CEOs and Simpson-Bowles 3.0 -- social security & medicare will be on the table no matter who wins

Wake up, America.

They need to be rounded up and sent off to their own little deserted Galt island with a copy of the Fountain Head to sustain them.

If we could get rid of all the uber rich CEOs and banksters, this country could function like a democracy again.

Where were these CEOs when Raygun was tripling the debt? Where were theses CEOs when the bushes said deficits don't matter? It's just so convenient that they show up with the stupidest solution to a depression since Hoover's policies and claim to be concerned about the budget deficit. How about they start paying their fair share first and foremost?

You'll start to see every protest put down by rubber bullets and dogs, like what happened in Anaheim. More instances of severe beatings like they inflicted upon Occupy.

The people will get put down. Until we learn that we need to eliminate the GUARDIANS of the PLUTOCRATS.

the military grade stuff seeing as how that shit is used specifically for oppression of the citizenry. I am appalled at what a police state the USA has become. Sure Obama is definitely 1,000,000X better than Romney but that doesn't change the fact that the police are way too armed, and brutal protectors of the 1%.

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

The President started this ball rolling when he appointed the two most outspoken foes of Social Security - Simpson and Bowles - to lead a "deficit reduction" commission. The resulting demands for putting America's elderly on a diet of cat food and peas was inevitable. Like sharks, the CEOs smell blood in the water and want their own share of the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund.

Yes, people will die.

Sick, sick, sick.

Or that Conyers is lying, or that he misunderstood?

The concert wouldn't be the same with out it.

How do you feel about this?

And the fact that he hasn't done so yet, is the proof.

with anything more than your pathetic name calling.

Every month or so, Manny appears with the "Obama is about to kill Social Security" prediction. Its not going to happen.

I don't believe Manny has predicted that Obama will kill Social Security. I know that he said Obama has worked methodically to cut Social Security. How do you feel about that?

So many do.

Sid

and seen that it's not quite as bad as you think. These guys are meeting to try to get the Republicans to compromise by doing and end run round the lobbying monster that they helped create but got out of control.

You might not like these compromises, but they are a lot better than at least one of the alternatives.

And speculation on bad things happening is painted as certainty and of course, there's the subtle meme, "both parties are the same!1!"


Julie

A similar dysfunction, by the way, exists on the other side, where labor unions and the AARP have joined with the leadership and Democratic caucuses in Congress to squash any talk of cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as part of a budget deal. When John Rother, the longtime policy director of the AARP had the nerve to declare that some cuts were inevitable, it wasn’t long before he was working somewhere else

This also hurt the "both parties are the same" meme.

Yeah, that's the point. I, personally, don't like this "compromise".

I don't call Simpson-Bowles a "reasonable bipartisan compromise".

I call it a disgusting capitulation.

Which may be par for the course with the new Democratic Party under Obama's "leadership" but that does not make it any less disgusting.

You are correct though. Getting my right arm broken IS better than getting my left arm broken. But for some reason, I do not consider getting my right arm broken to be an acceptable alternative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=42313

I'm not sure how many people understand that the modern welfare state (and we're nowhere close to a real welfare state) is less than 100 years old. Bismarck started it in Germany in the late 1800s and it spread from there in the 20th century, much of it in the postwar years.

So, since the ideas of such things as government care of the poor, dealing with income inequality, national health plans, and such are relatively new concepts, we really don't have that much experience in how all this works out in the long run. Is it really possible to soak the relatively few rich to pay for all this, and can we convince everyone else to chip in at least a little?

The evidence so far seems to be that it's a great idea, and works very well, but as well as it has been working, many of even the best managed countries are beginning to feel the strain of the rising bills, and are raising questions of just what to do about them. Of course, no other developed country has the disparity between rich and poor that we do, so elsewhere things are sort of automatically spread out a little better.

Paying the bills on the backs of the poor is disgusting and several very large steps backwards, but conservative thought has always gone in that direction. The problem we have is coming up with workable solutions that can counter the far too popular (even now) conservative opposition.

Many Brits opposed things like child labor laws and the National Health, but now they are seen as birthrights, as are the safety nets and social programs in the Nordic countries. Woe unto any politician who even thinks of messing with them, so they are being forced into difficult solutions. We haven't quite gotten there yet, but we have to change the debate from how cheap we are to how human (or even, gasp, Christian) we are.

increased mortality from cuts in social programs.

how's your crystal ball on the future of, umm... everything, and what's your realistic plan to solve the problems you see coming.

