HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bernie Sanders BLOWS THE ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:56 PM

Bernie Sanders BLOWS THE LID OFF The ‘Bipartisan’ Plan To CUT TAXES for Corporations and the Wealthy





In a letter to his Senate colleagues today, Bernie Sanders exposed the bipartisan Simpson/Bowles plan for what it really is. A scheme to lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations while passing the burden to the rest of us.



Sanders laid out the 5 areas of Simpson-Bowles that he believes Democrats should strongly oppose.

Simpson-Bowles would cut Social Security benefits for current retirees, cut veterans’ benefits, raise the retirement age to 69, and cut Social Security benefits for middle class workers. Simpson-Bowles would also cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy. The Simpson-Bowles plan would reduce taxes to an even lower level than the Bush tax cuts. Taxes on corporations and the wealthy would be reduced to 23%-29%. Simpson-Bowles also would increase the gas tax by 15 cents, increase Medicare premiums, establish a territorial taxation system that would allow corporations to avoid US taxes by establishing subsidiaries overseas. Simpson-Bowles would also increase taxes on low income workers by 14.5% starting in 2021, and it would make fewer people eligible for SSI, CHIP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, WIC, Head Start, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Refundable Child Credit.



Sanders urged his Democratic colleagues to reject Simpson-Bowles because it would, “cause major economic pain to nearly every America while lowering tax rates for millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations even more than President Bush.”

PDF:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SimpsonBowles.pdf




There is a reason why Mitt Romney and the Republican campaigned so hard for Simpson-Bowles. It is exactly what the Republican Party wants. It slashes entitlements and passes the pain on to the middle and lower classes, while lowering taxes for corporations and the so called “job creators.” The rich feel no pain and get all of the gain from Simpson-Bowles.



The reason why this plan never went anywhere with Obama is because it violates several of the elements that he believes any deal on deficit reduction should contain. If congressional Democrats adopted Simpson-Bowles as their negotiating framework, they would lose before they even sat down at the table. Simpson-Bowles contains everything that the right could ever hope for. This is why it being championed by corporate America and the Republican Party.






cont'

http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-blows-lid-bipartisan-plan-cut-taxes-corporations-wealthy.html

126 replies, 17926 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 126 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bernie Sanders BLOWS THE LID OFF The ‘Bipartisan’ Plan To CUT TAXES for Corporations and the Wealthy (Original post)
Segami Nov 2012 OP
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #1
fasttense Nov 2012 #86
surrealAmerican Nov 2012 #2
donnasgirl Nov 2012 #16
BainsBane Nov 2012 #38
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #70
BainsBane Nov 2012 #105
BainsBane Nov 2012 #111
savannah43 Nov 2012 #88
BainsBane Nov 2012 #103
BainsBane Nov 2012 #110
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #3
Segami Nov 2012 #4
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #5
Segami Nov 2012 #6
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #11
Segami Nov 2012 #17
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #22
Segami Nov 2012 #26
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #29
Segami Nov 2012 #32
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #33
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #30
freshwest Nov 2012 #48
midnight Nov 2012 #100
Plucketeer Nov 2012 #104
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #108
Plucketeer Dec 2012 #124
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #125
savannah43 Nov 2012 #90
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #92
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #95
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #97
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #14
FogerRox Nov 2012 #51
freshwest Nov 2012 #118
union_maid Nov 2012 #41
cui bono Nov 2012 #58
meti57b Nov 2012 #66
99Forever Nov 2012 #68
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #9
humbled_opinion Nov 2012 #37
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #43
humbled_opinion Nov 2012 #109
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #112
FogerRox Nov 2012 #52
TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #47
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #74
AnnaLee Nov 2012 #57
Stonepounder Nov 2012 #83
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #85
Junkdrawer Nov 2012 #114
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #117
Junkdrawer Nov 2012 #119
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #120
Junkdrawer Nov 2012 #121
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #122
LoisB Nov 2012 #10
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #45
FogerRox Nov 2012 #55
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #18
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #27
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #28
FogerRox Nov 2012 #56
rudycantfail Nov 2012 #116
FogerRox Nov 2012 #53
FogerRox Nov 2012 #50
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #7
freshwest Nov 2012 #24
Segami Nov 2012 #36
freshwest Nov 2012 #49
bullwinkle428 Nov 2012 #8
upi402 Nov 2012 #15
NRaleighLiberal Nov 2012 #12
upi402 Nov 2012 #13
Overseas Nov 2012 #23
Curmudgeoness Nov 2012 #19
Segami Nov 2012 #20
midnight Nov 2012 #21
Overseas Nov 2012 #25
reteachinwi Nov 2012 #59
Overseas Nov 2012 #77
BainsBane Nov 2012 #107
Protalker Nov 2012 #31
Segami Nov 2012 #39
humbled_opinion Nov 2012 #34
BainsBane Nov 2012 #35
BainsBane Nov 2012 #40
Hubert Flottz Nov 2012 #42
Pakid Nov 2012 #44
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #54
Selatius Nov 2012 #64
zentrum Nov 2012 #46
John2 Nov 2012 #61
SammyWinstonJack Nov 2012 #67
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #71
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #60
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #72
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #78
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #98
tomp Nov 2012 #62
tclambert Nov 2012 #63
savannah43 Nov 2012 #91
Jakes Progress Nov 2012 #102
AzDar Nov 2012 #65
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #69
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #79
PotatoChip Nov 2012 #73
SHRED Nov 2012 #75
SHRED Nov 2012 #76
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #80
savannah43 Nov 2012 #93
Doctor_J Nov 2012 #81
joy2u2 Nov 2012 #82
fascisthunter Nov 2012 #84
blackspade Nov 2012 #87
bvar22 Nov 2012 #89
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #96
Initech Nov 2012 #94
redqueen Nov 2012 #99
melody Nov 2012 #101
lovuian Nov 2012 #106
YOHABLO Nov 2012 #113
Stuart G Nov 2012 #115
Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #123
patrice Dec 2012 #126

Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:00 PM

1. I didn't realize their recommendations were that bad

I don't see the president and Congressional Democrats agreeing to a lot of it, at least not now that they won the election. And I don't see how things like a territorial tax system would do anything but increase the deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:55 AM

86. I know, it sounds even worse today.

But when I first read the BS plan (Bowles-Simpson) I thought it was a perfect recipe to destroy the American Middle Class.

I guess 2 classes is all our overlords want. Them and everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:02 PM

2. Bernie Sanders is absolutely right.

There is no reason to be pushing for tax cuts for the wealthiest people and companies. That would not reduce the deficit - it would increase it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surrealAmerican (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:03 PM

16. He is not only right

He in my view would make one hell of a president

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surrealAmerican (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:34 PM

38. I don't believe it does cut taxes on the wealthy

It cuts rates but not revenues. It eliminates virtually every deduction. I think someone needs to crunch the numbers to verify this. If it were just about spending cuts the GOP would have embraced it.

This is not enough information for anyone to form a judgment or plan a march on Washington about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #38)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:01 AM

70. You're more well-informed than Sen. Sanders???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #70)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:32 PM

105. See post 40 on the Tax Policy Center summary

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Simpson Bowles taxes all income at the same level. There is no lower rate for capital gains. It also raises the cap on payroll taxes. The plan lowers rates but raises revenues. That is the point. I'm not saying it's the world's best plan, but we can't have a fruitful discussion without an accurate understanding of what we're talking about.

And I take NO politician's word for anything. Intellectual integrity requires a more thorough understanding. Believing whatever one hears is exactly why there are so many ignorant right wingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #70)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:59 PM

111. See these links

On distributional effects of the plan. Short story, wealthy pay more, middle class a bit less. The biggest winners are those of us who don't itemize and instead take the standard deduction, because we overpay in comparison to the rest of taxpayers. http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/bowles-simpson.cfm
Summary of the plans: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Bowles_Simpson_Brief.cfm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #38)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:08 PM

88. You're correct. There isn't enough info for anyone who is

thick or biased. More republicrap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savannah43 (Reply #88)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:25 PM

103. Read the tax policy Center report

Before insulting me. Your rudeness shows you have absolutely nothing of substance to say so you rely on feeble insults. Simpson Bowles taxes capital gains at the same level as regular income and raises the cap for payroll taxes. That is more aggressive than what the President has suggested. You may be gullible enough to believe whatever politicians tell you, and without sufficient intellectual integrity to examine the matter yourself, but I am not. Interesting that you insult me for being a right winger when you replicate their lack of intellectual rigor.

Everything is biased. What a bizarre choice of words. Do you imagine every point of view but your own is biased while yours represents absolute truth? I prefer to base my beliefs on actual information. I despise intellectual laziness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savannah43 (Reply #88)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:56 PM

110. Distributional effects of Simpson Bowles

The top quintile will see their after tax income decline by 8%. That means they will pay more in taxes. The top tenth of the 1% will see their after tax income decrease by 11%. That's in one version the committee suggested. More are listed here. http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/bowles-simpson.cfm

I don't think the plan is ideal, but if you don't have an accurate understanding of what you're talking about, any discussion is meaningless. http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/bowles-simpson.cfm
It's fine for politicians to engage in hyperbole in front of the cameras. What is not acceptable is for an educated person to believe them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:16 PM

3. 'slashes entitlements' ...... are these your words??

