Mr. President: Take Social Security and Medicare off the damned table in no uncertain terms.

[hootinholler]

The crap that's being flung around the halls of congress since they've returned is indicator enough of what it is that you are dealing with. The Republicans do not care about us or the country they only care about flinging poo in your direction. Do not negotiate with them.

Tell the US that you will veto any reduction in Social Security or Medicare.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Damn right!

[Jackpine Radical]

2. The only time he took SS "off the table"

was in the first debate when he said rMoney and he weren't that far apart on the matter.

And I still don't know if I'm more scared or pissed about it.

[forestpath]

3. K&R

[limpyhobbler]

4. k/r

woot you are right!

[jberryhill]

5. No - Let the Republicans propose more cuts first

THEN take it off the table.

[freshwest]

26. Hehehe!

[PETRUS]

6. K&R

[HiPointDem]

7. kr

[cthulu2016]

8. Sounds like more vomit slurping

Obama doesn't need to take anything off the table because there is not a scrap of evidence he would ever put any entitlements on the table except for the fact that he has done so in the past and agreed to a very large cut in medicare and a substantial cut in social security.

But those facts don't change anything because they don't.

And furthermore, to the Iraq and such, you are falling for bullshit. Oh, and slurping vomit off the floor.

Signed,

Credulous and Nasty about it

[Cha]

10. Why are you "slurping vomit"?

[hootinholler]

15. It's in here.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1813696

[msongs]

11. please post your links to obama claims he will veto any damages to SS and medicare. gracias! (that's

thanks in Espanol)

[cthulu2016]

13. I link to NOTHING

You're not the boss of me.

I know what I know and I know a surprising number of things I don't know, and I know there there is no scrap of evidence that Obama has NOT made such a pledge.

And the burden is on slurps to prove that negative.

Damn hippie.

[hootinholler]

12. You have a special way about you

It always cheers me up.

I think.

[dtom67]

18. you know what chained cpi is? ???

Bernie Sanders has been warning about this for months. This is not a GOP ploy. The election is over.

I do wish I had my horseshit-to-English decoder ring so I could figure out wtf your post is really saying.
are you saying the pres will not cut a deal or are you being sarcastic and unintelligible at the same time...

[MannyGoldstein]

22. cthulu is yanking your chain

And all of us FDR Democrats would like to yank the chained-CPI off the table - it's a 10% cut to SS benefits over time, and for no reason other than to keep tax rates on the wealthy lower than on the middle class.

There is a vocal, fact-free, and tolerated group on DU who claims that Obama never said what he said, never did what he did, and if you dare to believe your own lying eyes and ears then you slurp vomit and do something involving your mouth and Mitt Romney that I'n too well-mannered to detail.

[hootinholler]

55. Not only that but they continually get hundreds of recs for that sort of tripe. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

23. "Credulous and Nasty about it"

I love it!

Can we adopt it as our new battle cry?

[Bluenorthwest]

53. That is a hell of a great turn of phrase....

hits the nail on the head as well.

[Liberalynn]

9. Absolutely

Sent an e-mail to the White House, and emailed and called my two Senators.

[PLW1017]

21. I agree!

I've sent several emails to the White House expressing my opinions. If you don't tell them, they won't know!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

14. K&R

[Honeycombe8]

16. I think Medicare "reform" is coming. From what I read, it IS in trouble financially.

That damn Part D that wasn't financed.

But there might be enough fraud and waste to make a dent.

Have you heard from anyone that Medicare is fiscally sound for decades to come? I haven't. Except maybe Bernie Sanders.

Now, SS isn't part of the budget, so it is a separate issue. I don't know what to believe about that. But I think it IS set to start running a deficit in 10 years. I've been hearing about that for YEARS before we've had a divided government and Repubs trying to end it. The baby boomer thing. Still, no reason to fool with that right now. It's in sound shape right now and for the near future, from what I hear.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Medicare's only in trouble because we choose to not meaningfully reform health care costs

If US health care costs were 12% of GDP - the cost of the second-most expensive health care in the world - instead of 17% which they are now, Medicare would be absolutely fine.

Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus, which is predicted to grow to more than $4 trillion before it starts being drawn down to pay benefits for the baby boomer bulge. This is all as it's been planned for many years. The projections claiming that it will only pay 80% of benefits starting in 25 years are based on the assumption that the economy will never recover. Even if it only partially recovers, SS is fully funded as far as the eye can see, and any attempt to cut benefits is nothing more than theft from seniors.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. And Medicare is in trouble because it treats only the oldest, sickest people

Add younger, healthier people to the mix, paying the same premiums as the seniors, and a lot of your financial trouble is solved. Oh, yes, and let Medicare negotiate drug prices and work with physicians to create evidence-based criteria for use of drugs. (My brother's a doctor, and when he gets a new patient who's a senior, he often finds that they're on multiple drugs, some of which are for the side effects of other drugs, none of which help their basic problem.)

[Honeycombe8]

46. Don't know where you get your SS info. But that's not what Soc Sec Admin says.

It's on their site....when they'll start running a deficit. It's in about 10 years, I think. It's in those SS estimate of benefits that I get from time to time.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. It will start to run a deficit - but it will have $4 trillion in the bank

$4 trillion that was socked away to pay for the baby boomers' benefits. Unless the economy doesn't recover, the full $4 trillion will never be spent.

This has all be planned for, and is going pretty much according to plan.

[Honeycombe8]

48. A deficit is a deficit. It'll have to borrow the $.

The $4T number means nothing unless you also provide the amount needed for the future commitment, and what their budgetary requirements are....how much they're required to have on hand any given budget year, etc.

This is complicated stuff. We can only go by when they say they'll be in trouble. That's in about 10 years, I think my last notice said.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. If you put enough money in the bank to fully fund your child's college education

Then when she starts college, the account will start running a deficit and the savings will start to drop. As you take the money out to pay the bills, would you call that borrowing?

Should you panic? Or should you be OK because you know that it's going according to plan?

[sabrina 1]

44. SS will not run a deficit in ten years.

SS is not in trouble. And SS had nothing to do with the deficit. That is the Big Lie told by the world's biggest liars for decades now.

SS is solvent for at least 25 more years without anyone doing anything to it. It has more than one source of income and even during these past few years with high unemployment and the country's economy in trouble, SS still had a surplus, every year, including this year.

When the economy improves, SS will take in even more revenue. As of now, SS has a surplus of two trillion dollars and that will double by 2023. SS is NOT in trouble. We are being lied to.

The good news is that people are way more informed today and are not going to fall for this lie.

We elected Democrats hoping they will now make it clear that Republicans like Boehner and Romney are LYING when they claim SS is in trouble. They are liars.

[Egalitarian Thug]

64. Here's an acceptable reform for Medicare; Eliminate the ban on negotiating costs

and importation of pharmaceuticals. Very free-market and liberating. Will save billions.

[Loudestlib]

17. Let Obama handle it.

[rhett o rick]

30. That's right, we voted, now we are done. Except for sitting back and praising Pres Obama.

Maybe we should put "In Obama We Trust" on our coins.

[Loudestlib]

34. That's soooo true!!!

In fact we should just tear him down before he even starts (just to be safe.)

[rhett o rick]

41. Good grief. Telling the Pres that we dont want cuts to SS and Medicare ISNT TEARING HIM DOWN. nm

[spanone]

19. fookin' k & fookin' r

[Kablooie]

20. Long ago he said that Social Security and Medicare will need some adjusting for the future.

He said SS was easy but Medicare was a more difficult problem.

This was before all the RW insanity over the issue.

[Fumesucker]

24. Beep.. This is Barack Obama's presidential voice mail, please leave a message at the tone.. Beep

"Mr President, Orange John here, my car is dirty and I'm ready to take you up on your kind offer, my dog's coming with me too."

