Obama backs lifting income cap for Social Security

[ProSense]

Reuters: Obama backs lifting income cap for Social Security

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday said raising the amount of individual income subject to Social Security taxes is one way to ensure the retirement program's solvency in the long term.

Obama, speaking to students in Virginia, said the popular program is not a major driver of record U.S. deficits and can be put on steady fiscal track with a few "tweaks," such as raising the program's income ceiling.

Remarks by the President at a Town Hall in Annandale, Virginia

Q Hi, Mr. President. My name is Vinita Griffin (ph). I’m a late student here at Northern Virginia Community College. I’m in my second career now. My question is, in about 15 years I’ll be eligible for Social Security. And I’m part of the baby boomer generation, and I don’t know if there will be Social Security when I get ready to -- and I probably won’t retire for another 25 years, I’m thinking.

THE PRESIDENT: No, you look pretty young. (Laughter.) You look like you’re -- you look like you’ve got a lot of career left in you.

Q I’m about your age. But, yes, so I figure another 25 years I’ll be working. But I don’t know if it will be there when I need it, and I’m concerned about that.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me talk about Social Security. The big drivers of our deficit are health care costs. I mean, the thing that we’ve really got to get control of is Medicare and Medicaid. That’s what’s skyrocketing really fast. Because not only is the population getting older, but health care costs are just going up a lot faster than people’s wages and salaries -- or tax revenues to the federal government.

Social Security is a problem but one that we can solve much more easily. So the first answer to your question is, Social Security will definitely be there when you retire. (Applause.) I’m absolutely confident about that. I am absolutely confident about that.

Now, here’s the thing. If we don’t do anything on Social Security, if we just don’t -- if we don’t touch it at all, then what would happen is, by the time you retire, or maybe just a couple years after you retire, you might find that instead of getting every dollar that you were counting on, you’re only getting 75 cents out of that dollar. Because what’s happening is the population is getting older; there are more retirees per worker and more money starts going out than is coming in.

So we do have to stabilize Social Security’s finances, but we can do that with some relatively modest changes -- unlike health care, where we’ve got to get in and work with providers and really get some much more substantial reforms. With Social Security, it’s just a matter of tweaking how it currently works.

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.)

So we are going to have to make some changes in Social Security, but it’s not the major driver of our deficit. And what I’ve proposed is let’s work on Social Security, but let’s not confuse that with this major budget debate that we’re having about how we deal with both spending and revenues because that is the problem that is going to require some really hard work and some bipartisan cooperation. Okay?

<...>

Just do it!

[Richardo]

1. I concur

Just do it!

[Dawgs]

2. ALL Democrats should be saying this daily.

Time to speak up on the cap was years ago. Time to act on it is now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. The question is, what is he willing to give in order to get this?

[loudsue]

4. He shouldn't need to give a damned thing to do this! It's a no-brainer.

It should have been done ages ago. The ONLY social security law they should be passing is to cap how much social security you get in your check every month for other annual income over $250,000. So if you have income from other sources over $250,000/yr, then you don't get more than a small amount of social security check each month.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. The Republicans who control the House aren't going to pass that without

some type of incentive.

[mkultra]

13. so your saying that negotiations are a neccesity?

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Probably. Even if they wanted to do do this (which they don't) they would

face the wrath of tea-party types during the next primary.

[Ikonoklast]

38. Then we need to do our part and give this president a Congress

that has a majority of Democrats that will pass this into law.

[BlueCaliDem]

48. Exactly.

I'm still astounded as to why people voted Republican in Nov. 2010. Why did that happen? How did the Republicans "win" back the House?

I strongly believe there had to be some shenanigans going on in the counting of the votes. I can't find any other explanation for it. I can't believe Independents suddenly went gung-ho for Repubs after nearly two years of grinding everything to a halt. I can't believe the majority of Democrats and Liberals stayed home, either.

