Rather than dancing with those that "brung" him, Obama eyes making a deal with the Devil

[Samantha]

Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:19 PM - Edit history (3)

If one wants to go with the theory President Obama's budget containing the Chained CPI to Social Security is a bluff, that type of bluff is a fatally flawed maneuver. A Democratic President who even gives the appearance of being willing to implement the equivalent of a Social Security cut permanently scars the Democratic party's image and reputation to protect the planks of the New Deal.

If one wants to go with the theory President Obama used as bait a cut in Social Security to lure Republicans in exchange to agree to revenue increases, that is a catastrophic maneuver. Social Security in an integral part of the Democratic party's platform, and to use bits and pieces of it as chips with which to bargain for other lesser important things is both stupid and callous.

Either way, genuine offer or not so genuine offer, it hands the Republicans a tool with which to batter Democrats in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

Many Americans are aware that the deficit has already started to drop from 10% of GDP in 2008, down to 7%, and we have heard economists say before this debate started it was on the way to 5% if everything continued on schedule the way it had been going. Nevertheless, Social Security cuts should not be used to reduce the deficit because a huge portion of that deficit, at least 10.5 Trillion Dollars plus interest, was accrued by George W. Bush* in fighting two wars and implementing Medicare Part D (read gift to the pharmaceutical companies). He kept that amount off the general ledger so the public would not know the degree to which it was accruing. Think Enron-type accounting.

When President Obama came into office, he announced about 3 months later he was moving that amount onto the general ledger so everyone would know immediately where things stood. With that statement, this Country moved out of an era in which we heard Dick Cheney say "Deficits don't matter" into an era where President Obama was chronically bashed for (a) not working hard enough to reduce the deficit; and (b) spending too much money. It was all Obama's fault.

The end result of all that is that essentially we are being asked to compromise a part of our future Social Security COLA increases in order to effectively pay for the Bush wars and Medicare Part D. How outrageous is that? The truth of the matter is that is makes me LIVID to think anyone would try some economic hocus-pocus to divert a portion of Social Security benefits to pay for Bush's war of choice.

But putting all of the above aside, it is a betrayal to President Obama's base either way. His reputation with those that truly put him in the Oval Office is forever damaged. That is the consequence of rather than dancing with those that "brung" him preferring instead to deal with the Devil.

Regardless of how this budget battle ends, President Obama will never regain tomorrow that which he had from us yesterday. And that is tragic for all of us.

Just my opinion.

Sam

[forestpath]

1. Well said and I share your opinion.

[Samantha]

4. Last night, Chris Hayes said there was not the same public opposition shown to this issue

as to the turnout for Immigration and Gun Reform (paraphrasing). I don't think that is necessarily true. What is true is that the bargaining for gun law changes and reform for immigration has been brought to the forefront conveniently at the same time this budget was announced. Consequently, most of the news coverage is on those issues while this debate sinks to the back burner -- the very back. I am not so sure this is a coincidence that these three issues emerged to public debate at the same time. I believe it was a nuanced scheduled maneuver to keep the debate on this issue to a minimum. Hey, look over there! Cynical me.

So I thought I would do my part to express my outrage with the hopes that many here might join me.

Sam

[forestpath]

6. Very disingenous of him. Polls show overwhelming opposition even though SS cuts have not

received the same kind of news coverage that guns and immigration issues have.

[Samantha]

11. It is staggering, isn't it

Something like 70 percent or more of the population does not want Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid cuts, including Democrats and Republicans. It appears that what the 1 percent wants is extremely more important.

Sam

[pscot]

61. Multi dimensional chess

with back spin.

[Samantha]

63. Of course - why didn't I think of that?

Thanks for posting on my thread. We need a little humor here from time to time.

Sam

[Newest Reality]

76. Intergalactic GO`

with spooky action at a distance.

[sabrina 1]

77. Yes, it is disingenuous of him. But we have to remember that no one who goes against the

status quo will remain on the air for long. I don't watch any US tv anymore not even my former favorite shows. It's more than obvious that if someone gets too 'out of hand' with telling the truth, a little is acceptable, they will be gone pretty fast.

Hayes probably figures he can do some good, but I'm sure he also knows not to rock the boat too much.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

23. He knows who butters his bread.

MSNBC has turned into the DNC.

