It's Official: A Democratic President Offered to Cut Social Security

[leftstreet]

In our lifetimes. Never thought I'd see it.

Unfuckingbelievable


No, it's not a 'brilliant strategy,' it's abusive.

[dkf]

1. Abusive? Seriously?

He's trying to keep the trust fund solvent longer to push further the day benefits get cut by 25%.

Maybe there might be something left for us 40 somethings.

Geez.

[leftstreet]

3. SS has nothing to do with the deficit

It shouldn't even be part of the discussion

But then, you know that



And yes, scaring the shit out of seniors is abusive

[rhett o rick]

6. He has no clue about how SS works. He is ok if seniors go hungry today so he can have something

when he retires. He doesnt understand that they arent related.

[dkf]

7. So when do you address the solvency of social security?

Why not now?

[leftstreet]

9. Thank you for agreeing SS has nothing to do with the deficit

Finally!

If you'd like to address the solvency and future security of SS, knock yourself out

[dkf]

12. Well it does now since its being partially funded by the general fund.

In addition paying the trust fund back will necessitate bond funding which will incur interest expenses.

But in the interest of expediency I glossed over that.

[Lionessa]

13. IIRC, the general fund is repaying a loan it took from SS fund, not quite as you present it..

[Matariki]

16. Social Security is NOT being " partially funded by the general fund"

Where did you get that mis-information?

It is being BORROWED FROM by the US Government.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n5

[leftstreet]

18. It's one of their talking points

It's devious, but not very clever. A third grader could Google it

[KansDem]

76. Let's call it for what it is...a "lying point."

I'm so sick and tired of using euphemisms in playing nicety-nice to the liars in Big Business and government (which are fast becoming one and the same).

[liberal N proud]

52. Exactly - and that is the only reason there is a possibility of a shortfall for Social Security

They can't repay it!

But then that is not why they want to cut Social Security either.

So, it has nothing to do with the debt. It has a surplus which is borrowed from and they don't ever intend to repay it.

You would think they would want to leave that cash-cow alone and keep milking it, but it goes far deeper that that, the republicans want Social Security because it is a public safety net and their cronies can't get rich from it.

That is the only reason Social Security cuts are being demanded by the republicans.

[AndyA]

53. SS trust has had over $2.7 Trillion taken from it, last I heard.

I'm sure that total is even higher now. All to balance the budget, pay for wars, etc.

Before the subject of cutting benefits or revising how they're figured to "save" SS is discussed, the #1 task should be to repay the funds borrowed from it. That will go a long way toward preserving it.

When you really consider the crap Congress has pulled over the years, there's really no excuse for them. Much of it hasn't been what was best for the American people. Funny how they forget these details, and expect the stupid citizens to forget as well.

[sabrina 1]

38. Maybe in ten years? Since it is perfectly solvent for the next 22 years

we don't have to worry about it all right now, do we?

But just raising the cap right now and creating jobs would extend it way beyond the next two decades.

By 2023 the SS Fund will double, even if we do nothing right now. It will have 4 trillion dollars in it. I don't think that is a good idea. So let's increase benefits right now which would be a major help to those who own the fund and who need it. It would also be a stimulus package without even touching the Fed Govt fund.

So with that settled, let's start focusing on some of the actual problems. Like starting prosecutions of the Wall St. criminals who collapsed the economy and retrieving some of the money they absconded with and are hiding in offshore accounts. That would help reduce the deficit they created.

End the wars that are costing millions of dollars every single day. That is obscene. And of course make the wealthy start paying their fair share.

If only we had a Progressive Congress and WH this country would be one of the most fiscally sound in the world.

[rhett o rick]

5. You apparently dont understand Social Security. It doesnt need a trust fund.

The trust fund was to cover the baby boomers and when they are gone, it goes back to pay as you go like it was before.

Besides how much sense does it make to cut benefits so the benefits will last longer? What do you tell the seniors now that are hungry. It has to be the most stupid argument I have ever heard. Grandma, sorry you have to eat cat food, but look on the bright side. The fucking trust fund will last longer.

Raise the cap. It's that simple. What do you have against raising the cap?

[dkf]

8. Pay as you go would then need constant changes to keep inflows and outflows in balance.

As is the case when the trust fund is spent. Then there will be payroll tax increases year after year or the aforementioned 25% cut.

