Obama Aide On Social Security Cut Story: It 'Overshoots The Runway'

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

Obama Aide On Social Security Cut Story: It 'Overshoots The Runway'

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is pushing back against a Wednesday night report that the president is prepared to offer cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

"The story overshoots the runway," said a senior administration official. "The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

"While it is definitely not a driver of the deficit," the official added, "it does need to be strengthened."

The response, sent via email to The Huffington Post, provides a measure of assurance to Democrats who were taken aback by the abrupt news, broken by the Washington Post, that Social Security reform was now on the debt-ceiling table. Still, the devil is in the details, and the idea of "strengthening" the entitlement program remains the vague standard for reform.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/social-security-cuts-debt_n_892070.html

[classof56]

1. Thanks for posting.

I feel a bit better now--cautiously optimistic, as they say.

Tired Old Cynic

[dennis4868]

4. Yes, don't fall for the hyperspeculation...

that the PL practices on a dailt basis...wait until you hear it from Obama himself or his administration....

[FreakinDJ]

9. Obama is looking to "Raise the Cap" on Social Security

Every thing he has said indicates he wants to "Strengthen Social Security" not cut benefits

[neoralme]

58. Oh, puhleeze. It doesn't mean that at all!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. That's what he SHOULD do - he has made NO indication, never, not in

a single off-hand comment, much less a policy statement, that it is what he WANTS to do.

[Qutzupalotl]

116. Yes he has.

Obama backs lifting income cap for Social Security

Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that boosting the amount of individual income subject to Social Security taxes should be considered as a way to put the retirement program on a stronger fiscal footing.

....

Obama noted that Social Security has not been a driver of budget deficits, though the program will be unable to pay out full benefits to retirees in a few decades. For that reason he said "tweaks" are needed to stabilize the program's finances.

"For the vast majority of Americans, every dime you earn, you're paying some in Social Security," Obama told college students in Virginia. "But for (billionaire investor) Warren Buffett, he stops paying at a little bit over $100,000 and then the next $50 billion he's not paying a dime in Social Security taxes."

"If we just made a little bit of an adjustment in terms of the cap on Social Security, that would do a significant amount to stabilize the system," Obama said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-usa-obama-socialsecurity-idUSTRE73I46920110419

[RaleighNCDUer]

119. Read it again.

"For the vast majority of Americans, every dime you earn, you're paying some in Social Security," Obama told college students in Virginia. "But for (billionaire investor) Warren Buffett, he stops paying at a little bit over $100,000 and then the next $50 billion he's not paying a dime in Social Security taxes."

"If we just made a little bit of an adjustment in terms of the cap on Social Security, that would do a significant amount to stabilize the system," Obama said.

Where does it say "...and I strongly support this." Or "...and I support this." Or even, "...and I kinda think it's a good idea."

The statement of a self-evident fact is not an endorsement of a plan of action.

[Qutzupalotl]

127. Here's more.

Obama said, "I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors."

"The best way forward is to first look to adjust the cap on the payroll tax. ... Ninety-seven percent of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my proposal. ... What it does allow us to do is to extend the life of Social Security without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age."

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=23015501

[RaleighNCDUer]

129. Well, I also remember him saying that he opposed mandated insurance -

that mandated insurance without a public option would not work.

Again, here he says "I do not want..." It does not say "I fundamentally oppose..." or "I will fight..."

All this says is he knows the argument - it says nothing about taking a stand on that argument.

Everything is on the fucking table.

[Qutzupalotl]

133. Move the goalposts much?

Your words: "He has made NO indication, never, not in a single off-hand comment, much less a policy statement, that it is what he WANTS to do."

I provide evidence that he did exactly that, and suddenly it's no longer about saying what he WANTS to do.

You need to admit that your statement was incorrect.

[RaleighNCDUer]

135. My statement is EXACTLY correct.

I said "He has made NO indication, never, not in a single off-hand comment, much less a policy statement, that it is what he WANTS to do."

What HE said was that this is what could be done. NOWHERE did he say he would do it, or wanted to do it. Only that it would work.

Where, in what you quoted, or in the quote above that, does he say he WANTS to raise the cap? That it will become policy to raise the cap?

This is exactly like the health care debate - before the campaign he favored single-payer; during the campaign he insisted that a mandate without a public option was a no starter; and which push came to shove, he threw the public option out the window, settling for the same mandate he campaigned against. He KNOWS single-payer would work. He KNOWS the mandate without a public option just funnels money to the insurance companies. But he didn't say he WANTED, or would FIGHT for either of them.

Find me a citation where he says he WANTS to raise the cap. Not that it would work, but that it is what he is willing to fight for.

"Gee, I know that raising the cap would solve any upcoming problems with SS, but those mean old republicans MADE me cut benefits instead."

He talks like a lawyer, and every word has a specific meaning. If he doesn't say, specifically, that he will fight for raising the cap, you can't assume he has any intention of doing so.

[Qutzupalotl]

138. "under my proposal"

Why would he propose something he doesn't want? And why would you assume he doesn't want what he's proposing? That makes no sense.

[RaleighNCDUer]

140. LINK LINK LINK

I read your link and there is no "under my proposal" in it. He has made no proposal. He sorta maybe made a suggestion in an interview four years ago - same one that said no COLA freeze (what happened to that?).