[Change has come]

27. K & R

[SHRED]

29. When he says, "entitlement reform"...I get nervous

[Zorra]

31. Yes please, Mr. Prez! Make those darn liberal hippie radical extremist loudmouth

environmentalist bleeding heart yellowdog FDR Democrat hippie Occupy progressives STFU about this issue once and for all!

Please, please...force us to totally STFU by taking it off the table.

[ProSense]

33. "Please, please...force us to totally STFU by taking it off the table."

This is one of those instances in which the President's powers are limited.

[argiel1234]

35. exactly

we need to give in to austerity...apologizing for republican greedy garbage





the slow slide isnt working anymore

[ProSense]

39. What we need to do

is try a little preventive action: Pressure Senate Democrats to reject any cuts. Shouldn't be hard to come up with 51 Senators (40 if we're talking filibuster) to reject such a proposal. Senator Sanders has already lined up 29.

[MannyGoldstein]

71. We can probably add Elizabeth Warren

My other Senator, alas, seems to have entitlement-cut fever.

[argiel1234]

37. Bush did not do anything

Bush's hands were tied


we need to bow down to repukes


guess what

[Zorra]

43. LOL! OK, OK...STFU about this issue is what I meant.

This first, we'll harp on any other pressing issues later.

Here's what my granma told me about speaking up for myself ~

"Sweetie, it's a fact of life that if you don't open yer mouth, you're not gonna eat."

[ProSense]

32. "Tell the US that you will veto any reduction in Social Security or Medicare."

Yeah, that'll work.

Right after he says that, everyone will be completely relieved. Social Security or Medicare will be off the table. It will be a time for celebration.

Think about it: Obama hasn't announced any reduction in Social Security or Medicare, but he should declare that he will veto such a plan.

I can hear it now:

"Just like the public option."

"Why is he mentioning a reduction in Social Security or Medicare?"

"The fix is in."

"Why did he say 'slash' vs. 'cuts'?

Face it, nothing President Obama says is going to satisfy this demand. "Crap" will always be flung around the halls of Congress, even after the President says exactly what you want him to say it.

Still, I'm confident that the President will not agree to any reduction in Social Security and Medicare.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. The President cannot announce cuts in Social Security

He can only ask for cuts, or suggest them, as he has.

[ProSense]

38. The President can announce that he will veto cuts to Social Security

That too is only a suggestion, as we have seen.

[hootinholler]

54. Face it

ANY thing YOU perceive as critical of the president will be met with your talking points. For the life of me I can't figure out why you want a weak president.

The facts are that he agreed to cuts in SS via the chained CPI last year.

He has told us to keep the pressure up on him so that is what I'm doing.

If he pledges to veto any reduction in SS or Medicare it will satisfy my request. It will also make it easier for congressional Dems to protect the programs.

Why would he mention them? Because the R's are aiming to cut them based on falsehoods (read lies).

[ProSense]

56. Face it: It's not going matter what the President says.

ANY thing YOU perceive as critical of the president will be met with your talking points. For the life of me I can't figure out why you want a weak president.

The facts are that he agreed to cuts in SS via the chained CPI last year.

He has told us to keep the pressure up on him so that is what I'm doing.

If he pledges to veto any reduction in SS or Medicare it will satisfy my request. It will also make it easier for congressional Dems to protect the programs.

Why would he mention them? Because the R's are aiming to cut them based on falsehoods (read lies).

No, those aren't the facts. Who agreed with him? There was no agreement.

This is just proof of exactly what I said. You can claim you will be satisfied, but it will not end the constant demand that the President reiterate his position. Hell, he has said often that he has no plans to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, but everytime he mentions entitlement spending, it becomes an issue all over again.

Fine, but don't pretend that if he says this, it will be the end of the discussion.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. "no plans to cut Social Security"

Can you point to a quote by the President to that effect since he's been in office?

That would be very helpful.

