Skip to main content

View Diary: I have voted for Barack Obama because Mitt Romney would be worse (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would only add ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, corvo

    Obama cut the payroll tax.  This is has the effect of draining the fund not of money, for the difference is being made up from general revenue, but of moral integrity.  We can no longer claim that Social Security is fully funded by its own tax.  And if that tax is not fully restored (I am betting there will only be a partial restoration, at most), this payroll tax cut will have done more to harm Social Security than all the conniving on the part of Republicans since 1935.

    But Obama will not stop with that.  He can’t wait to pull off a grand bargain, which will consist of cuts to the entitlements.  Oh sure, there will be a tax increase on the wealthy as part of the deal.  Well, as far as I’m concerned, the rich can just keep their money, if the price is going to be changing the COLA index, or raising the retirement age.

    But I agree with you.  Romney and the Republicans would be worse, with their dreams of Social Security privatization, Medicare voucherization, and Medicaid abandonment.

    •  You need to pick one. (0+ / 0-)

      If you want to keep SS separate from general revenue, and you want to avoid benefits being cut, there need to be changes to the way SS revenue is raised, or "tweaks" as has become the conventional phrase.  The one tweak I have seen endorsed by Obama is raising the withholding limit.

      So we can keep things as they are and watch benefits be cut, or we can work to make changes, which will require working with Republicans.

      Please keep your outrage limited to one of the above issues in each comment.

      Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

      by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 03:33:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why did you uprate this diary? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found

        I think it's in violation of site rules, don't you?

        Maybe a mistake?

        Vote YES on Prop. 30, California!!!! Yes on 30, No on 32 & 38. For the future of education.

        by mahakali overdrive on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 03:39:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I want everyone to vote for Obama, (5+ / 0-)

          even the disillusioned ones.  I know people who I can not convince to vote for him, because of various crap, similar to above.  If the price for a vote is a whiney diary on the internet, I'll take it.  The internet can withstand an avalanche of whiney diaries; the Republic can not withstand apathy.

          Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy. --httpd_err400form

          by Bob Novak Douchebag of Liberty on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 03:53:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair enough answer (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            crose

            And I understand what you're saying and basically agree with it, but without the one caveat that this guy is voting Obama, the substance of his diary was really against site rules right now with the "equivalency" stuff. Kos has banned a bunch of people for it. So for me, I don't think this is a very ringing endorsement and also, I found it pretty damaging as a critique.

            If this guy is who he says he is, I would have liked to hear his perspective on Muslim American voters in Chicago and what their particular issues are, and why they would remotely consider voting for Romney -- not something I have heard previously, have you?

            Vote YES on Prop. 30, California!!!! Yes on 30, No on 32 & 38. For the future of education.

            by mahakali overdrive on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 03:59:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  When you say this without mentioning the trillions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes

      owed by the general fund to the social security trust fund since Reagan,

      Obama cut the payroll tax.  This is has the effect of draining the fund not of money, for the difference is being made up from general revenue, but of moral integrity. We can no longer claim that Social Security is fully funded by its own tax.  And if that tax is not fully restored (I am betting there will only be a partial restoration, at most), this payroll tax cut will have done more to harm Social Security than all the conniving on the part of Republicans since 1935.
      you demonstrate that you yourself are deficient, either in knowledge of history or in moral integrity. Until the general fund has paid social security's 'shortfall' to the tune of between 2 and 4 trillion dollars it currently owes the trust fund, the bolded portion of your statement is NOT true.

      Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

      by davidincleveland on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 09:14:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site