General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSen. Sanders says he's 'not confident' Obama will protect Social Security
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/275765-sen-sanders-not-confident-obama-will-protect-social-security==============
But why?
Why does Bernie Sanders not trust the President to do the right thing to protect Social Security?
I think he is like many here on DU who have been critical of the President on occasion. They simply do not trust him. They feel like they have to keep the pressure on him at all times or he may, MAY, stab them in the back.
I will admit that that is not a healthy opinion to have of your own President, whom you have voted for twice, but it is the reality.
Why do many Democrats feel this way? They just look at his record. He wants to be a "post-partisan" President and that scares the shit out of a lot of people.
(Now we can expect the same attacks on Senator Sanders and anyone else that might be critical of this President.)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)for the fiscal cliff shows that he's not concerned about the New Deal and will use it as a chess piece for his power plays. He's protecting Wall Street (King) and every other piece on this board can and will be used for that purpose. It's known as a sacrifice play and it's making me very nervous.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Elizabeth Warren and the other 54 Democratic caucus members to do it. I know Harry Reid is against touching Social Security.
Lieberman and Nelson are gone.
Yay!
kentuck
(111,052 posts)It is unfortunate that he cannot speak with enough authority and sincerity to make his supporters believe that he will protect Social Security. It is a very unhealthy situation. Also, it permits the Repubs to believe they can cut Social Security and Medicare if they can make some sort of "deal" with this President. Not good.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Frankly, I think the insistence that Social Security is in jeopardy is counterproductive. It's also very passive.
Senators should get on record as opposing these cuts and supporting a real solution, such as raising the cap. They're not helpless.
Push the President's hand instead of the Republicans.
Republicans are out talking shit, even House reps.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Not leaders. Hell, they even followed George W Bush!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)They sure bucked the President on Guantanamo.
Maybe the right term isn't "follower." Maybe they're complicit?
Thing is: They are the legislative body, and if they oppose cuts to Social Security, they should stand up and say so, and act accordingly.
BTW, Republicans defied Bush on immigration, and Democrats defied him on privatizing Social Security.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Sometimes they are complicit.
Democrats felt much more comfortable opposing a Republican President intent on privatizing SS. For obvious reasons, they do not like to criticize publicly their own President of their own Party.
You're talking apples and oranges.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Democrats felt much more comfortable opposing a Republican President intent on privatizing SS. For obvious reasons, they do not like to criticize publicly their own President of their own Party."
...doesn't apply to Republicans bucking Bush on immigrations or Democrats bucking the President on Guantanamo.
Democrats in Congress needs to stand up for Social Security. They simply can't push it off on the President and then criticize him for their actions. They are the first line of defense.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)They shouldn't have to be the first line of defense against our own President.
It is true that if an issue is too hot and could create re-election problems for incumbents, they would oppose Jesus Christ himself.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Like I said, when the President sent them a proposal to fund the closure of Guantanamo, Congress stripped it from the bill, forbidding the use of any funds for that purpose.
Also, the same thing is ongoing with NDAA.
They can act tough when they want to. Why not now?
kentuck
(111,052 posts)But they don't want to show any division with the President. I would prefer for Harry Reid and several strong Democrats to publicly state that "No, Mr President, we don't agree with SS being put on the table for bargaining with this bunch of extortionists. We disagree with you strongly on that and would prefer that you not mention it again...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Then again, Congress voted for and the President signed into law an exemption of Social Security from the negotiations.
The Left's Sequester Leverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022129660
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)offers up social security cuts - I mean, you don't need to know much to know that even though you may like him, you can't trust him to protect social security or any other Democratic sources of pride.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)How do you deal with "conservatives"? Do you just steamroll them?
Assuming that's possible, what happens you do that and they regain power?
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)You have seen how they roll, right? Nixon? Reagan? Dubya? You've caught wind of these governors and legislators in places like Wisconsin, Florida, Oklahoma, Kansas, Michigan, and Arizona? Remember when they first took Congress after that looooong sojourn in the wilderness? Government shutdown and an Impeachment about some bullshit ring any bells?
