All generalities, more privatiziation, bankrupt Social Security

[JDPriestly]

by cutting payroll taxes, more tax cuts for the rich.

This speech confirms once again, Obama is not a Democrat.

And once again, cut Medicare and Medicaid.

Obama already chopped them in the health insurance reform act. Why on earth is he going to cut the elderly and the disabled and the poor yet again.

And the trade deals?

Where is the evidence that prior trade deals brought us jobs?

Until we are shown that evidence we should not enter into any new trade agreements.

Every trade agreement requires us to accept the decisions of international courts as to issues such as environmental issues, trade protection and even wages and working conditions that we should be FREE to decide as a nation and as states.

NO MORE TRADE AGREEMENTS. They eat away at our national sovereignty.

[MichiganVote]

1. I think you're wrong but your post is short on specifics.

[JDPriestly]

8. The speech was short on specifics. Listen to it again.

I took notes.

[sad sally]

29. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your pocket

(to fund your retirement and to contribute to the disabled, orphans and widows) will go into your pocket. Give me strength...here's a link to the full transcript.

Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a fifteen hundred dollar tax cut next year. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your pocket will go into your pocket. This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year. If we allow that tax cut to expire -– if we refuse to act -– middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. We can't let that happen. I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/08/140320022/transcript-of-p...

[hfojvt]

32. the typical working family does not make $50,000 a year

that's the median household income, meaning 50% of families make less than that, sometimes lots less.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, 60% of all households will get less than $900. 20% of all households will get an average of $225. While those with income over $177,000 will get an average of $3,312.

$46 billion in tax cuts will go to those with income over $127,000, and Obama promises to pay for those tax cuts with spending cuts - spending cuts that Republicans will vote for (meaning he is not gonna cut $46 billion from the Defense department).

Oh, and another $34 billion in tax cuts will goto those with income over $88,000. Once again, paid for with bi-partisan spending cuts.

[Luminous Animal]

33. Thank you. Bush's tax cuts were sold by the same slight of hand. Less money for the poor

more money for the rich.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[JDPriestly]

43. The fifteen hundred dollars will be taken out of the Social Security reserve fund.

I am on Social Security. I will not get a refund of fifteen hundred dollars. And in fact the whole thing is a sham. Obama says he is going to get Congress to repay the Social Security Trust Fund for the lost premiums out of the general revenue. Congress will never authorize such a payment.

Pete Peterson is pro-Wall Stret and anti-Social Security. He headed the committed that hired Tim Geithner away from the IMF and put him in charge of the New York Fed. You can Google that.

Bush was a Republican. He proposed privatizing Social Security, and it got him into trouble.

My theory is that Obama was allowed to run and be elected because he could bankrupt Social Security with gimmicks like this tax "cut." Obama is sort of a stealth Republican.

No one will be $1500 richer. Later in their lives, working people will regret the fact that there is no Social Security for them because their Social Security premiums and future benefits have been put on "vacation."

This is a real double-cross. People are just too darn stupid to understand what Obama is doing. Sorry, but the stupidity just makes me so mad.

[Fuddnik]

50. Republicans have been pushing this payroll tax cut scam for years.

Their intention was to make SS insolvent. Period. The only intention.

And now we have Democrats supporting this supply-side Reaganomics bullshit. The only way it could work, is if the losses were offset by removing the cap.

[JDPriestly]

55. But you still would lose the revenue that would be lost to the tax cuts.

I could not imagine a worse job plan.

So are worker safety regulations to be cut. Or how about cutting the regulations that protect unions?

This is an awful plan. I just can't believe that Obama would have the sheer gall to propose it.

[dawg]

61. It doesn't come out of the trust fund.

The cost of this tax cut is born by the general fund. The trust fund is not reduced by this.

In general, I think this tax cut is a good thing. I would prefer that it were handled differently, but I am accepting of it.

