Skip to main content

View Diary: White House said Social Security should be off the table in 'cliff' talks (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A question for those individuals who... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, slinkerwink, JesseCW, whaddaya

    ...say this is just maneuvering typical of negotiations and that the final package will not include these sneaky SS cuts.

    If the final package from the White House does includes the cuts, will you be joining the fight against them? Or will you follow the path of, say, those who said Obama would never send another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan but said he was right to do so when he did?

    Because, I gotta tell you, I can respectfully disagree with anyone who says this is just gamesmanship, a necessary element of negotiations. The respect goes out the window for anybody who actually supports these cuts.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:42:27 AM PST

    •  i would not say that it's just maneuvering (0+ / 0-)


      but I would say that Obama knew his offer would be rejected, if not by Boehner, then by his own caucus.

      "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

      by louisev on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:45:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The cuts and the big lie about balance (4+ / 0-)

      What is balanced in this bill?  Someone making $400,000 pays not one cent more in taxes and someone with $15,000K in Social Security takes a hit?  I don't care if they let the lowest incomes off the hook either because they'll still be going after those with far less than $100K in retirement income.  They'll be going after people who have just enough to get by IF they don't need skilled nursing or have another major expense on their fixed income.  

      No balance at all.  And it isn't balanced demographically either.  All the sacrifice is being imposed on seniors.  Younger people get the benefit of the payroll tax cut while those of us who paid into the payroll tax at a higher rate and are just now retiring are getting socked.  

      This is just not a fair bill.  It's not designed to evaluate the needs of the elderly.  It is designed to use the elderly as a cash cow.  

      And they say this is to get unemployment extended?  For how long?  That's a short term recession driven problem.  Retirement income is something totally different.

      •  let's not forget the temp payroll tax deferment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whaddaya

        Obama is letting expire.  That is an immediate 2% tax increase on almost every worker, effective January 1.  This, by itself, will impose immediate pain on millions of families that have been struggling for YEARS.  So Obama is not concerned about what this will do to the "recovery" that most people have not felt, he is not concerned about the hardship and pain this will inflict on millions of familes, and he is not concerned about the hardship that will be inflicted on the 30% of seniors who rely exclusively on Social Security for their survival.

        All this so the richest 1% can be asked to pay slightly more in taxes.  This, my friends, is Obama's blind spot: his idea of balance extends only to the numbers.  There is absolutely no balance to the pain and damage being inflicted on the average American or the poor.  And the fact that the rich will be allowed to have their largest sources of income. capital gains, continue to be treated as special income worthy of just a 20% rate, lower than most of our tax rates, guarantees that Obama is fine with the rich getting richer, and the further concentration of wealth among the few richest families in the country.

        Obama is not solving anything.  Obama's only concern is doing something that angers the richest as little as possible.

    •   3.5 years ago. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      whaddaya

      literally dozens of people here on this site swore that once the PPACA passed they would dedicate themselves full time to patching up all the huge admitted flaws in it.

      Today, those people are attacking anyone still pointing out the flaws they swore to heaven they would fix.

      So what's the point of asking for oaths?

      People either think it's ok for a Democrat to make SS cuts part of mainstream discussion, or they oppose SS cuts.

      The mushy middle "it's a tactic" bullshit is all about lies.  To themselves, to us, I don't know.

      But we've seen it over and over and there's just no sound reason to keep on pretending they're operating in good faith.

      "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

      by JesseCW on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:19:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will await the proof of their stance... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whaddaya

        ...Obviously, there are some in the camp you describe, and screw them.

        But I choose not to lump everyone together until they lump themselves.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:38:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site