dagblog - Comments for "Will the Obamabots now finally admit he's not worth re-electing? If not, are they really okay with cutting Medicare to fund endless, illegal wars?"

There is no question that

Ramona — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:32:59 +0000

In reply to Oleeb, it would work just as

There is no question that there needs to be some tweaking of both programs, but the tweaking can be done to improve SS and Medicare, not gut them, which, from what I'm reading, is what the Dems are talking about.

There is so much waste in Medicare, I welcome a complete investigation of how that money is being spent by providers. I am on Medicare and I have no control over how any of my care is being billed. Thankfully, I'm in reasonably good health and don't rack up huge expenses, but when tests or procedures are billed to Medicare I have no idea whether or not the costs are in line. I've seen some incredible charges on other people's statements, and while we question them and even laugh at them, we're pretty sure nothing we say will change that. It's up to the government to oversee the costs, and there's no reason they couldn't keep them in line.

Also, as you said, there is no reason on earth why there is a cap on SS. The sky's the limit -- or should be. If you're earning wages why shouldn't they all be subject to FICA? The percentage could be adjusted slightly if there were no caps, and the deduction would be more equitable.

And of course, SS money should never have been placed in the general fund, yet I never hear that argument from anyone, and especially not from the Republicans. Their only mission is to kill both programs, and do it ASAP. This whole argument about Obama and the Dems working with them holds no water. None that I can see, anyway.

Oleeb, it would work just as

stillidealistic — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:35:06 +0000

In reply to Are you really that dense or

Oleeb, it would work just as well to ask if YOU are really that dense or just gullible.

There is a world of difference between "gutting" SS and making some changes to it. If one is "gutted," one cannot survive. If one has some unspecified changes made, one will almost certainly survive (unless the changes are so incredibly drastic so as to make that impossible) and there is absolutely nothing being said by dems that would lead me to believe that is the case.

No one but republicans have suggested that we not plan on SS being around much longer. Yet it sounds like you are intent on making sure they take over. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy...you are so anti-Obama, that you WANT him to fail. I have a hard time believing it, but that is sure how it sounds.

Dems would be better served changing the premise of the debate. Stop calling it a frickin' entitlement and start calling it a safety net...after all, if the repubs can change rich people into job creators, we can do this.

Saving the "safety net" seems like an easier sell than saving the "entitlement."

Then there's also no global

Verified Atheist — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:33:38 +0000

In reply to The problem is, that as soon

Then there's also no global warming crisis (something which I strongly don't believe).

The problem is, that as soon

jollyroger — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:26:54 +0000

In reply to This is almost the definition

The problem is, that as soon as you even broach the idea that SS is "in crisis", you have betrayed yourself as a "gutter", because the trustees reports clearly show that there is nothing even approaching a crisis, unless you think that a problem looming on the 27th year horizon represents an iceberg to today's Titanic.

There simply is no SS crisis--there is a drawerful of government bonds which may need servicing, but that just requires the stamping of the magic trillion dollar coin.

The "crisis" is that the rich just hate inflation like the fuckin' plague.

Some inflation is a good thing, it greases the wheels for growth and embraces the growing population as well.

Somehow, inflationphobia has taken over the mind (?) of the rulers.

This is almost the definition

Verified Atheist — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:11:11 +0000

In reply to Are you really that dense or

This is almost the definition of begging the question. You're assuming that Obama wants to gut SS, so you interpret what he says to mean that he wants to gut SS. If you don't make that assumption, that's not the conclusion one is drawn to.

Clue #1: He's black and the

oleeb — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:49:32 +0000

In reply to It's very interesting to me

Clue #1: He's black and the Republicans are the party of white racists in America. He could be the second coming and they wouldn't support him.

Clue #2: Republicans always oppose and obstruct every Democratic President just as they have with Obama. They did it to Carter and Clinton. They did it to FDR, Truman and Kennedy too. They had deep hatred for LBJ but they were so weak at the time and he was so strong and skilled they had a hard time villifying him in the same manner as the others. But because Obama is black, the Republicans have felt a special obligation never to give an inch. They also have recognized his aversion to any conflict and his willingness to give away the farm in return for peanuts as a major weakness (which it is) and have only been encouraged to be all the more implacable and rigid in their obstruction as a result. He keeps rewarding them for it and they've gotten everything they have asked for and more from him. He's the perfect opponent for them: he is easily demonized in their party because of his race and he gives them anything they demand.

Clue #3: His agenda as far as SS and Medicare are concerned is as clear as can be. You take this very same wait and see posture on everything and he has hoodwinked you every time with his excuses and pleas of how mean and implacable the Republicans are. You've been proven wrong to do so in every instance by the record of outcomes we've seen and yet you still cling to this hope that he isn't lying this time. Wow!

Precisely!

oleeb — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:39:28 +0000

In reply to Obama: "Throw me the ball and

Precisely!

It's pretty well known what

oleeb — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:38:18 +0000

In reply to Good story, but the

It's pretty well known what he's doing behind the scenes stilli and all the wishful thinking in the world won't change him into being a good guy on this. He's with the other guys and agrees with Alan Simpson and the other enemies of SS and Medicare he appointed to his incredibly unpopular Catfood Commission.

But the bottom line remains

oleeb — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:36:08 +0000

In reply to The problem is that it's easy

But the bottom line remains that the political strength of social security is that everyone pays in and everyone benefits. Once you mess with that and weakened the political consensus on the program which has been the Republican goal for decades, then it is only a matter of time until the whole thing is dismantled. So, just because in an ideal world some of the money could be made more useful, it is, as a practical matter most useful if used as cement for holding together the political consensus of support for the program.

Are you really that dense or

oleeb — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:28:18 +0000

In reply to Of all the disingenuous

Are you really that dense or is it jus denial? I cannot believe you are dense. Unless he comes out and says "I hate your grandmother and want her social security" you wont' face reality will you?

Read what he said in public! Read what Panetta said in public! Read what Obama's mentor, Joe lieberman, said on the Senate floor! Is it even possible that without willfully ignoring their plain and unambiguous statements that you can miss what they're talking about and really fall for their attempts to assuage people like yourself and make them think they're not really doing what they plainly intend to do? Get real Stilli and wake up! You aren't stupid, but you are willfully gulllible.