After the Possner debacle, where Kathy Nickolaus "found" nearly 15,000 votes tucked away in her computer that put Possner over the top and beyond the automatic recount trigger, there has to be something else going on.

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. Correct. But the current Congress is not going to pass anything like this without

some quid pro quo.

[TheKentuckian]

79. Then do nothing and wait for a better environment. It doesn't have to be dealt with today.

Why pick battles that don't need fighting today that cannot be won?

[jwirr]

87. I agree we need to wait and see if we can get a better congress. I

know that he wants to look better in order to be elected but if he keeps telling us what he wants to do and explain it like he did in this OP then I do not think he will have that much trouble. One of the problems is that the Democrats have not been explicit in what they are trying to do.

[freshwest]

75. Absolutely. Full Democratic progressive majority. No fooling around or hanging back.

[jwirr]

85. Yes that is the answer. It has always been the answer. Even when we

had the majority the congress would not pass the things we wanted. I mostly blame the congress that we have not progressed further on our goals.

[vanbean]

67. Well Freddie, he can give them this: Since corporations are now the same as people they can pay

into SS too.

[humanityisfree]

76. Hear-Hear!

I like the way you are thinking!

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. No court or law has ever held that corporations are the "same" as people

[jwirr]

86. Now that is talking. They want to be a person then they get the same

responsibilities as a person not just the rights.

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Then pass nothing. "Nothing" works - it's not a crisis.

Nothing, in fact, is the best case scenario.

[jwirr]

84. Absolutely. Can you see bonehead saying yes to help a program

he and his cronies want to destroy? Why would they?

[YvonneCa]

9. You know that your solution has...

...already been done to teachers. The WEP/GPO cuts SS benefits for teachers...who worked in other SS eligible jobs and paid into SS...and who then went into education and earned a state pension.

These teachers don't usually have an income over $80,000.00 while employed...let alone after they retire. So if educators have been penalized for making too much money to have FULLY EARNED, PAID INTO SS BENEFITS...we probably should do the same to people making over $250,000.00. Seems only fair...

Or else stop penalizing teachers. JMO.

[woo me with science]

96. +100000

This is exactly what we need to be worried about.

Keep calling and writing the White House, your senators, and your representatives to say NO CUTS IN BENEFITS and NO RAISING OF THE RETIREMENT AGE.

[RC]

5. The reason why Social Security is in trouble in the first place.

The living Wage jobs that paid into Social Security are being eliminated.
The fix is to change the Tax Code so as to NOT reward corporations for outsourcing.
NOT by raising any caps on Social Security. By raising the cap, the original problem, outsourcing, remains.
Raising the cap on S/S can be analogous to stretching a blanket, so it will cover more, but the blanket will be thinner as a result, as more money will be paid out.
In other words, raising the cap is just diddling with the symptoms, it is not dealing with the root cause, rising unemployment and loss of our Living Wage jobs. We need to deal with the root cause.


Edited to add:
loudsue's solution would work better than just raising the cap. It is something to look at.

[AlbertCat]

49. The reason why Social Security is in trouble in the first place.

The living Wage jobs that paid into Social Security are being eliminated.


That and the fact they "borrowed" a lot from SS to pay for Bush's wars. It MIGHT help if they returned what they stole... er... borrowed.

But where oh where can they find such a sum?

How about the over-bloated Defense budget? Y'think?

[MannyGoldstein]

71. Obama is demonstrably lying again about SS again; SS is not in trouble

First off, nobody is predicting that it will only pay 75% in 17 years as he claims in the OP quote. The projection being pushed by Obama and the Right is that it will pay only about 80%, starting in 25 years. However, that projection assumes that US GDP growth will drop to way below where it is today, and stays there. The same projection, done assuming that growth rate averages only 2.9% (same as we had in 2010 which was still a crappy year), shows that Social Security will never deplete its trust fund. Not ever, at least in the 75 years studied.