[hootinholler]

60. I was hopeful you would get a reply. n/t

[ProSense]

61. Since you were hopeful:

How President Obama and Mitt Romney compare on preserving Social Security for America’s seniors
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488868

President Obama: ‘Medicare and Social Security Are Not Handouts’

Speaking by sattelite at the AARP's annual conference on Friday, President Obama took a subtle jab at Mitt Romney's claim that 47 percent of Americans were "victims" who saw themselves as "entitled" to food, housing, and health care, among other things.

"There's been a lot of talk about Medicare and Social Security in this campaign, as there should be," Obama said. "And these are bedrock commitments that Americas makes to its seniors, and I consider those commitments unshakable. But, given the conversations that have been out there in the political arena lately, I want to emphasize, Medicare and Social Security are not handouts. You've paid into these programs your whole lives. You've earned them."

Obama suggested that Social Security's finances could be "put on more stable footing" in part by raising the cap on taxable income. He dismissed as flatly "not true attacks from Romney on $716 billion in Medicare savings included in the Affordable Care Act (and Paul Ryan's budgets), saying that it "strengthened" the program.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/president-obama-medicare-social-security-are-not-handouts

From the President's DNC speech:

<...>

Now, I’m still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission. No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without compromise. I want to get this done, and we can get it done. But when Governor Romney and his friends in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficits by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy, well, what did Bill Clinton call it -- you do the arithmetic. (Applause.) You do the math. (Applause.)

I refuse to go along with that and as long as I’m President, I never will. (Applause.) I refuse to ask middle-class families to give up their deductions for owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another millionaire’s tax cut. (Applause.)

I refuse to ask students to pay more for college, or kick children out of Head Start programs, or eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor and elderly or disabled -- all so those with the most can pay less. I’m not going along with that. (Applause.)

And I will never -- I will never -- turn Medicare into a voucher. (Applause.) No American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. They should retire with the care and the dignity that they have earned. Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care -- not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. (Applause.)

And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it, not by turning it over to Wall Street. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/07/remarks-president-democratic-national-convention

[MannyGoldstein]

62. Which pointedly doesn't say there are no plans for Social Security cuts.

"in part by raising the cap on taxable income"

Great stuff, truly Clinton-esque.

[JDPriestly]

75. If it makes you feel any better, if the Obama "comprise"

compromises our Social Security, some of us will not be able to afford to stay on the internet then you will not have to deal with our posts criticizing Obama.

Question then is whether you yourself will still have a job or whether you too will have to become part of the 47% of the population who according to Romney do not pay taxes?

I assure you. That isn't much fun. Maybe your best career move would be to continue to silence all of us who are actually on Social Security. Reassure us until the deal is actually cut. And then, as with the public option, we will all just have to take the cuts and go to the library more often for our internet service.

Social Security is already a minimal payment. Any income a senior receives over a certain amount is already taxed like other income. Cutting Social Security is out of the question. The suffering that would cause would be horrifying.

As for Medicare, if the US cuts Medicare, people will die in misery. That's the simple truth. We could cut back on a few bases overseas and, guess what? More people would live. We could cut back on the salaries of our members of Congress. And guess what? They would continue to live quite well, thank you.

But you really can't cut Social Security or Medicare because they are already down to the bones. The only solution is to find money where it exists: in the pockets of the rich. It isn't a question of what people want really. It is a question of what can be done.

[Nye Bevan]

40. "I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position", Obama said.

"Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan...."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obama-social-security_n_1940755.html

Given that President Obama said this before the election, what makes you think that he would "take it off the table"?

[ProSense]

42. Either he was talking about Moderate Mitt or those are contradictory statements

Ronald Reagan was Right

The president was very clear. “Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit,” he said. “Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security trust fund. So, Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” The date was Oct. 7, 1984. The occasion was a presidential debate in Louisville, Ky. The president was Ronald Reagan.

