White House Backs Down On Social Security Cuts In State Of The Union

[Faygo Kid]

Source: Huffington Post

After months of behind-the-scenes scrimmaging, President Barack Obama has decided not to endorse cutting Social Security or raising the retirement age in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The news, first reported by The Washington Post, comes after Social Security advocates ramped up their defense of the program. Liberal senators heralded a rare victory Monday afternoon.

"I was very pleased to see in the media this afternoon Obama will not endorse raising the retirement age or reducing Social Security benefits," Sen. Bernie Sanders. . .

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/white-house-social-security-cuts_n_813329.html

---

Thanks, Bernie, and also thanks to many, many other individuals and groups who are standing strong on this core issue.

[msongs]

1. we will see if his republican tendencies are actually quashed or not nt

[Cirque du So-What]

2. This statement of intentions alone would indicate a quashing

but I get the impression that he could recite a laundry list of items in a progressive agenda a mile long and it wouldn't appease some who would still insist that he's a republican in disguise.

[lark]

6. True - because all he'd do is recite - he never takes action

on progressive causes. That's not his priority, going to the middle and be nice to Repugs is his top priority.

[Cirque du So-What]

45. Yeah

What the fuck has Obama done so far?

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

:eyes:

[TheWraith]

79. Not to mention, we hallucinated DADT, HCR, Wall Street reform, the CFPB...

Lily Ledbetter, oil and gas drilling moratoriums, unemployment extensions...

[saras]

132. Whatever floats your boat...

DADT - means gays can go to the middle east and torture innocents too - YEE HAH!
HCR - means the poor HAVE TO pay for 'health care' worse than 19th century faith healers.
Wall Street reform :rofl: You mean they're going to give back all the money they stole?
CFPB - means that 1% with the money to purchase modern financial instruments will get less dishonest ones than the ones the rest of the country got screwed with. You expected otherwise?
Oil & gas moratoriums? where? when? you mean 'short pauses', don't you?
Unemployment extensions - work about as good as penis extensions... how about family-wage jobs for over-50 workers?


Oh yeah, and President Obama didn't come over to my house and personally knee me in the nuts. You forgot that one.

[leeroysphitz]

100. If he was doing such a wonderful job you guys wouldn't need to spam that list every minute...

:eyes:

[jaxx]

8. Quit with the 'repub tendencies' bit.

That is totally false.

[girl gone mad]

14. Virtually every economic policy and appointment says otherwise.

[jaxx]

38. No it doesn't.

You can read into things what you want, even if they're wrong.

[MannyGoldstein]

86. Even *Republicans* now say Obama is the best Republican candidate!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/23/sunday/main7274480.shtml

[inna]

153. wow, thanks for the link. amazing (though should not be surprising at all). nt

[pnorman]

113. Relax, friend!

At least "Obeying his Corporate Overlords" wasn't mentioned!

[EFerrari]

11. The Washington Post article this Kos diary is based on doesn't say this.

It says, he won't endorse AND he won't take the cat food commission's recs off the table.

So this is our fake happy news for the day.

[Lasher]

136. This is what we have come to.

Rejoicing because a Democratic president won't openly attack our social programs during his SOTU address. Where is that Democrat who stands up to defend Social Security? He is a ghost from the past and so is the Democratic party that I thought I knew.

[pmorlan1]

3. Not talking about it doesn't mean he won't do it

He might not talk about it in the State of the Union but that doesn't mean he won't endorse doing it without talking about it.

[jaxx]

9. Jeez

[EFerrari]

13. Did you read the WaPo article, jaxx?

[jaxx]

31. Yes I did, when it hit my email.

[high density]

4. Where is this "Obama wants to cut Social Security" nonsense coming from?

Talk about straw man. Just because the president commissioned a group of people who said X doesn't mean he is going to blindly accept their ideas.

[lark]

18. Hello there, please pay attention

Obama hand picked known SS opponents to chair the committee and most of the committee memebers were also picked for the same reason. Why would he appoint Simpson and Bowles if he didn't want SS cut? He also came out after the preliminary draft praising their work - work that would mean the rich paying less taxes overall, means testing for SS (read, make it like welfare so it can be eliminated), increasing the age of SS & eliminating the mortgage exemption.

Wake up, Obama is not one of us (progessives) and probably never was but lied to get elected.

