HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Third Way has been trying...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:28 AM

Third Way has been trying to privatize Social Security since 1990s. This is not playing chess.

This is for real. Our Democratic leaders have been inundated with propaganda since the late 1980s when the DLC was formed.

There is no way now that President Obama needs to be concerned about following through on his wish to use the social safety nets to achieve a "Grand Bargain". Only those up for re-election need to be concerned.

Seniors are nervous now that both parties are letting them down. I think that though Obama does not have to worry about re-election.....those running next year most certainly do. And that's a shame for many of those who really care.

Jon Cowan, the Third Way president, started writing stuff about this long ago. One article he addressed to Grandpa and Grandma, asking them to give up some of their entitlements so their grandchildren would not have to suffer.

Baloney. But many Democrats have listened.

1993 An Appeal To Grandma And Grandpa by Jon Cowan now Third Way president.

Dear Grandma and Grandpa:

We write to ask for your help. We're in a financial mess, and unless everyone in our family gets together to fix the problem, we're heading for "economic and fiscal catastrophe." That's not a phrase we picked up on MTV-it's from a recent U.S. government report on the budget deficit.

..."We are not ungrateful. We respect and value the sacrifices you've made for our country and have no desire to take money away from those in need. But our generation is in trouble. We were educated in a collapsing school system. Our incomes and skill levels are lower than any previous generation-by the year 2000 over one-third of younger Americans will be living in poverty. And we will be the first Americans to inherit a lower standard of living than our parents.

We're not asking that your generation solve all our problems. And there certainly are many other programs that also must be cut to get the deficit under control. But Social Security must be considered, just like everything else in the budget.


But that's not all he wrote. Jon Cowan was a very busy little conservative bee through the 90s. Still is.

In 1995 he called for privatizing Social Security.

Op ed from Third Way prez Cowan calling to privatize Social Security.

Despite the truth about this imminent collapse of the system, Senate Democrats recently killed the balanced-budget amendment with claims that it left Social Security vulnerable to budget-balancing. And House Republicans swore in the 1994 elections that they'd never touch the program. Why this doublespeak from both parties? A simple political calculation: Older Americans vote, and Generation X doesn't.

Unfortunately for America, this lie-to-get-elected approach is disastrous for our long-term fiscal outlook and will squander any hope of repairing the system before the crisis strikes early in the next millennium.

The time has come to reinvent Social Security based on a "cut and privatize" approach that will be fair to all age groups.


He then puts forth 3 principles to follow, one of which is to lower our expectations about the future benefits.

He also offered to "give workers the option of putting their money into private pension programs that offer far higher returns and sounder prospects than today's Social Security system."

President Obama has put benefit cuts on the table willingly, though they are calling it other stuff like Chained CPI.

Enough Democrats will go along with it to get it to happen. Unfortunately the end result will be a lot of anger and frustration next year when election time rolls around. He is not being fair at all to our more progressive Democrats.

It is not chess, it is a deliberate process planned through the years by our Democratic think tanks.

It is playing with peoples' lives and stressing them out. Most of us thought the safety nets would be untouchable if we kept Democrats in power. But the President just warned his own party's Senators about not cooperating.

That is not playing chess.

