PDA

View Full Version : Obama proposes cuts to social securityObama pro



Tgo01
04-05-2013, 07:51 PM
Obama's Social Security Cut Proposal Sparks Backlash, Threats Of Primary Contests (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/obama-social-security_n_3022074.html?ref=topbar)

Just going to quote the best parts.


Progressive-leaning groups reacted quickly and angrily to news that President Barack Obama is proposing cuts to Social Security, going so far as to threaten to mount primary challenges against congressional Democrats who sign on to Obama's plan.

The White House Friday offered details of a compromise budget plan that would seek to cut deficits by $1.8 trillion over 10 years, including raising some $600 million in revenue and making $1.2 trillion in new cuts. Among those cuts would be some $400 billion in health care savings and more than $100 billion from trimming cost of living increases to Social Security.


"You can't call yourself a Democrat and support Social Security benefit cuts," said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, in a statement that was among many fired off by liberal groups Friday. "The president is proposing to steal thousands of dollars from grandparents and veterans by cutting cost of living adjustments, and any congressional Democrat who votes for such a plan should be ready for a primary challenge."


Many other left-leaning groups from MoveOn to Democracy For America echoed her sentiments.

"Any Democrat that votes to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits is risking a primary challenge," said Neil Sroka, a spokesman for DFA. "These are bedrock principles for millions of progressives who are the backbone of the Democratic Party. Siding with the president on this is tantamount to declaring war on the base of the Democratic Party. This is really serious."

"Our negotiator-in-chief is now serving up cuts to Social Security benefits in a mystifying attempt to appease Republican hostage-takers in Congress," said a statement from Becky Bond, political director for CREDO. "The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to cutting Social Security benefits, and if Democrats don't want to go down in history as the party that destroyed one of the greatest social programs of all time, they need to stand up and unambiguously reject the president's proposed cuts."

CREDO spokeswoman Sarah Lane noted that her group helped defeat a pair of Democrats in the recent Illinois special congressional election who were backed by the NRA.

"President Obama's plan to cut Social Security would harm seniors who worked hard all their lives. Under this plan, a typical 80-year-old woman would lose the equivalent of three months' worth of food every year. That's unconscionable," said MoveOn.org's Ana Galland in another statement. "It's even more outrageous, given that Republicans in Congress aren't even asking for this Social Security cut. This time, the drive to cut Social Security is being led by President Obama and Democrats.

"Millions of MoveOn members did not work night and day to put President Obama into office so that he could propose policies that would hurt some of our most vulnerable people," Galland added. "Just as we fought and defeated President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, we will mobilize and stop this attempt to diminish the vital guarantee of Social Security. MoveOn's 8 million members will not stand by and watch a Democratic president chip away at one of the most successful government programs of all time. Every member of Congress -- Democrat or Republican -- who votes for this proposal should expect to be held accountable."


And Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was quick to tweet out a link to a video of Obama opposing such cuts in the past, and fire off a statement hammering the idea, calling it a "bitter disappointment."

“What the president is proposing is going to hurt a lot of people,” Sanders said.


But many Democratic leaders -- including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- have been signaling greater willingness recently to go along with cuts and at least to consider chained CPI.

Sure glad we got Obama another 4 years so he could start showing his true colors!

ETA: Darn thread title!

Latrinsorm
04-05-2013, 08:05 PM
A centrist crossing party lines? InconCEIvable!!

Tgo01
04-05-2013, 08:07 PM
Four more years! Four more years!

Warriorbird
04-05-2013, 08:09 PM
A centrist crossing party lines? InconCEIvable!!

But he's the most leftist Communist ever! Red Dawn!

Fallen
04-05-2013, 08:12 PM
I don't get it. Why are conservatives here upset at the thought of the President acknowledging the need to reform entitlements?

Warriorbird
04-05-2013, 08:13 PM
I don't get it. Why are conservatives here upset at the thought of the President acknowledging the need to reform entitlements?

Because the truth is they're upset because he's Obama. He's done a number of very conservative measures.

Androidpk
04-05-2013, 08:14 PM
Because he is targeting social entitlements and not corporate ones.