[jefferson_dem]

26. Enjoy your postulations but please cease with the "us" bullshit.

He may not be one of "YOU" but that's all you can speak for. Eh.

[jaysunb]

76. Amen !

and thank you for telling it like it is !

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

36. +1 for Paying Attention...the folks questioing you ...weren't. n/t

[high density]

59. Yet there's no evidence that Obama is considering cutting Social Security

All of this bellyaching is created from thin air. It's as ridiculous as Sarah Palin saying he's going to kill grandma.

[Enthusiast]

161. I still believe he will cut social security.

I no longer trust Obama on any issue and I will work for one of his political opponents in 2012. I went from an Obama supporter to that based on what I consider to be his betrayals.

[Bluebear]

163. 'bellyaching'- whatever. nt

[jefferson_dem]

21. Some on this very board have been parroting that fabrication for months now.

...Once again proving the right DOES NOT corner the market on trumped-up "truthiness".

[Name removed]

115. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Pholus]

127. So we have YOUR guarantee that there will be not "restructuring" of Social Security? nt

[girl gone mad]

23. His own statements, his decision to impanel a deficit commission and appoint Alan Simpson as chair..

his persistent adoption of deficit hawk language, the unrelenting need to compromise with an unyielding opposition, his strong ties to neo-liberals, etc.

[jaxx]

33. No, the rumors were started and became fact to those who

oppose the President. This has come back to bite them.

[KoKo]

39. Plus posts of his "Catfood Commission's Recommendations" have been posted REGULARLY HERE ON DU!

That "REGULAR USERS" of DU could have been "Blindsided by Obama's views on SS/Medicare" is really beyond the pale of disbelief! :eyes:

[high density]

51. I don't know what SS has to do with the deficit

The deficit is a problem because we are cutting taxes up the ying yang while simultaneously spending too much on these ridiculous wars.

[EFerrari]

64. It has nothing to do with the deficit. Nada. Nadita. n/t

[hay rick]

87. The connection.

SS was structured to run a surplus, which was invested in treasury bonds, while the boomers were growing up. Now that they are starting to retire, expenditures are rising to meet, and then exceed current income from payroll taxes. When benefit expenditures exceed current income, the difference will be made up by retiring the bonds.

The problem is that the money that was excess to current expenditures wasn't actually saved, it was spent on various things, including the tax cuts and wars that you refer to. The special OASDI treasury bonds are really just an accounting device to track the difference between money SS has taken in and money that it has spent. The money to retire the bonds (paying off the purchase price plus accumulated interest) will have to come from the Treasury- either by printing money, raising taxes, or cutting spending elsewhere. There's the rub...

[Amonester]

164. The rub is, stop bankrupting the U.S. (in the long run), close down

most overseas Military-Empire bases, bring everybody back home, defend the sovereign territory of the U.S. (with 2,000 nukes, maybe just that 'would' be sufficient? hmmmm?). Tax the filthy rich to the max (close the growing gap between havemores and havenots), invest in a Medicare-for-ALL single-payer system, rebuild the crumbling infrastructure, innovate in green-energy projetcs, and environment-friendly developments that WILL benefit EVERYONE, and show the rest of the world IT CAN BE DONE, AND how to do it all!

But no, can't have that in the most powerful country on earth.

Too many dumbf*cks all over the place.

[hay rick]

167. Guess you're not writing Obama's SOTU speech.

All excellent points though. Concerning the last (dumbf*cks), P. T. (there's a sucker born every minute) Barnum is surely the prophet for the current age.

[Hoyt]

130. First off, Simpson was co-chair. 2nd appointing those with some creditability on budget was smart.

A Democrat was the other co-chair. If he'd appointed others, the criticism from the right would have ensured none of the Commission's recommendation would be accepted.

Now, Obama can pick the good suggestions (which there were many) -- like an ultimate $100 billion cut in the military, increase the wage cap on SS, maybe even the public option that the commission recommended (at some point down the road), etc. -- to help solve a serious problem we have in this country.

Finally, the 14 out of 18 it took to endorse the Commission's recommendation ensured right wing philosophy would not receive approval. But, surely you know that. If not, think about it.

I've never felt the Commission was a pathway to cutting SS like Obama's critics suggest. Yet, the critics have howled. The changes we may ultimately want will not come overnight. But, I think we are headed in the right direction for the first time in many years.