Last edited Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:03 PM - Edit history (2)

if they are you and we need to stop using the word 'entitlements'
it is a republican word
we need to come up with a better word

and simplehead-bowels is a republican wet dream and I could never figure out why Obama put the commission together

President Obama has a problem with the people he listens to


If you agree with Bernie give him a call and tell him, I did

202-224-5141

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:23 PM

4. 'Slashes entitlements' is as written in the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:30 PM

5. I was not sure, that is why I asked

Do you agree we need to use a different word??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:41 PM

6. They have managed to condition us to use such terms in our everyday discussions.

Is there a list of new, fresh terms to choose from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:53 PM

11. Being entitled to something is NOT a bad thing...we have to stop allowing the

republicans to brand everything as they see fit. You are entitled to get what you pay for at the grocery store, the gas station, Best Buy etc. etc. etc. You are entitled to Social Security and Medicare because you have agreed to the social contract and paid into the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:04 PM

17. Yes, I agree with you regarding the terms 'entitled or entitlements', but

such terms were pre-targeted by the right in order to 're-define' the term(s) to reflect a negative position.

Republicans have made such terms radioactive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:36 PM

22. Because we let them... We should scream

that we are "Indeed entitled" We built this country...we pay for those benefits....We paid for Mitch McConnell's mother's medicare, who the f -- k is he to say we are not entitled to it ourselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:53 PM

26. I AGREE 100%!!! I am a firm believer of ' pushing back ' against ANY and ALL

distortions, lies, misinformation & disinformation attempts by rethugs to define the game rules.



" We paid for Mitch McConnell's mother's medicare, who the f -- k is he to say we are not entitled to it ourselves?"


Thats what I call ' pushing back '. We should find out how many other senator's mothers are using Medicare and call them all out on it.


That statement needs to go viral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:15 PM

29. Why stop with Mitch McConnell's mother.

I wonder how many members of Congress are on Medicare and still working.

I bet not a one of them rejects Medicare benefits if eligible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:27 PM

32. I didn't stop at Mitch McConnell's mother.

" We should find out how many other senator's mothers are using Medicare and call them all out on it. "


I would go as far as billboarding the previous comment. The message is quite direct,.. people will associate with it's message, and it hits you like a sledgehammer.

Shock-marketing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:29 PM

33. Exactly...and not just

the assholes in congress. The mother of Charles and David Koch lived until 1990...you can bet the ranch she received Medicare benefits

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:23 PM

30. Glad to oblige...

The thing is you can plug in just about any name you want...You can be sure Lloyd Blankfein's parents have been on Medicare. The mother of Charles and David Koch lived until 1990... she was getting Medicare no doubt.

As to going viral....I haven't a clue how to start the ball rolling on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:30 AM

48. +1,000 to what you said. Their money is no better than ours that we paid in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:58 PM

100. Paul Ryan's suggestion for a system he said helped his family is to gut it with a voucher system..

"Medicare was there for our family, for my grandma when we needed it then. And Medicare is there for my mom, when she needs it now. And we have to keep that guarantee," Mr Ryan said at a weekend rally in retirement village in Florida."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9486109/US-election-Paul-Ryan-deploys-his-mother-in-fight-for-Medicare.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:28 PM

104. It's heartening to read this discussion here

What's IN a word??? If you use it to insinuate something other than what's really at hand - a lot! It has made the hairs on my neck stand up EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME I've heard a Rethug say "entitlements"! They've been successful in making that word an alternative for "handouts" - which is, of course, FALSE. Dammit! I/WE have PAID for the returns we get. Hell yeah, I'm entitled to them. I PAID for them!

Like I said - I wanna reach thru the screen and clutch the throat of every Republican that uses that word like a soft profanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #104)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:48 PM

108. We should let our congress critters

know that just like Obamacare, we like the word Entitlements as we are, indeed, entitled to those benefits.

Small correction however, you did not pay for returns...You paid for the Medicare benefits and Social Security benefits that Mitch McConnell's parents collected. Or the Koch brothers mother's benefits... she lived until 1990. Think about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #108)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 01:38 PM

124. Yeah! That's a GREAT angle

Heck, when I was working, I was paying on MY parents checks and the checks of so many of my family. Just as MY offspring are contributing to my draws since I've been of age!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #124)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:21 PM

125. By George! I think he's got it.



Which is why you are entitled to those benefits....every dime of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:13 PM

90. Especially something that we paid for. SS is a self-supporting fund.

All you weasels in DC that let Bush embezzle from it, pay back the 1.7 trillion dollars you lent out. It was NEVER your money to loan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savannah43 (Reply #90)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:19 PM

92. The embezzling began under St Ronnie....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #92)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #95)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:58 PM

97. Yes,

but it was Reagan who moved the funds into the general treasury....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:00 PM

14. I know of no list

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:53 AM

51. Did you know the word entitled is in the 1935 SS law 9 times?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #51)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:29 PM

118. I believe it. The GOP hate FDR so much they wanted to take him off the dime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:40 PM

41. I guess, but it has a specific meaning

I think it means that those who qualify for a benefit, be it SS, SSD, SSI, Public Assistance, Medicare, or whatever, are entitled to the benefits for which they qualify and the amounts are not subject to change just on the basis of available funding the way that grants might be for instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:19 AM

58. How about "earned benefits"? I heard someone say that once. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #58)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:16 AM

66. "earned benefits" is exactly right, because that is what it is!