[snappyturtle]

52. Larry O'Donnell went out of his way last night to point

out how other Democratic presidents altered SS....so that
we should quit saying that the President is the only Dem
president to try to do so. L.D. promised more segments
on this subject for future shows.

[Samantha]

53. I don't think I have seen many DU'ers say President Obama is the only Democratic President

to reform Social Security. I may be wrong because I obviously have not read every post. We have discussed at length Reagan's (I know, a Republican) reform, using the changes he made to buttress our argument against the Chained CPI. What I believe many people here say is that is political suicide for a Democratic president to trade a slice of the program as part of a Grand Bargain. What President Obama says publicly is that he would move to the Chained CPI in exchange for increased revenues.

The truth of the matter is that he should not have offered that trade. Increased revenue by means of repealing the tax subsidies to large corporations, repealing the tax subsidy to companies that outsource jobs, pursuing wealthy individuals who use tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes -- all of the outrageous inequities we have discussed here at DU at length -- should not be acquired because of a bribe, that bribe being compromising the COLA increases of the poor, veterans, the disabled, government employees as well as simply those who paid into the program the prerequisite number of years.

What does that say about our Government that we have to bribe other politicians to do the right thing? Especially when promoters of this policy constantly do so under the umbrella of a "Fair and Balanced" mantra? It is ludicrous, really. What is Fair and Balanced about taking from the poor and other groups enumerated above to bribe one's opposing political party to do the right thing?

On another note, I watched Lawrence O'Donnell's presentation and thought it was very interesting. He is a socialist, I believe, and it is difficult for me to think he would personally approve in principle this maneuver. However, he did work on the Hill for years, and I am sure nothing surprises him any more.

And yes, Jimmy Carter, a Democratic President, did alter Social Security but as a necessity of the times not in the context of a Grand Bargain. Jimmy Carter had "stagnation" to deal with, high unemployment (17%) and rising prices. Officially we are told inflation is low, so one cannot argue President Obama is dealing with stagnation. So there was little outrage when Carter made his reform because many in the party knew the circumstances.

Sam

[snappyturtle]

60. Thanks Samantha for your thoughtful reply. I guess I've caught remarks

that the President is the first one to want to change SS...but

I'm interested in what O'Donell has to say in future segments.
I don't agree woth the bribe method either but that seems to
be what's going on. Again, thank you.

[Samantha]

62. I purposely waited for awhile to respond to you because I knew you were sincere

I voted for President Obama both times and I do not regret it. I have written many flattering things about him here. But I have been a political junkie since I was 8 years old (not exactly yesterday) but it was not until I was in my 40s that I realized, contrary to that axiom "there's nothing you can do" there IS something we can all do when our government upsets us. We stand up and make our views known. Do whatever it takes. Calling. Petitioning. The occasional picketing. Speak out on The Washington Journal.

So President Obama himself said to the crowd the night of election 2008 in his speech in Chicago, "I have gotten so much more from you than you will from me" (paraphasing). I thought then he knew there would be good times and bad which of course happens to every President. I also think by our being so vocal that there is a chance someone will hear us. Someone will pay attention. If it is just the staff of legislators reading comments on websites, some of what we say will break through -- unless of course we don't say it.

A little constructive criticism is good for us all, right?

See you around and thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[snappyturtle]

65. I don't regret voting for the President twice either...far from it.

I think the night the President was elected and I was watching the
events at Grant Park I drifted into sleep the best I had had in 8 years!
THAT's how comfortable I was with him at the helm.

However, I do think there is "something" that over takes all presidents
that keeps them from fulfilling their pre=election promises. I think if we
could have a few honest moments, heart to heart, with the President he
would tell us he's doing the best he can for us....under the circumstances.
I will give him that but will not keep pushing for more. For more is what
we need after decades of neglect from the highest office in the land.
imho

Certainly, yes, I will see you around and rest assured I don't write insincerely.

[Samantha]

64. That is becoming more and more obvious every single day

And historically, the two commentators who would have come out roaring over this, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz, are so to speak benched. True, Ed will return on Saturdays - but not in prime time, and he is not there now when this is breaking. How convenient is that?

