I thought Obama was going to announce huge cuts in Social Security and Medicare?

[JoePhilly]

The last week was packed with an endless stream of OPs here on DU predicting EXACTLY that.

"Unnamed aides" came forward and said so. DU folks agreed, it was a done deal. And the outrage directed at Obama for this impending announcement, was vehement.

But it didn't happen.

Kind of reminds me of the week before the State of the Union speech.

Isn't that odd?

[krawhitham]

1. That is what freeperville claimed

[msanthrope]

33. That is also what FDL claimed.

Funny, that.

[PBS Poll-435]

42. And they are right about EVERYTHING!

:rofl:

[uppityperson]

2. There is a post (post talk) here claiming he did just that. It is odd.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

4. Very odd indeed...

Expected, but odd. Just wait for the full spin cycle to pass... he'll be raping your grandmother in no time!

[JoePhilly]

5. Some times I'll ask them ...

Just show us where Obama touched you on the doll.

[JuniperLea]

6. LOL!

Yeah, I'm fond of asking "what has Obama done that you DO like" because I know there will only be crickets.

I don't like everything he's done, but I like a lot of it. You can't please everyone all the time, but if you are constantly displeased and nothing he ever does ever pleases you, I think that means you're at the wrong website;)

[uponit7771]

21. OMG. this is really funny and evil at the same time

[DCKit]

7. Great. first we had "some people" and now we've got "unnamed aides".

Sooner than later, he's going to get pissed off and do the right thing, to spite the M$M.

I just hope he goes all the way - all Kenyan, socialist on their asses. WTF, they've already stamped him thusly, time to take it all the way.

[lamp_shade]

8. Big K&R

[treestar]

9. Highly recc'd

False positive outrage again.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. Jeez, don't you get it?

This speech proved that Obama is even worse than Bush!

It also shows how desperately we need to have a real progressive primary him next year.

And so on.

[madamesilverspurs]

11. We should be understanding

of our more pessimistic members, they're probably feeling a little down right now. We ought to do something to make them feel better. Anybody got a recipe for 'crow pie'? We can serve it with a nice cup of tea . . .


-

[JuniperLea]

43. Not in a pie... but nicely presented!

[eridani]

12. If Simpson-Bowles is still on the table, he has merely postponed talking about cuts

And that's a good thing, because it means that millions of seniors filling the White House inbox on the subject have made him back off. And all the drooling Panglossians want us to stop doing that.

[tekisui]

16. He sadi in the speech he was going to borrow from the deficit commission.

[eridani]

18. But, very conveniently he didn't say WHAT he would borrow

Raising Medicare age to 67? NOT ACCEPTABLE, period.

[mistertrickster]

23. Yup. He's in "campaign mode." The real Obama emerges AFTER the election.

Remember when he was going to have the "most transparent gov't in history" and we were all looking forward to finally see the visitor logs of Bush's White House.

Nope.

You can't even see those.

[Teaser]

25. YES SOMEONE GETS IT HE'S HITLER PEOPLE HITLER

HITLER

[mistertrickster]

32. Is that sarcasm? He's not Hitler, man. Until he kills 6 million Jews, he's not Hitler. nt

[Ikonoklast]

13. Jedi Mind Tricks.

Each person heard a different speech today.

[Whisp]

14. kinda reminds me of the last friggin' 2 years here

[tekisui]

15. The closest he came was that all spending is on the table.

All includes SS and Medicare. That doesn't mean they will be cut, but it doesn't mean they won't be either.

[Cleita]

17. I heard his speech once and I was at work so I need to

hear it and read it again, but there were some places to read between the lines in how he worded stuff that I'm having some hesitation about. He still talks about fixing Medicare and Social Security and not changing it, but my problem is how these fixes are going to be done because as far as I can see, there is no reason to fix what isn't broken. Improve on it yes, but no fixing is needed IMHO. I want to know more specifically what needs to be fixed and how he wants it fixed. Is it what I and every other senior citizen in America wants and needs?

[Malikshah]

19. usual suspects????

I'm shocked, shocked to find out that there are professional shit stirrers plying their trade on these boards.


.
.
.
.
.....Really. I'm just put on some pearls so I could clutch them. :)

[bhikkhu]

20. ...and the week before, when he was going to cave on planned parenthood,

head start, etc, and let the repugs gut the budget and defund health care like they wanted.

