering on collapse, the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Federal Reserve would have to agree to liquidate it, using a special fund created with payments from the largest financial firms. The legislative language says the fund must be used to dissolve failing firms. To pay for the shutdowns, the FDIC would set fees on the financial companies based on their size, raising $50 billion. The fund has become a point of controversy in recent weeks. Opponents have said it means guaranteed bailouts, a claim we ruled False, and some Republicans want the fund removed from the final bill.

The question is whether we are recovering jobs at all.

Actually, that's not a question at all. We have had eight straight months of job growth.

[coti]

15. Obama appointed the damned commission that will be recommending cuts.

You're being disingenuous, just like he is.


As far as the HCR bill, the subsidies aren't the issue- though I don't think handing out taxpayer dollars to private health insurers addresses the health care cost problem. Health care premiums continue to rise at a ridiculous rate, and there's nothing significant in the bill that will stop them. A public option would have helped in that regard, but he threw that out in one of his backroom deals.


With regard to Wall Street, a bankruptcy panel doesn't address the practices that got us into this mess.


And finally, our most recent job growth:

http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1410070

"The losses, and the return of workers to the job market, also caused the unemployment rate to tic up slightly to 9.6 percent in August from 9.5 percent in July."

Unemployment is still near 10%. What else is there to say? ARE we recovering jobs?

[USArmyParatrooper]

17. Actually, YOU are being disingenuous

Obama has NOT proposed cuts to Social Security. It is extraordinarily unlikely the Democratic Congress would support any such cuts. You basing these accusations on controversial remarks made by one guy on the commission - a commission who's recommendations neither Congress nor the President are required to follow.

I know you WANT to believe the President wants to cut Social Security but you have nothing.

As for HCR "subsidies aren't the issue" except it's one way of making health care more affordable for those who couldn't otherwise afford it.

You're right. The bankruptcy panel doesn't address the problems that got us into this mess. OTHER provisions of the bill do, though. The bankruptcy panel sets in motions actions to effectively liquidate failing wall street companies.

Yeah, notice the wording and the return of workers to the job market, also causes....

Unemployment figures only consider those actively seeking employment. As more jobs are created more people enter the market who had previously given up. In other words as more jobs are created the unemployment rate can stay the same or even uptick. IT IS STILL MORE JOBS BEING CREATED.

[coti]

19. WHEN Congress passes the cuts recommended by the commission

that Obama created- which they will, since that's the whole point of appointing the commission (while giving the plausible deniability you are making use of)- will he sign them?

[USArmyParatrooper]

21. Ah, yes! Conjecture = Fact in your world

I asked for any proposal or support shown from President Obama making cuts to Social Security.

You came up with nothing.

I asked for members of Congress who support cuts to Social Security (and keep in mind it requires a majority)

You came up with nothing.

I have shown you provisions of the HCR bill to make health care more affordable.

I debunked your claim that a net positive amount of jobs hasn't been created for eight straight months.

I realize that you want to believe all these bad things about the President. But wishing for something doesn't alter reality.

[coti]

23. Just answer the question!

The support he's shown for cuts and/or raising the retirement age is in not only creating the commission, but who he appointed to the commission.

We know perfectly well what the commission is going to do. They're going to at least recommend cuts to benefits, and could very well recommend raising the age of retirement.

Now, when Congress passes those cuts, with many Democrats supporting them, as recommended by Obama's commission, will Obama sign them, or veto legislation created by his very own commission?





For the record: Obama didn't say he made health insurance MORE affordable, in his quote- he said affordable. Just affordable. But the main issues with the healthcare bill remain in its cost controls, as I've noted.

And, by the very article I linked to, your claim about there being a net overall gain in jobs for August is simply incorrect. Did you read it?

"The report showed the economy gaining 67,000 jobs in the private sector, but public sector cutbacks, primarily the loss of temporary Census jobs, brought the overall payroll picture to a net loss of 54,000."

Overall, we lost jobs in August.

And, yes, the unemployment rate went back up to 9.6%.

Just to return to the point in my OP- the statement Obama made regarding job gains was incomplete. It was a half-truth, and you've illustrated it perfectly.

[USArmyParatrooper]

32. "The support he's shown for" is completely FALSE

He has NOT shown support for cutting Social Security or raising the retirement age. You say otherwise, PROVE IT.