[sad sally]

66. Same deal in this house (on SS), but here's who can get richer:

"Businesses would get the same 3.1-point reduction on taxes they pay on the first $5 million of their payroll, a limit that skews the benefit toward smaller firms. The full 6.2 percent employer contribution would be waived on the first $50 million net increase in a company’s payroll."

In theory, I guess you could say by giving employers the full 6.2% elimination of the employer's contribution on the first $50 million net increase in a company's payroll might mean they could bring on ten new CEO's who could each be paid $10,000,000, thus eliminating the need to pay any fica - sweet

[Rosco T.]

2. Bullshit... you aren't listening at all.

[wryter2000]

5. I thought this was going to be a summary of the "debate" last night n/t

...

[JDPriestly]

9. So what did you like about what he said?

[ThomCat]

12. You keep saying that.

We all listened. We've all read it too.

Do you have any actual information to back up your contention that people don't know what they're saying?

[hfojvt]

42. I didn't listen

Kiwanis was having our barbeque tonight, so I was playing piano

But I read the highlights as soon as I got home.

[valerief]

3. He's a compromiser. He's joining the center with the right.

The left can go take a flying leap, it seems.

[JDPriestly]

10. Political morality and values can take a leap, Obama seems to have said.

I'd like to hear him state his political philosophy.

From what I have seen, he just looks for political advantage. What his ultimate beliefs and goals are I do not know.

[teddy51]

4. I don't think you are watching what I am for sure... I dare the Repugs to ignore this jobs bill.

All that do, had better be looking for other employment, come Nov 2012.

[DrunkenBoat]

15. Why should they ignore it, Obama got the ideas from them.

[Hydra]

21. They're cheering right now

They'll pass all the juicy tax cuts and tell him to go to hell about the rest...which he'll be fine with, because he doesn't really believe we need to tax the "Job Creators."

[girl gone mad]

6. He's a neoliberal. Set your expectations really low..

and you'll be less disappointed.

[leftstreet]

7. Hey did we ever get those mangoes Bush negotiated for us?

Wasn't it mangoes? From India or something?

[banned from Kos]

11. You are poorly informed. The health care bill greatly expanded Medicaid

eligibility to 12 million more people by 2014. Yet you say he has "chopped" it.

[leftstreet]

13. HCR greatly expanded access for private insurance profiteers n/t

[dflprincess]

16. And, thanks to the lack of good paying jobs in this country,

millions more may be eligible by 2014!

Do you know how incredibly low the income limits for Medicare are even with this expansion? The number of people who will be eligible is not something we should be celebrating.

And, don't kid yourself, when programs start getting cut to pay for new spending, Medicare will be on the block.

[banned from Kos]

20. yeah - $29,000 for a family of four will qualify for Medicaid

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Blog/How-the-Affordable-Care-Act-of-2010.aspx

Millions more will receive subsidies (see table). The link says 21 million not eligible now will qualify when the Act kicks in.

[dflprincess]

22. Those that don't qualify for Medicare

will qualify for subsidies for their private insurance plan... Meaning the government will be sending public money to the crooks who will continue to cheat us and there will be no guarantee that those people will be able to afford to actually access health care. This whole thing is a scam to transfer billions of private and public dollars to a private industry that contributes nothing to health care and makes its money by finding ways to keep us from getting care.

BTW, the Medicare income limit for a single person will be about $14,400/yr - a truly princely sum!

[JDPriestly]

27. Medicare income limit? There is no Medicare income limit as far

as I know. Are you talking about Medicaid or Medicare?

The amount of your Medicare premium may vary according to your income, but not your eligibility. Do you maybe mean the amount of Medicare benefits under the Paul Ryan plan? What are you talking about? Maybe you could provide a link.

[dflprincess]

57. You are correct I meant Medicaid

dumb, dumb mistake to make.

[Hydra]

23. Who is going to pay for that, Banned?

Medicaid is already stretched, and the Feds actually want to cut from there.

That means there will be less people "eligible" when they apply or the fund will go bankrupt.