Here's more info on the use of cooked numbers to create the SS "problem": http://fdrdemocrats.org/the-common-sense-guide-to-social-security/2/

Furthermore, Obama has lied multiple times in public about other aspects of SS, saying that FDR did not create SS for retirees, which is unmitigated bullshit. The fringe-right has pushed this lie for years, claiming that we need to "reform" SS because crazy Liberals hijacked it and used it for something it was not intended to be. Here's more on this: http://fdrdemocrats.org/the-common-sense-guide-to-social-security/5/ (towards the bottom of the page)

It's certainly commendable that Obama is speaking of raising the cap. However, given Obama's track record, and given that his re-election is coming up, one must wonder if there's a reason to believe that he'll truly push for anything that might raise taxes on anyone with any political clout.

[Major Hogwash]

6. Wow, that is freaking weird. I was right. Man, I've got to go lay down and take a nap now.

I knew that we had to raise the Social Security cap because of healthcare costs!!
Damn, I've been listening to him talk about healthcare and the other issues for so long, I can channel Obama now!!

Me good Democrat.

Now I've got to get a pair of those kickass funky shades he wears.

[AllTooEasy]

82. $100K is way too low now-a-days. I suggest no cap.

[oldlib]

8. CRAP!

Don't do this Obama! You are a Democratic President and this is something that you should not do.

[Pirate Smile]

11. What? What do you think he is talking about doing?

[demwing]

32. wait...

What?

[JTFrog]

41. zOMG someone said social security and Obama in the same sentence!! ELEVENS!!11!

You might want to take a closer look at what he said.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Pirate Smile]

10. This has ALWAYS been his solution. He has said this at other town-halls. SS is fine & easy to

make stronger. Just lift the cap. He did mention one time that maybe you could do the doughnut-hole thingy perhaps if you didn't just lift the cap. These are easy solutions. He always said it was Medicare/Medicaid rising costs that were the problem - not SS.

That's why I've always thought the LW screaming about him wanting to "hurt" SS was just dumb-ass stupid.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. EXACTLY!!! This is what he ran on. Were people NOT paying attention? n/t

[thelordofhell]

12. Darn that "catfood" commission

:sarcasm:

[elleng]

14. BRAVO!

'let’s work on Social Security, but let’s not confuse that with this major budget debate that we’re having about how we deal with both spending and revenues'

[polichick]

15. Backing it & fighting for it are two different things - he "backs" a lot of things when campaigning.

[HankyDubs]

31. ding ding ding ding

Tell you what, if he gets this done I'll be a good little Obama drone and stop talking about his sellout on the public option, leaving gitmo open, starting wars without congressional declaration...

[Sherman A1]

44. I add another Ding to your dings!

This is campaign talk which is directed at the Democratic Base.

Me thinks nothing more than that.

[damntexdem]

16. Good, the Dems should have gone for it when in the majority.

They could have gotten around a Senate filibuster by declaring it a spending bill.

But, then, there's still some time to regain a majority in both houses and do it.

[vroomvroom]

18. Do u honestly think with a Majority again Dems will accomplish Anything?

They are obviously working for lobbyists and rich that even with a majority they will do what they did last time...look for excuses not to.

[proud patriot]

19. I like it

:patriot:

[whathehell]

20. Good...It's about time he said it. n/t

[Change Happens]

21. Perfect, I do too....!

[DCBob]

22. Very good.. that will help.

funny, so many here on DU thought he would not support this. Idiots.

[Enthusiast]

36. We're not idiots, Bob.

We have lost our trust in the President for good reason. But thanks for the insult anyway.

[DCBob]

108. Dont take it so personnel..

I never mentioned you.

[grahamhgreen]

61. Let's use this to unite us!

[DCBob]

109. Yes, lets unite in truth, reality and common sense!

:fistbump:

[Chef Eric]

66. Why didn't he get this done when the Democrats controlled the House?

Maybe you can explain this to all the "idiots."

[AllTooEasy]

83. Two words: Blue Dog Dems; bite you in the ass everytime

What we need is not more Dems, but more liberals. Fiscally Conservative Dems are of no help.

