IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New WH: Chained CPI proposal and protections.
http://www.whitehous...d-cpi-protections

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Riiiight...
What is posted is another deflection mechanism. He gets people to argue about something other than the fact that he opened the door on shredding the safety net all on his own. Just another "it's not so bad" gimmick. Given that he's addicted to "but the nasty republicans wouldn't let me do the good thing" excuse on top of being a serial liar, we're in for a major screwing down the road.
Defend him all you like, he's still a two faced republican plant. Did I mention that I'm not terribly impressed?
New Tell him you don't like it.
If you help strengthen his hand, by showing that he can't give the Republicans more, you help shape the outcome.

Sign petitions, attend rallys, etc., etc. Tell him what you want. Work to make it better.

"Make me do it"...

Cheers,
Scott.
New I have.
I've signed at least 4 petitions in the last 10 days and written to my congress-critter and both senators. Brown actually responded but I'm not terribly optimistic. Obama has been trying to work SS into this "Grand Bargain" from the beginning. Now he's using one of his standard design patterns, the "It's not as bad as you think/it could be" routine, to deflect from the fact that it shouldn't have been bad at all. FDR wanted to help but needed the public support. Obama really wants to gut SS and doesn't need public support in the slightest. If we bitch too much, he's got a lot of police and troops to put down the terrorists (that would be the ones bitching.)
New Meh.
It's good you're taking action. Thanks.

But if Obama were so obsessed with really gutting the things that you seem to think he is, it would have happened already. All he had to do was accept the Ryan budget. Many "centrist" Democrats would have been happy to take that as a starting point and tinker with it to show how "reasonable" they are... :-/

There's a thread over at BoomanTribune that goes into this a bit more. I like this guy's comment - http://www.boomantri...10/181636/892#118 ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New SSDD
This is a design pattern. We've seen it before. He preemptively concedes the thing he wants to screw us on, and later insists that he just HAD to do it. He gets a couple "serious" pundits quacking about it, and shortly his apologists are stating that anybody not getting on board are whining or purity freaks. Wash, rinse, repeat. He's not fast, but he gets what he wants. That generally means we get screwed; he's definitely not working for us unless some of us are REALLY rich.
New huh?
you been sleeping? He already got that
That means forcing the Republicans to accept changes to the tax code that make the well-off pay more.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Not really. That was just a little piece.
New pulling the plug on shrub tax cuts for the +450k crowd
is a little piece? I suppose you want to pull the plug on all of those who make over 50k a year.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Heh. Nice try. :-)
New Predictable.
And not just by me.

http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=sJeFrqBJF6E

Ooops. Maybe NSFW. It's less than 30 seconds, though. ;0)
Expand Edited by mmoffitt April 11, 2013, 11:05:35 AM EDT
New And the longer form, but not a superfluous word either..
http://www.youtube.c...feature=endscreen

Really miss George; of all the BS-excoriating Masters who've left us recently--George made it concise, complete and (most-often) utterly Indisputable:
We're. Fucked. and the odds of becoming unFucked [even in a toddler's actuarial lifetime] are as near-zero as, the likelihood of The Vatican emulating Anthony Quinn
(in The Shoes of the Fisherman ... ... ... let me know when they start returning the spoils to the marks, eh?)

..er, that's marks ... not Marx, Comrade.
But Confucius pre-dated George by some eons: IF.. a society allows language to become corrupted: [FAIL] ... OK he used a few other words/same thing.
New Van Jones chimes in.
Progressives must be willing to reform programs such as Social Security, precisely because they are so important. The question is how? There are better solutions that the president could champion. For example, we could shore up Social Security for decades by raising the cap on taxable income -- so that it is not just poor and middle-class folks whose entire paychecks are taxed.

But Obama's plan leaves that cap in place -- protecting the wealthiest Americans. Instead of asking more from the rich to shore up Social Security, his proposed budget would take more from the middle class and poor.

Don't let all the D.C. jargon fool you. Some in Washington would have us believe that Obama's "Chained CPI" proposal is a mere tweak that more accurately reflects costs. Not true.

By changing the fine print on cost-of-living adjustments, Obama's plan would ensure that benefits rise more slowly than inflation. That would have devastating impacts on ordinary people immediately upon passage, hurt more tomorrow and get worse each year.

Under his plan, as food and medicine gets more expensive, your Social Security check would grow only a tiny bit. This approach may help the government's balance sheet, but it would hurt your pocketbook and your family. It is not cost savings; it is cost-shifting. To people who paid into the program for their entire lives, it is a cut -- plain and simple.

Prices are rising even faster than inflation on things such as health care, which the elderly consume at a greater rate. The most accurate adjustment for inflation would actually give senior citizens more -- not less, which is what they would get under Obama's proposal. Our leaders should be trying to make life easier for middle-class families, not harder.

Second, we are told that we cannot balance the budget without cutting the social safety net. But we didn't get into a budgetary hole because we spent too much money helping grandma. We have a budget imbalance because of the Bush wars and Bush tax cuts, combined with the economic downturn. Yet the Obama budget eliminates the recent automatic cuts to the Pentagon budget, even as it cuts Social Security and increases Medicare premiums for middle-class seniors. It doesn't make any sense.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ex.html?hpt=hp_t3
     WH: Chained CPI proposal and protections. - (Another Scott) - (12)
         Riiiight... - (hnick) - (8)
             Tell him you don't like it. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                 I have. - (hnick) - (6)
                     Meh. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                         SSDD - (hnick)
                         huh? - (boxley) - (3)
                             Not really. That was just a little piece. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 pulling the plug on shrub tax cuts for the +450k crowd - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Heh. Nice try. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
         Predictable. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
             And the longer form, but not a superfluous word either.. - (Ashton)
         Van Jones chimes in. - (mmoffitt)

Anything that takes 8 minutes to get from 55 to 65 MPH is a good starter vehicle.
58 ms