[Major Nikon]

11. SS worked just that way for decades

[dkf]

14. With much better demographics and less of a payroll tax burden.

When we get to that two workers for each retiree ratio, it will be a pretty hefty contribution on the part of workers. That is like each couple supporting their family, and an elderly person in comfort along with their hefty medical bills. Sounds fun I hope wages can keep up.

[Major Nikon]

21. The assumption that it will ever come to that is not guaranteed

If the economy performs better than the SS trustees' project (and they use very low figures for growth), SS can pay out 100% benefits indefinitely. If the income tax cap is removed, SS can pay out 100% benefits indefinitely. If payroll taxes were raised just 1.6% today, SS can pay out 100% benefits indefinitely. If estate taxes were deposited into the trust fund, SS can pay out 100% benefits indefinitely.

Lots of options exist outside of cutting benefits, some of which include no additional expenses to the middle class.

[dkf]

22. Demographic projections aren't going to change all that much.

Growth in the economy goes to the increased wages which allows increased taxes, which is what I did refer to.

And good luck trying to raise the payroll tax 1.6%. We've lowered it by 2% and can't even get it back to normal much less raising it another 1.6%

[Major Nikon]

28. It goes back to normal next month

It's not even a blip on the public's radar right now.

I don't need any of the luck you're offering. I'm content with leaving SS alone. Lot's of things can happen in the next 30 years both good and bad and lots of options are available for dealing with that when and if the time comes. We currently have an extremely low tax rate on high income earners which is a huge potential source of revenue. We also have inflated defense spending which equals 58% of all discretionary spending. I'm not too worried about SS, but I can see how Republicans would be, and their worries have zero to do with taking care of poor elderly people. Kinda makes you go, hmmmm.

[rhett o rick]

40. Pay as you go worked fine before Reagan. And the only "change" would be adjustments for COLA's.

Why wont you address raising the cap. Why hurt those that need SS the most and not those that can afford it?

[dkf]

41. Without a trust fund what would have happened to SS payments during the latest downturn?

Would the extra funds have had to come from the general fund leaving social security a true contributor to the deficit?

Raising the cap also raises future obligations. SS isn't supposed to be wildly distributionist so large payments in mean larger payments out. Change that relationship and you've changed the concept and left it vulnerable to all sorts of changes in payments vs receipts.

[rhett o rick]

43. Research what happened before Reagan. The purpose of the trust fund wasnt to have a slush fund to

take care of normal economic downturns. The trust fund was to handle the glut of baby-boomers.

Cutting benefits wont solve our SS problems.

How does raising the cap raise future obligations?

[dkf]

45. Right now the relationship of payments to receipts is mostly positive.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/ran5/an2004-5.html

Basically you do as a group get back what you paid with a modest to decent return.

[JDPriestly]

20. No. He is trying to prevent the current taxpayers from having to repay the money

the Bush and Reagan administrations borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. Reagan increased our FICA, payroll tax or Social Security and Medicare taxes to form the Social Security Trust Fund. Then Regan and Bush II (GWB), borrowed big-time from that Trust Fund as did other presidents to a lesser extent.

Now the baby boomers are starting to retire, and guess what, the money that was borrowed isn't there, and the government is not taking in enough tax revenues to pay it back.

The Reagan administration calculated how much money would be needed to pay the Social Security of the baby boomers. And then we got George W. Bush, his two wars and generous tax cuts for himself and his rich buddies. He spent the money, crashed the economy and now seniors are bein told that their trust fund money will not be paid back to them.

There would be plenty for all if George W. Bush had raised taxes to fund his wars instead of cutting them to cater to his rich friends.

[sabrina 1]

23. How many times do you have to be told that SS IS solvent. .

Why do you keep repeating this when you have been shown over and over again that it is false.

SS will be able to meet its full obligations for decades even going by the current bad economy.

All that needs to be done to strengthen is to raise the cap, create jobs, focus on growth, not austerity, a total failure in Europe as everyone has seen, stop the wars, no more bailouts for corrupt Wall St criminals and make the wealthy pay their fair share.

SS is fine. It does not belong in these discussions and as more and more people understand that they have lied to, the lie that SS is in trouble will simply have to end.

[rhett o rick]

47. Making the trust fund last longer is BS. Let grandma starve now so that someday

something will happen. BS. Use the trust fund, raise the cap. DONT TOUCH SS BENEFITS.