I paid for it, ..... it's mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:49 AM

68. We are...

... entitled to these benefits because we have paid into them our entire working lives. They aren't a handout. Hiw about we stop letting the assholes demonize perfectly normal descriptive words instead?

Unless of course, you buy into the notion that being "a liberal" is bad thing. (another example)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:49 PM

9. Entitlement is NOT a bad word...stop allowing the GOp to brand you and your language.

Liberal is NOT a dirty word and being entitled to something is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:33 PM

37. I prefer Social Safety Net Programs. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:53 PM

43. To which you are ENTITLED...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:53 PM

109. To which I invested my own capital....

Its not an entitlement its supposed to be a gurantee from my own investment....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #109)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:11 PM

112. No, you "invested" nothing.

Furthermore, no investment is ever guaranteed to produce profits....investments are bets on an outcome. OTOH Entitled means to

***Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.***

I am always amazed by how many people haven't a clue for what their FICA and Medicare taxes actually pay. Your 'capital' is used to pay for the benefits of current retirees...period, end of discussion. There is no return on investment. You are 'entitled' to receive those same benefits, in your turn, because you fulfilled your end of the social compact.

You should embrace the word entitlements. What you should be protesting is that someone like Mitch McConnell wants to cut your benefits after you've spent years paying for his mother's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:55 AM

52. Did you know the word entitled is in the 1935 SS law 9 times?

Having a good legal foundation makes a law hard to over turn in court.

Making an argument that goes counter to settled law is


priceless....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:07 AM

47. Crazy how deep it goes, isn't it? The complete free hand to set conditions

just given up without a question. It is shocking. Once they are allowed to dictate language they have the key to thoughts which tends to not to take away ideas but it does limit the ability to express them in a way that can be processed by others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:13 AM

74. Exactly.

At the heart of it that's the true definition of propaganda...controlling the message through any means possible....perverting the language is an excellent method.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:10 AM

57. I'm with you on this.

Everyone sit back, relax and recall that Obamacare was a scary word until we took ownership of what was a very good word. Obama-cares, etc.

Now entitlement means that you have done something to achieve a status whereby you are entitled to something. You have earned something. Take ownership of the term; use it as intended; use it as defined:

We want your hands off of our money because we are entitled to it and you are not, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:08 AM

83. When you work for an employer, your are "entitled" to your paycheck!

You and your employer entered into an employment contract, he is entitled to the fruits of your labor, and you are entitled to your earnings. I paid into Social Security for 50 years, and I damn well am entitled to my benefits!

If I buy bonds, I am entitled to my interest payments. If I buy an annuity, I am entitled to my money. if I have life insurance, my beneficiary is entitled to collect when I die. It is not like entitlements are the same a freebies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stonepounder (Reply #83)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:32 AM

85. The list is endless and we MUST take back the word

it is the bedrock of all contracts, including the social compact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:55 PM

114. Pre-Paid Benefits....50 yrs. of FICA Taxes...29 yrs. of FICA + Savings....

You bet I want stuff...I want My Pre-Paid Benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #114)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:21 PM

117. You don't have any "pre-paid" benefits....

Social Security and Medicare are not like Pre-Paid college tuition programs. Every dime of your FICA taxes are spent to pay for the benefits of those already retired.

You are entitled to your benefits because you fulfilled your end of the bargain, you paid for the benefits of your parents and grandparents. Your children and grandchildren will pay for your benefits. The reason the GOP goes after them with such impunity is because they won't owe you a dime if they ever gain complete control and kill off both SS and Medicare. Meanwhile you have paid for Mitch McConnell's parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #117)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:36 PM

119. "Every dime of your FICA taxes are spent to pay for the benefits of those already retired." WRONG

For the last 29 years, I paid for current retirees PLUS a large contribution to what is now a 2.5 TRILLION dollar trust fund.

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021768814

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #119)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:51 PM

120. The trust fund is the largest owner of US debt....

So your savings account is full of IOUs that the government is under no obligation to redeem. As of May, 2012 the Trust Fund was the proud owner of $2.67 trillion in US debt. To make matters worse, have you looked at the interest being earned by T-bills these days?

In 2010 there was a shortfall, due to the high unemployment and the FICA tax holiday, of $40 billion that had to come out of the general fund.

Look, I'm not the enemy here. I don't want to cut Social Security. I just want people like you to fully understand the danger we are in if Republicans ever again gain complete control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #120)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:57 PM

121. Tell China that the US government doesn't honor its debt....

That should go over big.