[jaysunb]

23. Great news !

It's all coming together...and, at just the right time. :thumbsup:

[NYC_SKP]

24. K&R. (nt)

[ruggerson]

25. I assume that means if you pay more in to the program

you will get more back. If the cap is lifted on SS taxation, then the earnings on retirement should be lifted commensurately.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Yes, we have to be careful about changing one side of the equation and SS being seen as ...

a welfare program, good way to destroy SS.

[Zenlitened]

141. That's an important point, one that doesn't come up often enough in these discussions. - n/t

:thumbsup:

[bhikkhu]

26. That sounds pretty progressive

...I hope it gets pushed through in the whole mess of budget issues we're likely to see!

[TomCADem]

27. K & R!

Great explanation.

[slipslidingaway]

28. There are two sides of the equation, should we disregard the cap on benefits paid as well. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

30. Fingers crossed. nt

[Kall]

33. Color me unimpressed

I'll put this on the pile of other stuff that he's said would be nice, but gosh darn it, we just couldn't get Olympia Snowe or Billy Tauzin or Lloyd Blankfein or Larry Summers or Mike Pence to go along with. If he proves me wrong, takes a stand, picks a fight with the Republicans, and uses the influence of his office to back getting it done, and gets it done, then I'll credit him for it.

It's not as "politically difficult" as he makes it out to be if he stakes out his position on it and fights for it. 98% of the country is getting shafted by the other 2%, and taxing the rich is a very politically popular position.

If the President cowers in his office and hopes Republicans are deferent and co-operative, then yeah... it's predictably difficult to get what you say you want.

[JTFrog]

40. So what have you given him credit for so far?

:eyes:

[Kall]

89. Not a hell of a lot

Why? Do you think extending the Bush tax cuts, tripling troops in Afghanistan, and passing the Republican Health Care Plan deserves a lot of credit?

Failing to differentiate himself, and resuscitating the Republican Party after they drove the country into a wall isn't something that deserves a whole lot of praise.

[JTFrog]

106. "resuscitating the Republican Party"

:rofl:
:rofl:

Yea, recent polls show their approval ratings are off the charts!!! And the polls also showed any and all Republican candidates smashing Obama in 2012!!!

oh wait... No they didn't. :eyes:


The rest of that crap is just that: Crap. I for one am thankful that all three of my boys have been added back on my health plan. I'm pretty sure the Republican plan would basically be to let them die. :shrug:

[Kall]

112. Uh

What do you call the election of 2010? A well-deserved death-blow for the Republican party? It was the predictable outcome of spending 2 years blowing sunshine up the asses of the likes of Olympia Snowe to the exclusion of everyone who got you elected, and devoted bipartisanship at all costs with the well-meaning fellows on the other side of the aisle like Chuck Grassley, as he was going around saying Obama was going to pull the plug on Grandma.

It was the Republican plan that the Democrats passed. You know, Bob Dole's plan. Mitt Romney's plan. The plan Obama came out and said "was the goal all along." The Republican plan was to entrench the parasitic health insurance industry as the wasteful basis of the health care system, and to kill off any notion of public, not-for-profit competition.

Which is exactly what was passed - the fact that political incompetence allowed no Republicans to vote for it, and that they passed it with all Democratic votes, doesn't invalidate the truth of the matter.

[JTFrog]

140. Couldn't think of a single thing huh?

What a surprise....



Not.

:eyes:

[bobburgster]

34. Goes without saying..... nt

[democracy1st]

35. Yep he backs taxing the rich also! This admin is in total campaign mode.

[progressoid]

63. +1

[tclambert]

37. Yes! Get rid of the income cap.

Something like 25% of income escapes Social Security taxes. That income goes to the top 11-12%. The people who make barrels of money pay only a few drops to Social Security. The top 400 average, AVERAGE $344 MILLION a year, but only pay SS taxes on the first $106,800. That leaves, let's see, $343,893,200. This is a big reason why their EFFECTIVE tax rate is less than the tax rate of average taxpayers.