[RC]

59. We have 30 years to fix Social Security.

The main reason it is in "trouble" is because of the loss of our Living-Wage-Jobs. Both to off shoring and to the bankrupting an looting of businesses, for the profit of the upper management and "owners".

There is absolutely NO good reason social Security is a part of the budget discussion. None what so ever.

[FedUpWithIt All]

70. I am also in the 40 range and i am astounded by the responses here.

Where is the, "We're all in this together"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. But..but..the Republicans think it's a swell idea.

[leftstreet]

4. Reagan would be proud

[ProfessionalLeftist]

10. My Letter to the President

http://www.sevenbowie.com/2012/12/a-letter-to-the-president-one-in-a-series/

[leftstreet]

15. +1

Nice letter

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

17. Nice. Shared on Facebook. Thanks.

[smirkymonkey]

31. +1000 Thank YOU!

Great letter.

[melody]

19. I've been hearing the new GOP tactic is to split the left away from the Democrats

In that way, we'll be as weak as the Republicans. I'm not surprised to see all these posts popping up.

My husband is on SS -- if I can say this, anyone should be able to -- have some patience and remember government is about compromise. Obama will do what he can do. He's shown his sincerity by the side he chose. If he just wanted to be insanely rich, he'd be a Republican.

[Demo_Chris]

24. New?

When was the las time the Democrats were "left"?

We're the party of NAFTA and FTAs.

We're the party that decided forcing every American to do business with insurance companies was a better call than single payer.

[melody]

27. We're the only party strong enough to battle the Grand Old Psychopaths

That's who we're fighting against. The Clinton branch isn't where the party is now, but we still have to compromise with the right-wing in order to get anything done.

[Demo_Chris]

33. I look forward to that happening

But we aren't fighting to undo Clinton's FTAs, we are adding to them. We aren't fighting for single payer healthcare, we went the completely opposite direction. We aren't fighting to increase entitlements, we are proposing cuts. I could go on, but there should be no need. Instead I would ask you to consider this:

What EXACTLY is Obama fighting for?

I am not asking for much. I just want Obama to fight for the things he said he would fight for a month ago. I want to see him make the case to the American people, offer them a real choice, and actually represent the 99%. I want us to be in this together, and right now I don't think we are.

[melody]

56. Obama is playing the game

You know what, I worked for and donated to Obama both elections. I have a feeling most of the complainers did not.

[Demo_Chris]

68. The game?

I think everyone here worked for Obama. I know I did. And the overwhelming majority of the county voted for him as well. So let's cut the bull**** okay?

Did YOU work for Obama with the idea that he would propose cutting socia security and other social programs in order to offer additional tax breaks for the wealthy? Because I damn sure didn't.

[melody]

69. I worked for Obama knowing he'd have no choice but to compromise

For that, blame the years of GOP and blue dog obstructionist crap he's trying to steer around and through. He's not all-powerful.

[melody]

57. What's the use in responding when anyone who disagrees with you folk has their remarks removed? n/t

[datasuspect]

50. i can see a "sane" republican bloc

split off from the tea party, aligning with center right "toy" democrats.

basically then you'd have a moderate republican party free of right wing extremists and a democratic party free of liberals (and no, liberals and tea party extremists are not equivalent, they are both politically inexpedient).

[melody]

54. No, liberals aren't akin to tea party extremists, but extreme leftists, well ...

I'm as frightened by communists as I am by the fascists on the right.

[socialist_n_TN]

73. OK, this commie will take this on.........

A couple of things here. Unless you own the means of production in society (and that does NOT a small time artisan type job working for yourself), you would have nothing to fear from a socialist government. In fact, with the drastic redistribution of wealth that would be involved you, PERSONALLY, would be almost guaranteed to be better off than you are now.

Secondly, at some point you're going to have to choose a side and that's not because the commies are forcing the issues. Nope, it's the fascists that are forcing THEIR version of society on the rest of us. And because fascism is ALWAYS the hidden bullyboy and last resort support of the capitalist system, only people who are AGAINST capitalism can be guaranteed to be against fascism. IOW, capitalism will turn to fascism to save itself. We won't EVER turn to fascism. So they're pushing towards fascism (as Mussolini described it if not the Nazi version) and that means a choice will have to be made by everybody sooner or later.

[melody]

74. Talking to you may be like talking to a tea party extremist

I don't know you. I don't know how you've arranged Communism inside your mind. I am, as always, talking about the extremes. I have personally encountered many Communists who are fine, sane people. I've also encountered some Communists who make the tea party wackos look like their twin siblings. Extremism is extremism. Psychology isn't a straight line, it is a circle.

