Skip to main content

View Diary: US already has high elder poverty rate, so why are Social Security cuts even on the table? (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Au contraire. (11+ / 0-)

    Over 95% of voters voted for a presidential candidate that wanted to cut medicare and social security.  

    I don't see why everyone is so upset.  President Obama was quite straightforward about this in the first debate, pointing out that there was no real difference between the candidates on this issue.

    As far as I can tell, the bottom 95% of the income distribution is planning on winning the lottery or starring in a reality TV show.  We have a democracy and a free market, so who am I to criticize their choices?

    •  For some time, I've been trying to (16+ / 0-)

      reconcile the differences between the Obama who gave millions of people so much hope and the Obama who turned his back on 17 million children in our nation who go to bed hungry each night.  One man seemed so humane; the other seemed cold and indifferent.

      Yesterday I read an article posted on Raw Story that discussed Noam Chomsky's interview on Al Jazeera.  He said this about Obama:

      Chomsky said that a black activist had recounted a story in which a group of African American women visited the President following his inauguration in 2009. After the meeting, the disappointed women told the black activist, “this man has no moral center.”

      “I think they’re right,” Chomsky said. “If you look at his policies, I think that is what they reveal. Just some nice rhetoric here and there. If you look at the actual policies, they’re pretty shocking."

      (emphasis mine)

      I guess there isn't much difference between letting children starve and allowing old people to starve...

      •  Obama is not immoral, just amoral (15+ / 0-)

        He's not malicious, just completely detached.

        He did give people hope. What he didn't say (and to be fair to him, no one asked) was that hope was all he was going to give them.

        Because he was so inspiring, they made no hard demands of him in exchange for putting him in the most powerful office in the world. And because they made no hard demands of him, he was free to ignore them after his election.

        On the other hand, the elites who pay for presidential campaigns vetted him thoroughly and made sure he would go along with their programs. They did their due diligence.

        He is a barometer for power. He goes in the direction that power pushes him in, and he believes that will lead to a good end.

        When the Grand Bargain goes through, there will be much rending of garments among his strongest supporters. He will be accused of being evil, cruel, a betrayer, etc. when it's nothing of the sort.

        One might as well be angry at a thermometer for correctly registering the temperature. The problem was believing the thermometer was something it wasn't.

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:55:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think using drones to kill almost two hundred (11+ / 0-)

          innocent children is immoral.

          What he has done to Bradley Manning is immoral.

          I think a good argument could be made that allowing 17 million children to go hungry while their lives have been intrusted into his care is immoral.

          Shielding Wall Street criminals is both immoral and illegal.

          In fact, I could probably give you a long list of Obama's actions that I think are immoral.

          But what concerns me more is that people no longer believe certain actions are evil...the mainstream use of euphemisms conceals a lot of evil and it has made crime more palatable to people who are not curious enough to crack open a dictionary.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site