“I don't often agree with Ronald Reagan, but he is absolutely right,” Sanders said in a Senate floor speech quoting the 40th president. Sanders argued that Social Security should be off the table in negotiations over how to cut deficits. “Yes, we have got to go forward with deficit reduction. But, no, we cannot and must not do it on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. There are ways to do it that are fair, which ask those people who are doing phenomenally well to start paying their fair share of taxes. And that is the position that the Senate should take.”

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=ed9fd80f-e441-478a-b67a-96ff7380254b

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Then why did the President offer to cut benefits by 10% last year?

During the fully-fake debt ceiling crisis?

It's because, of course, if benefits are cut then less of the SS trust fund bonds will have to be repaid, and tax rates on the wealthiest Americans can remain lower than rates on the middle class.

[ProSense]

57. Well, if he offered to cut it,

why do you think he's going to remove the offer?

What is that you love to say: Whatcha gonna do sucker?

See, I never believed the President had any plans to cut Social Security so I'm good.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. I don't think he will.

That's the problem.

[Egalitarian Thug]

65. He did more than offer, he signed onto it.

Fortunately the Teahadists blew up that deal and inadvertently saved us from another betrayal.

[hootinholler]

66. Thank you for that

I've been looking for something like that story, but have little time because I'm at work.

[ProSense]

69. There is some massive he said she said in that article, but this is the best part:

The Republican version of reality goes, briefly, like this: Boehner and Obama shook hands on a far-reaching deal to rewrite the tax code, roll back the cost of entitlements and slash deficits. But then Obama, reacting to pressure from Democrats in Congress, panicked at the last minute and suddenly demanded that Republicans accede to hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tax revenue. A frustrated Boehner no longer believed he could trust the president’s word, and he walked away. Obama moved the goal posts, is the Republican mantra.

<...>

On entitlements too they had moved closer to a final deal. The White House agreed to cut at least $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years and another $800 billion in the decade after that, in part by raising the eligibility age. The administration had endorsed another $110 billion or so in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs, with $250 billion more in the second decade. And in a move certain to provoke rebellion in the Democratic ranks, Obama was willing to apply a new, less generous formula for calculating Social Security benefits, which would start in 2015. (The White House had rejected Boehner’s bid to raise the retirement age.) This wasn’t quite enough for Boehner, nor was it as extensive as what the Gang of Six had proposed. But the speaker’s team didn’t consider the differences to be insurmountable, assuming the two sides could also settle on a revenue number.

If the article is to be believed and taken at face value in its entirety, it appears the President rejected a proposal to raise the Social Security age.

Like I said, these discussions aren't so much about demanding the President protect Social Security as much as they are attempts to prove that he has no intention of doing so. That is why what he says will not matter to those pushing this angle. They'll simply parse his words and claim he still intends to cut the program. It will always be wait-and-see, just as it was during the President's first term.

[hootinholler]

84. This discussion is exactly about preserving Social Security

The fact is that in the past he considers the program negotiable. It was clearly on the table. That to me is not acceptable.

How do you know what I am trying to do? Your putting words in others mouths is somewhat off putting and tiresome.

Think what you will, but please don't assign motives to me because you are wrong in this case.

[ProSense]

67. "Fortunately the Teahadists blew up that deal"

Yeah, they should have won so they could save us. Better yet, maybe Boehner will save us again.

Again, if you believe that this is the President's goal, what's the point of engaging in the delusion that he'll abandon it?

[Egalitarian Thug]

68. Three things; First, they did win in 2010 thanks in large part to this administration's

strategy of ignoring his base and submitting to the people that hate him

Second, you must have overlooked the word 'inadvertently'.

Last, He did it. He signed off on it. Nothing can show intent more than the fact that it was done.

[ProSense]

70. First, it's 2012.

Second, "indavertently" is incompetence on the part of Republicans or shrewdness on the part of the President.

Lastly, you're waiting for the inevitable, fine.

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. Who holds the House? It was us before 2010.