Tgo01
04-05-2013, 08:15 PM
I don't get it. Why are conservatives here upset at the thought of the President acknowledging the need to reform entitlements?

I've never been in favor of cutting social security or veteran's benefits, no matter what group of people WB insists on sticking me in.

I think the better question is why are Democrats here defending Obama when just a few years ago they were attacking Bush for attempting to do something similar?

Warriorbird
04-05-2013, 08:16 PM
Because he is targeting social entitlements and not corporate ones.

Seriously? You think the mainstream Republican Party has ever wanted to cut corporate entitlements in our lifetime? I have some unfinished bridges to sell you.

Tgo01
04-05-2013, 08:18 PM
Seriously? You think the mainstream Republican Party has ever wanted to cut corporate entitlements in our lifetime? I have some unfinished bridges to sell you.

That's a Democrat for ya, too lazy to even finish their project before they want to sell it to you.

Androidpk
04-05-2013, 08:22 PM
Seriously? You think the mainstream Republican Party has ever wanted to cut corporate entitlements in our lifetime? I have some unfinished bridges to sell you.

I know you like to do this but don't put words in my mouth.

Fallen
04-05-2013, 08:25 PM
I've never been in favor of cutting social security or veteran's benefits, no matter what group of people WB insists on sticking me in.

I think the better question is why are Democrats here defending Obama when just a few years ago they were attacking Bush for attempting to do something similar?

Looking at the budget, it quickly becomes clear that you cannot hope to bring things into balance without reform to the biggest expenses: defense or social security.

msconstrew
04-05-2013, 08:26 PM
Looking at the budget, it quickly becomes clear that you cannot hope to bring things into balance without reform the biggest expenses: defense or social security.

Defense sounds like the better of the two choices.

Androidpk
04-05-2013, 08:27 PM
The problem with defense cuts is the first thing that gets cut is personnel and veteran programs.

msconstrew
04-05-2013, 08:28 PM
The problem with defense cuts is the first thing that gets cut is personnel and veteran programs.

I should have clarified; of course I did not mean that those should be cut. I think veteran's programs should be bulked up, if anything.

Whirlin
04-05-2013, 08:46 PM
Republicans want spending cuts.

Obama starts talking about making some cuts to social security.

Republicans still mad.

Tgo01
04-05-2013, 08:53 PM
Republicans want spending cuts.

Obama starts talking about making some cuts to social security.

Republicans still mad.

From the article it looks like Obama's biggest critics over this are Democrats.

Fallen
04-05-2013, 09:10 PM
The Army is being weird. They are saving money by drastically reducing the number of soldiers. Yet, the budget (aside from the sequester cuts) hasn't been affected. I guess its all being shifted to keep the technological side of things up and running.

Jarvan
04-05-2013, 09:10 PM
We haven't even seen the budget yet people. All we know is that he says he wants to cut 100 billion from SS, and that's likely 100 billion over 10 years. And he is doing it in the wrong way really. I'd increase the retirement age by 2-3 years again, and apply it like they did before, gradually.

What we really need to do is tie medicare to SS. You get Medicare at 65, but SS at 67.. yeah, that makes sense.

And the part the republicans are mad about is the fact that he wants MORE taxes. He just got taxes, now he wants more. Of course if he got more, then the next time something comes up with budget or spending, he would ask for more again, then again. There is no end to how much more he wants.

Fallen
04-05-2013, 09:11 PM
We haven't even seen the budget yet people. All we know is that he says he wants to cut 100 billion from SS, and that's likely 100 billion over 10 years. And he is doing it in the wrong way really. I'd increase the retirement age by 2-3 years again, and apply it like they did before, gradually.

What we really need to do is tie medicare to SS. You get Medicare at 65, but SS at 67.. yeah, that makes sense.

Politicians on both sides of the isle start frothing at the mouth if you talk about increasing the SS age. I do agree that it would be an effective tool in dealing with the issue.

Jarvan
04-05-2013, 09:12 PM
Politicians on both sides of the isle start frothing at the mouth if you talk about increasing the SS age. I do agree that it would be an effective tool in dealing with the issue.

That's because they look at the issue and see votes. I don't care about votes.