Washington Post: Obama won't endorse raising retirement age or reducing Social Security benefits

[impik]

President Obama has decided not to endorse his deficit commission's recommendation to raise the retirement age, and otherwise reduce Social Security benefits, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, cheering liberals and drawing a stark line between the White House and key Republicans in Congress.

Over the weekend, the White House informed Democratic lawmakers and advocates for seniors that Obama will emphasize the need to reduce record deficits in the speech, but that he will not call for reducing spending on Social Security - the single largest federal program - as part of that effort.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012403472.html?hpid=topnews

Can we stop the baseless madness?

[tabatha]

1. exactly

[fugop]

2. But ... but ... but ....

I thought he was going to ... never mind. Again. Next outrage?

[polmaven]

10. Yeah! Me too!

I mean...FDL said so! Gee! Could they have been wrong? Imagine that!

Oh...just in case! :sarcasm:

[Bragi]

3. Yessss! /nt

[damntexdem]

4. Good. Now we'll see whether he sticks to his guns.

And SS does not, and never has, contributed to a deficit.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

93. It is projected too

when income passes payout, as has been the trend, then the payback of all the money they have taken out of the system will begin. This will hit the general budget. None the less, its pretty safe to assume he will stick to his statement as any assertion that he took the opposite position was purely speculation.

[Andy823]

5. Impossible!

There were "SO MANY" here who were trashing him because he "WAS" going to get rid of SS and medicare, how could they have possibly been so wrong? :sarcasm:

I will be seeing them "apologize" soon, right? :shrug:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

6. Expect many flying pigs in your future.

:D

[impik]

7. No. You'll be seeing them saying:

"WE MADE HIM DO IT BECAUSE WE HELD HIS FEET ON FIREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".

[Starbucks Anarchist]

9. Which is ironic.

Because the same people say Obama doesn't listen to or acknowledge liberals, then they'll claim they scared him into backing down.

:rofl:

[impik]

That's because he is so SCARED of them.

[Jakes Progress]

71. Yes we did. You're welcome.

What did you do to make sure that SS wasn't going to be attacked?

For that matter, the OP only mentions that the president won't call for cuts in the SOTU message. There is nothing there to indicate that he won't (again) cave to republican pressure.

I think I'll just keep those embers stoked. You don't mind of some of us exercise our free speech rights, do you?

[stevenleser]

84. Bwahahahahaha! Hooohaaaahaahahahaha! Oh this is rich! Oh yes, its all due to you!

:rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

88. Not just me. Many real Democrats

also helped.

Again. You're welcome. Your group would sort of be like the scabs who breaks union lines and then takes the raise that the unions sacrifices brought. You will still get the SS that you couldn't be bothered to fight for.

[mkultra]

94. or..We will WATCH him now to make sure he actually does it.

what a laugh these fools are.

[AtomicKitten]

11. FDL strikes out again. nt

[OKNancy]

12. LOL - I need to go get that bookmark

so I can say "I told you so"

ETA: and here it is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8861981#8863225

[SidDithers]

38. What a great fucking thread!...

All the chortling "progressives" so sure that Obama was going to carve up SS. The assurances the Pelosi was going to sneak the deficit commission recommendations through during the lame-duck session.

Priceless. Thanks for bookmarking it.

Sid

[DrDan]

13. ahhhh - "has decided . . . " - so we were not off base in our assessment - it was on the table

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Exactly

Reading the article....it appears this was a recent decision.

[DrDan]

18. and not only that - those recommendations remain under consideratoin

"Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either."

[Enrique]

19. still on the table

for next year, or for Obama's second term, or for the next president, Democratic or Republican. Social Security will be under attack forever.

[dionysus]

21. yes, that crafty obama is just biding his time, waiting to destroy us all!1!11!

:eyes:

[Enrique]

22. or the next president, or the one after that

I don't care who it is, I just want to make sure we keep the program, for my retirement and future generations.

[impik]

29. Yea, whatever makes you feel better

[DrDan]

31. did you read the article? He has not rejected the commission's recommendations.

