Skip to main content

View Diary: Ezra Klein: The White House is calling for Social Security talks (123 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So why not say that? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, mightymouse, nchristine, Muggsy

    We all know these statements are vetted and re-vetted.  It isn't a mistake but it is clearly an obfuscation.  It's like the President saying he remained "opposed" to tax cuts for the rich just before agreeing to them.  He may be a very canny politician but he sure as hell straddles a line better than anyone.

    •  I think they did say that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG

      That's what I was responding to. They said no benefits cuts for current or future beneficiaries.

      •  I agree. It's typical of the Obama bashers (0+ / 0-)

        on this site that they look for any way to attack mhim. A clear reading is that the administration opposes cuts to either present or future beneficiaries. The Obama bashers apparently still miss President Hilary Clinton.

        •  Assuming I can be called a "basher" (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, chuckvw, cameoanne, schnecke21

          That's a serious hit.  I campaigned and voted for Obama; donated more than I could afford to get him elected. I never considered Hillary a viable candidate.  

          Obama said he would fight for the public option, just before he didn't.  He said he was opposed to continuing tax cuts for the rich, just before he did. He created the CatFood commission (when no one was asking for it) and personally appointed two SS haters to co=chair.  I suspect we haven't heard the last of this commission's advice..that they'll be dragged out to support some "bipartisan" decisions when it is politically astute to do so.  

          I will not apologize for my skepticism when I've been lied to. It's like the old Woody Allen saying "Who should I believe, you or my lying eyes." You're entitled to your opinion; give me the same courtesy.

          •  That's a short list of grievances (0+ / 0-)

            If I had a list of every time a democratic President promised me one thing, but had to compromise, it would be quite long.

            I don't know what to say about these demands. Apparently, they want to get credit for fixing SS before 2037, but there is no way no how Republicans will ever, ever go for a plan that raises taxes, which means there is no deal. Period.

            Not to mention this has to get past Harry Reid.

            This is the latest in the line of paranoia from the Digby Bubble. And every time it boils up, it winds up amounting to nothing more than rumor.

            •  Are you saying... (0+ / 0-)

              Of course.  All presidents compromise under  the harsh light of DC and the world.  But not all presidents campaign on a specific passionate agenda to bring change we can believe in to the country.  And not all presidents offer up compromises as the starting point for negotiations while forgetting the platform that got them elected.  Nor do all presidents pander to the folks who hate him more than the folks who got him elected.  Sorry, NoFortunateSon.  I respect your right to an opinion and dearly hope you're right.  

              Time and again I've taken up your perspective only to feel betrayed: Gitmo/ habeas corpus/ perpetual wars/ military industrial complex/ tax breaks for the wealthy/ cutting social programs/ sucking up to corporations/ failing to take strong control of his party or even admit he's a Democrat, much less the progressive he campaigned as...and, finally, failing to appoint a single progressive to his administration, except for Warren, who has been marginalized.  I can't see this as business as usual.  There may be a pony in there but I see more shit.

      •  I was responding to a different comment, jj32. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site