This is what happens when you refuse to pay living wages and think the Gov't will pick up the tab for you.

[JDPriestly]

26. It cut Medicare somehow. Just how is unclear -- unless you

know. It somehow cut something that was supposedly going to certain of the Medicare providers. It was all cushioned with vague language that said we will have cuts but just what they will be will be decided later. I understand that to mean -- we are cutting Medicare, but we don't want to tell the public just what we will cut because we are being sneaky about it since we don't want to pay the political price for what we are doing.

[ThomCat]

14. You're the first person I've seen who noticed that he's

sacrificing seniors and people with disabilities.

He doesn't come out and say how, but he does say that he's going to do something to limit Social Security and Medicare. Both, as you said, have already taken big hits. How many big hits can they take?

Why does the economy constantly have to be patched on the backs of the poorest and weakest?

He is going to have two choices. Either cut into services, or cut into admissions. So either we get less help and have a harder time surviving, or fewer people get that help, and that means some people are left with no help at all. Neither option is a good one.

Already, we're kept far below the real poverty level. People already die because they can't afford both food and medication. If there are more cuts in what people receive, more people will die.

If they cut back on how many people can receive SS and Medicare, the people they prevent from getting in will die. It's that simple. You can't survive with no income and no access to healthcare.

Keep in mind, with Social Security, we all paid into that fund. It's supposed to be our money and it's supposed to be there for us when we need it. To be told that we can't get it when we need it most, even though it's our own money is insulting. Worse, it's robbery.

[LadyInAZ]

19. Cut backs for ss and elder

has been happening for years. i agree we do contribute... but most of us wont see it... what will our elderly do? possible be up to the younger generation to take care of them. heck i can barely take care of myself...

[ThomCat]

24. If you are disabled, they clearly hope you will die before you collect.

By making it harder and harder to collect SS Disability,
and people wait and AVERAGE of almost 2 years,
during which you are not allowed to have any income ($0),
they clearly want people to starve to death and die of their disabilities.

Anyone who does not have family who can support them, will die in 2 years without income.

Even once you start getting your social security Disability, you have to wait 2 year, 5 months from when you first applied before you are eligible to start getting Medicare. How many people with a disability can last that long without seeing a doctor, and without any medication, if they don't have a family that can afford to pay for it?

If you don't live to collect your social security, they get to keep it in the general fund. I'm convinced that they're making SS Disability more difficult to collect as a deliberate tactic so they can keep the money.

I've asked people in two local social security offices how they expect people to survive until they get approved with the backlog as bad as it is and so many people getting automatically rejected by the clerks that do the first-line medical reviews. (They are not medically trained professionals, by the way. And that's a big part of the problem.) I was told "That's not our problem. That's why people have families."

So if you don't have a family, or if they're not rich enough, or not willing to support you, social security doesn't care that you're shit out of luck. As far as they're concerned, it's the family's job to have the means and medical knowledge to take care of people with disabilities.

[Whisp]

30. ah, the death panel ploy....

now where did I hear that before...

[JDPriestly]

46. Check this out. Obama recited the plan proposed by the Chamber of Commerce.

He added the provision aimed to bankrupt Social Security.

[ThomCat]

52. Have you ever tried to apply for social security disability?

Do you know anyone who has?

Before you pull that crap with me, try to know what you're talking about.

This isn't "Death panels." It has nothing to do with doctors rejecting medical care to force people to die.

It has to do with bureaucrats delaying access to services for years at a time in order to save money and keep it in the budget. It has to do with saving money by getting rid of the medical professionals who used to evaluate whether or not you had a disability and qualified for social security disability, and replacing them with clerks who get a few weeks of training to read medical records and look for the obvious, well-known disabilities, but reject most other people with lesser known disabilities or medical conditions so they have to wait years to see a knowledgeable administrating law judge for an appeal to finally qualify for the benefits they should have received right away, when they Desperately needed them and deserved them.