"Some guy on the commission said" IS NOT PROOF.

"We know perfectly well what the commission is going to do."

NO, we do NOT. IT IS CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART. And even IF the commission makes those recommendations you have NO evidence, let alone proof Obama would support or accept their recommendations.

"Just to return to the point in my OP- the statement Obama made regarding job gains was incomplete. It was a half-truth, and you've illustrated it perfectly."

That is absolute HORSESHIT. For starters Obama said we had net positive private sector jobs for eight straight months. That is not "half" true, it is entirely true. The net loss of CENSUS JOBS was also made up for with an enormous public sector jobs *gain* when the Census employees were hired. Are you going to also *credit* Obama for the enormous uptick when the census employees were hired? Even THEN Obama only took credit for the public sector jobs, warning that the incredible job growth for that month was largely due to temporary Census employees.

Obama's quote: "And while we've had eight straight months of private sector job growth" Since it's only "half" true, which half isn't true?

[coti]

38. Okay, so he created this commission, and then appointed Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles

as its co-chairs, to NOT cut or raise the retirement age for Social Security, so that Obama could NOT sign a bill, passed by Congress, containing such cuts and/or a raise in the retirement age.

In fact, the whole commission is just an exercise in futility, meaning nothing. They probably won't make any recommendations at all regarding the multi-trillion dollar Social Security budget. Who knows? Maybe they'll recommend INCREASED benefits and LOWER the retirement age!

No, that's not why one appoints a commission like this.

You could always offer your own explanation for the commission, though, if you'd like. I'd be interested in hearing it.


Further, go back and read what I wrote about the jobs numbers again:

"4) 'And while we've had eight straight months of private sector job growth, the new jobs haven't been coming fast enough.'

Focusing on private sector job growth being in the positive for eight straight months is misleading with regard to our overall job growth in our economy. Put another way, "the new jobs haven't been coming fast enough" is an understatement. The question is whether we are recovering jobs at all."

To only focus on the private sector (because the overall jobs numbers aren't as good (!)) is to state a half-truth. It's making a statement that only reports HALF of the larger TRUTH, leaving out important information about the bigger picture. That's what he did when he failed to mention that we, in fact, had a net loss of overall jobs in August.

Whatever term you want to use to describe it, doing that sort of thing is a misleading tactic.

[democracy1st]

39. good job this Goldman Sachs admin is working backwards.

[GOTV]

73. It was once conjecture that we'd lose the public option.

[eridani]

69. He has gone out of his way to pledge no privatization. Why then--

--does he refuse to pledge that there will be no cuts? It would be a huge campaign weapon for Dems if he did that. Why hasn't he?

[Capn Sunshine]

50. So who's your source on this? Glen Beck or the Daily Worker?

Disinegenuous? I would suggest your agenda is disingenuous. No matter waht the president does you seem to wish to undercut any success. Why is that? Yes, we are recovering jobs. Do you know when the last time the Unemployment rate was at over 10%? During the Reagan Presidency, 1982.

[GOTV]

72. The article you quote was writtens month before the bill was passed ...

... I don't know how much of the article actually matches the bill we got.

[MrsCorleone]

26. The transcripts from HuffPo & TPM are not accurate. I'm still waiting on an official transcript.

Just a friendly PSA for those wanting absolute accuracy.

I don't want to accuse the above blogs for putting out false info regarding today's speech, but the text does not match the speech. I'm just pointing out that this would be the place to twist facts to create false assumptions and controversy.

[Tx4obama]

37. He is citing this OP as his citation at another thread where we asked for proof.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x502567

There is NO proof that Obama is doing anything the OP'er says.

[coti]

45. Actually, I cited post #9 for you. Would you care to respond?

Others are giving it their best shots, but, I have to say aren't doing a very good job.

It just doesn't make sense to set up a commission that you know will recommend Social Security cuts and/or raising the retirement age, if you don't plan to sign such recommendations into law.

[KittyWampus]

5. Obama isn't the one with credibility problems.

[coti]

10. Well, if he wasn't, you'd think more people would believe him. nt

[Raine]

7. Get rid of Alan Simpson

that would be a start.