[craigmatic]

22. He probably will before it's all over just because he likes to cut deals.

[vaberella]

31. Uh...you have to cut deals while working in government.

You can't get anything done otherwise. This is not an empire with an Absolute leader.

[craigmatic]

34. Yeah I know so most likely he'll cut deals that'll cut these programs.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. If people had just come out to vote for *progressive* Democrats, then maybe

he wouldn't have to cut deals. But even when the House and Senate were controlled by the Dems, we had a bunch of milquetoast, Blue Dog and Corporatist Dems serving in BOTH chambers.

As long as that is the case, governing is absolutely about making deals.

That stops when we work to give the president MORE, not less, Democrats in the House and Senate.

It effectively stops when we work to give the president MORE, not less, PROGRESSIVES in both houses of Congress.

I don't know how people expect for the president to do anything with a bunch of Teabaggers in the House.

[craigmatic]

37. If this president had only inspired people to come out and vote by

standing up for liberal principles when he had the house maybe there wouldn't be teabaggers in congress. It cuts both ways. FDR kept congress because he pushed an agenda that mattered to people because he wasn't owned by corporate america. Obama took their money and didn't fight for the average person. Sure he had achivements but but they were so watered down that they hardly changed anything. Still i guess it's better than nothing considering the alternative.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. FDR's Congress is NOT the same as Obama's Congress. I wish it were.

Fact of the matter is that we have blocks in BOTH houses, no matter what he did or did not do. One man can't do it all. The Democrats ran away from Democratic principles. That doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility. We need MORE progressives at ALL levels of government. I understand that people were angry at Obama, but don't take it out on good Democrats running for office by staying home. Then, turn around and expect him to perform miracles with a bunch of crazy wingnuts dominating the House and now more in the Senate. It really doesn't make much sense.

[WiffenPoof]

59. I Agree With You...Except

I wish that we were still known as Democrats and not "Progressives." I don't mind the word...I just wish the Party hadn't shifted to the right where the only way to identify us any more is to call us Progressive.

-PLA

[creon]

62. Again

100% correct. We do need liberals elected to Congress and legislatures.

FDR had an entirely different Democratic Party in an entirely different era.

[creon]

61. 100% correct

If you want liberal legislation passed, you need a majority of liberals in Congress.

It is that simple.

[Teaser]

24. HE'S HITLER HE'S STILL GONNA

.

[woo me with science]

26. He consistently draws a distinction between current retirees and future retirees,

and the language he uses for the benefits of future retirees is vague and ominous. He refuses to take SS off the table, which should concern all of us.

[Brickbat]

27. Agreed.

[JoePhilly]

28. Or leaving it on the table creates a stark contrast with the GOP's

endless efforts to kill it.

But regardless ... the breathless predictions of this "announcement" were, again, wrong.

Just like when they were made here on DU in the days prior to the State of the Union speech. The exact same breathless predictions, all quoting "unnamed sources".

And when the same prediction turned out to be wrong that back then, the outrage machine simply jumped to a new topic.

I wonder what the topic will be today.

:shrug:

[vaberella]

30. There is a difference.

I mean he even talked about it in his speech. Before baby-boomers---were starting to retire---(here in lies the future) those guys basically have their SS checks paid for. But baby-boomer retirees are more effected by the bad deficit measures in the Bush era. They are not the same.

And as such the measures that will be taking place---and in the proposal by Ryan; we see a major problem for those of us like those who are in their 30s and 40s where he's attempting to gut SS.

So I think the distinction was right in being made and should be made. Much of what is going on doesn't work retroactively here. Especially when the age of retirement is brought up. By Ryan's plan I would be seeing my ss benefits at 70, not 65---but those who retire at 65 this year don't have a problem.

[Search4Justice]

29. I'll wait to see..

.. what actually happens, if that's ok with you fine folks. You see, I've heard promises before that turned out to be nothing more than empty rhetoric to garner my support and vote. Show me, don't tell me.

[BklnDem75]

36. Nothing wrong with that...

As long as people are consistent with their reactions.

[Search4Justice]

39. I'm not quite sure what you mean.

"Consistent" in what way?