There is a difference between saying what CAN be done and what you WANT to get done.

He does not WANT to raise the cap - his republibuddies wouldn't like it. He'll come up with some crap like raising the retirement age, but allotting the same payments after the raised age, so seniors will recieve the same money over time - meaning "no reduced benefits" (unless, of course, they DIE first).

When has he gone before congress and said "I would like to see the SS cap raised 10%" or ANYTHING like that. A four year old interview doesn't mean crap. HE WAS NOT EVEN PRESIDENT WHEN HE SAID THAT.

[RaleighNCDUer]

143. It occurs to me, however, that he WAS a Senator at the time.

Where was the legislation he submitted, which COULD be called a 'proposal'. He had the means. He had the opportunity. If he made a proposal, what was the Senate Bill # for it?

Or was it really just blathering in a newspaper interview?

[Qutzupalotl]

152. Never means never.

Words have to mean something if you want to have a rational discussion.

I provided the link upthread. Here it is again if you missed it:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=23015501

[bornskeptic]

136. Yes he did-- the only really foolish position I've ever seen him take on an issue.

Everybody is wrong on occasion. I don't think advocating raising the cap is a mistake. Why would you compare it to advocating optional universal healthcare?

[RaleighNCDUer]

142. Huh?

yes he did what?

I don't think advocating raising the cap is a mistake either - I wish the fuck he would do it, somewhere other than in a four year old newspaper interview at the beginning of his campaign.

And what does 'optional universal healthcare' even mean? If it is optional, it is not universal. And mandatory insurance is not healthcare. What I was talking about was the way he moved from single-payer, before the campaign, to public option during the campaign, to screw you all once he was elected.

He cannot be trusted.

[Matt Shapiro]

150. You have it exactly right.

See this article by Glenn Greenwald, which pretty much says it all. The George Carlin video at the end is devastating.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/07/social_security/index.html

[jbnow]

151. Not quite what he ever said about mandated insurance although

he was opposed to mandates for adults. (But wanted them for children)
What he said was he felt most people would want insurance if it was made affordable and that the insurance should at least get started with no mandate. Since adult kids could be covered to age 26 on parents insurance and they were the most likely group to go without insurance he wanted to see how it all went first.
Though the public option was in his written plan it wasn't anything he talked about during campaign.
After he was president he talked about being convinced that to bring prices down they needed the larger, younger, healthier pool for exchange especially with all of the new rules being put in place for insurance companies

As far as raising cap as his preferred choice he brought that up many times even as president. He has often said that would be his choice although usually he said something about leaving cap where it is and then picking it back up for those earning over 200K or 250K, probably to keep his promise about not raising taxes on those earning less than that.

Probably not too convincing since I am not offering a link. Too lazy now but my memory of it is clear...

Everything is on the table... meaning people can feel free to bring up whatever they want... not that all things are possible
I'd bet that the Medicare cuts he agrees to are already in health plan. I think it's a bit foolish for this language to be out though

I keep thinking about the cuts he agreed to that got budget through. We were all mad that republicans got all they asked for total wise. Later the CBO told us this

A new budget estimate released Wednesday shows that the spending bill negotiated between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner would produce less than 1 percent of the $38 billion in claimed savings by the end of this budget year.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate shows that compared with current spending rates the spending bill due for a House vote Thursday would pare just $352 million from the deficit through Sept. 30. About $8 billion in cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid are offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending.

I will wait to be furious.

[dennis4868]

130. you are talking facts...

here we deal in hyperspeculation...please leave! :-(

[GillesDeleuze]

65. seen this movie before

"The White House is committed to a public option"

"Reports from top aides say Obama not committed to public option"

"Top aides walk back reports that angered the left."

"No public option."

hmm hows this one going to end.

good bye social security. you had a nice 75 year run.

[JoeyT]

79. We've seen this movie several times.

I almost feel bad giving the ending away for the people that haven't seen it or want to pretend they haven't seen it before, but the fiftieth time someone pops the same DVD into the player, I kind of stop caring about their suspension of disbelief.

We've seen the whole trilogy: The Public Option, Bush Tax Cuts: Public Option 2 - Electric Boogaloo, and The Patriot Act: You Didn't Need Those Rights Anyway.

[GillesDeleuze]

91. so funny if it weren't so sad.

Where's the LEADERSHIP?

[stockholmer]

124. look to the hands that hold the puppet strings of Obama, from there you will start on the journey

"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments… The powers of financial capitalism had far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences… It must be understood that the power that these energetic left-wingers exercised was never their own power of Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie."



"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.."

Carroll Quigley ( Tragedy and Hope - 1966)


--------------------------------------

Quigley was born in Boston, and attended Harvard University, where he studied history and earned B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. degrees. He taught at Princeton University, and then at Harvard, and then at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University from 1941 to 1976.

From 1941 until 1969, he taught a two-semester course at Georgetown on the development of civilizations. According to the obituary in the Washington Star, many alumni of Georgetown's School of Foreign Service asserted that this was "the most influential course in their undergraduate careers.

In his freshman year in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, future U.S. President Bill Clinton took Quigley's course, receiving a 'B' as his final grade in both semesters.

Clinton named Quigley as an important influence on his aspirations and political philosophy in 1991, when launching his presidential campaign in a speech at Georgetown. He also mentioned Quigley again during his acceptance speech to the 1992 Democratic National Convention, as follows:


As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest Nation in history because our people had always believed in two things–that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so."