[chill_wind]

8. 'Sweet, though no one except for him is talking about that.'

Yes. A strawman he can knock down. A complete misdirect. Bush employed it constantly.

[Yupster]

29. My favorite strawman argument that politicians make

is when they bring up fictitious advisors who give them bad advice and they decide not to take it.

For instance....

Your opponent is involved in a messy divorce.

"Many are advising me to criticize my opponent for his personal failings, but I reject that advice and will keep my campaign on the issues."

Of course no advisors ever advise that. It's a classic strawman.

[jaxx]

11. Unrec for 'half-truths and misdirection'.

Calling the President a liar and then going on to put supposition as fact into the statements within the speech.

[coti]

12. What supposition? Is he not planning to cut Social Security and/or raise the

retirement age?

Was the Wall Street reform bill a wild success, and we all just missed it?

Or, is Obama in fact exaggerating the effect of what he's done, while glossing over or leaving out entirely the downsides?

[jaxx]

14. All supposition.

None of it is fact.

[coti]

16. Is he not planning on cutting and/or raising the retirement age for Social Security? nt

[jaxx]

18. Are rumors facts?

[coti]

20. Answer the question. nt

[jaxx]

25. You get one response for your dictatorial demand of "answer the question".

I'm not on trial and you're not going to bully me. Got it?


The answer is NO. He has said nothing about that. Those rumors have come from supposition on the far left due to what they think the outcome will be. Not a fact there.

[coti]

27. You said ALL of my OP statements were supposition, and I expect you to back that up.

I'm expected to back up my statements, which I am. I don't hold it against people when they look for substance. You need to back yours up, too.

You don't like that, you can always give up and run away (assuming that you'd never correct yourself).

Now, to continue your questioning:

You say that no, Obama is not planning on cutting Social Security.

So, are you contending that, when the commission that OBAMA appointed makes its recommendations for cuts in Social Security and/or raising the age of retirement, and Congress, with the support of some Democrats, subsequently passes it- which is exactly what is going to happen- Obama will veto the bill?

Are you saying that he will veto the bill containing recommendations from his own commission?

[jaxx]

30. LOL now you've got the supposed recommendations as "fact"

and want to know what the President will do about your suppositions.

I can't answer any more questions, I feel I am taking advantage of you.

[coti]

31. Will he veto them or sign them? nt

[USArmyParatrooper]

22. No, and you have yet to substantiate your claim.

Your. Claim. Is. Pure. Conjecture. Period.

[coti]

24. So, you're saying he'll veto the cuts recommended by his own commission? nt

[USArmyParatrooper]

33. I'm saying a few things

1: You are guessing (more likely hoping) that the commission will recommend cuts to Social Security and raising the retirement age.

2: IF they recommend such cuts they are extremely unlikely to be adopted by, and voted through Congress.

3: YES, if it came down to 1 and 2 materializing I think the President would veto it.

[coti]

42. What's their purpose?

What do you think they'll do?

And why would he veto his own commission's recommendations? If he was going to do that, why did he appoint the people he did to it? That would be pointless. He's not going to set up a commission to come up with a conclusion that he won't sign into law.

[Tx4obama]

44. NO. Obama is NOT not planning on cutting and/or raising the retirement age for Social Security. n/t

[coti]

46. See post #38 above. nt

[johnaries]

28. Actually, there were many DUer's swearing he was "privatizing"

SS and that was the whole purpose of the Fiscal Commission. And that Obama purposely stacked the Commission in order to privatize it.

Those people have recently changed "privatizing" to "slashing". Whatever.

[Tx4obama]

35. What Obama said today....

From Talking Points Memo:

In today's speech, Obama takes a clear shot at House Republicans and issues a warning shot to the deficit commission on Social Security: "To those who may still run for office planning to privatize Social Security, let me be clear: as long as I'm President, I'll fight every effort to take the retirement savings of a generation of Americans and hand it over to Wall Street. Not on my watch."

[eridani]

70. Given who is on the commission, slashing will be the alternative to

--privatization. In the name of compromise and bipartisanship, of course.