Trying to play paddycake with these people doesn't work. Ever consider we had a lock on Congress for decades until we started trying to emulate and assimilate them to win the White House or how since that logic became dominant that their grip on how our society operates has increased? Do you ignore that whatever the moment situation of their party their ideological grip tightens and no matter how severe the fuck up how quickly they return and stronger than before, be it just for a short season or years and years.
They must be opposed at all times. Like darkness, their sway comes easy but it takes only a candle to beat it back. Easily beaten if fought openly and ferociously, easily victorious without direct opposition.
Even Reagan only did so much damage because he was granted quarter and little resistance. Same with junior Bush.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It is a never ending battle and very much by design of the Founders even if they didn't understand every nuance. The battles the Founders waged were probably every bit as contentious, if not more. Remember they were battling the evil of slavery.
Never give "conservatives" quarter without direct opposition. However you can't ever really crush them. Sun Tzu said crush your enemy completely, or else they will recover and defeat you. Well we can't crush them completely so we have to plan for their recovery while we give them quarter with direct opposition.
That's a lot easier said than done. On the plus side it does seem that we are more on to them and their tricks. They didn't win with their voter suppression. They didn't buy a victory last November.
samsingh
(17,590 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)interest groups like the aged, infirm, and poor. Those people have gotten away with too much for too long.
Real Job Creators are struggling to make real yacht payments: it's time that we finally attend to their needs.
Enough with thugs like Sanders.
Regards,
Third-Way Manny
Chisox08
(1,898 posts)Democrats should be fighting tooth and nail to protect Social Security, and Obama offered cuts to it in order to get the "fiscal cliff" legislation passed.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)President Obama talked about cuts in regard to waste in the program, and there is some waste. Progressives can't continue that programs don't get touched, even to eliminate waste - that faulty logic give republicans the momentum they need to aggressively work to completely eliminate those programs.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)MA out here just cut all dental help which was pulling infected out.People will die from this.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Instead of joining the denial of reality club.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Geithner and the other Trustees cooked the books to shock doctrine us:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MannyGoldstein/146
Regards,
First-Way Manny
dkf
(37,305 posts)But studies show that high debt slows economic growth so your hope may be more unrealistic than you realize.
With capital substituting for labor, the wage base is also being depleted.
I suspect it will take even more significant changes that we realize to be able to meet the obligations of SS.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)As a % of GDP, of course.
Things went swimmingly for decades.
And - worst case - our current depression continues forever, like Timmy Geithner used in his shock doctrine assumptions? The cost of remedying the shortfall will be less per year than what we spent (and are still spending) on tax cuts for wealthiest Americans.
This is about stealing the Trust Fund for the 1%, not about helping the 99%,
dkf
(37,305 posts)Yes it's kind of an accounting gimmick but I believe it validates the obligation in the minds of legislators.
Once the funds are gone, that obligation may feel lessened.
I personally feel that is the largest threat to social security...the idea that all that came in has been repaid.
That is why chained CPI makes sense to me. Keeping the trust fund intact preserves the sense of obligation.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)and worker productivity growth drops dramatically from what it's been for decades. Those are the assumptions that Geithner used.
Another less-publicized estimate in the same report shows that the trust Fund will never be depleted if the economy even only partially recovers and productivity growth doesn't suddenly plummet.
Claiming, as a matter of fact, that the Trust Fund will be depleted in a few decades is just plain wrong.
dkf
(37,305 posts)It will recover, but with less labor, less wages to tax.
True progressives should be planning a path for the future with the understanding of a new relationship between capital and labor. Krugman has started to examine this aspect.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)The president has even acknowledged changes must be made. My feeling is, and I trust him to know WAY more than we do that the situation is pretty bad but too many of us, many on DU, are doing the hands over the ears la, la, la, la, la, bit.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)The problem is that it seems you trust him to know way more than anyone... We will grant you that everyone on DU is more stupid than the President and that is why we spend so much time here.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)He kicked Bernie's ass. And let's stop pretending Bernie's a Democrat. Bernie's an acquired taste, which is why he is the lone Socialist in the US Senate.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Why do they keep re-electing him by wide margins??