[pnorman]

68. Those were the numbers I'd been looking for!

THANKS!

[Vinca]

39. Now the hard part - following through given the current Congress.

This is the fix and, if ALL incomes were included, SS payments would not only be safe, they could probably be raised.

[PotatoChip]

42. Well, it's about time. Yay!

I never fully understood the reasoning for it being there in the first place.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. This is one issue that made me pay attention to him as candidate

Lifting the cap, or scrapping it totally, is a great idea, one that I have supported for years. Ever since I first 'broke the cap' and learned that there was one. I have opposed that cap for decades. May the President hold strong on this.

[TBF]

45. Agreed - we should all be backing this step. nt

[on point]

46. FINALLY! The start of sensible SSI proposals!! No to cutting SSI, yes to raising tax level!

[raccoon]

47. K&R. nt

[florida08]

50. why does this feel like campaign stumping..

however I do believe that he believes in SS. Hope Dick Durbin is swallowing his tongue right about now.

[JDPriestly]

52. Raising the cap is the answer.

Social Security is not just about retirement benefits. We fund a lot of other social programs with that money, and it is not fair that low-wage earners burden such a hefty share of those programs.

If we lowered the FICA taxes somewhat (maybe reducing the employer's share) and imposed it on all money earned including capital gains and brokers' bonuses, then we could probably deal with the rising medical costs too.

Alternatively we could do the rational thing and impose a small tax on imports. I know that some would argue that would violate free trade, but it would mean that everyone paid a fair share toward rising medical costs. Let's face it, much of the increase in medical costs is due to the fact that we get far better medical care today than we did even ten years ago.

[Deep13]

54. That's reasonable. nt

[Teaser]

55. HE IS GOING TO MAKE US ALL EAT CATFOOD WE ARE DOOMED

.

[mikekohr]

56. kick

25 in '12

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[harun]

58. Words are cheap.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[JoePhilly]

64. +100, when he doesn't say "X" it with exactly the right words, they use

the "wiggle room" to declare it as proof he's about to do something evil.

And when he says "X" using the exact words they want, they discard it.

[grahamhgreen]

60. Yea! Prosense, something I agree we can both be thrilled about. Of course,

I'm still worried he will bait-and-switch on this.

I hope the cap is lifted, not just raised.

[thereismore]

65. Finally, the OBVIOUS solution presents itself. nt

[global1]

69. Lift The Cap - A Campaign............

Check out this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x927792

[NYC Liberal]

70. Wait. I thought "Reform" had to mean "Huge Cuts"

:crazy:

This is a VERY GOOD THING!

[MannyGoldstein]

72. "Any bill I sign must include a public option"

'nuff said.

[BklnDem75]

90. Sho Nuff? Because you're not quoting Obama

[progressoid]

91. *ahem*

From his mouth. Starts @ 4:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=83FvLjsUOJg#t=259s

[BklnDem75]

92. Yeah? Did you look at the video?

Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.


If we're gonna quote people, it's more honest to use exact quotes.

[progressoid]

93. Of course I looked at it.

That's why I posted it.

Now that we have the exact quote, tell us where the public option is in the plan that he signed. Because I want to choose the public option for my family.

[BklnDem75]

94. Ask the Blue Dogs, they're the ones that didn't budge

My lesson was simply about quotes.

[MannyGoldstein]

95. So you agree that Obama conveyed exactly this information, but

I should have added ellipses: "Any plan I sign must include... a public option"

Yes?

(Including the entire quote would be against the rules of most periodicals, which require that quotes be shortened to convey the relevant thought.)

[ClarkUSA]

97. So what? Pres. Obama has already opened the door for states to enact single-payer & public option.

Just ask Bernie Sanders:
ttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=620468&mesg_id=620468

How ridiculous it is to blame Pres. Obama for the refusal of certain crucial members of Congress to approve the public option (see Joe Lieberman) but there ya go. It's also very revealing how some people keep ignoring the fact that passing HCR has enabled states to now approve the public option or single-payer. President Obama outwitted all of his opponents on both sides of the aisle, as I have clearly proved.