[Tx4obama]

34. It is Republican John Boehner that wants to raise retirement age to 70, NOT Obama. n/t

[Tx4obama]

36. Why'd you jump threads? The other one get too hot for ya?

Guess if you can't stand the heat, ya get out of the kitchen, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x502567

[coti]

41. Yeah, that must be it. Of course, sharper people will notice

that I created this thread well before anyone responded to me in the other one.

Then I returned to it to redirect you here.

Any response, other than covering your eyes and playing like you can't see?

[BzaDem]

40. "Sweet, though no one except for him is talking about that."

Except Paul Ryan, his roadmap, everyone who supports his roadmap, the tea partiers about to be elected to the Senate, people like John Ensign in the Senate, Republicans out of office, etc.

Massive fail.

[coti]

43. No one who is taken seriously is talking about it. His commission isn't

talking about it.

In other words, that's not the issue we're dealing with. The issue we're dealing with is cutting Social Security benefits and/or raising the retirement age.

[BzaDem]

55. He is campaigning against Republicans, most of whom want to privatize Social Security.

You don't think it would be good to remind the voters that if Republicans take control of Congress this fall, it could eventually lead (after future elections) to privatizing Social Security?

[coti]

57. Yes, and, even more commonly, they want to cut benefits and raise the retirement age!

But, for some reason he doesn't mention that. You'd think he would, if he was against it. He only mentions "strengthening" Social Security.

What do you think he means by that?

[BzaDem]

59. He means ensuring that in 2037, when benefits are scheduled to be cut by 25%, they won't actually be

cut.

I also don't think it's true that it is more common for Republicans to propose to cut benefits and raise the retirement age than it is for them to propose privatization. After all, privatization was Bush's proposal. It's not like Republicans in Congress have all of a sudden changed positions. They are just waiting for a better moment politically to introduce it. And that is what Obama is (and should be) warning people about.

[coti]

60. How? By cutting benefits or raising the retirement age now? nt

[BzaDem]

61. I do not know what the commission would propose, or whether what they propose will be enacted.

Obama would personally like to simply raise the cap to cover the shortfall. It is doubtful he has the votes in Congress to do so, and if that doesn't happen benefits will be cut by 25%. So I don't know what the compromise will be (if there will even be one).

Whenever happens, doing nothing results in a 25% cut in the future, and any fix needs to be enacted well ahead of time (or the trust fund will still run out).

[coti]

62. You're saying he can't raise the cap, so he'll have to cut benefits and/or raise

the retirement age.

Well, at least you're honest. I'll give you props for that. Pretty much every other poster in this thread can't get past simple denial.

[BzaDem]

64. No. I'm saying he can't raise the cap, so therefore benefits will be cut WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ACTION.

Without 60 votes in the Senate for an ultimate package, benefits will be SLASHED in the future.

Does this mean he might agree that a slight benefit cut (equivalent to a slight retirement age increase with a retire-early option) in order to prevent the HUGE benefit cut in the future? Combined with a raising of the cap to cover some of the shortfall? Sure, it might mean that. It would depend on how slight the cut would be, how far off the slight cut would be implemented, how much of a tax increase he could get out of the Republicans to prevent the need for more of this in the future, and what else is in the package.

But you are being very misleading when you act as if Obama might cut benefits by choice. He isn't. Benefits will be cut AUTOMATICALLY without any further action.

[coti]

66. In 27 years. By the numbers showing now.

I understand your position.

You're saying that, yeah, he's going to cut Social Security benefits and/or raise the retirement age, but only because he doesn't have the votes to raise the cap, and only to hold off cuts in 27 years.

Is that a fair summary?

[BzaDem]

67. Let me try to provide the summary.

He created the commission to solve the entire deficit picture (which if it is not solved, the resulting draconian cuts would make any cuts you are talking about pale in comparison).

It later became apparent that there was no agreement to be had on the entire deficit picture. Eventually, it became clear that SS was the only area for which it was POSSIBLE that there might be an agreement. The differences on everything else were not reconcilable.

I don't even know if Obama would have created the commission in the first place had he known for sure its main objective would fail in advance.

Given that, I have no idea what Obama might do. So I will put it this way. It is POSSIBLE that he would sign into law a bill that would SLIGHTLY cut benefits or SLIGHTLY raise the retirement age YEARS into the future, in combination with raising the cap to cover the remainder of the shortfall. This would indeed be to make Social Security solvent in 27 years. After all, would you rather this be done by a Republican government closer to 2037, with the political cover of an impending 25% benefit cut if nothing were done?