[impik]

35. Did you even read the commissions final report?

Read it, see how many good ideas are in there that has nothing to do with SS - then come back and maybe we can have a serious discussion.

[DrDan]

47. there must be something he feels is worthy of discussion - you did read this part, right?

"Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either."

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[HeroTwins]

49. you were completely off-base. He didn't agree with the commissions finding.

He never agreed with the commission's findings.

You were wrong all along. Sorry.

[DrDan]

51. and he didn't disagree . . . .

completely off base, huh? He has yet to rule out the suggestions.

[HeroTwins]

52. what part of "not going to enact the commission's findings" do you not get?

[DrDan]

65. what part of "he is unlikely to rule them off the table" do you not get

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

95. yes, before people look at all the facts, they usually say that

even if they know what they are going to decide anyway, sometimes doing a full review is valuable. At the very least, it creates the impression of bipartisanship.

[Vinca]

14. One of the very sad parts about the healthcare fiasco is . . .

I have lost my trust in what Mr. Obama says. I'll reserve judgement until the final outcome.

[kath]

15. Yeah, and he won't sign a bill that doesn't include a public option.

[Teaser]

24. He never said he wouldn't sign a bill without public option.

.

[kath]

53. Okay, so those weren't his *exact* words- he said"Any plan I sign must include an insurance

exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php

pretty much the same damned thing - excuse me for not looking up the exact quote.

We got sold down the river on that one; we got sold a bill of goods when we were tricked into voting for "Candidate Obama" and ended up with the very different "President Obama".

[Teaser]

59. ha, fail. You intentionally cut out that part that undercuts you.

"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."

Read this carefully. all it says that it must include an insurance exchange, which it does.

What it then goes on to define this as a "one stop shopping marketplace" where you can do a variety of things. One of the things you can do is compare the price of a public option to other plans. That's what the second "including" means.

And you know what? You still can use the insurance exchange for just that purpose, if a public option is added.

Now this wording was intentionally designed to snow people who fail to read carefully. But another's lack of perceptiveness is not my problem.

I reiterate. The only veto thread implicit here is over the presence of an insurance exchanged.

GAME.SET.MATCH.PWNED.

[kath]

75. Wow. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? "GAME.SET.MATCH.PWNED." -WTF??

[Hello_Kitty]

81. Oh FFS.

That is some serious rhetorical gymnastics there.

[Dawgs]

90. OMGod!! I can't believe you actually wrote that.

You are actually expecting us to believe your definitions of MUST and INCLUDING.

That's just sad.

[bluestateguy]

16. Watch as his LW critics give all of the credit to themselves and NONE to the president

Just watch...

[rfranklin]

26. I think most are willing to give him credit...if he makes a statement...

without no qualifying phrases.

[HeroTwins]

50. those heroes scared him away from SS, you betcha!

[Jakes Progress]

64. You're welcome.

I did my best. I'm glad he will at least put off his cave until after the SOTU.

[dionysus]

20. JANE, SAVE ME!! *swoon* THUD

[Teaser]

23. This is NOT the KIND OF CHANGE I VOTED for!!11!!!

.

[kirby]

25. It was also reported he would not sign a bill without a Public Option...

Words mean nothing...

[Teaser]

45. quotes or it didn't happen

or better yet: quote or you're lying.

[kath]

54. I posted the exact quote above, post #54.

[Teaser]

61. no you didn't post the exact quote

you left out the part that undercuts you completely.

"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."

The full reply is above.

[Thrill]

27. Of course. Only a fool would think he would cut what the Democratic Party stands for

The guy cares about his legacy.

[DrDan]

30. better read that article - it refers to not endorsing anything in the Tues speech

nothing is off the table, according to the article

[JoePhilly]

33. The breathless speculation has been that he will announce cuts ...

during the SOTU ... if he does not announce any during the SOTU, the hyperventilation about it for the last 3 weeks, and the repeated predictions of same from Huffpo and FDL will have been proven wrong.

[DrDan]

42. apparently just decided not to . . . so something was the table for the SOTU

[JoePhilly]

56. Yes, and maybe he planned to end it entirely!!!!

That must be it.

