dagblog - Comments for "In the SOTU, did Obama promise to preserve Social Security's currently promised benefits for all workers?"

Don't forget. We got an

SleepinJeezus — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:24:55 +0000

In reply to Really, he doesn't even have

Don't forget. We got an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, and that's when we were in the majority in BOTH Houses. Don't underestimate the power of the GOP to push the issue, especially when Obama so neatly leaves the door open for them in his less-than-definitive use of rhetoric in supposed defense of SS.

At some point, you gotta see the trends that are created by past performance, even if you really don't like the way the trends are going. And we've seen this "GOP-Lite" strategic move to the center too many times in the past to fail recognizing it as it now develops. It's a maneuver that burnishes his "bi-partisan" credentials, after all! What's not to like, eh?

Really, he doesn't even have

Michael Maiello — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:50:59 +0000

In reply to What I do know is that this

Really, he doesn't even have to go to the mat. He just has to do nothing. The Republicans can't make law without him!

But I'm skeptical, too.

What I do know is that this

SleepinJeezus — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:41:07 +0000

In reply to In the SOTU, did Obama promise to preserve Social Security's currently promised benefits for all workers?

What I do know is that this guy is pretty good at reading polling numbers. And he's very good at crafting a speech. And the numbers in strong support of SS were remarkably high going into the SOTU.

Given all that, it is troubling to consider why he allowed any ambiguity to infuse his statement of "support" for SS at all.

Of course, I don't need to remind you that this guy ain't so keen on keeping promises, anyway.

Close Gitmo? Check!

End Human Rights abuses? Check!

Put an end to Bush Tax Cuts? Check!

Reduce unemployment? Check!

Destor, this guy created the Catfood Commission in the midst of the geatest recession in our generation. He lives on Republican Talking Points, calculating his reelection strategy as an effort to steal the GOP ground and push them to the margins. Do you really think he's going to go to the mat for anything like SS? Or will he instead work out a compromise that allows him to explain "Well, these cuts in SS would have been a worse disaster if the Republicans had their way!"?

I think the answer to that last question is self-evident, and should give anyone pause who might otherwise be inclined to support this asshat in hopes of actually gaining "Change You Can Believe In."

More like "All the GOP Change they seek, only less of it." Feh!

Meanwhile, we stay stuck at nearly ten percent unemployment (in OFFICIAL numbers!), and we were just presented with the case for moving on with WTF, now that the recovery has happened.

Ultimately, I think you're looking for credibility in all the wrong places.

Thanks for fleshing out my

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:05:31 +0000

In reply to What had me optimistic was

Thanks for fleshing out my poor memory. I might have just heard what I was afraid I would hear. I plan to readit sometime before long and then maybe listen at least to some parts. I don't know if inflection means the same with an accomplished speaker reading a well practiced speech but I like often take alot from it, right or wrong. I watched with a couple friends and we turned it into a parody of Mystery Science Theatre, lots of interuptions.

I think the smartest thing to

artappraiser — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:30:42 +0000

In reply to In the SOTU, did Obama promise to preserve Social Security's currently promised benefits for all workers?

I think the smartest thing to do is not fixate on one word in one speech but to judge what a politician says and does on an issue over time , like this:

http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_social_security.htm

And also in doing so to realize that no president working with the Congress and the economy he is given is going to end up doing things exactly like you would do even if his principles on the issue seem to match yours well. They will always weasel out of one single promise if they feel it is necessary. I.E. read my lips, no new taxes. Tha'ts the way our system works; after all, sometimes you're happy whn they are flexible. I'm sure Bush hated having to break that promise.

Personally, I am hoping the

CVille Dem — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:05:03 +0000

In reply to Inflation can be used for the

Personally, I am hoping the TeaBaggers put a third candidate out there. The only downside of that is that disaffected Progressives could use that as an excuse to stay home.

In what passes for discourse

Michael Maiello — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:51:58 +0000

In reply to Inflation can be used for the

In what passes for discourse these days, most of the wonky types from both sides accept uncritically that our current measures of inflation overstate the case, even though the experience of working people is that it's undoubtedly understated.

What had me optimistic was

Michael Maiello — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:50:17 +0000

In reply to Without checking the written

What had me optimistic was this:

"To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.) We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (Applause.)"'

I also think it's funny that they put "applause" in the pre-release transcript...

Inflation can be used for the

Richard Day — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:04:15 +0000

In reply to In the SOTU, did Obama promise to preserve Social Security's currently promised benefits for all workers?

Inflation can be used for the rich--which is usually the case or for the middle class.

The tool is in the hands of the masters of industry and war anyway.

Freezes are implemented on wages and the investment bankers run amok.

But all the SS programs have been frozen for two years anyway. Basic necessities have gone up in value so those caught in the freeze suffer.

Conservatives take the housing market deflation, add it to the real inflation and it balances to zero on the books.

It is all slight of hand.

I feel that Federal Workers are doing pretty well and a little balancing should take place with regard to that group except for those on the lowest rungs receiving government checks.

But those on SS are screwed, they have to give up gasoline and heat in order to procure their daily bread or get a part time job at the liquor store.

I would answer your question as yes to both alternative interpretations.

I know that the repubs would straight out fire a fifth of all Federal Workers, lower taxes even further for the rich and the corps, cut SS, cut medical reimbursement, drop regs on insurance industry and oil industry....

What choices are there? I certainly would not ever go to the repubs.

Without checking the written

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:45:17 +0000

In reply to In the SOTU, did Obama promise to preserve Social Security's currently promised benefits for all workers?

Without checking the written text, my recollection is that he stressed protection for current retirees and those soon to retire in a way that left out future retirees.