BTW, Pres. Obama plans for HCR, Part II: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x657408

[MannyGoldstein]

99. We had 59 votes for Medicare buy in

Then it vanished.

[ClarkUSA]

101. Joe Lieberman said he would block the public option and thus it died.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=joe+lieberman+blocked+public+option&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[MannyGoldstein]

102. We couldn't pass 59 votes by reconciliation? nt

[ClarkUSA]

104. I repeat, Pres. Obama has already opened the door for states to enact single-payer & public option.

You keep ignoring the facts I offered you earlier:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=656758&mesg_id=657400

Why? Is it because you can't admit that President Obama the Chess Master did an end run around Senate obstructionism of the public option? Complaining about the past is a waste of time, comparatively speaking. Even Republicans aren't doing that.

[MannyGoldstein]

105. They couldn't have enacted those before?

Really?

[ClarkUSA]

111. Again: Pres. Obama has already opened the door for states to enact single-payer & public option.

You keep ignoring the facts I offered you earlier:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=656758&mesg_id=657400

Why? Is it because you can't admit that President Obama the Chess Master did an end run around Senate obstructionism of the public option? Complaining about the past is a waste of time, comparatively speaking. Even Republicans aren't doing that.

Really.

But do keep on nattering...

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

115. Moving the goalpost? Call or email Bernie Sanders' office if you're really interested.

[MannyGoldstein]

117. Again: why couldn't they do this before RomneyObamaCare was passed?

Thanks.

[ClarkUSA]

119. Email Harry Reid's office. And why are you using Republican "ObamaCare" framing for HCR?

[MannyGoldstein]

122. RomneyObamaCare. Gives credit to Democrats and Republicans alike.

Romney gets first billing as it was his idea. In case you hadn't noticed, he's the top Republican in polling against Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

131. You're still using a GOP "ObamaCare" framing for HCR. Why? I'd think a Dem wouldn't want to do that.

[MannyGoldstein]

136. Did you complain when it was called RomneyCare?

I didn't think so. Are you angry that Obama keeps parroting the fringe-right lie that FDR did not intend Social Security to be for retirees? I didn't think so, either.

It is a unique thing; it should bear the names of its chief implementers.

Good night.

[ClarkUSA]

138. I'll ignore your red herring. Again, why are you using the Republican "ObamaCare" framing for HCR?

[BklnDem75]

98. That depends

Does 'the order I make must include a pizza with sausage' and 'the order I make must include sausage' sound the same to you? He got the insurance exchange. It didn't include the public option, but let's not pretend that was his only goal.

[MannyGoldstein]

100. Didn't I include the word "include"?

And the public option is what he campaigned on as being the crux of his plan.

[BklnDem75]

103. I'm pretty positive the crux of his plan was much larger...

and the public option was mentioned in a few speeches.

[MannyGoldstein]

107. So the crux of his plan was a list of insurance plans and benefits

So we could shop more easily.

Really?

[BklnDem75]

110. Did I say that?

I said his plan was much larger and he wanted the insurance exchange to be included. I would've loved if the public option was included, but there's not much we can do when the opposition is members of our own party. If we want a different outcome, vote more Progressives in.

[MannyGoldstein]

113. So, we agree that he pledged to veto any bill that did not include a public option

The next question is "Did Obama fight for a public option". That's an easy one.

Your question is: "Did Obama get the best bill we could?" We had 59 votes for Medicare buy in, which would have passed reconciliation. But that was quashed. So, no, we did not get the best bill we could have gotten.

[ClarkUSA]

116. Pres. Obama has already opened the door for states to enact single-payer & public option.

Lather, rinse, repeat: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=656758&mesg_id=657400

Beating a dead horse doesn't change the fact that Pres. Obama's HCR has opened the door to the public option and single-payer. Those who think they could've done better need to stop complaining ad nauseum and run for president and win to prove it.

