Obama vows to strengthen SS, will NOT slash benefits. ~ Huffington Post

[mzmolly]

The actual story is that the President will not slash SS benefits. Where are the appropriate headlines to this effect?

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

"There is no news here," Carney said. "The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

Let's not take the bait. Wait for actual information, before assuming the worst, please.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Good luck. This is DU....

...and if you're ever doing voir-dire, you may want to add "Do you belong to DemocraticUnderground.com?" to your standard list of questions.

[mzmolly]

4. LOL

Apparently so. OY!

[bemildred]

60. If you don't like DU, then go away. nt

[DJ13]

2. Tampering with the CPI to screw recipients on COLA's is a slash

[Windy]

3. where did you get that from the admin's statement?

Extrapolating again? Making assumptions?

[DJ13]

16. The admin has been talking about "chained CPI" the last few weeks

Its a ripoff that uses substitutions in the goods to artificially reduce the cost of living, and with current recipients already not seeing a COLA for two years (no inflation, really?), its the most harmful thing being discussed in this mess.

[mzmolly]

69. Do you have a quote from the admin

on this?

[mzmolly]

5. I've heard that there may be a means test and an end to the cap on income.

I don't know that I'm opposed, depending.

[Ineeda]

10. End of cap -- good. Means test -- not so much. n/t

[mzmolly]

11. That depends on the income limitations. Perhaps the means test will only impact

those who are capped out income wise currently? People who haven't paid in, so to speak?

We'll have to wait and see.

[rurallib]

48. means test turns SS into a type of welfare program

divides the recipients into silos where each group can be attacked individually.
No means test.

[mzmolly]

70. No, it turns it into a need based program. We have an income cap

for contributions, currently.

[woo me with science]

18. Yes, and so is raising the retirement age. nt

[FreakinDJ]

6. I got slammed for saying the same thing

all in a day at DU

[mzmolly]

8. I just got unrecc'd as well. Yes, all in a day...

I don't get it. Why would we collectively want to assume the worst trotted out by corporate media and their enablers? :shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

68. that's a good question.-

k&r thanks for posting this thread.

[joeybee12]

7. And when he does, please be sure to let us know that this is the best he

could have gotten considering the circumstances. Pffft!

[mzmolly]

9. And when he doesn't ?

Can you define what a cut is first rather than assume that "cuts" will happen and deem any changes to the program a "cut" to SS, later?

To be frank, I was disgusted after "learning" the President was offering up SS to Republicans. After a bit of research though, I realized that some of us "liberals" were perhaps being discouraged and manipulated by the media, again.

I am furious that the Bush tax cuts are "off the table." But, I'm trying to not to react to every single "story" that comes down the pike.

[ljm2002]

12. They won't "slash" benefits...

...oh, they'll make a teeny little cut here and there, lower or get rid of COLA adjustments, increase retirement age, stuff like that. But they won't actually "slash" anything, heaven forfend!

The question is, do we prefer death by a single slash, or death by a thousand cuts? I think we are being treated to the latter.

[mzmolly]

20. So no matter what the changes are, you plan to deem them

"cuts" to SS?

It would be nice to know what is "cut" before complaining, wouldn't it?

[ljm2002]

26. Well I did list a couple...

...i.e. lowering COLA, increasing retirement age. Would these not be "cuts" in your view? If not, why not?

I've been watching politicians for many a long year. They generally choose their words carefully. And this administration, in particular, is very careful with their words. If they say they will not "slash" Social Security, you can be sure they are signaling cuts, but they will be able to say they are not "slashing" benefits.

Don't believe me? No problem. Time will tell.

I've already complained to my reps. The time to complain is now, not later.

[mzmolly]

27. You noted speculation.

Yes, time will tell.

I agree. The time to complain is now vs. later.

[CakeGrrl]

13. Unfortunately, it's the LIE people remember, not the CORRECTION.

Even worse, some people would RATHER believe the lie.

What the hell is up with that?

[mzmolly]

21. Yes it is unfortunate.

I guess I'm crazy in that I want facts before leaping off the proverbial bridge.

[GOTV]

42. This is hardly a correction - it is in agreement with previous stories about cuts ....

... this article only claims that the changes they will make should not properly be thought of as a "slash". It does not claim that no cuts are being considered or will be allowed. It doesn't even quantify how mach of a cut can be considered a slash so that there's an upper bound on the size of the cuts.

So you're chastising people for still believing the "lie" when the "correction" also agrees with the "lie"

[DirkGently]

14. Translation: "We'll raise the retirement age." Notice it's not, "We won't change anything."

[mzmolly]

22. Right. It's not "we will not change a thing." I've heard they may eliminate the income

cap and require a means test. Who knows...

[damntexdem]

15. I hope that he's right and telling the truth -- and in that case, successful.

But I fear not.

[otohara]

17. Ed Schultz Not Happy

railing against proposed changes, errr...cuts.