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)kentuck
(111,052 posts)You got a link for that??
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)I much prefer a Pres. Obama than a Pres. McCain or Romney - doesn't mean I'm going give him 100% of my trust or trust the suggestions from the catfood commission HE created to keep our social safety nets strong and there for us all when the times comes.
There's just no way in hell.
No one should put that much trust in any politician when the politics are polluted by money from special interests and the corruption that almost always follows it.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)actually protect it, not cut benefits, is delusional.
He couldn't have made his position any clearer.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)this is how the Obama administration works:
We will NEVER do <that>!
We will never do <that>!
We will never do <that>.
Reports that we are considering doing <that> are completely false!
Reports that we are considering doing <that> are false.
There has been some discussion of doing <that>, but it is just talk.
The president is firmly committed to not doing <that>.
Reports that we are doing <that> are just "trial balloons" floated by centrists in the party.
There has been some discussion of doing <that> in exchange for not doing <something else>.
The president is not inclined to do <that> in exchange for not doing <something else>, and would veto any bill doing that sent to him.
The president doesn't want to exclude any ideas, he needs to appear bi-partisan.
Doing <that> in exchange for not doing <something else> is certainly on the table.
Not doing <something else> is critically important, and it is only pragmatic to consider doing <that>. Critics on the Left need to look at the bigger picture.
The president is still committed to not doing <that>. Reports to the contrary wrong.
All options are on the table.
Doing <that> is vital to the presidents long term goals of not doing <something else>.
Critics on the Left need to understand that we cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
If you look carefully at what we have said in the past, we never said we would never do <that>.
We said we would do <that>.
We have ALWAYS said we would do <that>.
The president signed <that> AND <something else> into law today.
Where did you get the idea that we would never do <that>?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fill in any failed conservative proposal for <that> and <something else>.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)That's the way he rolls.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)One of the most important rules of politics here in DC -- maybe everywhere, but I happen to live here and I have noticed it for some time now.
Sam
PS I don't pretend to know what President Obama is thinking.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I just look at what he is doing, and recording the pattern.
kath
(10,565 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)That is exactly how they play us.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and it sunk like a stone.
think
(11,641 posts)leftstreet
(36,098 posts)You should make this an OP
ProSense
(116,464 posts)where Boehner saves us.
All options are on the table.
Doing <that> is vital to the presidents long term goals of not doing <something else>.
Critics on the Left need to understand that we cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
If you look carefully at what we have said in the past, we never said we would never do <that>.
We said we would do <that>.
We have ALWAYS said we would do <that>.
The president signed <that> AND <something else> into law today.
Doesn't that mean the fiscal cliff deal should have included cuts to Social Security?
Why didn't it?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Plenty of time left to sell us out.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thank you, Kelvin Mace. Outstanding post.
Wish I'd seen the OP version. It is good to repost Quality.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)here is the OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022147454
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)When someone says they'll fight VERY HARD at some point in the future, I have complete confidence that they will, at some point in the future.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)in the first debate with Romney.
"Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker -- Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/04/obama-social-security_n_1940755.html
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)he will not get back the house and lose senate next election. he`ll end up powerless for the following two years and assure a republican president,house ,and senate in 16.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)is to remove the income cap.
Program solvent into the 22nd century.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Also, defending a long-term strategy for cutting these safety nets:
Barack Obama: "This is not a bloodless process."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)It's a simple equation..people with jobs pay taxes. Govt. funds go up. Everyone benefits.
However.. there has not been one mention of Jobs from our Leaders for a very long time.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)and his collusion with repugs over ss. my very pissed posed was tombstoned.If Bernie dosent trust him to care about the old poor and disabled..well why should anyone who is poor old or disabled? So I don't trust obama regarding many things including ss.
His"bipartasanshit" makes me wary of his real motives,talk is cheap it's what he DOES that scares me.