[thelordofhell]

134. The commission is everything you say and also

It took SS off the republican agenda for almost 2 whole years. If there was no commission, pubs would have been screaming from the rooftops to cut or privatize SS (just like they did during * term). But the commission took that "weapon" out of their arsenal. The commission was a brilliant move by President Obama. Now, President Obama can cherry pick any "recommendation" the commission talked about, like raising the cap or cutting defense spending, and quote the commission findings, and what can the republicans do about it....jack squat.

[grahamhgreen]

93. When he cut the FICA tax, it reduced the the length of time SS will be able to pay out.

[high density]

117. I think even in the context of the FICA tax cut, which I don't agree with,

it is still a huge leap to assume that this means Obama plans to cut Social Security.

[grahamhgreen]

142. It did cut SS,

because when you have less coming in, less can go out....

[dionysus]

151. you understand this as well as you do risk pools.

:shrug:

[grahamhgreen]

165. I'll try to explain.

They gave SS money from the general fund.

The Repubs will demand that the general fund be paid back from SS.

They will use this logic: Since the general fund owes SS, and SS owes the general fund, the debts are canceled.

When that happens, SS will effectively have less money.

Or, do you believe that the money that was given to SS will never have to be repaid?



Having a risk pool to guarantee profits for companies that make money by denying people legitimate claims is just wrong, IMHO.

We need a claw back from big insurance, or they will use their profits to lobby congress to destroy the reforms in the bill. Eliminating the near-universally disliked mandate, makes the perfect political compromise for our side.

OTOH, a risk for Medicare for All, it makes perfect sense.

[Hoyt]

139. It will not. Besides if a one time 2% cut creates a problem, we obviously need to do something.

My understanding is that the 2% cut will be "repaid" to the Trust Fund from general revenues. So, it will have no effect on SS unless you believe it will be made permanent. I don't. Just more misinformation.

[grahamhgreen]

143. That would only be true if SS never has to repay the general fund, which is unlikely.

[Hoyt]

144. If you look, you will find that the general revenues will go to SS to offset the 2% cut.

There is nothing in that legislation that will lead to cuts in benefits. Although, few seem to be interested in the truth about this and a lot of other things.

If you will do a little research before jumping to conclusions, you will find that the Administration’s 2% cut in what you and I pay will exist for one-year and is estimated to cost $120 billion. The revenue Social Security will lose from the payroll tax cut would be paid back from general revenues by the U.S. Treasury.

[grahamhgreen]

145. The general fund currently owes SS

Hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars.

Now the general fund is giving or loaning SS money.

The most likely scenario is that the Republicans will insist that the money coming from the general fund and going into SS be considered repayment of past debt, therefore this is likely to result in lost revenues for SS.

[harun]

102. Wake the Frick up

[ProudDad]

116. From the lips of Barack H. Obama...

Haven't you been listening? :shrug:

[high density]

118. By all means give me a link to the speech where he's talking about cutting Social Security benefits

Thank you.

[ProudDad]

120. Here ya' go - "Entitlement Reform" = republican speak for CUTS!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html

http://www.ourfuture.org/node/32987

After making news earlier this week for promising to make Social Security and Medicare reform a “central part” of his plan to curtail federal spending, President-elect Obama has pledged to hold a “fiscal responsibility” summit focusing on entitlement reform.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/16/entitlement-reform-a-%E2%80%9Cmust-do%E2%80%9D-for-obama/

Obama pledges entitlement reform, recovery fight 'on all fronts'

"If we want to get serious about fiscal discipline -- and I do -- then we are going to not only have to trim waste out of our discretionary budget, a process we have already begun -- but we will also have to get serious about entitlement reform."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/04/65447951/1


If there's anything we can learn from his past, he's not to be trusted...

[high density]

131. OK, those are hypotheticals from two years ago and yet he still has not cut Social Security

And it is nice to know that on DU I can get links to the Heritage Foundation.

[JamesA1102]

128. Well said. This is pure spin nt

[lark]

5. I'm hoping that he gives a damn about re-election

and realizes that guttling SS is the one thing that will keep him and any other Dems out of office for forever. Hoping the trial balloon didn't float and the theft of an entire generation of working people's money has been averted. Since he seems to have zero deep held convictions, other than be nice in public, I'm not counting on him protecting social security because to date he's done just about exactly the opposite of what he said he'd do in office.

