On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:12 PM, c b wrote:
> The "left" that Obama may be seeking to provoke is not the left that
> Carrol refers to. It is the mass of seniors who are angered by any
> mention of touching Social Security. They are the most capable of
> getting up politically and making him not do it and fighting the
> TP'ers all across the board.
Obama has stated over and over that he is looking for a “responsible plan” that would not “affect current beneficiaries”.
^^^^^ CB: Well , make that pre-seniors, who are not yet beneficiaries. I have heard anger from a lot of current beneficiaries on the mere mention of SS, but my sample of aquaintences may be skewed to dedicted , long term Communists and radical activists, some of whom fought to win it in the 1930's, like a couple of 90 year olds I was just in a meeting with.
^^^^^
Much union negotiators, Obama, the GOP, and I suspect even the Tea Partiers are well aware of how to cull the herd. Isn’t the Tea Party disproportionately constituted of seniors?
^^^ CB: In a meeting I was just in someone suggested that this is a potential group to yank the Tea Partiers' chain in this.
^^^^^
A statistic that I borrowed from elsewhere and posted a few months ago has been doing the rounds again in the last few days: it shows that a good number of people who are critical of welfare or entitlement programs are on such programs themselves. Combine such hate, false beliefs and the divide-and-conquer of guaranteeing “current recipients” benefits, and I would think you get a pretty pliant senior crowd.
No?
—ravi
^^^^^^^ CB: Yes. That sort of goes back to the thread heading , provoking screams from the left and seniors about Medicare. I'm sort of mixing in Social Security in the discussion, and I think the article focuses on Medicare. Have to go back and look.