Remember that Keith Olbermann said he wanted to leave MSNBC before the NBC/Comcast merger was finalized because he felt pretty sure he would be muzzled. I feel pretty sure he was correct in thinking that.

Sam

[UnrepentantLiberal]

71. It's sounds almost comical...

AOL-Time-Warner-CNN

Microsoft-NBC-GE-Comcast

Gee, no conflict of interest there.

[Jackpine Radical]

42. Absolutely. Gun control & immigration reform are distractors.

I've been getting a stream of emails about both from the White House & usual suspects, all of them failing to mention CCPI (Chained Catfood Price Index). Classic misdirection from the Propaganda 101 Manual.

The Rich don't give a shit about certain "liberal" issues like abortion, and actually favor certain others, like gun control & immigration reform. They don't want an armed peasantry, and they want cheap labor.

So Obama is pushing the "liberal" causes that he shares with his masters while trying to quietly slip the really bad stuff past us/

And let me say that your analysis is dead-on. (I know that because I agree with it in its entirety. )

[Samantha]

45. I posted that somewhere here on DU that I do not think this is a coincidence these 3 issues

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

fired up at the same time. I think the White House PR people knew the vote on the gun laws and the immigration issues would eclipse the outcry over this chained CPI debacle. LOOK OVER THERE. LOOK OVER THERE.

And I listened closely on Tuesday to MSNBC and heard only two short mentions of President Obama's budget. I became disgusted and decided to post as much here as I could because I have learned from past experience that when the Internet starts focusing on issues to a great extent while the media tries to skip away, eventually they do their jobs. And that is exactly why I ask others to join me in expressing their outrage.

And please don't agree in entirety with me here at DU -- it throws me off my game. On the other hand, I too agree with your post in its entirety. Since today is Friday, probably at 5:30 we will hear an agreement has been reached and then ... nothing.

Welcome to my thread, Jackpine Radical.

Sam

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Absolutely right.

It is a damned shame, to be sure.

I am really pissed off as well.

[Samantha]

5. Thank you - I braced myself when I hit "Post" for a lot of flaming

I decided if those arrive, I will respond only "Thank you for posting to my thread!"

I just had to get this out. It is all so outrageous. Republicans run up a huge deficit on the QT. Blame Obama. Then demand cuts in "entitlements" to offset it." Some kind of hubris there, right?

Sam

[dgibby]

8. No flaming from me.

I agree 100%.

[Jackpine Radical]

43. I think the Sensible Ones, the Large Conifers, Crackers for Whatever, and the lot are worn down

from all the exercise they got kicking my butt around the past couple of days for saying the same things you're saying, so maybe they just don't have the energy to give you the stompin' I'm sure they think you richly deserve.

[Samantha]

44. Maybe they know me pretty well - been around since 2001

Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I arrived here mad at the Democrats for not backing up Al Gore during the Election 2000 debacle, and I kept saying, "Where were they, where were they?" all the time beating up on the DLC for being MIA during this controversy. Talk about getting flamed, getting beat up -- this went on for some time but I learned how to deal with it. Never, never mess with a short red-haired woman from the South, that is all I can say.

Welcome to my thread, and feel free to say what you think here.

Sam

[MotherPetrie]

3. K&R

[treestar]

7. there are many good things in the budget

Universal Pre-K care, closing tax loopholes for the rich and many others, yet there are no threads on these.

[dgibby]

9. Then perhaps you should start one. n/t

[Samantha]

10. Those issues are not connected to Social Security

They run on different financial tracks.

There is no controversy with Universal Pre-K - probably everyone thinks that is a great idea. But the closing of the tax loopholes for the rich -- as well as corporations that avoid paying taxes -- is a subject that has literally been beat to death here for years. I think it is just understood most DU'ers definitely think those are wrongs which should be corrected.

So maybe this is a partial explanation to your comments.

Sam

[treestar]

16. There is no controversy?

Maybe not here, but those things make Republicans upset. No one is in a position to get only what they want. That is politics. We have opposition.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

30. +100

[sabrina 1]

50. Why is that relevant? Apparently the President knew that the GOP would not accept any budget

from him. Knowing that why not make it a truly Progressive Budget, putting in to it all the issues that we know are good for the country?