I don't understand why some of you can't just realize that the President screwed the pooch in his first two years and get on with helping him to avoid repeating the same mistakes now.

And no, not everything was bad and yes, there was some good done, but the bottom line is that the good that was done was not as good as it could have been and the bad could have been made better.

Do you really want a repeat of 2010 in 2014?

[ProSense]

76. What the hell are you talking about?

"I don't understand why some of you can't just realize that the President screwed the pooch in his first two years and get on with helping him to avoid repeating the same mistakes now."

Nothing happened to Social Security and Medicare, they were preserved, and the latter strengthened and expanded.

That is exactly what should have happened. Being perpetually pissed that a proposal to change it failed is a little ridiculous.

"Do you really want a repeat of 2010 in 2014?"

Oh brother. It appears you're working on it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

78. Your obsession. n/t

[ProSense]

79. Yeah, it's my fault you're pissed a bad proposal failed. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

80. I'm not pissed at anything, I'm merely concerned that you appear incapable of

seeing what has already been done right before your eyes and insisting that the rest of the world share your fantasy. The President is being quoted on the news right now saying exactly what you are denying.

[ProSense]

82. What exactly

"I'm merely concerned that you appear incapable of seeing what has already been done right before your eyes and insisting that the rest of the world share your fantasy."

...has been done? Specifically, what has been done to Social Security?

"The President is being quoted on the news right now saying exactly what you are denying. "

Speaking of "fantasy," where's the quote?

Obama Pledges To Protect Vulnerable In ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Talks, Advocates Say
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021834279

[Egalitarian Thug]

86. Are you really that far gone? You have been presented with an established fact from over a year ago.

That it wasn't implemented, because boner has an even crazier faction in his forces to deal with, had nothing to do with the fact that he did agree to cuts.

You then proceed to demand to be shown something that the President himself has just stated on the radio, today, that he intends to do. I believe the station I was listening to carries the CBS news feed, so you will have to listen to it for yourself.

And as evidence to counter what he just stated on the air to the mainstream media you link to a post that links to an piece from the Washington Post that not only doesn't include a single quote from the President, it doesn't say what you would like us to believe that it does. In fact, it doesn't say anything at all except that the President met with some religious people and advocates for various groups that said "that they were encouraged by Obama’s willingness to listen and his promise that he shares their goals."

Where is this pledge? I know that the title of this piece says that there is a pledge, but nowhere in it is there a pledge, nor anything like a pledge.

[Egalitarian Thug]

87. What? Don't want to play anymore? n/t

[Scuba]

45. ...

<a href="http://imgur.com/y82VA"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" alt="" /></a>

[nashville_brook]

63. *love*

[clydefrand]

51. I'll agree with that

100%. Now, let everyone send an email/tweet/facebook, whatever to our President and make sure he is hearing us.

[ReRe]

72. Lead them on, PO

K&R

Discuss, discuss, discuss.... and on the last day of the discussion, say NOPE. We're going over you cliff. Bu Bye!

[WillyT]

74. HUGE K & R !!!

[felix_numinous]

77. We need a clear explanation

a la Bill Clinton on these issues, there really should not be this much misunderstanding. I hope that the eligible age has not been moved up, like ProSense links show.

I am 55 this year, and really need to understand what is happening. I am presently exploring this link:

http://www.ncpssm.org/

Thank you hootinholler for this thread, great discussion, links and information

[LoisB]

81. I have sent an email to the White House stating my opposition to ANY discussion of Social Security

and Medicare. As far as I am concerned, Social Security (FICA - Federal Insurance Contributions Act) and Medicare are both insurance programs on which I have paid premiums for almost 50 years. They will screw with either of these over my cold, dead body.

Social Security - leave it alone, period.
Medicare - raise the damned cap.

[Hubert Flottz]

83. K&R

[bvar22]

85. If WE don't Write The Menu,

....we will be ON the menu.

QED: The Last 4 Years.


[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]