• If you fire the medical professionals and replace them with poorly trained clerks
  
• If you cause the wait time to get access to SS disability to increase from a few months to several years (on average. it can take up to 5 years)
  
• If you force people to wait with absolutely no income that whole time
  

Do you really think that everyone is going to be just fine surviving those years waiting with no income for that hearing to get their social security disability?

How would you survive for 2 years with no income if you were in a wheelchair and had diabetes? Or if you were blind? Or if you were epileptic and didn't have health care?

These are not trivial problems, and it isn't a joke to say that people's lives are at stake.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[ThomCat]

67. I'm not talking about anything even similar to dealth panels

and call people republicans is a slur that's against the rules. You should read those rules sometimes.

[JDPriestly]

28. Our premiums -- our payroll taxes -- were raised by the Reagan

administration in the 1980s. So we really paid for Social Security for ourselves and the baby boomers. We supported our parents and grandparents. Suddenly we are told that, in spite of having paid extra, and although there is plenty of money for the wars and to keep the tax cuts for the rich which were never intended to last this long, we had to accept cuts. No. This is simply not right.

[ThomCat]

31. No, it definitely is not right. It is theft, outright..

If this happens, there needs to be riots in the streets. x(

This is going to far.

[ClarkUSA]

36. Um, wrong. Paul Krugman says, "The proposal is significantly bolder and better than expected."

"First things first: I was favorably surprised by the new Obama jobs plan, which is significantly bolder and better than I expected... if it actually became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/opinion/setting-their-hair-on-fire.html?hp

[ThomCat]

38. You're good at fishing for generic comments with other people's

names on them, but you never, ever address specifics with actual facts. :eyes:

You are a real waste of time.

[ClarkUSA]

39. I offer facts. You're good at empty rhetoric without a single quote to back up your claims.

[ThomCat]

40. I don't need to post generic praise from talking heads

when I can analyze the speech myself, and give detailed reasons for my opinions. You have yet to do so.

You keep posting "This person liked it." "That person liked it" Ohh. Impressive. You know how to use Google. :eyes:

Some day you might know how to think for yourself and defend your opinions. When you can, feel free to come back.

[ClarkUSA]

41. A Pulitzer-Prize winning economist's praise trumps any empty negative rhetoric you & others offer.

You and others can't even dig up a single quote to back up any of your collective complaints. Color me unsurprised.

[JDPriestly]

47. This is the Chamber of Commerce plan slightly embellished

to annihilate Social Security for present and future generations.

Obama - the stealth Republican.

Go to the link posted by Dragonfli.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1905093

[ClarkUSA]

64. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The Teamsters' Hoffa & AFL-CIO's Trumka praised the plan.

Here's more praise for President Obama:

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison today released the following statement on the president’s jobs speech:

“The President has delivered a good start for putting Americans back to work that includes elements we as progressives have been calling for.

Read all about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768102

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

From the Congressional Black Caucus:

"We are especially pleased about the synergy between the proposal presented by us and the proposal he submitted to Congress for consideration this evening. President Obama presented a bipartisan solution–something we can all support regardless of political affiliation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768021

Get a clue.

Get a clue.

[JDPriestly]

45. Krugman probably has no reason to worry about his Social Security.

He isn't on it yet.

I am. I think about what Obama is doing to Social Security and how essential it has been for older Americans for generations -- preventing us from falling into dire poverty or becoming terrible burdens to our children. And when I see what Obama is pulling here, I think he is heartless and cruel.

Trust me, when all is said and done, Obama is a stealth Republican destroying Social Security.

I'm all for job creation, but bankrupting Social Security and passing still more job-destroying trade agreements are not the way to do it. Nor is ruining the environment with fracking Canadian shale and building another pipeline that will, inevitably leak somewhere, maybe under one of our mighty rivers polluting our drinking water -- I'm for creating jobs, but we don't have to pay for the jobs through by destroying the poorest and most vulnerable among us or destroying our environment. Why do we have to do away with regulations to create jobs? To the contrary, regulations, such as those that require higher smokestacks or those that improve worker safety, ultimately CREATE jobs.