It makes zero sense to say, otoh, 'don't worry, he knows they will vote against any budget he proposes' and try to defend, given that scenario, trying to convince them to vote for something he already knows they will not, by giving them what Carney says, the 'asked for'.

Do you realize why people are angry? Not just because of the proposal itself, but because of the lack of logic being presented to try to defend it.

SS had nothing to do with the deficit. By including it, knowing they would reject anything he proposed, he perpetuated the Republican lie that SS in some contributed to the deficit. THAT is what is so damaging. Cutting benefits will do nothing for the deficit, it will have the opposite effect if anything.

It's too bad to see anyone trying to excuse this instead of acknowledging it was a disastrous move and trying to fix it in some way.

[Samantha]

56. Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits, food stamps

all of these things stimulate the economy, and these are the very things the Republicans want to cut. Personally, I think we should repeatedly ask them why they are deliberately voting against items both parties have historically almost automatically implemented during an economic downturn. It does appear certain politicians within the Republican party are deliberately trying to crash the economy ... oh, but wait, "starve the beast" ... forgot myself for a moment.

Sam

[maddiemom]

68. Just too simple and obvious!

These benefits and "entitlements" are plowed right back into the economy in general, not offshore collecting interest and avoiding U.S. taxes. Medicare is deducted from Social Security unless SS is at a paltry enough level to qualify for "Medicaid." At least this "welfare" keeps circulating.

[duffyduff]

79. Some simply don't understand what Obama is truly about.

He WANTS to severely damage or kill the New Deal and the Great Society programs so as to earn himself a place in the history books as a transformative "leader."

Just like somebody else he apparently admired when he was interviewed on the campaign trail pre-Nevada caucus:

[JVS]

12. Actually, he's pitching deals to the Devil.

[Samantha]

13. That is true, but I dove for the alliteration to attract attention

to my thread title.

Sam

[KoKo]

14. Agree...there's no way this isn't going to hurt the Dem Party...

going forward. Why he would do this is still the question. Why now? He just won a second term...but so far it seems everything he's doing is causing angst because not only his appointments but his policies are questionable. Keystone Pipeline is coming up. I shudder to think about it... Wall Street and Monsanto are happy with him, the Drone manufacturers love him....and the War Machine and Gitmo keep on going.

I don't know.... it's beyond belief that after 8 years of Bush...this is what we have to deal with?

[Samantha]

15. It is stunning to dissect

I might be wrong to say this but at this point I do believe President Obama sees his future as the type of life Former President Clinton now leads. In that connection, he needs when he leaves office to have a high poll number with them (the VIPs) rather than us. That is what leads to the $100,000 per plate speeches. I don't see him as the type of person to sit around and do nothing when he leaves office, so I think he is preparing for his future.

But I also do not see him as a man that would deliberately do something extremely cunningly in a way that would deliberately hurt many poor and/or struggling middle class people (as well as the disabled and veterans). I think because of the advice he was given, he underestimated the outrage that would ensue. But what do I know??

I would like to think it was just a huge mistake, but again, what do I know ....

Sam

[KoKo]

22. As I've thought more about it..Why do the Trial Balloon on this

last Thursday? Was it meant to stir us to action before he announced his Budget Proposals yesterday? Almost a week later?

And what about the "McClatchey News Investigation" that broke over the weekend that showed "Improper Use of Drones to Target" people not on a US Terrorist List and the deal made with Pakistan to kill someone they thought a Terrorist so that US could gain airspace to use Pakistan?

Is there more to this that we don't know? I'm always suspicious of Trial Balloons by Presidents when there's something going on with WAR in the background. I'm a Vietnam era Dem Voter....so that's why. The history is ....there's always something being "covered up" no matter whether it's a Dem or Repug President.

Whatever the background on this...either Obama has terrible advisers on leaking a Trial Balloon that causes angst to so many 65 and olders and those approaching 65..hanging on without jobs since the economic downturn who are hoping to access their Retirement Savings from SS that they paid for all these years who now are distreesed. Or, there was something ELSE that was a danger to Obama that the Trial Baloon helped to cover up ...like the McClatchy News about Obama's Drone Policy being worse than we knew about.

That's what I'm thinking about...because it really is shocking that he would have gotten re-elected against Romney over not touching SS...but right after election he goes after the "Chained CPI" as a proposal...and here it is now.