For 29 years, the extra FICA taxes went INTO the General Fund. Now it has to come OUT of the General fund. That means we should VASTLY increase taxes on those that benefited most from those earlier 29 years: the recipients of the Reagan tax cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #121)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:27 PM

122. The US will honor its debt,

until it can't...it's that simple. China is already worried. For 29 years the extra FICA went into the General Fund and out again to buy T-Bills. Increasing taxes on the rich , most particularly getting rid of the favorable taxes for unearned income and the ridiculous deferred compensation model used by hedge funds and venture/vulture capital firms....will help, it won't solve the problem. Want to know what would solve the problem? Capping executive compensation, ending the ability of corporations to manufacture their products overseas, bring them into this country duty free and sell them at prices that would support US manufacturing. Think Apple products, or GE products or any number of big ticket items that are no longer made here, but still cost a small fortune. Think about clothing sold in high end stores at exorbitant prices that is made in China or Mexico or Indonesia. Raising the minimum wage to at least what they earn in Australia...$15.51 an hour. Universal, single payer health insurance delivered on the Cleveland Clinic model. These are the things that will solve our problems.

Everyone benefitted from the Reagan tax cuts, including you. It's not like he cut the just the top tax rate. The problem is not that taxes
are too low, the problem is that too many Americans are not earning enough money to pay federal income tax and too many others are not earning what they would/should be had wages kept up with productivity. The tax debate is a freaking diversion...nothing more. Corporations would much prefer to keep us focused on the squirrel running along the high wire rather than the thievery they been involved in for 3 decades. Our government has been complicit in this theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:50 PM

10. I disagree. "Entitlement" has become a dirty word but the way I look at it, Medicare premiums

are deducted from my paycheck and I will still have to pay premiums when I start using it; I pay insurance premiums for Social Security (Federal INSURANCE Contributions Act - FICA) therefore I am ENTITLED to the coverage at age 65 and/or upon retirement.

Entitlement = a right to benefits

If we've paid premiums for these benefits, why wouldn't we be entitled to them? No different than paying health insurance premiums and being entitled to coverage when one gets sick.

Just my opinion, but it's a word we need to reclaim. Just like "death tax" instead of inheritance tax, Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party, Progressive instead of LIBERAL...

Someone said "he who controls the language, controls the message"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoisB (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:55 PM

45. Absolutely agree....

Every time some fool say Democrat Party, we should correct them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoisB (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:59 AM

55. the word entitled is in the 1935 SS law 9 times - dont run away from it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:06 PM

18. Entitlements is the right and proper word, quit submitting to spin.

 

Help stop the stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:04 PM

27. The republicans have corrupted the word

I know perfectly what the word means and I also know that when it is used the majority of the people hear negative. So it is time we frame the debate to our advantage.

Panasonic says 'earned benefits'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:12 PM

28. Whatever. Just one of the many reason they continue to exist. Play on.

 

No. On second thought, screw it.

Do you know why the republicans have corrupted the word? Do you know why they are able to corrupt words? Because people like you let them. Because you constantly concede, submit, and cower like whipped dogs every time.

And then you wonder why the Democrats major selling point is not being republicans. Because you refuse to stand up or for anything, everything is on the table with you people. I'm one of your allies and I'm thoroughly disgusted with this party and those that represent them. You tolerate, hell you reward a scumbag like Joe Lieberman and marginalize Bernie Sanders.

The Democratic Party leadership are the leading republicans in the nation and you people are telling us that there's nothing wrong with that.

Second edit; Apologies to you Angry Dragon. You are not to blame, you were just the one standing there. It's too late to go see the horse for some therapy, I'm going to watch a film or finish my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:02 AM

56. This comment needs to be read far and wide.

Do you know why the republicans have corrupted the word? Do you know why they are able to corrupt words? Because people like you let them.


And that is the money quote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #56)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:19 PM

116. Better yet is...

 

The Democratic Party leadership are the leading republicans in the nation and you people are telling us that there's nothing wrong with that.



Why is the greatest defender of the New Deal and most faithful truth teller in American politics an Independent and not a Democrat?

Sanders has virtually no competition!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:57 AM

53. You are entirely correct

Entitled is in the 1935 law 9 times, BTW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:52 AM

50. The word entitled is in the Original 1935 law 9 times

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:44 PM

7. Is it being passed? I mean, has Obama offered that? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:52 PM

24. No, and the source article link here, says he did not:

The reason why this plan never went anywhere with Obama is because it violates several of the elements that he believes any deal on deficit reduction should contain. If congressional Democrats adopted Simpson-Bowles as their negotiating framework, they would lose before they even sat down at the table. Simpson-Bowles contains everything that the right could ever hope for. This is why it being championed by corporate America and the Republican Party.

Starting negotiations from the Simpson-Bowles framework would be like negotiating at all. Earlier today, President Obama asked Americans to make their voices heard on this issue. Call or write to your local representatives and senators. Let them know, that you won’t stand for any deficit deal that contains the Simpson-Bowles framework.

If you don’t stand up now, the wealthy’s gain will be your pain.


http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-blows-lid-bipartisan-plan-cut-taxes-corporations-wealthy.html

I posted Bernie Sanders saying Obama is keeping his word. This is part of getting the public to pressure Congress, what Obama has asked people to do and been mentioned in several threads and this link at the end.