[MannyGoldstein]

118. Which they could have done before RomneyObamaCare

Your assertion has nothing to do with the topic at hand, as far as I can tell.

[ClarkUSA]

120. Prove it. And why are you using the Republican "ObamaCare" framing for HCR?

[MannyGoldstein]

121. Prove that states have rights?

Oy gevalt.

[ClarkUSA]

130. I'll ignore your strawman fallacy. Why are you using the Republican "ObamaCare" framing for HCR?

Keep ignoring my question.

<< Which they could have done before RomneyObamaCare >>

Really? Where's your proof? And why hasn't it been done before now?

[MannyGoldstein]

133. I keep answering your questions.

One last time:

1. "RomneyObamaCare" is nicely bipartisan. What, specifically, do you not like about it? Do you realize that RomneyCare was in use for years before Obama decided it was a fantastic idea? Did you complain about it then?
2. Massachussetts considered single payer but chose to adopt RomneyCare. At the time, I heard that it was Socialist, undoable, too radical, and other stuff, but nobody said it was illegal. Given that most everyone involved in the debate at our State House was a lawyer, I think we'd have heard if it was likely illegal. Also, if it was illegal before RomneyObamaCare, then what would make it legal now?

[ClarkUSA]

139. So you are defending your use of the RNC/teabagger "ObamaCare" framing for HCR?

How revealing.

[BklnDem75]

123. We don't agree, but you knew that

The answer to your next question is easy, but somehow you got it wrong. We obviously have different meanings of the word fight. If we had 59 votes, why didn't it pass? Let's try to keep this one out of conspiracy theory land, ok?

[MannyGoldstein]

124. Well, then we disagree on the fundamental meaning of some pretty basic English.

Which is pretty weird.

[BklnDem75]

125. I'd think so...

but I'm comforted by your track record so far. :)

[MannyGoldstein]

126. And what is my track record, as you see it?

Oddly, strange swipes at my "track record" are a theme among a group of similarly-minded posters tonight... but, no matter - take your best shot.

[BklnDem75]

127. Constant predictions of doom and gloom has it's price

You can't expect people to overlook that, especially when you've been proven wrong over and over again.

[MannyGoldstein]

128. And when have I been proven wrong?

Be specific. One or two examples would be a start on "over and over".

[BklnDem75]

129. Is SOTU and Obama's budget recent enough for you?

[MannyGoldstein]

132. I prdicted Obama would discuss cutting Social Security at the SOTU

And he did. He announced that it wouldn't be cut for current retirees, but it wouldn't be "slashed" for future retirees. Just a little shave, I suppose. Like the little 22%, $56,000 cut proposed by his very own "bipartisan" "Deficit Commission". So I was spot on wrt the SOTU.

Don't recall what I predicted re: Obama's budget. Can you refresh my memory?

Thanks!

[BklnDem75]

134. LOL!!! Wow!

You was doing back flips trying to distort Obama's intentions with your 'translation' of his speech. Perhaps you should read your own journal when it comes down to the budget argument. How's that $116 billion looking now?

[MannyGoldstein]

135. Again, we have a fundamental disagreement on some basic English

I'm understand that you're fine with cutting $56,000 from the average Social Security recipient's benefits. I'm not.

God night.

[BklnDem75]

137. God night to you too....

English indeed :hi:

[robinlynne]

73. great solution!

[freshwest]

74. How does anyone find fauit with that? Unless they're above the current limit. Thanks, Obama.

[TygrBright]

78. Right on, Mr. President. Eliminate that cap. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

80. Since we are "fixing" we need to sequester our money so the increased cap doesn't just turn into

wars and tax cuts for the wealthy again.

I don't want 30 more years to pass and find ourselves having this same discussion again about "worthless IOUs".

[themaguffin]

88. This is the ONLY thing that has been needed to be done, period.