[socialist_n_TN]

77. That's sort of true.........

There are some pretty insensible versions of Marxism out there, thanks to Stalin's perversion of the original Bolshevik model which allowed a "cult of personality" to develop. That's the thing I look for when I see other groupings, that cult of personality. Externally, most democratic-centralist models might look alike. It's how they work INTERNALLY that makes the difference for me. Do they allow internal dissent and a democratic and free internal debate and vote on the issues? Or does one person or small group decide and ORDER it for the membership? That makes a difference.

However, that doesn't change my major point. IT'S NOT THE COMMUNISTS THAT ARE FORCING THIS CHOICE. It's the fascists. During my "salon revolutionary" stage, i.e., most of my life, I was perfectly willing to admit that capitalism had made a deal with socialism to allow it to function in a LESS (not none, but less) overtly class confrontational manner which would delay the necessity and conditions for revolution. I certainly did not expect it to come to a head in my lifetime over economics. Maybe imperialism, but not economics. Of course, that attitude just showed how naïve I was about capitalism. But the point remains, it will become an either/or choice because the fascists won't let it be anything else.

[socialist_n_TN]

78. This wouldn't hurt my feelings at all......

After all, a political party is SUPPOSED to be a place where your political viewpoints are represented. IT'S NOT A TEAM SPORT. If the corporatists in BOTH parties just dropped the façade and joined forces, then the left and right sides of the spectrum could go ahead and get on with forging parties that ACTUALLY REPRESENTED THEIR POSITIONS ON ISSUES. Then you could make your respective cases to the people on ISSUES and may the best group win. This would allow more representation of their beliefs for more people rather than this "lesser of two evils" nonsense we've been fed for 20+ years or so.

[cliffordu]

25. Yawn. It was the same ruse he's used the last three times.

He offers to cut his own throat, the R's go insane refusing his "offer" cause it was his idea, and, just like clockwork, the panic peeps here go insane here with talking points extracted from Andrea Greenspan and that fucking chuckie todd...

Disgusting.

Your whole OP is a bogus posit, designed to create FUD.

[MrSlayer]

26. But we WON!! Didn't you hear? It's a checkmate!!

So what if cutting benefits is now the baseline for any negotiation. We won!!

This deal was terrible and it was a disgrace to put SS on the table for any reason other than raising or eliminating the cap.

Watch for a last hour "save the day" swoop in where this piece of shit deal is signed.

Chess my ass, the President wanted this deal to work, the baggers are just too stupid to take what would have been a win for them.

It's like refusing sex with a 9 because she isn't a 10.

[leftstreet]

58. Yeah, it's a checkmate for sure

[patrice]

29. Explain why YOU would make an authentic offer to someone who is not negotiating with YOU in good

faith. YOU know they are being devious and avoidant and you are telling us that it's a good strategy to open with what your actual objective is.

YOU know the guy is lying. Has done nothing but lie from the start. YOU have requested the guy to deliver his actual terms; he refuses again and again to define specifically what he and his side want and deals with YOU only in the most devious ways he can.

And YOU are telling us that YOU think that what YOU should offer in that kind of a situation should be the real deal about what YOU want the negotiations to produce and therefore that's what you think PO did.

wow.

I bet car dealers just love you.

When you're buying a car do YOU begin by telling the salesman what the top dollar you are willing to pay is?

Honestly all of this screaming about the CPI is utterly and very OBVIOUSLY disingenuous. Just like the Susan Rice episode, it's making some people look really foolish and they, very unfortunately, seem to be completely unaware of it.

[Fumesucker]

30. Some of us are depending on SS for our survival

It's not an academic matter to me like it evidently is to you.

It's no fun being in a car when the driver is playing chicken and you know he'll come out of any ensuing crash in fine shape personally.

[patrice]

34. wrong. I have my Soc Sec plus a tiny very little pension < $300. @ mo. No health care. No savings.

I haven't seen a doctor in about 4 years. My car is 9 years old and approaching 200K miles etc. etc. etc.

I think Soc Sec should be absolutely protected too and I'm not certain that this CPI strategy would even produce enough revenue for them to justify doing that to us. My objections have to do with how CPI is being characterized on the board in a very artificial manner COMPLETELY isolated from everything else that affects many of us just as much or more than CPI.