From Sanders' website:

Sanders Applauds White House for Taking Social Security Off the Table in Deficit Talks

This news is the follow through, as the other threads with Obama asking the public to pressure Congress, and the ones on the thread below, but I won't link them all here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014319000


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:32 PM

36. Thanks freshwest!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #36)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:36 AM

49. You're welcome, it's all coming together for good. That thread also has Bernie and Begich's

Social Security funding bill, raising the cap on the payments, also supported by Obama. The corporate media won't tell us, we have to put it together ourselves. These are really good news, despite the right wing fear mongering and distrust they are preaching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:45 PM

8. K&R, and countdown to Bernie getting labeled as a "purity troll".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:02 PM

15. lol- Yeah he DOES want a damn pony!!!!

Oh alright - economic justice and human dignity - but purity troll must be such a rewarding disparagement for some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:56 PM

12. Go Bernie. One of the very, very few politicians I trust for the truth. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:58 PM

13. I'm with Bernie Sanders

This guy's always right and always on OUR side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upi402 (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:45 PM

23. +1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:06 PM

19. One of the few sane voices in DC

and they try to mark him as too liberal. That just says so much to me....Simpson-Bowles is a crime perpetrated on the poor, working, and middle classes of this country, and it should be put on a shelf to molder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:16 PM

20. This is what Bernie boldly wrote LEADING off his letter.

Alan Simpson: Social Security is " a Ponzi Scheme, not a retirement program"


Erskine Bowles: the Paul Ryan budget " is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:30 PM

21. Simpson-Bowles finding ways to protect the rich, at the expense of everyone else....

Why so few have the guts to call this bailout for the rich what it is....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:52 PM

25. Simpson Bowles is a Republican type plan. Something they would like.

Something designed before the election of 2012, maybe thinking some of those Top 2% would fund President Obama's campaign.

And what did they do? Poured billions into the other guy's coffers.

So get off the Republican lite plan and give us something truly Democratic, that is far more balanced. The poor and middle class have suffered enough already.

Maybe with a chauffeur, private planes and maid service you can live until 90, but most folks won't even use 20 years' worth of social security and medicare, after working hard their whole lives for those few years of rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Overseas (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:43 AM

59. Something truly democratic

 

A .1% financial transaction tax on derivative trades would balance the budget. Wall Street would pay for the economic mess they created. It's like personal responsibility or something.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/ten-numbers-rich-would-fudged?page=0%2C1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reteachinwi (Reply #59)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:54 AM

77. That's what I want. Wall Street got bailed out to such a great extent. It is their turn to

give a tiny bit to help our country.

That might also help curb the millions of trades by computers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Overseas (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:48 PM

107. It eliminates lower taxes on capital gains

and raises the cap for social security. The only deductions it keeps are for children, Earned Income Tax Credit, and a much lower mortgage deduction. Does that sound like something Republicans have argued for?
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/bowles-simpson.cfm

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Bowles_Simpson_Brief.cfm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:26 PM

31. Thanks Segami

I am almost retirement age. I have served others as a counselor in a mental health facility. My savings were halved in the last few years. Medicare is my Insurance policy. Although entitled it is what l think should be a universal right to health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Protalker (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:39 PM

39. Your welcome. I agree and favor Single Payer.

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:30 PM

34. I am writing my Senator now

Is there any plans for a March on D.C. to stop this crap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:32 PM

35. I'm not sure that's accurate

The plan cuts rates but eliminates virtually all deductions, so it increases revenue. It is not simply a plan about cutting spending. It raises effective tax levels, which is more important than the stated rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:40 PM

40. Simpson Bowles taxes capital gains as ordinary revenue

That's a substantial tax increase on the wealthy.


Here is the summary from the Tax Policy Center.

The Bowles-Simpson “Chairmen’s Mark” Deficit Reduction Plan
Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of President Obama’s Deficit Commission, have released a “Chairmen’s Mark,” a broad plan to reduce the federal deficit by cutting spending and raising taxes. The plan includes various options that would impose different changes on the tax side of the fiscal equation. The first option, “The Zero Plan,” would, among other things, pare away most tax expenditures, devote $80 billion annually to reduce the deficit, and use remaining revenue gains to cut tax rates.

The Tax Policy center has analyzed the distributional effects of three variants of the Zero Plan:

Eliminate all tax expenditures—for both income and payroll taxes—except the EITC, the child credit, foreign tax credits, and a few less common preferences.

Eliminate tax expenditures only for income taxes, not for payroll taxes.
Eliminate tax expenditures only for income taxes—not for payroll taxes—but cap and restructure the tax benefits for mortgage interest, employer-sponsored health insurance, and retirement saving instead of eliminating them.
A detailed discussion of TPC’s analysis is available here.

Tables showing the distributional effects of the three variants are available here.