Whatever. He's a puzzle. We get bits and pieces, but a picture is starting to form. We shall see, I guess.

[Samantha]

31. The more you think about it, the more murkier it becomes

I believe a large part of the problem is the Fix the Debt cast of characters. Bowles is a co-founder. I believe Simpson is also a part of this group, but I am not going to take the time to double-check that now. Look at this:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/john-nichols-fix-debt-run-lot-billionaires

Here are a few interesting paragraphs:

"Key to the strategy is ginning up a crisis. In lockstep, the CEOs, politicians, and partner organizations stormed the media last fall warning of the looming disaster of the so-called “fiscal cliff.” Breaching the fiscal cliff “will lead to chaos,” warned Erskine Bowles; “derail the fragile recovery,” said Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein; generate a "shock to the financial markets and a painful return to the recession,” said the CEO of Morgan Stanley.

But this chorus of calamity was pure hype. One Fix the Debt steering committee member, former Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen, let slip that the strategy was to create an “artificial crisis” that would force Congress to act.

Their goal is to achieve a Simpson-Bowles style “grand bargain” on an austerity agenda for the United States by the nation’s 237th birthday on July 4, 2013. [...]

Many Fix the Debt firms pay a very low or even a negative average tax rate, contributing to the nation's deficit. Fix the Debt is secretly pushing for a major tax break that would exempt profits earned overseas by U.S. firms from taxation and encourage the offshoring of U.S. jobs. While the Fix the Debt CEOs call for cuts to Social Security, many of the publicly-traded Fix the Debt firms underfund their employee pension plans -- making their workers even more dependent on the popular social insurance plan that American workers pay into with each paycheck." (emphasis supplied)

A lot of this sounds familiar, doesn't it? Nichols says it is funded by billionaires who want lower taxes. I guess that is why Social Security needs to be cut -- so they can pay less....

Sam

[KoKo]

33. Thanks for that link.......it's very interesting...

and given the Wall Street Give Aways and crookery which has not been prosecuted..would seem possible...Check this out..it's the Bowles connection and more.. goes back...It seems in ways to go along with your link continuing further. The connection with Bowles and others that still seem to be in the "background" of this administration. Bowles is very tied in to the Bankers..and you'll see from the link ..others. It's a path and pattern that seems to still be going on. Could link together.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022644754

[Samantha]

34. I missed that thread but it is very interesting

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 10:53 PM - Edit history (2)

The only thing I can say is that I regard any comments made by Gingrich in retrospect is suspect! I do believe that President Clinton has a lot of influence on President Obama. It seems logical to me that reading your link and looking at how things have played out, it does suggest some Clinton fingerprints. I had checked up on Bowles a few years ago and found the Clinton connection and wondered if Clinton had suggested to Obama Bowles would be a great choice for an "independent" commission to form recommendations.

I do agree with you totally ... looks like a pattern.

Also wanted to let you know Lawrence O'Donnell had an excellent segment this evening on the history of Social Security. He mentioned that a Democratic President had reformed Social Security in prior times -- Jimmy Carter did. Here is a link to an interesting article along with a quoted Editor's Note:

http://socialsecurityperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/05/president-8-jimmy-carter-1977-1981.html

"Editor's Note

President Carter faced one of the most difficult scenarios in recent American history in stagflation, or the combination of high-unemployment and high inflation that had no historical precedent before the 1970s. His efforts to reform Social Security were constrained by these massive, short-term shocks, that proved that the system as it was was not invulnerable to economic conditions. In many ways, this period demonstrated that larger-scale reform would be required to increase Social Security solvency in light of not only the long-term population shift, but also the possiblity of economic fluctuations."

Sam

PS That term "stagflation" is very suggestive. We do have high unemployment now, and while some say inflation is low, it is not low in areas not computed in the current CPI. These areas are areas of high senior spending such as health care and other volatile areas such as the cost of food and energy. We need to give some thought as to whether or not seniors are caught up in "stagflation" and truly do need that CPI-E.