[mzmolly]

23. Love Ed, but he's reactionary.

:hi:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. Just like some here at DU! Knee-jerk reaction without the facts!! n/t

[Autumn]

19. It would help if he quit talking like a republican.

strengthen the program? How about these fuckers in the government quit using it to pay for their pet projects, pay back what they have raided and leave it the fuck alone.

[mzmolly]

24. I agree.

I hate some of the BS language he uses.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. What would really help is if "progressives" didn't run off half-cocked before

a story is completely fleshed out. Half truths, "developing" stories & Drudge like headlines have infested the left. I understand why the PL does this, it increases traffic to their sites, it sells copy, and increases ad revenue, but does no real service to the people they claim to be fighting for.

If I've learned one thing since Obama became president, it's that there is very little difference in what purports to be "media" these days. In an attempt to be the first out with a headline, the left has become every bit as sloppy as the journalists they claimed to be holding to account. Go figure....

[Autumn]

40. If I've learned one thing since Obama became president,

it's that if it talks like a republican, it is a republican. This "progressive" is sick and tired of hearing him frame everything in the republican terms.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. And this progressive is sick of uber progressives thinking they control the party.

They don't. Whether Pres. Obama is reelected or not, won't change that simple fact. He is not going to be held hostage like the Repukes and their Teabagging ideology. It's pretty simple really. It's these rigid ideologies that make the likelihood that horrible things, like Arizona, happen.

Obama's a center left moderate. Always was, and likely always will be. You can either accept that or not, but you shouldn't be allowed to revise history. Oh, and get used to the fact that the Democratic party is not the party of Kucinich, if it were, he'd have been the nominee the other half million times he tried out. America wasn't ready for it then, and I suspect, it never will be. ;)

[Autumn]

45. Since you seem to be a center moderate, you should get used

to the fact that some progressives won't be led around by the nose. I have never heard a progressive claim that they control the party. But if you like it it not, you need to get used to the fact that you center moderates do need us. As for revising history, that's your claim. As for Arizona, blame the pukes, not progressives.

[PassingFair]

46. +1

Well said, Autumn.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. I blame "ideological" entrenchment. It's dangerous, and gets us nowhere.

I've been around here a long time, and considering who you supported in the primaries, I find the brand new you to be kinda disingenuous. Suddenly you're "Autumn, Uber-Liberal"? Let's be real, you and I both know what this about.

Let's not get it twisted, I'm not here to convince you or stroke your "progressive" ego. We're just one election away from the entire country becoming Wisconsin, Ohio or Florida, and I won't give Republicans the satisfaction by latching onto every half baked anti-Obama headline from the 24/7 media beast and/or blog.

Fortunately, my life won't change very much no matter who's elected, but I do know that this president has been the only thing that's stood between us & the total rightward decimation of not only the economy, but every social entitlement we've ever known. So just keep picking at that scab, you may just get what you deserve afterall. ;)

[Autumn]

49. I supported Hillary in the primaries, because she was a woman

and I had always hoped to see a woman President in my lifetime. I said there was not much difference between them, you will find me praising Obama too, they were both the best candidates we were allowed to have. Did you find that when you went to the trouble of looking me up? I have decided I no longer wish to belong to a party that embraces the center and republican light. stroke my "progressive" ego? No thanks. These are the people her who have driven out good Democrats from The Democratic party and from this site. Any "slashing" or cuts to SS just so he can impress the pukes in his silly little quest for bipartisanship is it as far as I am concerned.

Congratulations that your "life won't change very much no matter who's elected" some of us don't have that option. Keep in mind, you may just get what you deserve after all too. Me, I would rather have a rapid descent into hell than a long drawn out painful slide into hell.

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Didn't have to "go to the trouble of looking you up". I remember you quite

vividly. Like I said, I've been here for ages. I remember the primaries, and I remember distinctly who most DU'ers supported, which is why I don't take most of the anti-Obama crap seriously, as they never supported him to begin with. It's the revisionism that bothers me most.

People can change, and change is good, but don't come at me all brand new when you fully supported the DLC and all that entails. Sorry, not buying it. :hi:

[Autumn]

51. I don't get the DLC bullshit.It's all a crock to me.

As far as I am concerned there isn't a bucket of warm spit difference between them, other than what lies between their legs. They were what we were allowed to chose from. And I don't need to sell that, because that has always been my opinion. My first choice was Biden but it was easy to see he was going no where in the race.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Autumn]

54. I would if I knew her you can always email her,

if it's important to you. I'm not your messenger. Lame, very lame and sad that's all you have. Have a nice time cause I am done with this conversation.

[Tarheel_Dem]

55. I kinda figured you'd be done after your DLC roots came to light. Have a nice one.

:hi:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Enrique]

28. the WH spokesman is a source of "actual information"?

since when?

