... we contribute to the Social Security fund in order to have funds when we retire. In fact many of us contributed double to cover the boomers.
Social Security is still under attack. Democrats are giving Obama way too much benefit of the doubt about his stance on SS. Obama is a politician, not a statesman. He has too much of his life ahead of him to take stands for the good of the country alone (Constitutionally he is a failure)."When official America talks of 'bipartisan compromise,' it usually means the people are about to get screwed."
I have every confidence that Obama will willingly help destroy Social Security and hand the funds to the rich if he thinks he can find excuses to do so. That is the plan. Obama is pragmatic and malleable, not principled.
Added: Glenn Greenwald, as usual, anticipates. His post today explains why Liberals are getting screwed by Obama and why it will continue unless we start making it clear what we expect, as apposed to just offering up the kind of subservience the Bush followers exhibited.
Added II: In January of this year, Paul Rosenberg at Open Left wrote about Obama's actions as reported on the Washington Post's website ...
"Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices--particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare - should be made on his watch. "We've kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road," he said."... and then puts daylight to Obama's actions ...
This is not just something he didn't run on. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of what he ran on-or at least appeared to ...
Not only is Obama's "fiscal responsibility" kick at odds with his actual mandate and his own health care proposals, it reflects a deeply ideological worldview that--far from being bipartisan or "post-partisan"--is strongly opposed by solid majorities across the political spectrum. It is the very essence of Versailles insiderism.