[KoKo]

38. On the "Fix the Debt" Source Watch Link....

An amazing set of characters... This one stands out. Check out how he is a crook who got off. Buddy of Michael Bloomberg and he's all over the Financial Business shows. Yet he got "kickbacks" from NY State Pension funds and all he had to do was "settle." He's also on the Board of New America Foundation...a left of Center think tank. Shouldn't he have been kicked off that Board?

Steve Rattner (is a Democrat and very close to Obama--he his "Car Bailout Czar&quot
Steven Rattner
Rattner.jpg

Steven Rattner is on Fix the Debt's steering committee.[2] He is a former investment banker for two decades at Lehman Brothers, Lazard Freres and Morgan Stanley. Rattner was the Treasury Department's point man on the 2009 bailout of the auto industry by the Obama administration. He is on the board of the New America Foundation, the Pete Peterson-funded parent organization of Fix the Debt and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).

Rattner is also chairman of Willett Advisors LLC, the investment arm for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $25 billion in assets.[149] In 2010, Rattner reached a deal with the Securities and Exchange Commission in which he was banned from the securities industry for two years and required to pay $6.2 million for his involvement in a pension fund kickback scheme between his company, the Quadrangle Group, and New York State's $125 billion public pension fund. "Rattner delivered special favors and conducted sham transactions that corrupted the retirement fund's investment process," David Rosenfeld, the associate director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's regional office in New York, said at the time of the settlement.

[Samantha]

54. How comforting it is to know the cast of characters constituting our shadow government

have such stellar reputations.

Thank you for the information. The road ahead is going to be very difficult.

Sam

[Samantha]

32. I have a postscript to the post below answering your thoughts above

It is obviously true the Fix the Debt billionaires have a lot of influence with the events of these days. But the one thing that might be considered a redeeming factor in President Obama's favor is his caveat that saved revenue from the chained CPI must be accompanied by new revenue the Republicans agree to which would include for instance higher taxes for the wealthy and spending for infrastructure to increase jobs. The higher taxes for the wealthy one would think would have to adversely impact the Fix the Debt billionaires. So if the Republicans do not agree, no chained CPI.

Would this be your understanding? If so, perhaps Fix the Debt does not have the stranglehold I suggested below.

Sam

[KoKo]

39. Going to Source Watch....and looking at the cast of characters

with ties to Petersen Foundation and those who would work to try to break up SS to force more people into "Private Pension Plans" that would benefit Wall Street...I'd say that the Petersen Foundation has it's tentacles everywhere. It's bought politicians and it's now working with ALEC to force Privatization through our States. My state is one that's currently having our Repug State House and Senate ram through Privatization Bills and Voter ID Bill, Fracking, Charter Schools, cut backs to Education Programs, Family Aid...the list is endless. Petersen and ALEC are tied together.

Thanks so much for that Link. It's obvious the Dems and Repugs are working together to Privatize everything and allow Wall Street to continue its Crookery until the whole system collapses. By then they will be off somewhere in their exclusive community away from it all.

[Samantha]

66. We are now Wisconsin?

No wonder President Obama did not go to Wisconsin to stand with the workers during the recall. It does all wash out with the bath water, doesn't it?

Sam

[KoKo]

67. Yes...we are Wisconsin....

WE ARE ALL WISCONSIN.

[antigop]

36. or it all may be a smokescreen to give the corporations what they really want

You create a frenzy about chained CPI, knowing neither party will go for it. You then back off the chained CPI, and people don't look at what else is in the "bargain" that is struck.

People say, "Whew -- chained CPI is off the table" and then they go back to sleep, when there are some really nefarious things in the bargain that is struck. But people are so relieved about chained CPI that they don't look at what else is in the bargain and the media doesn't report on it.

[KoKo]

40. Seems to be the plan sadly....

The revolving door between Wall Street, Government, Military and "former Elected Officials" has reached it's Pinnacle. Supreme Court's Citizens United allowing Petersen Foundation, Koch Brothers and ALEC tied together to create a Cartel that's ramming through their policies in US Government and now in our States with Privatization of Social & Educational Institutions, Infrastructure (toll roads) , Fracking, Voter I.D. bills (to disenfranchise more of the voters), Gerrymandered Districts and working with Chamber of Commerce and their other Groups ( Action Groups with disguised benevolent sounding populist names) to change everything we all knew about society and government in America. Only the older generations will remember what the structure of our Government was before these Wall Street endowed crooks took it over. They are working fast to indoctrinate the minds of the younger who only know Clinton through Bush.