[BklnDem75]

41. Consistency...

Some people take a 'wait and see' approach with positive news, not so much with what seems like negative news. If people are quick to trash someone, they can, at least, be consistent when it comes to praise.

[Search4Justice]

46. And some people believe in the tooth fairy.

What does that have to do with me?

[BklnDem75]

47. Though the response was to your post, it wasn't directly towards you

It was generally directed towards those who's 'wait and see' stance is one sided. I only chose your post because it was the first in the thread to take this stance.

[Search4Justice]

51. Thanks for the reply ..

.. but I still have no idea of what it is you are driving at. Are you questioning my motives?

[BklnDem75]

55. I thought I was pretty clear...

The post isn't directed at you in particular. I said your stance was a fair one. My post was directed at those who only take that stance on good news and rush to judgment bad news. It's not about you at all.

[Search4Justice]

57. Well my friend..

.. I recognize a "preemptive strike" when I see it. My only real question to you now, is that what leads you to believe that people are required to follow your directions when seeking to discuss their opinions on any subject? The post was most definitely directed at me, your denial of the obvious doesn't alter that. I promise not to tell you how to offer your thoughts and opinions on issues and I would certainly appreciate it if you would do me the same courtesy.

[BklnDem75]

58. You're making this about about you...

and it's fair to say I've been pretty nice despite your attempts to misread the words right in front of you. If you really want to make this about you, we can do that, too. Now if you're one of those types that I've been describing about inconsistencies, it's really not the point of telling you how to discuss things. It's about whether or not I should care to take you seriously or laugh in your face. As always, you're free to do what you want, friend. :)

[Search4Justice]

60. "Laugh in my face" or do whatever you please...

.. unlike "some people" I wouldn't presume to tell others what to do.

Have a nice day.

[BklnDem75]

63. LOL

[TheKentuckian]

53. There isn't anything inconsistent. If you don't trust someone then "wait and see" is a generous

position.

If folks weren't taking a wait and see attitude then you'd be screaming about the President never being even given a chance.

People who are all out of faith are going as far as they can and rebuild a little hope but I'm concerned that Obama is using the Ryan abomination as a foil to get folks on board with stuff they oppose 100% or so in another lesser of two evils situation.

Support the Catfood Commission or live with Ryan.

You have faith but you cannot expect that everyone does. I feel like my faith was rewarded with treachery so I won't ever support and work for passage of another "plan" until I know what it is and how it will work.

I don't trust the man to put the needs of the poor and working people first. And I sure as hell don't expect him to consistently even tell the truth on what the Republicans and their third way auxiliary' intents and policies, so wait and see is faith, as small as it may seem to those who are 100% onboard.

[pmorlan1]

38. It will happen

He has to give the illusion that huge cuts aren't coming so that people like you will continue to defend him. When those cuts do come I hope you don't offer up any excuses for it like the mean old Republicans made him do it or he was just being pragmatic, etc.

[JuniperLea]

40. LOL!!

Hook!

Line!


SINKER!!!

[democracy1st]

67. LMAO is his Economic team funny? I don't think so!

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

48. awwww, some people's heads are hard as rocks.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

44. will they learn anything this time?

[joshcryer]

45. You did?

I never thought that for an instant.

[Safetykitten]

49. Big budget battle coming up. You may want to bookmark your "told you so".

[JoePhilly]

56. Why? I'm not the one making the predictions of doom on a daily basis.

That then turn to be wrong.

All that breathless outrage preceding the speech. Then. Nothing.

[democracy1st]

66. +1

[mkultra]

68. only the doom whores need worry about being proven wrong

[cliffordu]

52. That's EXACTLY what the usual prognosticators KNEW HE WAS GOING TO DO!!!!

Where are they now???

Crickets.......

[Enrique]

54. people had good reason for fearing he would do that

we still do.

He could give a million speeches promising to preserve those programs, and people will have a good reason to fear he will end up cutting them.

And he could preserve them through his entire first term and people will have good reason to fear he will cut them in his second term.

And he could preserve them through his whole two-term presidency, and people will have good reason to fear a FUTURE president, of EITHER party, will cut those programs.

People's fear is way bigger than Obama. In my own case, by the time I will need those programs, Obama will be long gone.

[harun]

64. We said he would cut SS and Medicare and he will.

[polichick]

65. True - nobody predicted "huge cuts." Silly op.