[Hawkowl]

93. +1

So you are saying, there is truth in the trendline? :)

[PassingFair]

132. Bull...let them know NOW, before decisions are made.

So they don't think we have their backs on ANY cuts.

[dennis4868]

2. Thanks to the PL....

The WH had to waste their time and send out this email to HP!

[liberalmike27]

89. Do you know the really sad part?

No one is talking about globalization, free trade agreements, like Nafta and gatt, in creating the unemployment. Rarely is it discussed that it is this very unemployment, created by globalization as a policy, by the anti-protectionism (not protecting America internally, it's jobs) practiced that has created tax deficits at the federal, state, local city and county levels.

The media, Democrats and Republicans seem to have made up their mind on continuing this Miltie Friedmann, Chicago boyz ravaging of our economy, and they'll talk debt all day long, but they don't mention the military, and our 3-5 wars, a perfect way to get the rich to pay a higher tax. Just threaten to get out, if republicans don't pass a tax increase to pay for them. They don't mention how much in taxes we'd be still collecting were the jobs here, were the unions strong, were tariffs in place so as to keep enough jobs here in America, and quiet that "sucking sound" that has been slurping jobs like a child slurps an icee, trying to get the icy dregs from a nearly empty once proud and full plastic cup!

With the unions still strong,with wages high, benefits in place, more democrats would've been elected, so we'd have had better regulation, and might've never had the Gulf Gusher, the River oil springs, the banking collapses, the coal miner disaster.

Tariffs--hell, a lot of people here are probably sold on them being a bad thing. It's like this crazy-conventional wisdom that has just been accepted, just because the "two parties" have agreed on them, like the drug war, or multiple wars without end. If we get the jobs back, we'll solve half of our debt problem without raising a single tax. The rest is in the quieting of the military, the stoppage of American forrays into foreign lands, like vacations taken when you're about to lose your house, they make no sense.

[AnnieK401]

112. Couldn't agree more!

You are absolutely correct.

[dgibby]

126. And the saddest part of all is that it was all by design.

Can't have globalization without leveling the economic playing field. That's why the "Economic Hit Men" working for the global PTB are dismantling 1st World economies as fast as possible. Once Americans are hungry, homeless, and poor, they'll be happy to work for 3rd World wages. Then there will be no need to off shore jobs.

[OHdem10]

3. Overshooting the runway, my foot. I would rather have Republicans

destroy the safety net first developed by Democrats
than have people who call themselves Democrats destroy it.

This probably assures the GOP a win in next election.

[neoralme]

109. Probably Romney. I don't believe the USA is nuts enough to go

for Palin or Bachmann (I think that's her name.)

[PoliticAverse]

5. There are two ways to 'strengthen', increase SS revenues or cut SS payouts....

COLA changes and retirement age increases reduce payouts, raising the cap (what Obama indicated in the past he
favors) increases revenues.

So what's really on the table?...

[Recursion]

7. Probably some combination

If 9% unemployment is actually the new normal going forward, it's not as secure as we think it is.

[lark]

34. This is so sad when a Dem president

always sides with Repugs and against the people that put him in office. Why the fuck would he even mention this except as a prelude to yet another cave. The only change he supports is moving to the right and destroying the Democratic base and why is he doing this - no reason at all except it's what the right wants and he gets nothing back from them, no concessions on taxes at all!!!!! People here put down Clinton all the time, but at least Clinton had the balls to raise taxes on the rich & approve FMLA - what has Obama done to improve the economy and the lives of working people - zero, zilch, nada. If he cuts SS in any way, I will have such a hard time even getting up the energy to vote for him. If it wasn't for the Supreme Court norminations, I would absolutely not vote for him.

[AllTooEasy]

98. You are full of shit!!!

Obama has done nothing to improve the economy for working people?

Obama walked into a year long recession. He ended it in 6 months.

Obama walked into 700,000 jobs lost his first month. That number continuously decreased to zero in 7 months. We've had positive gains every month in the private(non-taxpayer funded, ex. Census) job market ever since.

In addition, Clinton didn't raise taxes. Congress passed the bill and Clinton signed it. Congress has never passed an increase in income taxes under Obama. You can thank Blue Dog Dems and Repukes for that.

Plus read this: http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/12/obamas-accomplishments/

...and add the ending of DADT

...and you are discounting Republican Obstructionism.

Plus, if you had read the original reports, the cuts were only offered in exchange for revenue increases. Not "cuts and nothing in return". Wow, how the hell did you miss all that?!

[AllTooEasy]

111. And add this...

http://news.yahoo.com/govt-ease-foreclosure-rules-unemp...

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. I love it how Obama gets all the credit for any little bit of good,

but none of the blame for the most horrendous travesties.

How...godlike.

[AllTooEasy]

154. Little bit of good?! most horrendous traveties?!

You act like he's only walked old ladies across the street while impaling babies. WOW!

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. When did he EVER suggest raising the cap?

Citation, please.

[PoliticAverse]

122. Here you go...

From April this year (he's mentioned it other times/places also):

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/04/19/obama-reaffirms-desire-to-lift-social-security-payroll-cap/

...
Now, politically, it’s hard to do. Politically, it’s hard to do. For example — I’ll just give you one example of a change that would make a difference in Social Security. Right now you only pay a Social Security tax up to a certain point of your income. So a little bit over $100,000, your Social Security — you don’t pay Social Security tax.