Will it work? Or, will another Wall Street Collapse or Global Collapse along with Environmental Events, bring it all down on their heads...and ours.

[antigop]

41. I don't think this will end well. The question is...what will take its place afterwards? nt

[antigop]

51. William Greider said, "At the end of the day, Social Security will not be cut. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017111501

[Samantha]

47. Didn't you just post a link to a thread which says the chained CPI has passed in the house?

Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe I am just tired and not understanding you correctly??? But a lot of people are looking at what else is in the budget and what else the chained CPI would impact.

Sam

[antigop]

48. I don't think it passed the House. I wish TPM would have posted a roll call. nt

[antigop]

49. It's the hypocrisy of the NRCC Chairman who said it was an "attack on seniors", yet he voted for it.

nt

[magical thyme]

17. I'ts more than a betrayal of his base. It's a betrayal of the entire country. nt

[Samantha]

18. Yes, it is

Republican politicians though might call it a gift.

Sam

[KoKo]

25. Indeed...already they are coming out Against It...like THEY

are the Defenders of Social Security. It was a Horrible Move by Obama or his Advisers....no matter what the circumstances were.

It wasn't something that is good for his Reputation...going forward...imho

[smirkymonkey]

26. I have always been a big supporter of Obama, but not so much anymore.

Not only is he betraying his base, but I have to ask, how can he be so stupid. This is just an idiotic move all around. I see no way that he will come out of this untarnished.

[xtraxritical]

70. It's easily explained by the fact that many of his appointments and advisors

are from big banks and multinational (tax avoiding) corporations. He appointed Elizabeth Warren to the Consumer Financial Protection Board as a harmless distraction. Prestidigitation par excellant.

[smirkymonkey]

72. At least Warren is a gem. She is fighting for us.

I am proud to have voted for her and to be from her home state, although only in the last 9 months or so.

[Samantha]

73. I would love to see her on the Democratic ticket in 2016 as the VP candidate

I would also love to see Bernie Sanders run.

Sam

[smirkymonkey]

74. I would too. Would also like to see Al Frnken on the ticket.

Let's get some real Democrats in office for once!

[Samantha]

75. He is a real Democrat but he seems to prefer a really low profile

Maybe he is just biding his time, or perhaps he doesn't aspire to go any higher???

Sam

[Samantha]

27. Well it is now cringe-worthy

I have heard today at least three Republicans strongly criticize President Obama for "hurting seniors." I wonder what he thinks when he hears these remarks.

One defender of President Obama said this was not his idea. This was originally proposed by McConnell and Boehner, and President Obama was including this items of THEIRS into his budget, signaling he would agree to it in exchange for increased revenues. I don't dispute the truth of this, but trying to listen objectively, I thought that sounded weak, at best. I am not so sure too many voters will buy that in 2014 and 2016.

Sam

[sabrina 1]

69. He never had the right to agree to it, it is NOT his to bargain with. That fund is not in trouble,

and it is not the property of the Fed Govt, it is the property of the American people. Republicans, I always assumed we knew this, never had the right to touch it and Democrats constantly fought to prevent them from doing so.

What a weak excuse he is offering and almost crying that the Republicans, whose respect he so much wants apparently, still don't like him and they turned around after he caved to them, and betrayed him. I do believe they, as Carney said, 'asked to have this in the budget' and that he ignored the millions of Democrats who asked him not to do it.

Then, after giving them what they asked for, they laughed because he had handed them a huge issue, one they never had before for obvious reasons, and took it from him and instead of agreeing to sign the bill anad give him something he wanted, they used it against him.

SS had nothing to do with the deficit, it has nothing to do with it, and will not do a thing to help the deficit, all it will do is further impoverish those who are so dependent on it and who OWN it.

[bigtree]

19. I thought it was our side which advocated for those tax loophole changes in his budget

. . . I think we still support them.

[Samantha]

20. You do not mean the tax subsidies to Big Oil and other corporations do you?

But it is the Republicans that wanted the entitlement changes, meaning reductions or privatizations (as in Social Security).

The Bowles-Simpson report included the chained CPI in its recommendations, but I do not know of too many Dems that support it.