Of all of Obama's speeches, this was by far the weakest and worst.

This is the plan sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. It's true. Dragonfli posted the link. This is a right-wing plan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1905093

[unkachuck]

17. K&R....n/t

[woo me with science]

18. THANK YOU. It is enraging that people accept this Republican crap as the new normal.

This is a REPUBLICAN plan. People are going to SUFFER.

Not one damned mention of the wars. No, we are going to set the Super Committee loose to devastate the poor and the disabled and the elderly.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Yeah, that's why Republicans were giving him standing ovations time and again.

:sarcasm:

[Raine]

51. Yes they did when Obama promoted trade agreements and "adjusting" social programs

I guess you missed that. x(

[woo me with science]

59. +1

[JDPriestly]

48. This is, really is, the Republican Plan just doctored a little to

hit Social Security right in the gut.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1905093

[emilyg]

25. Thank you. k/r

[McCamy Taylor]

34. That is not what he said.

He said payroll taxes, extend unemployment, do immediate infrastructure projects and give tax breaks to employers to hire folks, especially veterans, and the long term unemployed.

Note that the way to keep Social Security solvent is to get Americans back to work.

Maybe you were listening to a different speech.

[JDPriestly]

49. It's the plan proposed by the Chamber of Commerce with the

extra bit to ruin Social Security. The payroll taxes are what funds Social Security.

If you don't believe me, follow the links.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1905093

Dragonfli posted this. Obama's plan and the Chamber's plan -- Obama just built a little on the Chamber's proposals.

Obama is quite simply a stealth Republican.

[ClarkUSA]

65. AFL-CIO's Trumka & the Teamsters' Hoffa praised the plan. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Here's more praise for President Obama:

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison today released the following statement on the president’s jobs speech:

“The President has delivered a good start for putting Americans back to work that includes elements we as progressives have been calling for.

Read all about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768102

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

From the Congressional Black Caucus:

"We are especially pleased about the synergy between the proposal presented by us and the proposal he submitted to Congress for consideration this evening. President Obama presented a bipartisan solution–something we can all support regardless of political affiliation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x768021

Get a clue.

[ClarkUSA]

37. NYT Editorial: "An aggressive Obama challenges Congress to reignite the economy."

"With more than 14 million people out of work and all Americans fearing a double-dip recession, President Obama stood face to face Thursday night with a Congress that has perversely resisted lifting a finger to help. Some Republicans refused to even sit and listen. But those Americans who did heard him unveil an ambitious proposal — more robust and far-reaching than expected — that may be the first crucial step in reigniting the economy.

Perhaps as important, they heard a president who was lately passive but now newly energized, who passionately contrasted his vision of a government that plays its part in tough times with the Republicans’ vision of a government starved of the means to do so.

The president’s program was only a start... Nonetheless, at $447 billion, the plan is large enough to potentially lower the unemployment rate and broad enough to be a significant stimulus."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/opinion/president-obamas-jobs-speech.html

[Fuddnik]

53. Who wrote the editorial? Thomas Friedman or Bill Kristol?

Their board has 10 neocons for every Krugman.

[ClarkUSA]

63. NYT editorials have been nagging critics of Pres. Obama for awhile. Read their archives.

<< Their board has 10 neocons for every Krugman. >>

Prove it.

[Fuddnik]

54. Now more than ever, Be in Washington DC on Oct 6th, and stay!

They'll keep feeding us shit, as long as they think we'll swallow it.

[woo me with science]

56. +1000000

[LWolf]

58. Sounds like a trademark Obama speech to me.

All trade agreements need to be FAIR trade agreements based on environmental and labor standards.

[treestar]

62. Payroll tax cut helps small employers

Who are the ones who create the new jobs in greater number. The idea is not to bankrupt the programs, just to get more jobs going at a time when that is considered most important.