Skip to main content

View Diary: New momentum behind expanding Social Security (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A bookend for what? To what end? /nt (0+ / 0-)

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:29:15 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  To Obama's Trustworthiness (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean

      To the end of keeping pressure on Obama, and keeping expectations of him realistic.

      It's evidence key to fundamental issues over which he has great influence. What do you prefer to that?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:42:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem (0+ / 0-)

        is that we ignore the evidence. On the demand for "entitlement reform," I've yet to hear anyone point out that welfare -- general assistance and AFDC -- was reformed right out of existence. The Clinton Dems also began dismantling Social Security incrementally, starting with disabled workers. Everything from Medicaid to schools, parks to libraries, has been cut to the bone as the rest of the budget is funneled into war(s) while protecting the rich from taxation.

    •  To shame Obama (3+ / 0-)

      He has really been put through the wringer over his promise about keeping your health insurance if you like it.  If those opposing chained CPI can get the media to start playing the tape where he promises not to cut the COLA by changing the index, he may be forced to back off his attempt to institute chained CPI in hopes of salvaging what little reputation he has left.

      Shaming a president who has broken his promises may actually cause him to think twice about breaking them in the future.

      •  We can't control the sound bites others use. (0+ / 0-)

        Frankly, that's why I don't want to give the right any fodder. That said, criticism within the family is fine, and due.

        RE chained CPI, Obama was trying to build consensus. He made a mistake and he seems to feel he's stuck with it now. I'm very sure he knows a major part of his base views it as a mistake and it got tossed back at him in campaigning in 2012. The GOP switches its positions with mind-boggling alacrity. I hope he can when tough-minded budget bargaining calls for it.

        RE his "promise" on health care. Yes, it would have been better to hedge for the 5% case. Few politicians do, but he is a straightforward man who misstates less than most. What he should have said is:

        "If you are sentient and you didn't buy junk coverage, you can keep ..." Or some such. The instances where he misstated are very few, out-sized by the GOP and media furor, and he and we should be able to move on. In fact, I think all this establishes how much better Obamacare is compared to the insurance world that preceded it. Some perspective, I believe, will show this well.

        What I profoundly disagree with is your conclusion that he has to "[salvage] what little reputation he has left."

        With respect, malarky! He's an accessible president who has been faced with more furor on a wider range of issues and political contestibility than Bush faced in his eight years. Clinton caved on important things and I'd hold Obama up to comparison to Bill Clinton any day. The media and we let Bush and the GOP get away with it and Clinton, frankly, brought the witch hunt on himself. Obama is so much better than those presidents!

        As for reputation in general, history will judge us all.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:18:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks (0+ / 0-)

          VERY important point: When Democrats (like Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, etc.) don't say that they will protect Social Security, but carefully specify that they will protect Social Security RETIREMENT, it means that they're willing to slash/end Social Security for disabled workers. Again. Please force Democrats to publicly state their intentions for disabled workers; it's a matter of life and death.

          Clinton has been the most powerful of the rt. wing Republicans since George Wallace.  Clinton's social policy "reforms" are far to the right of both (historic "staunch conservative")  Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. It is the Clinton Democrats who began dismantling Social Security the way they dismantled the welfare system, one part at a time, targeting disabled workers. It was President Obama who reversed the damage that the Clinton Dems did to Social Security.

      •  Shame Works (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        disinterested spectator

        We've seen Obama bristle when mocked and protested but, you know what, no Tar Sands Pipeline yet. When we clap Obama ignores us. When we embarrass him he listens.

        •  Who? (0+ / 0-)

          Who is actually responsible for legislative decisions related to the Tar Sands Pipeline? It's not the president. The decisions are made by Congress. That's just how our form of govt. works. Go to us.gov, and see where your own senator stands on this issue.

      •  No (0+ / 0-)

        It's not the president's doing. These are budget decisions made by Congress, not the president. That's how our system of govt works. With rare exception, Congress makes all the actual decisions. Go to us.gov to dig up the actual Dem Party votes on these issues.It is the Democrats in Congress who are actually responsible, but who (weirdly) are not being held accountable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site