Now, how many people are making less than $100,000 a year? Don’t be bashful. (Laughter.) The point is, for the vast majority of Americans, every dime you earn, you’re paying some in Social Security. But for Warren Buffett, he stops paying at a little bit over $100,000 and then the next $50 billion he’s not paying a dime in Social Security taxes.

So if we just made a little bit of an adjustment in terms of the cap on Social Security, that would do a significant amount to stabilize the system. And that’s just an example of the kinds of changes that we can make. (Applause.)
...

[bornskeptic]

134. Here you go. Always happy to help the google-impaired.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3638710&page=1

[dgibby]

128. Our posteriors, no doubt. n/t

[boppers]

147. There are more than three ways to strengthen it.

1. Increase revenues
2. Reduce payouts
3. Isolate the funds
4. Reduce T-bill swaps
(etc.)

[zalinda]

6. Overshoot the runway? Is that the new

"read my lips" or "I didn't have sex with that woman"?

zalinda

[Fuddnik]

14. I think it means James Inhofe is piloting the plane.

[Demeter]

64. It's more Like "Trial Balloon Shot Full of Holes"

I'm sure he said it and meant it. Now they are going for plausible deniability. Richard Nixon Lives!

[trumad]

100. Bingo

They most certainly floated the balloon and immediately saw the base begin to erupt.

I hate metaphors like "overshootthe runway"

What ever happen to the good old words like Fuck and No...

IE: Fuck no we're not touching SS and Medicare!

[Amonester]

121. Yep. They act like they have absolutely no clue about what the base wants.

Or they don't have a clue at all, being surrounded by neocon-lite 'advisors' who caused the collapse to begin with.

[wordpix]

144. you got that one right - well, now that it's an election year, maybe he'll listen to his base

for once

[GOTV]

78. Or the new "Any bill I sign must ...."

[boppers]

137. ...include an insurance exchange?

The healthcare bill did.

[Hawkowl]

90. It should mean "crash and burn"

Because that's what happens when you overshoot and run off the end of the runway. Somehow, I don't think he means this.

[brooklynite]

8. But, Obama is planning to end Social Security as we know it!

I read it here!

[sulphurdunn]

15. The political and corporate classes

are now in the process of either privatizing or abandoning social programs. They have little interest in an action that would reverse the redistribution of wealth up the income ladder. When pay to play government is enthralled to legalized bribery, who do you think will come out on top, a hedge fund manager or a social security recipient?

[SkyDaddy7]

24. YES, I did too! If folks on DU say Obama will...

destroy Social Security then Obama will destroy Social Security regardless of what Obama says! Right?

[No Elephants]

38. Can you provide us with a link to a DU post saying Obama will destroy OASDI?

[brooklynite]

54. How about these

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1429996 (OP)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1431275

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4909546#4909884 (#53)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1432237 (#1)

[No Elephants]

57. Two oout of the four seriously say what you claimed, but I asked for only one, so fair enough.

Now you know why I rarely venture out of LBN. GD is too far out there for me.

Thanks for the links.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[SkyDaddy7]

104. I didn't say there were DU post saying, "Obama will destroy OASDI"

...I said there were post saying, "Obama would destroy Social Security" There very well could be post saying, "Obama will destroy OASDI"

YES...I know they are the same thing but I wanted to be precise in case this was a joke.

If this is not a joke...Then I have to assume you are trying to imply no one on DU has said, "Obama will destroy Social Security" & Medicare? Or many variations of the same thing? Seriously?

I don't have time to list who knows how many post there are but here are two from today...One actually on the Greatest Threads Page as I type this.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1431076

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x702316#702324

[Iliyah]

51. Yeap

they are playing right into the gopers hands. Gopers use the corporate media to instill fear and of course some of the American people comply w/o truly knowing the facts but by then they are soooooo brainwashed it's toooooooo late. Then the goper gets into office and guess what, it gets much much worse. Then the people who voted for them starts to fight an up hill battle, but the gopers are in control and truly fuck their constituents up except for the rich of course.

All because these voters believed in the effing lies.

[No Elephants]

33. Can you link us to a post in which a DUer said Obama would end OASDI as we know it?

[still_one]

37. I heard Dick Durbin say it on Bloomberg this morning /nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. He's going to save SS

the same way that Clinton saved the welfare system.

[GOTV]

80. We had to destroy the village to save it

[Roy Rolling]

10. Hurricane advice

Obama's media people should use this advice.

A former mayor of New Orleans---Chep Morrison---had a classic quote during a public panic about an approaching hurricane: "Don't believe any false rumors until you hear them from me first."

[Ruby the Liberal]

40. I *love* that.

LOL!

[No Elephants]

42. That comes close to Gingrich's saying that anyone who quoted him (accurately) would be lying.

[truth2power]

11. Now they call it, "strengthen". Mmmm-kay. n/t

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[grahamhgreen]

16. I know how you feel, but your the kind of Dem the rest of us need!

Never surrender!

That's what they want

[fascisthunter]

21. The Left Never Gives Up!

[snooper2]

32. sure, whatever you say...

