If you have "no place to go," come here!

The Answer Is 'Hidden In Plain Sight'

Alexa's picture

Will the Lame Duck Congress Poop on Social Security?
Will the Lame Duck Congress Poop on Social Security?
DonkeyHotey's photostream, Flickr

Does President Obama really want to cut the social safety net programs? Well, as the diary title infers, the answer is "hidden in plain sight."

Dateline: 2008 Presidential Debate.

President Obama Declares "We're Going To Have To Take On Entitlements" [Video]

Dateline: January 2009, Washington Post Editorial Board.

And if that doesn't do it for you, take a gander at the following Washington Post piece and audio clip entitled, "Obama Pledges Reform of Social Security, Medicare Programs."

Here's the link.

“If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson


Submitted by jawbone on

I doubt they're lying to themselves....

HuffPo points out that Obama's statement in the x debate. about there not being much difference between Romney's position of SS and his own, is, well, unbelievable...unless he has been lying to the public and his staff.

"I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position," Obama said. "Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker -- Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is -- the basic structure is sound."

In actuality, Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney have differences in their approaches to Social Security reform that Democratic-minded advocates argue are hugely important on both substantive and political levels. One top Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to criticize the president so soon after the debate, said it was a "puzzling line" to offer at a hugely watched event. Nancy Altman, a longtime progressive advocate for Social Security, called it a "fat pitch" that was missed.

"There is a real difference in philosophy," she said. "For Obama to say that he believes he and Romney agree, either Obama has not been straight about his position on Social Security all these years, or he and his campaign haven't looked at Romney's position."

Indeed, Romney, in his book "No Apology," said he backs changing the payment structure for Social Security benefits and said that there is a "certain logic" to increasing the retirement age at which one begins to receive Social Security payments, while protecting those who may be physically unable to work.

"Many older Americans are healthy, vital, and want to stay engaged in meaningful work," he wrote. "If we increased the retirement age, we would encourage seniors to stay healthier longer, keep their minds active and alert, and at the same time, we would relieve the terrible Social Security burden our children and grandchildren face."

Even my friend who had the stroke, most likely ending his working life, possibly any real life, can laugh bitterly at Romney's words. (He may not recall them, but in the moment he can laugh bitterly.)

No one can control what nature, genes, chance, etc., will do to one's mind.

But money makes men into gods, right?

Submitted by lambert on

Still requesting that you turn that previous comment into a post...

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

(On phone, but look forward to replying later.)

It may be obvious to others, but I'm not sure if you believed Obama when he said their positions are similar, or if you believe that he and Romney have substantive differences.

Please let me know. Dems have been working on their version of private retirement accounts for quite a while, too. I'll expound on that later.