[chowder66]

36. Original statement by the prez; state of the union....

"To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.) We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (Applause.)"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address

[BklnDem75]

30. Unrec for not allowing me to get my outrage on!

Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!!

[flamingdem]

32. lol ouuuuuttraggggeee .. that does feel kind of good nt

[Phx_Dem]

31. Why wait for the actual facts when it's much easier to make assumptions.

That includes Nancy Pelosi.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Slash is a word with a meaning. It is a specific style of cutting

One can 'not slash' but still cut. So the slippery language is what it is, and it sure as hell does not respect the elders.

[mzmolly]

35. And if he'd said "cut" someone would take issue with that word

as well. "He doesn't plan to cut, he plans to slash..."

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Not so if he spoke clearly and directly as commanded by the

religion he claims is the reason he is opposed to marriage equality. The slippery language is what it is, and it is not respectful to the least among us. If your claim is that the WH communications staff, paid hundreds of thousands to pick words, is incapable of writing a clear description of the President's opinion, then he needs to fire them and get some talent in the house.
I am sick of the hypocrisy and the double talk. Really sick of it.

[mzmolly]

38. Some people see slippery language where

it doesn't exist. I don't care much what he says. I care what he does.

[ClarkUSA]

34. Pres. Obama in his SOTU said he'd cut costs and fraud but not benefits.

I haven't seen anything factual to suggest otherwise. The WH has already pushed back against the shit-stirring WaPo Business Section story.

[mzmolly]

39. And cutting fraud will be deemed a "cut" by the

cynical.

[GOTV]

41. I'm sure they very carefully chose the word "slash"

As in: No, we won't *Slash* benefits.

[mzmolly]

44. Much like the press carefully suggested the President

was open to cutting social security I presume?

[pmorlan1]

52. Nothing more than word games

I don't believe a thing this administration says. They've proven themselves time and time again to be untrustworthy.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

57. Of course he won't "slash" benefits. He''ll just cut them.

If he is concerned about solvency, why doesn't he just say "raise the FICA cap" and be done with it? Or is that too simple?

[mzmolly]

58. He has said

he's considering raising the income cap, according to reports.

[eridani]

59. Why isn't it in his current proposal, then?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/usa-obama-socialsecurity-idUSN19806820110419

After hesitating to take hard positions in recent months, Obama last week laid out a strategy to cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years, drawing a stark, ideological contrast with a plan pitched by Republican U.S. Representative Paul Ryan.

Obama's blueprint, though, did not back boosting the Social Security income cap, but recommended bipartisan talks to address the program's long-term challenges.

Why in GODDAM FUCKING HELL not?!?!?!

[mzmolly]

67. Did you see the "update" and title from your own link?

"UPDATE 1-Obama backs lifting income cap for Social Security"

This does not jive with Obama "did not back boosting the Social Security income cap"

"Why in the FING HELL not?!?!?!"

Lastly, don't swear at me if you'd like to have a rational conversation.

[eridani]

76. I want a public statement from him that this is the only acceptable modification to Soc Sec

Haven't seen it yet.

[mzmolly]

77. I want a statement from him that says something deserving of criticism

before we criticize him on this issue.

[cascadiance]

61. Would raising the age to get these benefits be considered "not slashing benefits"?

In my book it would be!

Because though on "average" we've seen a life expectancy increase grow more that some use as a rationale for doing this, the life expectancy for the more wealthy is where it has grown. Not the middle class people, who's had their life expectancy not grown much if at all. So in effect you are CUTTING benefits to those that are well off since they don't live as long to collect on these benefits, and the wealthy that do live a lot longer don't really need them, and aren't paying as much for them either.

Not only that but raising the retirement age for medicare and SS keeps more people in the workforce, which increases the amount of people who are unemployed and underemployed in our economy, making economic recovery that much more difficult.

About the only thing that is worth changing is fixing Medicare Part D, and fixing Medicare advantage so that the benefits it provides comes from the mainstream Medicare plan from the government, not just from private insurers like it is now which inflates the costs heavily on Medicare.

SS in my book should not be touched unless we're talking about removing the cap.

[jenmito]

62. And Steny Hoyer said tonight that Social Security recipients would not be adversely affected. n/t

[mzmolly]

72. I hope that's

so. Thanks for the info. :hi:

[Palmer Eldritch]

63. Kick for actual info from the President

[McCamy Taylor]

64. K&R for not being RNC propaganda.

[blkmusclmachine]

65. It's always Say one thing, & then Do the Opposite

I think you CAN fool some of the people all of the time.

[boppers]

71. *sigh*

:kick:

[Fearless]

73. No he will "trim" it no doubt. Let's wait til the budget deicit is solved til we applaud him.

[mzmolly]

74. Who's applauding?

:shrug: And, what constitutes a "trim"?

[Fearless]

75. There are a lot of people applauding the president in this thread. And trim? We shall see.