[No Elephants]

46. I don;t know about NAFTA or CMA, bujt Clinton did NOT cave in on Gramm Leach. He WANTED it.

He told Congress to get it on his desk ASAP. That's why Democrats voted for it.

And every other time I mention Clinton in connection with Gramm Leach (aka repeal Glass Steagall), someone will say, "Well, to be fair, it had enough votes to overried his veto."

a) No one knows if a veto will be overridden until a bill actually has been vetoed. Voting for a bill is different from voting to override a Presidential veto, esp. a President of one's own Party.

b) The reason there were enough votes to override the veto is that Clinton ensured there would be enough.

[neoralme]

55. Outstanding!!!!!!!!!!

[pnorman]

56. There's Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference Between......

n/t

[Demeter]

68. Not anymore, there isn't

Obama jumped that shark in his first two months, and has been doing encores ever since.

[grahamhgreen]

13. "While it is definitely not a driver of the deficit," the official added. Obama needs to state

That SS has nothing to do with increasing the debt.

Every day.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. The President is direct when he says 'marriage is for one man

and one woman' but this is a pile of meaningless weasel words for a reason. The use of vague language on this issue is uncalled for and utterly reckless.

[No Elephants]

53. Yes, but he also says his thinking on same gender marriage is evolving.

Talk about hedging your bets.

[gkhouston]

139. It's not reckless; it's *purposeful*. If the WH's intentions were on

the up-and-up, there would be no need to obfuscate. Do you use weasel words to describe good actions?

[Fearless]

18. I'll believe Captain Cave-In when I see the end result... Also Medicare? Medicaid?

Are they bargaining chips? Don't be surprised when you don't have a backing in 2012 if you touch any of these three programs or don't tax the wealthy adequately for the damage they've caused this country.

[placton]

19. translation from Obamese:

you betcha we are gonna cut these programs!

[GillesDeleuze]

67. yup. CUT

[theaocp]

20. political gibberish overshoots comprehension

"The story overshoots the runway," said a senior administration official. "The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

"While it is definitely not a driver of the deficit," the official added, "it does need to be strengthened."

Mr. Obama, the Republicans DO NOT WANT TO STRENGTHEN SS. Therefore, your desire for a bipartisan process is pissing up a rope - it ain't gonna happen. Bullshit phrases like "balanced way" are not required, nor desired by anyone outside of DC. If your intentions are FUCKING CLEAR, it's not necessary to use gibberish about "preserving the promise of the program". Some people think raising the retirement age is not "slashing benefits" when it so clearly IS. Please check yourself.

Strengthening SS is a great idea. If it is not a driver of the deficit, then what are you doing talking about it? The talk is about the deficit, not strengthening SS. Do you really think trotting this out is going to put peoples' minds at rest? It's not like anyone thinks the Republicans are hashing it out with you about how to strengthen SS, so are you really just telling us to sit down, shut up, and let the adults handle this? Vraiment?

[bbgrunt]

70. +1. eggszackly.

[Javaman]

94. +1

yes, "balanced way" jumped out at me as well.

more bullshit to cover the our eyes and fill our ears.

Until I see a final plan, I'm going to go with what several new outlets have reported rather than Obama's spin man.

[daleanime]

22. It's not a 'cut'.....

if we don't call it a "cut'.:nuke: :nuke: :grr:

[AlbertCat]

45. It's not a 'cut'.....if we don't call it a "cut'.

Yeah!
Like bombing people in another country isn't a war!

I get it!

:nuke: ... indeed!

[Javaman]

95. It's a "balanced way!"

cut by any other name...

[still_one]

23. Pure weasel words. I heard Durbin on Bloomberg this morning talking out of both sides of his mouth.

In one sentence he said they want to strengthen social security, and in the next sentence he said by getting rid of cost of living, and other things

This is a pure snow job

[Bake]

25. LOTS of "wiggle words" in that

Oveshoots the runway? What the hell does that even mean?

"Slash?" No. But cuts? Oh yeah.

"Strengthening the program?" Typical politician bulshit for cutting it. Up means down, no means yes.

"Preserves the promise?" More politician bullshit.

Sounds like "we had to burn the village to save it" to me.

Bake

[Ruby the Liberal]

44. 'Sounds like "we had to burn the village to save it" to me...'

Well stated.

[No Elephants]

59. "Slash" versus a "mere" cut is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

For people living on only Social Security, a cut of five dollars a month or loss of any more COLAs would be very significant, esp. since the COLA calculation totally ignores skyrocketing food cost and Obama already recommended cuts in fuel subsidies, which many people living only on OASDI need.

[LynneSin]

26. The people who are anti-obama will scream bullshit while the cheerleaders will applaud

Personally I know how the media works and they tend to make alot of mountains out of molehills. Personally I'd to see exactly what Obama is offering before I jump on any bandwagon.

But I will recommend for one reason. I've spent 10 years posting here at DU and discussing how mainstream media tends to do whatever they can to slant things towards the right-wing. Yet everytime a store comes out that makes Obama look really bad there tends to be alot of DUers willing to believe that same mainstream media.

Personally I think our best bet is to make the calls to the White House and our Senator/Representatives to let them know what is and is not acceptable.

[No Elephants]

61. Can you think of a time in the past decade when contacting people in D.C. changed anything?

A lot of stories have come out in the media from unnamed administration sources and people here are quick to point out that the sources are not named. Well, that is administration practice--"Tell this to the media on a no names basis." \

Anyway, I've seen a lot of predictions that the stories are unreliable. However, every one I can recall has turned out to be true.