The fact is that he had no plan to cut anything.

He has continued to say that "all options are on the table" because that is the standard for "no comment" in Washington. He uses that phrase so that those are are debating the various approaches to tackle the deficit can come at the issue from what every angle they want. That doesn't mean that he intends to do anything they recommend, one way or the other.

Except here on DU, maybe at Huffpo, FDL ... in these places, Obama's non-statements reflect his explicit plans to kill Social Security.

Much like the claims about his plan to block the repeal of DADT ... predicted over and over, speculation on speculation, with each breathe moving closer and closer to hyper-ventilation.

And when it doesn't happen. Those who were wrong will simply move on to the next topic of speculation based false outrage.

[DrDan]

63. "no plan to cut anything" - link please

[Thrill]

57. Doesn't mean cutting SS was

[Jakes Progress]

28. Thanks to the "crazy ass progressives"

and such at places like DU, the administration got the message.

Don't for a minute think that they don't listen, that they don't "leak" trial statements for what they want to try. The "unofficial" leaks got out and the administration got an earful of what the reaction would be so they trimmed their sails. That is how it happens in Washington.

A big thank you to all the CAP's out there who called, emailed, and plain old griped online. You did it.

[impik]

36. Yea, sure. You made him do it!!!

Did Keith Olbermann is running to congress yet?

[stevenleser]

43. Yes, and Howard Dean is primarying Obama with Lee Mercer as his running mate!

ROFLMAO

:rofl:

:pals:

[Jakes Progress]

58. Why do you bother to post

if you don't think it makes a difference. Now that would be so sad.

[mkultra]

96. THEY DID IT, GOOD JOB DEBBIE DOWNERS

You were wrong and now you can spin it like a victory.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Jakes Progress]

60. If it's not believable,

why do you bother to post. Why would you bother to come here and cheer the president and try to argue a point if it made no difference. The argument that the administration is only trying out trial balloons has beed advanced by its defenders on more than one occasion to excuse non-progressive talk.

Now. If you don't believe that politicians try out positions they are considering by "leaking" and then decide what to do based on the furor or lack of same, that would be unbelievable.

[stevenleser]

67. The why is not the issue. The fact that you are wrong and the President didnt do what you thought

and complained about IS the issue.

[Jakes Progress]

74. So why never matters to you?

Or can you just not defend your actions so you deflect?

The issue is a president with a history of moving steadily right. The issue is whether people can influence the administration by writing, phoning, and posting. As for posting, you are making the argument that all the protest by the left wing had no effect on the president. But somehow, the centrist views thrown up here encourage the DLC to keep moving right.

You go ahead. I'll keep arguing for a left leaning agenda.

And just how was I wrong? How do you know that the "leaks" weren't accurate? How do you know that the loud protests didn't have a positive effect? May have. May not. I would rather err on the side of progressivism than sit on my hands and wish I hadn't. But then I voted for Obama because I wanted him to do progressive things, not because he was hot or cool or dreamy.

[stevenleser]

85. Again. You are wrong. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

89. Tiresome, but here goes.

Again. You are wrong.

See. I have history and past behavior to base my opinion on. You post based on blind faith. I'm glad that faith has you voting Democratic, but it is the same kind of faith that put bush in office 8 years. Thinking is better.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

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

[SidDithers]

34. Cue the "Our outrage made him change his mind!!"...nt

Sid

[impik]

37. You're late. Check out one post above.

[SidDithers]

39. Story of my life...

Always a day late and a dollar short :)

Sid

[JoePhilly]

40. Why didn't he NOT CUT Social Security SOONER???

He wasted all this time by not cutting social security before now. He could have not cut it at anytime in the last 2 years, but no, he waits until now to not cut social security.

:sarcasm:

[kestrel91316]

44. He won't "endorse" it, of course, but I fully expect him to cave to the repukes'

demands for it. Because, you know, we have to be bipartisan, and that means letting the other party always have their way, so everyone will know how nice we are.