[KoKo]

40. He WILL BE RE-ELECTED! Does he DESERVE IT? That remains to be seen... n/t

[jaxx]

7. He didn't back down, he never said it in the first place.

Stupid blogs who think they can stir up the masses with lies and then blame them on the President. They all got caught with their pants down on this one and now they point their dirty fingers.

[ProSense]

12. It's the

arsonist starting a fire and putting it out, and then calling himself a fireman.

[Ikonoklast]

110. They made the ghosts go away by clapping their hands.

Not that they were ever there to begin with, they'll still take credit for making the invisible disappear.

[Number23]

126. Exactly. I am laughing my ass off reading this thread.

The president was accused of wanting something he never even PRETENDED to say that he wanted. And now that it turns out that he actually never wanted the thing he was accused of wanting but never said that he wanted, folks are running to pat themselves on the back under the delusion that their "pressure" caused the president to no longer want something he never said that he wanted.

Seriously. I just had a tear run down my face from laughing.

[Paka]

133. Thank you Number23!

I'm here laughing with you. You put it very nicely.

[Number23]

135. Glad you liked it! There are probably lots and LOTS of people laughing at this thread

:rofl: :thumbsup:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[SidDithers]

148. +1...nt

Sid

[elleng]

...

:thumbsup:

[ProudDad]

119. Yeah, right...

"President Barack Obama's apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it's killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/obama-social-security-talk-polling_n_811209.html

He BACKED DOWN because of pressure from us. If we'd followed the advice of such as you and others on this board, he would have felt free to serve his corporate masters better and auction of ALL of social security...

And of course, just because he's not SAYING he's going to "control entitlements" (his words!) doesn't mean he isn't going to do it...

[Skittles]

121. those DUers are lost causes, PD

they cannot see reason at ALL

[frylock]

156. some people still refuse to understand the concept of a trial balloon

[Radical Activist]

154. Everyone call the White House to stop Obama from eating babies!

He never said he WON'T eat babies so we have to be sure! Oh and he appointed this guy to a powerless committee who probably once tried to eat a baby 15 years ago so it's like a sure thing that Obama will be the next baby eater.
And when Obama is forced to finally respond by saying he won't eat babies we'll now we won a big victory!

Hooray for making shit up to scare gullible faux-progressives!!!

[girl gone mad]

10. Hope its true.

If so, much thanks to Bernie!

[EFerrari]

17. He won't endorse AND he won't take the recommendations off the table.

Misleading headline.

[KoKo]

46. Don't get your "Kinckers in a Knot" .....he's a POLITICIAN! They speak to who they need...to get

Re-Elected! He's magnificent at this! A hundred more "Town Halls" throwing water bottles to fainting Constituents and some Good GLAD HANDLING and BEAUTIFUL WORDS will have most folks falling down on their knees like I did with Bill Clinton and his promises for years.

Never underestimate the power of the CELEBRITY and SHOCK AND AWE over the AMERICAN VOTER. If you think they can't be manipulated...you've been PROVEN WRONG from Election Cycle through Election Cycle from the end of the 20th Century (and before) through NOW!

He WILL BE RE-ELECTED!

[EFerrari]

48. Oh, I'm not. It's just sad to see one part of the report being highlighted

and not the rest of it.

Obama hasn't committed to anything on the issue of raising retirement age.

It's sort of cruel to mislead people like that.

[ProSense]

15. Sanders: "I applaud the president for standing up for Social Security..." From

the OP:

"For tens of millions of American workers and senior citizens, that is very welcome news," Sanders said. "I applaud the president for standing up for Social Security, for his understand that this is a program that has worked fantastically well for 75 years and that he is going to defend it."

[grahamhgreen]

97. +1

[elleng]

16. Bogus headline, 'backs down on' cuts.

With friends like these (Huff, etc etc) who needs repugs???

:thumbsdown:

[FrenchieCat]

24. They are actually the friends of the Repugs........who will help get them elected

While they project and say that Obama is a Repug.

Difference is that Obama isn't working to try and defeat the Democrats,
While some here are.