It's a technique, like vaccinations. You leak the bad news anonymously, people go into denial, but by the time it actually happens, people react with "We all knew this was coming."

[peace4ever]

145. it's not personal, it's about the policy, and lack of transparacy

fyi

[bvar22]

27. Oh, I get it!

They aren't going to "cut" Social Security.
They are going to "strengthen it" by reducing benefits!

I get it now.

Is there NO lie "they" will not tell? :shrug:



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

[salib]

28. This is bad, but expected.

Overshoots the Runway is a meaningless phrase.

If one wanted a promise, then this is not it. Might as well not have said anything.

[No Elephants]

63. When did you begin to expect this?

[salib]

131. During the primaries

Note, later, Obama has been very precise about some of the issues I thought I understood him about.

An example for me is single-payer health care.

I know, I know, he has been more precise since, telling us what he actually said (and thus meant).

Now, I parser the words from him and his reps very carefully, and if anything could at all be interpreted many ways, I see it as meaningless.

[humbled_opinion]

29. Its all B.S.

Obama will kowtow to the Repukes its this new politics thing.... Look for destruction of Medicare and Social Security as we know it ... Remember this was the Change that we could believe it....

Signed...

Done with it all...

[LynneSin]

30. So you're saying you believe everything you read from Mainstream Media

:wow:

[humbled_opinion]

36. Nope... I am saying...

The Repukes control the debate, or hadn't you noticed? Can't raise taxes because Obama set a precedent by extended Bushco tax cuts to the wealthy with a defense that it would be good for the economy, now he needs to seriously raise taxes to handle revenue to fight deficit spending and the economy is still rough so he loses the tax increase argument. Next up Cons claim its the Social Security and Medicare "UNFUNDED LIABILITIES" that are unsustainable and we don't hear any rebuttal from Democrats some Democrats even agree.... Obama continues war funding which limits his argument on cutting defense spending ...

So you tell me if you have been paying attention to anything at all this is a growing storm that is going to destroy Social Security and Medicare and our entire social compact in America....

Only Pollyanna's would disagree at this point.

[neoralme]

88. Exactly. But it will cause a revolution that will require the military

to be called in, which is why Bush reversed Posse Comitatus (sp).

[Barack_America]

31. "Strengthened" What bullshit. We all know that means cuts.

Have the freaking courage to be honest about your policies.

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. "measure of assurance" my foot. It was a trial balloon

Or the frog being dropped into the pot while the burner heats up.

However you want to look at it.

[FarLeftFist]

39. WOW. I thought us Liberals judge people on their actions instead of pre-judging

Seems like people will find any excuse to attack this President. Shouldn't we wait to see what is actually done before we decide to just hand our brains over to the MSM he said/she said BS? I'll be pissed too if these programs are weakened but I'll wait to make that judgement when I see the final result/legislation. The Huffington Post has become the National Enquirer of politics, based mostly on rumor and speculation.

[still_one]

41. I am judging on what is being said by his administration, and people like Dick D

Durbin

[neoralme]

49. Are you out of your mind? We should sit here complacent like little

lambs not saying anything, and in doing so, give this higly questionable Democrat tacit approval of making cuts to Democratic signature programs that--if cut and put on the path to extinction--will END the Democratic Party. Do you ever talk to people in real life? My entire neighborhood is Democratic. Most voted for Obama. Every one of them will shitcan this man if he tampers with entitlements.

[FarLeftFist]

115. IF he tampers with entitlements. See what I did there...

I'll judge him based on his actions and not internet rumors. I'll also be the first to be mad if he does choose to tamper with them in a way that would weaken them, but not before.

[No Elephants]

62. I agree. Let;s wait before we criticize OR praise this.

[GOTV]

84. Not "any excuse", very rational excuses: his previous caves and his cat food commission ...

... he's got more than one fault deserving of criticism.

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. Why do conservadems like to try to hide behind 'leftist' names? nt

[FarLeftFist]

114. Riiiight. I'm a "conservadem" because I don't pre-judge people

And instead wait to judge people on their actions and not internet rumors. Some would call that un-biased, sane, and completely rational. I guess in America 2011 those ideas are radical. My utopia is one that would be considered far-left, only the far-right pre-judge. I can honestly say in my 31 yrs of life Pres. Obama is the best President of my lifetime so far.

[RaleighNCDUer]

117. Well, I must agree, in your 31 years of live, Pres. Obama is the best presiident

of your lifetime.

Of course, you've never lived during a real Democrat's term.

I, OTOH, remember a few REAL Democrats.

[AlbertCat]

43. the official added, "it does need to be strengthened."

Then do it without anything being "attached" to the debt ceiling or any other unrelated business. Just do it alone.

And what does "strengthen" mean in this instance?

[wordpix]

47. Repugs: "We'll cut tax breaks for corporate jets, you cut Soc. Sec & Medicare for the poor, elderly"

That's fair, right? :sarcasm:

[somone]

48. The handwriting was on the wall with the catfood commission

which was a creation of Obama

[neoralme]

52. Exactly. And most of us knew that. It was not even that hard to

see.