People are taking the words "Everything is on the table" and reducing that to absolutely NOTHING but CPI.

That's not the case.

For example: We are approaching the deadline for the insurance exchanges. The feds will design and run exchanges for something like about half of the states, because those states LIKE MINE rejected the ACA. What happens in this tax/budget deal WILL affect not only the financial environment in which all of that goes down, but also the political climate in which Americans make use of provisions in the ACA to get the kinds of services and the QUALITY OF CARE (a financial & LABOR issue) that they need. But to watch all of this hysteria over the CPI you'd think absolutely nothing else is happening, nothing else matters. This drama over the CPI is acted out as though whatever else is happening will not be affected POLITICALLY, in 2014 especially, by all of this hysteria, but then, I begin to suspect that that may be one objective here.

[Fumesucker]

35. I'm not sure if it's my fault or yours or neither

But I have a hard time parsing some of your posts, I got your first paragaph but the meaning of the last one escapes me.

I for one can't hold it all in my head, I have to concentrate on one thing at a time and Sandy Hook has really given my morale a beating and distracted the hell out of me, I have three grandkids that are just a bit older than those poor children and it has really upset me.

Despite following the health care developments fairly closely I still don't understand how it's all supposed to work, it seems like some Rube Goldberg apparatus designed to be as complex and confusing as possible. I do not see a connnection between what I'm reading and me walking in the doctor's office and being seen, there's just too much monkey motion in it for me to follow. It's been over four years since I've seen a doctor and I have three more to go to Medicare, seven years is a long time to go with no medical care at my age.

Just because you are comfortable being in a car where the driver is playing chicken with your future please don't assume that everyone else has your phlegmatic disposition. Ever since the public option was thrown by the wayside I haven't trusted Obama, the single main reason I supported him in the first place was he ridiculed the private mandate while he was a candidate and I agreed with the points he made, then once elected the mandate became the centerpiece of his health insurance reform. The thing that really stings is I expected the turn around from the beginning, I actually have a post up on DU2 from Nov 2008 saying I expected the mandate to be the end result.

I have what I consider sound personal reasons for loathing and despising the medical insurance companies, it chaps my nads to the max to feel like I've been sold to them as just a hunk of meat with (supposedly) a government subsidy attached. It is particularly galling to have seen the sellout coming right from the beginning while my candidate was busy telling me what I wanted to hear.

We have now had Nancy Pelosi confirm that cuts=strengthening when it comes to SS, just like many of us have been saying every time the politicians talk about "strengthening" SS and have been roundly denied by the usual suspects here on DU.

[patrice]

36. You know, it's not fair, nor objective, to use words like "comfortable" and "phlegmatic". I suppose

those kinds of imputations ARE cast from both sides (so I suppose also you might guess because you share the experience) how your use of those characterizations of me cause me to be skeptical about your honest assessment of our general situation and also of my particular truth . . .

although I did like most of the rest of this post.

And I haven't trusted Pelosi for several years.

[Fumesucker]

39. So you aren't "comfortable" having a game of chicken played with your future?

I'm not sure how else you'd characterize it if someone told you not to worry about something than that they were comfortable with the situation.

I see phlegmatic as being a good thing or at least not a bad one, I wish I were able to react that way myself but my position is too damn precarious to allow me to see it that way. It's like being a passenger in a car with somone whose driving you don't entirely trust, you can't help but put your right foot on the floorboards and start pressing the nonexistent brake pedal sometimes. If that driver then starts playing chicken you'll be trying to put you foot right through the floorboards. Since I don't have a car I have to ride with people that scare me often enough that I'm well acquainted with the feeling, one of my rides in particular looks at anything and everything *except* the damn road and I have to sometimes literally bite my tongue to keep from telling them to keep their eyes on the road and their hands upon the wheel.

[Milliesmom]

32. I am scared to death

http://www.thenation.com/blog/171840/why-democrats-must-break-obama-social-security-cuts

I already live below/way below the poverty level on Social Security and I am almost sick over this news. Shame on President Obama, I will never support or back him in anything again. He should be so ashamed,he has betrayed his base.

[FedUpWithIt All]

71. Healthcare is a huge factor in the way cost of living increases are calculated for Social Security

It was important to increase it at a slightly accelerated rate because the cost of healthcare for seniors was rising at a high rate.

Healthcare costs for seniors have changed and will continue to change.