[LexLuthor1]

30. The he said, she said..

about the President supporting cuts in SS is less important to me than our response to any possible cuts to SS. We always have to say NO. No we will not allow our political class to gut SS or take money from those who have been paying into the system all their lives. We will not allow them to raise the retirement age and cause undo stress to working class Americans who have lower than average life expectancy. There is going to be enormous over the next six years to cut SS while their is a Democrat in the White House. We need to let everyone know that their will be an equal organized force to make sure that this does not happen.

[True_Blue]

146. Exactly!

Great post! Welcome to DU! :hi:

[EFerrari]

43. Right. It should read: "Obama doesn't take a position on retirement age".

[jefferson_dem]

19. Haha.

He backs down on something he never said. :crazy:

Why doesn't HuffPost just say they were wrong for trying to stir up baseless demagogic shit to begin with?

[EFerrari]

22. Because this piece is misreporting what he did say, to his benefit.

You didn't read the WaPo article either.

Must be Monday.

[jefferson_dem]

29. Wrong.

I read the WaPo piece. ...That he will not be calling for cuts.

Yes, it is Monday... the day before he backs down on what he was supposed to say tomorrow. Oy.

[EFerrari]

32. It also said he will not take them off the table.

So, this headline reports only half of his comments.

[jaxx]

37. Not taking them off the table just lets them lay there.

Really that is grasping at straws.

[EFerrari]

41. Not taking them off the table is not a "no". It's not taking a position.

[jaxx]

47. Everything is on the table.

Only a fool would play into the pubs hands by saying what is off or on. The President is no fool.

[EFerrari]

50. Right. Everything is on the table, he hasn't said "no" to anything. n/t

[jaxx]

56. psssttt.......he doesn't get to vote on it.

Everything is on the table.

[EFerrari]

60. So, the headline is misleading.

Thank you. :)

[jaxx]

62. Looks like your argument is with the bloggers, not me.

Just admit it, the President is the good guy and never was going to touch Social Security.

Thank you. :-)

[EFerrari]

63. Obama has not taken a position on raising retirement age.

And that's a shame.

[jaxx]

66. The shame belongs to those who pushed rumor as fact.

And now they get to eat their words.

[EFerrari]

72. Well, no. He hasn't taken a position so no one needs to eat anything just yet.

And every indication is that he will tamper with Social Security. So I wouldn't celebrate tonight.

[jaxx]

75. Who's celebrating?

We knew what he did and didn't say. It's not his supporters who are having to make up things to get us off the hook for pushing rumors. Or spin some rumor into fact like "every indication is that he will tamper with Social Security". Quit while you're not so far behind. It's the gracious thing to do.

[EFerrari]

77. Oh, yes it is his supporters who are having to make things up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=263209&mesg_id=263209

:)

[jaxx]

81. I'll give you the last word or we'll be here all night.

You got me to laughing till I spit coffee on the screen.

[EFerrari]

83. Hope you didn't sprain anythng.

:)

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

141. Right. The democrats would never take anything off the table.

ahahahahaahahhaa HA!

[cliffordu]

84. Ah, bullshit

Leaving this on the table- particularly if he tables the catfood rec, kills it deader than if he says "no"

It disappears forever instead of being undercut with a more draconian effort by the repubs.

The megaphones are deafening in here today.

[AlbertCat]

49. Not taking them off the table just lets them lay there.

I forget.... did he take the Public Option off the table or just leave it laying there?

[jaxx]

53. The public option was killed by Joe Lieberman,

Once again, spin. Give it up.

[jefferson_dem]

54. So Obama's not only walking back what he hasn't yet said tomorrow...

He's ACTUALLY about to not say anything! The horror...

[EFerrari]

55. Nope. Misleading headline. He hasn't taken a position. n/t

[JoePhilly]

160. He didn't not not declare that we won't not flip over the nonexistant table ...

on which no actual proposal from Obama now sits.

[elleng]

27. ...

:thumbsup:

[TheWraith]

20. Yet more lies and bullshit from the Huffington Post.

Translation: Obama isn't going to do something he wouldn't do. But if you listened to the COMPLETELY unsubstantiated nonsense being thrown around the blogosphere, you would think that there was actually some reason to think he would. The idea that Obama was going to destroy Social Security is as irrational as the belief that he wasn't born in the US, but just as faith based and just as aggressively pushed by it's believers.