Details of the Zero Plan:

The Zero Plan in the Bowles-Simpson “Chairmen's Mark” would:

Eliminate all tax expenditures—for both income and payroll taxes—except for the child credit, the earned income tax credit, foreign tax credits, a few less common preferences (retain reduced preferences for mortgage interest, employer-sponsered health insurance and reitrement savings in the third variant listed above).
Eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT).
Eliminate the phaseout of personal exemptions and the limitation of itemized deductions.
Replace the current six-bracket individual tax rate schedule with a three-bracket schedule with rates of 9, 15, and 24 percent (12, 20, and 27 percent in the third variant listed above).
Tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income.
Index tax parameters using the chained Consumer Price Index.
Increase the Social Security wage base by 2 percent per year more than the growth in the average wage (making the FICA cap $140,100 in 2015).
Phase in an increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline of 15 cents per gallon (13.5 cents per gallon on average in 2015).
Eliminate corporate tax expenditures and reduce the corporate tax rate to 26 percent (27 percent in the third variant listed above).
Details of Alternative Retaining but Limiting More Tax Expenditures:

The third variant would retain tax benefits for mortgage interest, employer-sponsored health insurance, and retirement saving, but restructure them and reduce their costs to 80 percent of their current levels. It would set higher tax rates to make up the revenue lost by those changes and the changes would apply only to income taxes.

Specifically this option would:

Convert the mortgage interest deduction to a 15 percent refundable interest credit.
Replace the exclusion from income of employer-sponsored health insurance with flat credits of $1,058 for single coverage and $2,433 for family coverage offered by employers.
Reduce the limits on contributions to employer-sponsored qualified retirement plans and individual retirement accounts to 43 percent of their current level.
Cap the amount of tax-free accruals within both defined benefit and defined contribution retirement accounts.
Replace the current six-bracket individual tax rate schedule with a three-bracket schedule with rates of 12 percent, 20 percent, and 27 percent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Bowles_Simpson_Brief.cfm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:50 PM

42. K&R

Bernie Sanders is a patriot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:54 PM

44. Out of 100 senators we only have one truly decent one who seem to care about us

the rest of the so called good guys I am never sure about. As for the Republican I am 100% sure that they would screw over their own mother. What does that say about America? I am not sure anyone out there have an answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pakid (Reply #44)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:58 AM

54. And he isnt a Democrat. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #54)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:49 AM

64. Yeah, he's an avowed democratic socialist on top of that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:56 PM

46. But why, why, why

...did Obama ever appoint that snake, Simpson?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:58 AM

61. I'll tell

 

you why. It was because the guy was a Blue Dog Democrat and he was with the Clinton Administration part of the second Term. The guy is a North Carolinian, and has lost every race in North Carolina. His alma mata is also the University of North Carolina but that was back in the 60s. You have to consider the environment of North Carolina and the times he grew up. He is a staunch Democrat but not my type.

I've looked at his background, and the guy guy an MBA from the University of North Carolina and went straight to working on Wall Street. He has Wall Street connections. So you had a conservative Democrat and ( Bowles and Simpson) conservative Republican, out of a red State concocting this. And that conservative Democrat came from Wall Street, a red state, and not only that, he started an equity firm. So President Obama just as well selected Romney. This guy also appointed Holden Thorpe and you know what happened to the University of North Carolina's football team. Those guys are peers and elitist. Now you know why Bowles loved Paul Ryan. Don't trust Erskine Bowles at anything. I wouldn't trust any conservative Democrat from North Carolina and I'm a native of North Carolina. He turned down running against Pat McCrory too. They are in cahoots with each other. Bowles also has ties to the Banking Industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:37 AM

67. good question. better one..why put together this commission

When it wasn't necessary to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #67)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:04 AM

71. Obama didn't have enough facts and bought the "Fiscal Cliff" crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:53 AM

60. I'll add that the drumbeat to eliminate the cap on Social Security altogether has the same motive.

 

To put more money from wages into the Trust Fund so that taxes on capital income aren't raised.

In other words, so that the people who got tax breaks for 30 years while social security money was used to fund the general budget -- never have to pay back what they stole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #60)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:06 AM

72. Plenty of Middle-Class people (like moi) have modest investments & don't want CG rates raised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #72)


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #72)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:51 PM

98. actually not. 95% of such investments are held by the top 20%, 40% by the top 1%.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:15 AM

62. i blame obama for simpson-bowles

no reason i can see for creating that commission in the first place. he created this shit, put it on the table, and now we're struggling to get it off the table. we should not even be talking about these kinds of cuts. anyone who actually cares about the vast majority of americans should be talking about INCREASES to benefits.

unless these types of cuts were part of the democratic agenda as well. hmmm....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:46 AM

63. The cat food commission did a completely incompetent job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:16 PM

91. Only for real people. They did a wonderful job for the 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:00 PM

102. They did exactly what they were hired to do.

Screw you and me. Dance for the wealthy.

Anyone with any degree of competence who espouses this travesty is not your friend, is not a friend of America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:09 AM

65. Bernie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:00 AM

69. This revelation is literally sickening, as my stomach is now upset. I can hardly believe the S.S.

BETRAYAL plans for CURRENT RETIREES---

WASN'T THAT A "NOBODY OVER 55" PROMISE???