[LiberalFighter]

50. I would suggest castigating Lori Montgomery

But I also have doubts about the Obama administration's aim regarding Social Security.

I don't know this Lori Montgomery. And she could be the problem.

[AbigailThomas]

60. :/

Overshoots the ruwnay?? Here's to hoping!

[No Elephants]

66. Is it soup yet? We'll know soon enough, I guess.

[IndyMaine]

69. Bullshit

"Confusing the debate even more are the political implications of putting Social Security or any other entitlement reform at the heart of debt-ceiling negotiations. Democrats believe they can use Republicans' votes for a Medicare voucher program earlier this spring as a potent political weapon. But by signing off on cuts of their own -- the thinking goes -- Democrats would lose any political advantage they've gained by saying they are protecting Medicare while the GOP is trying to fundamentally change or do away with the program."

So they still think they're being clever at 16-dimensional chess. It's just a big game to them, and they have no regard for the consequences of what will happen to actual flesh-and-blood people should the Republicans end up getting their way (as they inevitably do vs. this pathetically weak president).

I also noticed the "senior administration official" was conspicuously silent about Obama's upfront capitulations on Medicare and Medicaid, as what he referred to as "overshooting the runway" was entirely in reference to Social Security.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan I know he's going to vote against me"

Harry S Truman

[Hand_With_Eyes]

75. "a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security"

Bipartisanship with the republicans on SS? Your fucking joking, right?

[ljm2002]

76. "and doesn't slash benefits"...

...now anyone who has followed politics for awhile recognizes weasel-words when they see them. In this case the carefully chosen weasel word is "slash". Because, see, increasing the retirement age or decreasing or eliminating the COLA benefits is not "slashing" in this careful construction of words, it is merely making "adjustments" that will "strengthen" the program.

Mark my words, there are cuts coming, and they will be defended in the same way, by presenting them as a much preferable alternative to "slashing benefits".

Meanwhile, death by a thousand cuts is more painful and prolonged than the simple slash would have been. But for most of us, we'd prefer neither the slash nor the thousand cuts, but rather a healthy Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid safety net.

[gkhouston]

141. Oh, it won't slash benefits. But it won't increase them, either.

Death on the installment plan.

[Better Believe It]

77. The White House official did not dispute any of the proposed cuts in a carefully worded statement.

The Administration does not call a new method to calculate cost-of-living increases and/or an increase in the early and full retirement age to be a "slash" in current benefits. The White House official didn't comment on proposed Medicare cuts.

That's true and also very misleading.

These two proposals will in fact mean smaller cost of living Social Security increases in the future and a substantial decrease in total benefits received due to later retirement eligibility.

How clever and deceptive their wording is!

BBI

----------------------------------

WASHINGTON -- Prominent Social Security advocates expressed deep concern Friday at news that lawmakers may change the way the government measures inflation for taxes and federal benefit programs, weighing such a move as part of a last-minute deal to raise the nation's statutory debt limit while simultaneously cutting the federal budget.

Lawmakers and the Obama administration are reportedly considering switching to a "chained" Consumer Price Index. According to the advocacy group Strengthen Social Security, the chained-CPI could lead to annual Social Security benefit cuts of $560 for those aged 75, $984 for those aged 85 and $1,392 for those aged 95.

"The proposal to shift to the chained-CPI is actually a stealth attack on Social Security," said Joan Entmacher, director of family economic security at the National Women's Law Center, during a Friday conference call with reporters. Her comments were echoed by Strengthen Social Security Campaign co-chair Nancy Altman. She said, "The chained-CPI is poor policy, and given that seniors vote in disproportionately high numbers, it is equally poor politics."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/social-security-advocates_n_888899.html

[ProfessionalLeftist]

81. I don't care. I don't want it anywhere NEAR the runway.

I don't want the idea being flown at ALL.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: [phone]

WTH does "strengthened" mean? Do we wait till Obama does another backroom deal with Republicans to find out? I think not.

Make your voices heard now - or they won't be.

[Peregrine Took]

102. Amen! He always does this - something outrageous is leaked to the press -

then he waits to see the reaction. If the reaction is super negative then he runs and waltzes it back.

Despicable - playing games with people's lives. And its stupid,too, as even threatening to cut people's SS and Medicare makes them hunker down 100% and not spend one nickle they don't have to - just the opposite of what will help the economy.

Words fail me when it comes to this person.

[Kall]

82. Oh please

"The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

---

This same President who wants a "balanced" approach to addressing Social Security, is presently aiming for a "balanced" approach towards addressing the deficit of $5 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases.

And he doesn't want to "slash" benefits. I hope everyone can figure that one out.

Let's not even start on the stupidity of trying to "fix" a possible problem with Social Security 30 years away when "official" unemployment is 9-10% TODAY. In 30 years, Social Security MAY not be able to pay full benefits, so let's cut benefits NOW...

[neoralme]

85. Is this your position, or are you stating the president's allegeded

intentions? If the latter fine; if the former WTF?

[Kall]

103. I'm stating what's out there

It's reported virtually everywhere that the components of this "balanced" debt ceiling deal Obama is aiming for are in the neighbourhood of 80% spending cuts, 20% revenue increases (and he keeps giving more and more). I'm going by his own disingenuous words that he doesn't want to "slash" social Security, now being pushed out into the media by his aides (translation to everyone who's been around politics for more than 5 minutes: cuts are acceptable, "slashes" are not.)