[EFerrari]

25. Lies and bullshit to his benefit.

The source actually says, he won't endorse OR take it off the table. So, you owe the HuffPo for one misleading headline in Obama's favor.

lol

[eridani]

28. Strengthen Social Security has been waging a month-long campaing directed at

--what Obama might say about the program during SOTU. Looks like it had an effect. Doesn't mean we're out of the woods, though.

[HeroTwins]

34. Headline should read: Huffpo backs down after getting facts wrong again.

[EFerrari]

42. LOL. Apparently no one at DU actually reads anything at the links.

This article is supposed to be good for Obama. Although, it's wrong. He hasn't taken raising retirement age off the table. :)

[HeroTwins]

71. the headline is a lie and you know it.

some people can never admit when they were wrong about something.
they just spin around and around.

[EFerrari]

73. Go read the Washington Post article.

It says very clearly that he isn't saying no to anything.

And I don't usually admit to a wrong I haven't committed.

[jtown1123]

147. You're right! I've tried to alert pple to this but I guess they didn't read the WaPo piece.

[KoKo]

35. Sounds GOOD...but watch it...they don't have SS's Honored Pay In's Back on this one...

Obama will sneak it in and our Dems will BLAME the Repugs for it.

Just because Obama leaves it out of his speech (a GOOD THING BY OBAMA) doesn't mean that SS/Medicare Folks who paid into their Retirement and HealthCare with that tax (taking lower wages) will still manage to have the BENEFITS THEY WERE PROMISED ...for taking that PAYMENT THEY MADE from their SALARIES EVERY MONTH!

Watch Obama and see what comes out of this when he goes with the "CatFish Comission's Guidlines" and pretends ....."There was nothing I could do....this was the Recommendation by my Appointed Bi-Partisan Commission and I am Bound by their Recommendations to Go With What they Recommended to Me!"

That (or something like that) will be how Obama will work to BLAME EVERYTHING on SS Recipients...and why THEY should PAY FOR BAIL OUTS OF WALL ST...and the SUFFERING ECONOMY!

MARK MY WORDS...it will be blamed on "Older Americans!"

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

52. This is a misleading headline. Obama has not taken a position.

He has not backed down or said "no" to anything.

[hay rick]

57. "The news, first reported by The Washington Post..."

Title of the article: "Obama won't endorse raising retirement age or reducing Social Security benefits."
From that article...

"Over the weekend, the White House informed Democratic lawmakers and advocates for seniors that Obama will emphasize the need to reduce record deficits in the speech, but that he will not call for reducing spending on Social Security - the single largest federal program - as part of that effort...

Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources."

edit: pasted wrong article title.

[jaxx]

58. Is this the second string?

The WH didn't back down, they never said it.

[hay rick]

67. They never said it...

They just appointed members to the catfood commission that they knew would say it...

[jaxx]

69. That is not the President saying it.

Don't try to put words in his mouth.

[hay rick]

74. He was shocked, shocked I tell you

when the people he appointed came out in favor of SS benefit cuts. Better?

[KoKo]

61. There you have the "CAVE IN" from Obama's Own Words...

Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources."

Wait and SEE what Obama blames on Congress about SS which is NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT...Inspite of what the Petersen Commission has paid it's ASTRO-TURFERS to put out here on the Internet Blogs and sites like DU1

[jaxx]

65. Which one are you saying is Obama's own words?

Do you get paid to post? I could use some extra money if you have a source.

[eilen]

82. I think they are saying it his spokesperson's words.

Some guy he hired to speak for him. Hair must be pretty short these days.

[high density]

68. So... Obama hasn't said anything about cutting Social Security before

But now it is news that he won't say anything about cutting Social Security.

This is all nonsense being fabricated out of thin air by the right wing.

What next?

White House Backs Down on Goat Sacrifice During State of the Union
White House Backs Down on Playing Hardcore Porn During State of the Union
White House Backs Down on Reading Mein Kamph During State of the Union
White House Backs Down on Sprinkling Bull Semen From Ceiling During State of the Union

[Kingofalldems]

70. This is a bad day for the sneaky freepers

K and R

[EFerrari]

78. Except Obama didn't back down on anything. He hasn't taken a position.

[decidedlyso]

88. Good arguments, EF. Let's see if the General Fund repays the

SS payroll tax reduction AND the reduction is allowed to expire at the end of this calendar year. The only reason Obama is backing down on at least changing the retirement age is because if he did that, he would not be re-elected in 2012. I'm telling everyone I know that is near retirement age, to file soon--even if that means a reduced monthly amount--because it is unlikely that they will do actual cuts to existing retirements. Again, your arguments are sound. Let's see what Rep Paul Ryan, R-Wis (who hates Social Security) says in his response to the SOTU speech.

[EFerrari]

98. He hasn't "backed down" on anything. The underlying article says

he won't endorse nor will he take anything off the table.

[decidedlyso]

111. Right. I understand. However, based on what I have heard, he

won't return to this subject until after he is elected. Unless, of course, the Republicans try to lever an SS adjustment out of an okay in raising the debt limit. That would put the ball back in their court.

[PSPS]

80. Regardless, he is responsible for starting the dismantling of the program.

Obama himself came up with the harebrained "tax holiday" idea which, for the first time in its history, will make the social security system an item in the federal general revenue budget. So, suddenly, it has become an "item on the table" for "spending cuts."

What the GOP has been salivating for ever since FDR was, sadly, started by Obama himself in one of his notorious "back room" deals.

[MannyGoldstein]

85. Finally! An admission that Obama's considering slashing Social Security

Most of us knew his actions were unlikely to mean anything else.

Absolutely disgusting, given that Social Security has no obvious long term problems - benefit reductions in 27 years were only created by fudging numbers.

His backing down over attacking seniors in the SOTU is a good first step, but the real test is when he's "held hostage by those darned Republicans" over the debt ceiling needing to be raised. That's where Obama will likely hand the trust fund over to the wealthiest, he'll "have no choice".

[decidedlyso]

89. Right. This may well be a steering to a more opportune time where

he can claim it wasn't his fault. Course, if he does it this way, after this back-out, he will have more Democratic support, imo.

[grahamhgreen]

95. Very good point!

[ProSense]

99. Finally? The OP has no admission of anything,

Breaking: Obama isn't going to announce something other people thought he was going to announce.

It he had announced plans to cut Social Security, then it would be backing down.

When other people's speculation turns out to be wrong, then they are just wrong, which seems to be the case.

[MannyGoldstein]

101. Why appoint Simpson and Bowles?

And all the rest?

Why say he's against privatization, but not say he's against cuts?

I guess we'll disagree on this one.

[ProSense]

104. "Why say he's against privatization, but not say he's against cuts?"

What does that prove: that he didn't say something?

"Why appoint Simpson and Bowles?"

Remember, the report is still dead.

[MannyGoldstein]

105. The report is far from dead

A majority voted for the fetid thing. That will come up again, you'll see. Probably in March.

[ProSense]

106. It's dead,

but feel free to keep waiting for something to happen.

[True_Blue]

138. Yes, it looks like it will be brought up this Spring

From the Wash post article...

"Administr­ation officials said Obama is unlikely to specifical­ly endorse any of the deficit commission­'s recommenda­tions in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either."

"Ryan has said he would like to include entitlemen­t cuts in the budget blueprint House Republican­s expect to draft this spring. Pressed to take a position on Ryan's "Roadmap" over the weekend, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) acknowledg­ed on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "the direction in which the 'Roadmap' goes is something we need to embrace."

"The fundamenta­l - the starting point in any plan - has got to be, we need to distinguis­h between those at or nearing retirement­. Anyone 55 and older in this country has got to know that their Social Security benefits will not be addressed - will not be changed," Cantor said. "It is for all of the younger people - those 54 and younger - we're going to have to have a serious discussion­."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012403472.html

[bread_and_roses]

90. Good to hear

And if the header is accurate (don't have time to go to link) - why "backed down?" Why not "WH STANDS UP for SS?

[killbotfactory]

91. "HuffPo falsely accuses Obama planning to cut SS" is a more accurate headline

Seriously guys, these blogs and some other pundits get their funding by fueling leftwing hysteria against Obama and driving up ratings and selling books. It's crooked. Stay skeptical of Obama and the government, but stop accepting the latest outrages shouted about by the left-wing rumor mills as hard fact. Everytime these bullshit controversies get started it detracts from the areas where the Obama admin is actually fucking up.

[EFerrari]

103. Nope. The article says he won't endorse or take it off the table.

There's no news here.

[BulletproofLandshark]

107. It's sad how many times you've had to point that out in this thread. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

92. smart move

[ProSense]

94. Bernie Sanders just said

that he's going to force a vote on Paul Ryan's plan.

He said it's time for the debate to happen to put an end to the nonsense.

[grahamhgreen]

96. I, too, applaud his decision. Our efforts are paying off. I hope this is a core policy change and

not just a one off.

It would be nice to see him push to raise the cap!

[Better Believe It]

129. So he's decided to not take a position against any cuts. Wonderful.

I'm sure he'll make that clear in his State of the Union address.

Obama could say: "Just because I haven't said I'm opposed to any Social Security cuts doesn't mean I favor them! And if a bill proposing Social Security cuts comes across my desk I won't sign it .... unless that's the only way I can get Republicans to support an increase in the payroll tax CAP."

[iamtechus]

108. After months of behind-the-scenes scrimmaging,.........

"President Barack Obama has decided not to endorse cutting Social Security or raising the retirement age in his State of the Union address Tuesday night."

If he never intended to do it, why did it take "scrimmaging" to get him to decide????

[pnorman]

109. The White House either "backed down",

or they didn't exist in the first place!

But of COURSE Obama had originally planned massive cuts; we all saw it on the internet!

[jefferson_dem]

123. Truth and reality be damned!

Jane Hamsher and some random anonymous poster on a left-leaning discussion forum said Obama is a bad fella... who wants to feed catfood to seniors... or something.

[unkachuck]

114. "...Obama has decided not to endorse cutting Social Security..."

....I just wish he would stop the ambiguity and show a little more love and enthusiasm for Progressive/Liberal Programs and positions....

....he may be president of all the people, but we brought him to the dance....we could be discussing a President Clinton or a President Biden right now....

[SHRED]

122. So he was considering it?

I see.

:popcorn:

[FiveGoodMen]

152. Still is, no doubt.

Just won't mention it in his speech.

[Javaman]

124. as I have said before, if he so much as breaths on SS,

he has lost this dem forever.

I will be shopping for a new party and I'm sure many other people will as well.

And remember, just because he doesn't mention it in the SOTU, doesn't mean he still won't cut it.

[Lasher]

137. Me too, Javaman.

Maybe a lot of people think it's not a third rail anymore. But it's still a third rail to me.

[SpartanDem]

125. Nice spin by HuffPo

they were one of leaders of the Obama going after SS meme. Now they have nerve to say he's backing down after it's proved to be BS.

[Faygo Kid]

157. Interesting. I just thought I would post a positive story. Didn't expect to make Greatest Threads.

Or stir the hornet's nest. I remain skeptical, too, especially after the appointments of Simpson and Bowles to the Catfood Commission. But, Bernie praised this, so I went with it. Very interesting; glad to see the passion here.

I replied to your post because we share a certain affinity for a certain school.

[SidDithers]

149. Comedy gold from HuffPo...

:rofl:

Sid

[JuniperLea]

166. They could have used a good picture...

Of their crystal ball!

[blindpig]

150. You call that a victory?

A victory would be him coming out and saying that SS is inviolate.

Looks more like dissimulation to me. To call that a victory is clueless or dishonest.

[Sparky 1]

155. If we on the left aren't all about Social Security and Medicare, what are we about?

[Enthusiast]

158. I will not let my guard down. nt

[woo me with science]

159. No they didn't.

Nothing is off the table.

Unrec for flatly inaccurate headline.

[indepat]

162. Ike warned us of a few loonies who would try to throw a monkey-wrench in our national

safety net for the elderly, not speaking very well of the entire lot of those rascals: hope someone can post his spoken words on this issue. Little did Ike realize that in 50 years, his entire political party would now constitute that radical fringe who would destroy social security, with many Democrats getting on this bandwagon. I won't be surprised if pubs hold BHO hostage by threatening to not increase the national debt ceiling, thereby triggering a default, if social security is not gutted. Surely there is not a reasonably knowledgeable person in this fair land who does not realize the Congress has pilfered $trillions from the sacred lock-box and possibly there is not even one pub who ever intends for the promised benefits to be paid to the baby-boomer generation. For any Democrat to have even considered for a moment to join that radical fringe that Ike warned us of is treacherously chilling indeed. :shrug:

[Dappleganger]

168. I'll believe it

later, after the budget is finally passed. Because we all know that he is full of wonderful words but talk is cheap.