The Affordable Care Act saved almost 2.8 million individuals an average of $677 on prescription drugs in the first 10 months of 2012. $5 billion was saved on prescription drugs because of the health care law.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/12/20121203a.html

These are significant savings and the Affordable Care Act is only in it's beginning stages. The savings are expected to increase significantly. One of the factors determining the cost of living increases was the ridiculous and rapid increases in health care costs for SS recipients in the past.

So what is it? Is he hurting SS recipients or is he helping them? Is he trying to create a stronger economy for ALL Americans, including the unemployed and the lower income worker, or is he only supposed to consider the needs of some. None of these concerns exists in a vacuum. There have been many changes and all of these should be discussed as a bigger picture.

[lib2DaBone]

37. It takes a Democratic President to make the first stab in the back...

..then the Republicans follow up and slice it to the bone...blaming the Dems.

They got Clinton to cut welfare, send our jobs away with NAFTA and sell off all the radio & TV stations in the country.

Now they are going to get Obama to make the first slice at Social Security....


Tom Hartman just said," Social Security is SELF-FUNDING, is the most successful government program ever, and last year it CONTRIBUTED $50 Million in excess to the budget." "Social Security does NOT add to the deficit."

I trust Tom Hartman more than I trust Fox News.

[ProSense]

42. A Democratic President enacted the COLA.

A Democratic President enacted the COLA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022045787

In our lifetimes. Never thought I'd see it.

Unfuckingbelievable

I guess you were born after 1977?

[leftstreet]

60. CPI and COLA are two separate things

what on earth are you talking about?

I'm sorry you were disappointed in Carter, but you need to move on

[spanone]

44. hey, guess what. nothing happened. you know that?

[SidDithers]

46. ...

Sid

[kelliekat44]

48. If you never had twenty dollars and I gave you $10, would you consider that i cut your money? nt

[JoePhilly]

49. Meanwhile, John Boehner lays weeping in a pool of his own sick.

With Obama's footprint on his ass.

[bigtree]

51. whatever he agreed to include for the republicans wasn't all the way fleshed out

. . .so we don't really know if it would be included or if it would have ultimately represented a cut. All we really have is an incomplete proposal from the President to make some cpi adjustment, but it's not clear if it was even a serious offer. I doesn't look like it was. It looks like it was just a ruse to show that Boehner wasn't serious at all; not even when presented with an opportunity to realize one of the republicans own proposals. I'd put good money down though against the idea that the end product would actually represent a cut for recipients. After all, this president has spent his first term preserving, defending and enhancing those same programs. Those are facts; the rest is just self-serving speculation. You can put anything on this President with that tactic.

[RobinA]

62. Since When Do You

make a nonserious offer that is counter to your interest in a negotiation? Gee sir, I will give you 1 million dollars for this brand new Honda Civic. You'll take it? Oops, that wasn't SERIOUS offer. Who does that?

[leftstreet]

63. LOL good question

-I'll give you my xbox

-Okay

-No, I was just kidding!

Brilliant negotiating strategy - for 6 year olds!

[Bonobo]

55. But he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he threw us under the bus! nt

[L0oniX]

61. If this is true I will go independant ...or maybe just give up and rob a bank for my retirement.

[treestar]

64. Social Security is not means tested

Middle class and even rich people get it. So it can be fiddled with as long as it is not the poor people.

Offering to cut food stamps or something means tested might justify this kind of thing, but not the social security payments of rich people. Even if you are going to call calculating inflation based raises differently as a "cut."

[democrattotheend]

66. I agree

Like it or not, there are going to be cuts to things we don't want cut because the GOP in the House will not raise the debt ceiling otherwise. But if they do the chained CPI in a way that protects the poor, as the president is seeking to do, I see that as a far more tolerable cut than cuts to food stamps or Medicaid or other programs for the poor.

[FedUpWithIt All]

72. I also agree n/t

[forestpath]

65. K&R All the more abusive because it's so unnecessary.

[closeupready]

67. K&R

[SugarShack]

75. They are doing this because they have borrowed too much against it....bastards.

They wreck it...and they can fix it???? pay us back with INTEREST!!! Those who created all of our financial messes...are still here to fix it for us?

Come on....we need them out of here!

[Doctor_J]

79. Against the wishes of those who voted for him, many who didn't,

84% of the American electorate, and a huge chuck of the Dem congressional delegation.

Was a disappointment - now a disgrace.