He telegraphs this shit: It's just like when he said he wouldn't "permanently" extend the Bush tax cuts (translation: a temporary extension was OK... and that's what happened.) He was told this was stupid, because it would come back around again when the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit, and Republicans would squawk about it later and he would obligingly take the deficit burden out of the hide of the middle class and poor.

[neoralme]

108. Okay. Whew!............I agree. But, then, I do not for one minute

believe he is a Democrat. He is a Republican Trojan Horse. And because of what George Bush left us in 2008, we fell for Obama's smoothing-talking bullchit hook, line and sinker.

[s-cubed]

83. Call the white house: 202 456 1111.The line is very busy today. n/t

[jwirr]

86. He does not know what he is doing. Those of us on DU and those

like us will vote for him because we have no one else to vote for. Not true of the elderly. Most of us do not know how severe the problems of this country are. They will simply vote against whoever screws with their social security, medicare and medicaid. He is going to lose votes on this one and they will not forget. Social Security is our life line.

[VeryConfused]

92. I don't understand, is the Professional Left again guilty of wild speculation

and dangerous hyperbole?

[mzmolly]

96. President offers to strengthen SS, said he will not "slash benefits."

"The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

So glad I read beyond the misleading headlines of today. Thanks for posting KPete.

[AllyCat]

97. And, as always, it is fancy verbage to say they really are doing what we all fear most

They are planning to put us under the bus so they can join the Republicans in one big, happy party for the wealthy.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[AllTooEasy]

105. What about this....

http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/12/obamas-accomplishments/

...plus his Supreme Court appointments, the ending of DADT, his refusal to defend the DOMA (which is unfortunately his job to defend all laws, even this crap), Iraq draw down (not counting the Afghan draw down yet), killing Osama, ending a year long recession in 6 months, ending that insane policy of not sending condolense letters to our military's war sucide victims, heavily lobbying and passing the UN's Gay Rights Protection Resolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/un-gay-rights-protection-resolution-passes-_n_879032.html), and providing 2 straight years of positive monthly numbers in the private sector job market.

Do you honestly think McCain would have given us any of that? Will Romney do it? Really?!

[neoralme]

106. All that stuff put together pales in his ending the biggest

achievements in Democratic Party history.

[TheDeceptiCON]

110. What about it?

Gee, all that would be GREAT if I were a gay SCOTUS judge serving in Iraq that killed himself.

But I'm like the OTHER 99.9% of the population that isn't affected ONE IOTA of what you praise Obama for.

Where's my single payer health care? Oh, he didn't fight for it.
Where's the repeal of the Bush tax cuts? Caved!
Where's the TOUGH re-regulation of the financial sector?

Where's ANYTHING that makes a REAL DIFFERENCE in the lives of WORKING AMERICANS?
Other than the stipulations on insurance companies to eliminate pre-existing conditions and dropping patients, there's virtually NOTHING to hang your hat on.

I didn't elect Obama to be a tepid little mousy man. I elected him to STAND UP against conservatives and use the bully pulpit.
Not issue wishy-washy statements the next day via a staffer saying he didn't really mean what he said.

[AllTooEasy]

155. Get informed; read the link in my post

No one with a single brain cell can read the link and conclude that 99% of Us have not benefited. Plus, you mean to tell me that a turnaround of 2 straight years of positive monthly gains in the private sector (compared to what we had before) hasn't benefited the working American. Seriously? It's benefit me, because I work in the private sector! Thank you.

[Dr Fate]

107. Why not just say: The rumors are 100% false, no cuts, no tinkering.

Instead they say it "overshoots the runway"

Not very clear, but then again, the ambiguity makes it is quite clear.

How do you "strengthen" SS with GOP involvement AKA a bipartisan process? Their only goal for the last 40 years has been to destroy it.

Leave it alone, and make military cuts the focus. Voters of almost all stripes would be behind that.

Bipartisan strengthening of SS? Errrr-I dont trust the GOP, and I dont trust people who indicate that I should trust the GOP.

[Skittles]

153. exactly

only fools fall for this kind of "explanation"

[SharonRB]

113. Get. Rid. Of. The. Cap.

End of story. All earned income should be subject to the cap.

[chowder66]

118. "it does need to be strengthened"...translates to

Democrats: "it does needs to be strengthened".
Republicans: "it does need to be demolished".
Teabaggers: " its unkonstitootional" aka "Bachman for president!".

Others: fill in the blank.

[TheDeceptiCON]

123. What I would accept for modest COLA cuts in SS and Medicare

A reinstatement of the tax rates we had under that PINKO COMMIE EISENHOWER and an elimination of the cap on SS contributions.

[Maven]

125. What a bunch of bullshit meaningless language.

I think we can take it from this non-statement that everything being reported is 100% true at the very least.

[ibegurpard]

146. indeed

meaningless politi-speak

[ClarkUSA]

148. The WH is "questioning the motives of the story's sources" aka. shit-stirring Republicans.

White House: No Change In Obama’s Position On Social Security

"Jay Carney several times during Wednesday's press briefing criticized a report in the Washington Post, saying the reporter "overwrote" it and questioning the motives of the story's sources."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1439657&mesg_id=1439657

[Safetykitten]

149. "Fonzie overshoots the runway" new for politically jumping the shark.