Sam

[grahamhgreen]

21. And since SS has nothing to do with the deficit, it's positively Hellish.

[Samantha]

24. I think that is why everyone is pretty hot under the collar about it!

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[jsr]

28. Great post

Thanks!

[Samantha]

29. Funny thing jsr

I was angry when I wrote it but it makes me sad to read it now. None of this should have ever happened.

Thank you for posting those nice words.

Sam

[antigop]

35. just fyi...a month ago, half the House GOP voted for chained CPI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022658999

[Samantha]

46. I got so excited when I read your thread I posted on it instead coming back here!

So are you suggesting that the chained CPI bill has already passed in the House and now just has to go to the Senate? Are you suggesting this could be a done deal shortly? If so, that is frightening.

Sam

[blkmusclmachine]

37. Satan Sandwiches for the 99 Percent.

That's mavericky!

[Samantha]

57. We needed a little humor added to this thread

so thanks for posting this.

Sam

[DCBob]

55. When the Devil is in control of the House it hard to ignore him.

[Samantha]

58. I guess we have to work toward a political exorcism in 2014

Think that would do it?

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[DCBob]

59. exactly what we need!

wont be easy though.

[duffyduff]

78. It's not a bluff. Obama has been in favor of "fixing" Social Security

because he has bought hook, line, and sinker the LIES peddled by people like Peter J. Peterson and right-wing think tanks like the Cato Institute (Koch brothers).

He was peddling that shit before he was inaugurated.

[Samantha]

80. During the debates, I heard President Obama say to Mitt Romney words to the effect

"I suspect on Social Security, we have got a somewhat similar position." That line, not a part of the debate actually but sort of an aside, stunned me. I always meant to look it up, but thought I would never find it. But here is an article I just found with that quote. Source: Forbes Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/10/04/barack-obama-mitt-romney-the-presidential-debate-social-security-and-the-upcoming-retirement-crisis/

"Social Security has kept millions of elderly men and women out of poverty. According to the Census Bureau, more than 20 million of us would live in penury if not for the program. Yet Washington deficit hawks are fond of bashing Social Security as a major source of our budgetary woes. Solves are recommended such as raising the retirement age to 67, in line with rising lifespan, and turning some portion of our Social Security funds over to Wall Street, a position that is about as popular with the American public as paroling Charles Manson.

"Mitt Romney has made vague statements of support in the past for allowing the financial services sector to have a role in our Social Security accounts. His running mate, Paul Ryan, is an out-and-out cheerleader for the concept, and was a big backer of President George W. Bush’s plan to partially privatize Social Security by allowing people to divert some of their mandated contributions into personal investment accounts. All of this should have been said by Barack Obama last night. Inexplicably, it was not.

The fact is even as more and more Americans express a willingness to work longer than in the past if needed, no one has proven the jobs will be there for them to do just that. Nor is our longer, healthier life span a guarantee. A study published last summer documented that for white men and women without a college diploma, life expectancy had declined by three and five years respectively between 1990 and 2008. Others have found that Baby Boomers are less healthy than their parents at the same age, which might well be one of the factors behind the increasing numbers of Americans applying for disability coverage. (emphasis supplied)

Not surprisingly, survey after survey shows that about eighty percent of us are absolutely petrified about how we will get by after our working lives end. It’s likely that every time someone tells us they plan to “tweak” Social Security, like President Obama did last night, that number goes higher."

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

Sam

[woo me with science]

81. You describe the betrayal very well.

Corporatists, I think, really thought that they could separate loyalty to party from the values and principles that led people to identify with the party in the first place. They have coffers of millions and billions of dollars. They have the media. They have Wall Street and focus groups and Madison Avenue to sell their snake oil.

But in the end it comes down to human lives. We aren't just abstract interest groups to battle with rhetoric. When you steal what we have worked hard for all our lives and repay our support and investment in your representation by terrorizing and impoverishing us in our old age, you will reap the consequences of that.

Thank you for this post.

[Samantha]

82. Thank you - I have a question for you

I think you are a pretty smart DU'er. Have you read that Roll Call article? If so, do you buy that? If you answer this question, I will then tell you what I think, but I would like to know your thoughts first.

Thank you for posting on my thread.

Sam