It is also possible he won't sign what the commission produces (especially if most of the progressives vote no), partly because it does not even claim to fulfill the main objective (the reason he created the commission in the first place).

[eridani]

71. Obama would hand Democrats a major weapon if only

--he would firmly come out AGAINST cuts to Social Security. Why won't he?

[Tx4obama]

47. Republicans Joe Miller (AK) and Sharron Angle (NV) want to, BUT they are NOT Democrats! n/t

[Tx4obama]

48. Bottom line...

You have given us NO proof/citation of where Obama said he want to cut Social Security benefits and/or raise the retirement age.

[coti]

49. Of course he hasn't said it. He's leaving that to the commission he set up.

It leaves him a plausible denial to make, which you're taking advantage of.

When he signs the bill, though, it's gonna be really tough to keep denying it.

[Tx4obama]

51. What bill? There is no bill. A recommendation is NOT a bill.

Just like the 9/11 Commission made lots of recommendations and NOTHING came of it.

[coti]

52. There's no recommendation yet, either.

Clearly, you're missing the point.

Care to respond to any of my points in #9 and subsequent- or in my above post, for that matter- or are we going to continue with run-around?

[Tx4obama]

53. I am done with you. You have no proof, no citations, nothing. Ciao! n/t

[coti]

54. Like I said, see post #38.

Run, quick, before you have to offer up an explanation for the purpose of the commission.

[BzaDem]

63. He actually create the commission to solve the entire deficit problem, not just Social Security.

If no action is taken, benefits get slashed by 25% in 2037. Action needs to be taken well before then to ensure enough is in the trust fund throughout that period to avoid that cut.

BUT that is not even the whole picture, because Obama did NOT create the commission to just solve Social Security. He created the commission to solve the ENTIRE deficit problem (which if we do not solve now we will need to make draconian cuts in the future).

Now, it turns out that the commission isn't going to agree on the entire deficit problem, and that Social Security is becoming the last area of possible agreement. But if Obama knew that in advance, I don't think he would necessarily have created the commission.

[coti]

65. He knew very well what the commission would do, before even taking office.

In fact, this was his plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08obama.html?ref=politics

Early January, 2009:

"President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be 'a central part' of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs."

[BzaDem]

68. That is not at all surprising. Overhauling Medicare in particular is necessary, because

Medicare spending is growing at a rate of 3 times the rate of inflation (like all healthcare costs). That is obviously not sustainable to fund with tax increases, since you would have to have taxes rise 3 times faster than the incomes that are being taxed.

Of course, overhauling Medicare does not necessarily mean reducing people's benefits. It might mean reducing unnecessary spending that does not result in better healthcare, to bring our healthcare spending more in line with the rest of the world. This would likely mean price controls at the very least. It also means watching the results of the various parts of the Healthcare bill, many of which are structured to cut healthcare spending (bundling care, the Medicare commission to identify wasteful spending on procedures/drugs/etc that don't work, etc.)

As for Social Security, that of course needs to be changed to prevent the giant benefit cut. Obama thought it would be better to do it in an environment where he is the President and we have control of Congress, than it would be to let the Republicans do it in the distant future (with the political cover of the impending 25% benefit cut). This also is not at all surprising.

[whistler162]

74. It is the same bill that makes Martians overlords of the US!

[coti]

77. You shouldn't use irony when you're going to end up being proven wrong.

It takes away from its effectiveness as a tool, and is actually really sad.

The old "Wow- this person really THINKS they're smart" kind of pity.

[chill_wind]

56. It's not on the bargaining table and he knows that.

Dean Baker is right about what Obama's doing here.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/social-security-republicans-are-right

[coti]

58. Good post. nt

[ipaint]

75. Spot on.

Arranging for the commission to present their recommendations until after the elections is cynical, anti-democratic and takes a page right out of the right wing playbook. Unforgivable.

[Stellar]

76. I for damn sure won't sit home and let the party of NO take over!

There have been things I didn't care for that happened in the last 20 months. But I will VOTE for the Democrats in November instead of the party of NO and the MSM that have offered the people of this country NOTHING!