[great white snark]

72. Of course you do.

Oy

[Rosa Luxemburg]

77. The Democratic Party supports social security and will defend it

[HeroTwins]

48. Stop the Insanity!!!

;)

[johnaries]

55. WTF? You mean Jane Hamsher was WRONG?!?!?!??

:wow:

:rofl:

[stevenleser]

62. Yeah, Shocker isnt it?

Makes me want to head to Firebaglake to see how they handle this.

[johnaries]

68. I'm guessing they're heading to that big river in Egypt.

But I have faith they'll be able to spin it their way. The firebaggers have gotten really good at imitating Rove.

[stevenleser]

69. I just checked, there is no mention of this yet. Quelle Surprise n/t

[hootinholler]

66. We shall see if he mentions SS at all then.

If anything I think he should explain how he will deal with a house willing to take hostages.

He should commit to increasing SS.

My prediction is he won't mention SS other than trivially, thus leaving wiggle room when the house takes SS hostage over the debt ceiling.

Not endorsing the commission's report isn't quite the same as committing to its preservation.

-Hoot

[Bryan]

76. That's right, parse it down to the atomic level

No matter how clear Obama tries to be, some people will insist he's hedging. He hasn't categorically ruled out nuking Australia into a heap of molten glass, either, should we have several weeks of disasterbation about that?

[hootinholler]

79. What part am I parsing?

Do you think the republican's weeping boner won't take SS hostage when the debt ceiling issue comes up?

I was saying I hope he (POTUS) would be clear and direct. I hope he issues a warning: Hands off SS.

An anonymous staffer talking through the WaPo, isn't exactly trying to be clear.

Nice straw man, an Aussie at that! Kudos for originality.

-Hoot

[Bryan]

82. Here's what I mean by parsing...

If I've not misread you, you seem to be suggesting that Obama might be piecing off the Dem leadership with a mild gesture so they don't wise up to his cunning plan to knuckle under when Boehner chains himself to the U.S. Grant Memorial over raising the debt ceiling, which strikes me as a whopping presumption of bad faith.

Is Obama's willingness to undermine Social Security so great that he's thinks he's better off kneecapping his own party and selling it later? He seems to prefer to let Congress fight them out amongst themselves until there is an impasse that demands his close attention and then he's willing to freeze them out in a compromise a la the expiring tax cuts, but to assume that he'd set up the Dem leadership like that pre-emptively-isn't it just possible that he actually doesn't want to touch Social Security, and isn't just feinting for appearances?

[hootinholler]

83. WTF?

Dude All I'm saying is I want the President to come out strong for SS. My lack of faith that he will is based in the last two years. It was also possible at the time, that he really wanted a public option too, and promptly kneecapped his negotiating position.

I'm going to attribute the rest of what you said to a serious misread. The Grant memorial? Really?

-Hoot

[woo me with science]

91. It's important that he defend it strongly,

especially given all the recent conflict in the press regarding his intentions.

The administration is aware of that, so if he doesn't make a strong defense, it will be a very bad sign.

[Robbins]

70. Told You

I keep saying Obama was unlikely to make cuts to SS.He didn't get where he Is by being dumb.

[great white snark]

73. Well no shit.

Question is, will anyone admit that they were wrong?

[killbotfactory]

78. Lies! All Lies!

We know he will stab us in the back because that's what always happens every time, except when he doesn't.

[Politicub]

80. Great news :)

Still happy Obama is my president.

[w4rma]

86. But will he oppose them? This is weak. (nt)

[mkultra]

97. you are weak (nt)

[mkultra]

92. "drawing a stark line between the White House and key Republicans in Congress"

This was essentially the reason he waited to publicly announce his position imho.

[woo me with science]

98. But will he TAKE THESE THINGS OFF THE TABLE?

So what if he does not ENDORSE them. Will he VOW to keep them off the table?

That is the question we need to be asking.

[dflprincess]

99. +1000

[Doctor_J]

100. Is he going to ENDORSE NOT raising the age

or reducing benefits?

There is a big difference. My version requires LEADERSHIP on the issue