Pointing out that

1) Social security is independently funded and has nothing to do with the federal deficit;

2) Social security fund is owed $2 trillion;

3) war spending and tax cuts to billionaires, the recession cum depression + the casino gambling of said ceos are the reasons for the budget crisis;

4) ceos/pols are using their self-created 'crisis' as an excuse to defund social programs

5) this is a bipartisan effort, i.e. class war by said ceos on most of the populace

on our side to an extent-- fighting the teabagging wing of the GOP.

These are the people who have the cred to stick it to Ryan and his ilk, and while they won't call for Maoism any time soon, they know the Post Office is broke because of some asshole congresscritters, highways and bridges are falling apart, cops aren't being paid, and every time the private sector shows job gains the public sector shows enough job losses to nullify the gains. They also know that regulation often as not keeps the playing field level so the more obvious crooks can't get a hold on things. they understand fully how the teabaggers are bringing the whole system down, and them with it.

We're talking about people with a very deep and sophisticated knowledge of how things work in the real world, and when their interests coinicide with ours we should take advantage, not whine or dream of perfection.

(Keeping their emotions in check and spotting opportunities for inexpensive wins is how they got rich.)


edit-- grammar

"how things work in the real world" = rich thieves steal whatever the hell they want & tell you it's good for you.

"whine or dream of perfection" = are you going to start talking about ponies soon?

with the chattering "liberal media" leading the charge ...

Every one of those press whores is in the 1% along with their CEO pals.

One would think people would take a SERIOUS look at what's going on in Britain to see the double dip caused by austerity. But of course our Moron Tabernacle Choir in the Corporate Controlled Conservative Press ignores that!

their "Savior"!
LoL

I am on Social Security, and that is 100% of my income. Fortunately, I have some savings, but that money will have to last me for a long, long time because I do not plan on dying any time soon.

LOTS of those folks who do or will depend on SS will get behind it, out of sheer partisanship.

A similar dysfunction, by the way, exists on the other side, where labor unions and the AARP have joined with the leadership and Democratic caucuses in Congress to squash any talk of cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as part of a budget deal. When John Rother, the longtime policy director of the AARP had the nerve to declare that some cuts were inevitable, it wasn’t long before he was working somewhere else

By leaving this out, your OP suggests that the Democrats are trying to cut these programs when Pearlseinm by including it, clearly indicates they are protecting them.

You can tell it's an election coming up with the fear mongering going on. Maybe it's a good thing to scare and energize voters this way...despite the glaring omissions of the OP. The unfortunate bottom line is the abuses of this economy over entitlements and unless there's a solid Democratic House and Senate entitlement cuts will be on the table...the question will be whose entitlements get cut and how deep...

Nothing to see here, move along.

They might not like talking about it the year before the election.

Are *you* in favor of cutting Social Security?

suggestion dems are protecting anything.

The quote clearly says Dems are unwilling to discuss cuts.

That fact seems to bug Pearlstein.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html


and they continue to discuss cuts.

but you also agree with everything else he says / predicts?

to discuss it. Because they already *have* discussed it & put it on the table.

It's just like when the MSM talks about how Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, is putting up such "strong" opposition to education reform, when anyone who actually knows what's going on knows that she is selling out her membership at every possible opportunity while saying something different at photo ops.

There has to be an illusion that there are two distinct sides, "fighting". Even when it's just a sideshow to the real action, which is, as Pearlstein has told us: This is what the ceos have decided to do, this is what they want, and the only question left is how can they get what they want without the 90% getting wise to what's really happening.

And the jobs we have left are low paying crap jobs.

The workers in other counties who replaced our own high paying industrial jobs don't contribute anything into our programs like SS & Medicare.

So now we are going to be depending on burger flippers and Walmart workers to pay these benefits for future retirees. And those workers do not pay in enough to support our elderly depending on SS & Medicare as they have been used to receiving in the past.

And this wasn't "they" who did this to us. We did it to ourselves when we began demanding that 2 dollar pair of flip-flops or that non-union made whatchamacallit.

This really isn't rocket science.

It is simple economics. About as simple as it gets.

Don

No Living Wage Jobs jobs, no real recovery. The only "Solutions" coming out of Washington DC are smoke and mirrors, no matter which side.

Raise the cap to fix SS. We need to join the rest of the world kept pushing for single-payer. Maybe we should tax wall street transactions. Progressive budget does, balances in 10 yrs.

remember both republicans and democrats receive ss and medicare.

The Commission therefore did not recommend or suggest anything. This is a familiar lie.

Sid

if they slash the program. That's what those fucking fuckers want is to end the program but keep stealing our money.

Fuckers

The greedhead warmonger class doesn't want a decent society, let alone a Great Society.

The reason? They're stupid cheapskates.

And paying next to nothing...

by people like this.