Lowering taxes to the mid-20% for the wealthiest??? THIS IS TREASONOUS, EVEN IF NOT AS DEFINED CONSTITUTIONALLY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #69)


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:09 AM

73. Gotta love Bernie Sanders!

-And- the great state of Vermont for sending him to Washington. Just wish there were more like him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:17 AM

75. K&R for Bernie!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:47 AM

76. Absolutely NOTHING "balanced" about Simpson or Bowles



Both are jackass corporate asskissers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:26 PM

93. Obama. I understand that he had to make concessions during his first term.

They are not necessary in his second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:30 AM

81. This part is incorrect

The reason why this plan never went anywhere with Obama is because it violates several of the elements that he believes any deal on deficit reduction should contain.


The president would have signed it if it had made it to his desk. Thank God it didn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:05 AM

82. A Hand for Sanders

I don't think there's anyone who speaks 'the truth' any more or better than Sanders. Totally respect this guy and now he's got a petition at:
Sanders is basically saying, "Now, is the time to hold Democrats accountable and ensure that we do deficit reduction in a way that is fair, while also protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Hope people will sign the petition and help a gentleman who is trying so desperately to help you and me and 300 million other people.

So many times I get frustrated - not knowing what exactly I can do to help 'the cause.' Petitions like this one are some of what we can do.. let our voice be heard, loud & clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:17 AM

84. thanks for screwing the well being of billions of people blue-dog sociopaths

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:32 AM

87. I wish he was my senator.

Instead of the dynamic douche bags, McConnell and Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:08 PM

89. I STAND with Bernie.

He is what DEMOCRATS used to be!

Simpson-Bowles (The Cat Food Commission) was important in that it Set-the-Stage for the "Compromise" Kabuki Theater we are now watching.
Now, Anything Less can easily be framed as a VICTORY by the Party SpinMasters.

NOW, when the Democrats reach a "compromise" that implements only most of the
Simpson-Bowles recommendations,
they can march in front of the TV cameras
pat each other on the back for their heroism in facing this difficult issue,
and declare VICTORY because:

"Its not as bad as it could have been."

"We HAD to do SOMETHING."

"We couldn't let The Perfect be the Enemy of the Good."

"Look at ALL the Good Stuff we got!"

"Its a Step in the Right Direction."

"We'll Fix It Later."

"Today, we Saved Our Children from The Deficit!"

"Its ALL Joe Lieberman's fault because we don't have a Magic Wand."


We've seen this Kabuki Theater before,
and it doesn't end well for the Working Class.

Hold on to your Memories, SUCKERS!
because we're TAKING everything else,
and ain't NOBODY gonna Stop Us!
Hahahahahahahaha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #89)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:41 PM

96. Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein on Cutting SS:

The key to cutting Social Security, he said, was simply a matter of teaching people to expect less.


Oh yes, and what are HIS expectations regarding what to expect:

"You're going to have to do something, undoubtedly, to lower people's expectations of what they're going to get," Blankfein told CBS, "the entitlements, and what people think they're going to get, because you're not going to get it."

Blankfein and Goldman Sachs don't have to worry about lowering expectations. After receiving a $10 billion federal bailout in 2008, and paying it back a few years later, Goldman Sachs recently exceeded Wall Street analysts' expectations by announcing $8.4 billion in third quarter revenues for 2012. On the heels of a great year, Blankfein is expected to take home an even larger salary than he did in 2011, when he made $16.1 million.


CEO Council Demands Cuts To Poor, Elderly While Reaping Billions In Government Contracts, Tax Breaks

We're not going to get it Floyd? Says who? And who the hell is he to be talking about the People's Money? Has anyone told him to keep his grubby Wall Street Fingers out of OUR fund which the people created?

He and his fellow CEOS have been busy working hard to get Congress to cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid throughout the election season, remember during that time, we were being told to be silent. Leaving the field clear for Wall St. to get the undivided attention of our elected representatives.

I still want to know who is responsible for the attempt to shut the people up during election season? Could it be that Wall Street paid to get that message out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:31 PM

94. I'm with Bernie - enough of this shit benefitting the rich!!!!

They've got away with it too long now!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:57 PM

99. I like Obama and all

but I'd love a President like Sanders, and a congress full of people like him, so some serious progress could be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:58 PM

101. I really hope Bernie is careful and doesn't ride in small planes n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:32 PM

106. the rich 1% want poor 99% to bail them out

the greed of the 1% is shocking when you read it
Social security at 69

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:44 PM

113. So What Can We Do? I Mean Really? Obama Get Cracking! ...

We have got to put a stop to this. If these spineless Dems allow this to go through if Obama and the Senate don't stop it. I declare fucking WAR !! It just can't happen. Leave Medicare, SS, and Medicaid alone. Washington ain't seen nothin yet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:55 PM

115. K and R for Bernie....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:34 PM

123. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 02:53 PM

126. Please remember: Senator Sanders also opposes any Chained CPI for Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread