NewsBreakingOnline

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who used to be a staunch ally for Medicare and Social Security is now throwing away any pretense that he was once a Democratic politician and would rather help destroy the lives of seniors in America to make sure funds flow to continue endless wars on Pam Geller’s favorite target: Radical Islamists . In a new bill that he’ll co-sponsor with Conservative Tom Coburn, they plan on helping to weaken one of our most cherished and valued programs, Social Security and send the cash over the the Military. he knows that Social Security is solvent for decades and doesn’t add a penny to the deficit which has preoccupied the White House, GOP and the beltway media. It doesn’t matter that Americans have said over and over again that they prefer defense spending to be cut, not our social safety nets. Think Progress: This past April, right-wing war hawk John Bolton suggested during an interview on Fox News that the United States should cut Social Security and Medicare to finance the defense budget. During debate over the debt deal today on the Senate floor, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared to endorse this call. Lieberman explained that he is working with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) on a Social Security spending reduction plan and that “we can’t protect these entitlements and also have the national defense…to protect us…with Islamist extremists”: LIEBERMAN: I want to indicate today to my colleagues that Senator Coburn and I are working again on a bipartisan proposal to secure Social Security over the long term, we hope to have that done in time. To also forward to the special committee for their consideration. So, bottom line, we can’t protect these entitlements and also have the national defense we need to protect us in a dangerous world while we’re at war with Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11 and will be for a long time to come. In a quick search I found a poll done by Reuters/Ipsos back in March which says: A majority of Americans prefer cutting defense spending to reduce the federal deficit rather than taking money from public retirement and health programs, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed. The poll found 51 percent of Americans support reducing defense spending, and only 28 percent want to cut Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the elderly and poor. A mere 18 percent back cuts in the Social Security retirement program. This fearmongering fiend would rather back an out of control war hawk’s idea from a nut like John Bolton, ( who also is a hero to Pam Geller ) than stand up for the Americans that already have been paying 600 billion dollars a year to the military. As ThinkProgress’s Ben Armbruster notes, the Bolton-Lieberman plan is “is basically a reverse Robin Hood scheme : robbing the poor to pay the rich, or really, the Military Industrial Complex on steroids.” Lieberman is bringing this to the floor because military spending is one of the triggers that will be activated if no deal is passed by the new Super Cat Food Commission. Congress nor the president seem to care that Americans also don’t want Medicare cut to appease the deficit hawks. Despite growing concerns about the country’s long-term fiscal problems and an intensifying debate in Washington about how to deal with them, Americans strongly oppose some of the major remedies under consideration, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey finds that Americans prefer to keep Medicare just the way it is. WSJ/NBC: Less than a quarter of Americans support making significant cuts to Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s mounting deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, illustrating the challenge facing lawmakers who want voter buy-in to alter entitlement programs. In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was “unacceptable” to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security “unacceptable.” Could Joe have acted any quicker to defend his precious wars?