138 replies, 6507 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 138 replies Author Time Post
Reply Third Way has been trying to privatize Social Security since 1990s. This is not playing chess. (Original post)
madfloridian Mar 2013 OP
MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #1
ProfessionalLeftist Mar 2013 #107
awoke_in_2003 Mar 2013 #123
woo me with science Mar 2013 #133
jsr Mar 2013 #2
duffyduff Mar 2013 #3
madfloridian Mar 2013 #4
duffyduff Mar 2013 #5
RC Mar 2013 #81
duffyduff Mar 2013 #84
blkmusclmachine Mar 2013 #6
bbgrunt Mar 2013 #12
Samantha Mar 2013 #7
duffyduff Mar 2013 #8
Samantha Mar 2013 #9
Egalitarian Thug Mar 2013 #22
duffyduff Mar 2013 #87
Egalitarian Thug Mar 2013 #114
madfloridian Mar 2013 #10
magellan Mar 2013 #11
bbgrunt Mar 2013 #13
ReRe Mar 2013 #25
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #31
CrispyQ Mar 2013 #45
GoneFishin Mar 2013 #117
madfloridian Mar 2013 #124
whathehell Mar 2013 #59
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #97
Samantha Mar 2013 #108
w4rma Mar 2013 #14
madfloridian Mar 2013 #16
jsr Mar 2013 #18
LWolf Mar 2013 #36
eridani Mar 2013 #15
Starry Messenger Mar 2013 #17
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #19
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #32
madfloridian Mar 2013 #39
Lydia Leftcoast Mar 2013 #52
hay rick Mar 2013 #71
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #93
Lydia Leftcoast Mar 2013 #98
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #94
awoke_in_2003 Mar 2013 #20
HereSince1628 Mar 2013 #38
ProSense Mar 2013 #21
madfloridian Mar 2013 #23
ProSense Mar 2013 #24
madfloridian Mar 2013 #37
ProSense Mar 2013 #50
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #33
markpkessinger Mar 2013 #35
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #26
RudynJack Mar 2013 #27
markpkessinger Mar 2013 #30
HiPointDem Mar 2013 #34
madfloridian Mar 2013 #42
Teamster Jeff Mar 2013 #28
LineReply ^
Wilms Mar 2013 #29
LineLineReply R
Teamster Jeff Mar 2013 #125
stevenleser Mar 2013 #40
madfloridian Mar 2013 #41
stevenleser Mar 2013 #43
madfloridian Mar 2013 #46
stevenleser Mar 2013 #47
madfloridian Mar 2013 #49
stevenleser Mar 2013 #53
madfloridian Mar 2013 #56
stevenleser Mar 2013 #61
FogerRox Mar 2013 #116
graham4anything Mar 2013 #51
stevenleser Mar 2013 #55
madfloridian Mar 2013 #57
stevenleser Mar 2013 #60
graham4anything Mar 2013 #62
madfloridian Mar 2013 #64
graham4anything Mar 2013 #66
rhett o rick Mar 2013 #99
bobduca Mar 2013 #77
Samantha Mar 2013 #134
madfloridian Mar 2013 #136
Samantha Mar 2013 #138
Oilwellian Mar 2013 #48
stevenleser Mar 2013 #54
Liberal_Stalwart71 Mar 2013 #102
JoePhilly Mar 2013 #74
bobduca Mar 2013 #79
JoePhilly Mar 2013 #82
bobduca Mar 2013 #83
JoePhilly Mar 2013 #86
bobduca Mar 2013 #88
JoePhilly Mar 2013 #91
madfloridian Mar 2013 #90
JoePhilly Mar 2013 #92
madfloridian Mar 2013 #95
graham4anything Mar 2013 #126
sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #44
madfloridian Mar 2013 #69
KoKo Mar 2013 #89
jsr Mar 2013 #58
madfloridian Mar 2013 #65
jsr Mar 2013 #68
madfloridian Mar 2013 #67
Romulox Mar 2013 #63
Douglas Carpenter Mar 2013 #70
hay rick Mar 2013 #72
madfloridian Mar 2013 #73
Douglas Carpenter Mar 2013 #112
madfloridian Mar 2013 #115
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #75
madfloridian Mar 2013 #78
redstatebluegirl Mar 2013 #76
madfloridian Mar 2013 #80
moondust Mar 2013 #100
WinkyDink Mar 2013 #105
madfloridian Mar 2013 #111
WillyT Mar 2013 #85
madfloridian Mar 2013 #96
Liberal_Stalwart71 Mar 2013 #101
madfloridian Mar 2013 #103
WinkyDink Mar 2013 #104
historylovr Mar 2013 #106
Blue Idaho Mar 2013 #109
madfloridian Mar 2013 #110
KoKo Mar 2013 #113
madfloridian Mar 2013 #120
FogerRox Mar 2013 #118
madfloridian Mar 2013 #119
KoKo Mar 2013 #127
FogerRox Mar 2013 #130
FogerRox Mar 2013 #131
hay rick Mar 2013 #132
madfloridian Mar 2013 #137
truth2power Mar 2013 #121
on point Mar 2013 #122
Octafish Mar 2013 #128
woo me with science Mar 2013 #129
Zorra Mar 2013 #135

Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:33 AM

1. Appointing Simpson and Bowles was war, not chess.

And here we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:53 PM

107. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:56 PM

123. Nah, it was chess...

we are but pawns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 07:41 PM

133. +100000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:36 AM

2. Everything is going well according to plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:56 AM

3. Yep

I have been reading this bullshit against Social Security and still peddled by some unnamed people on this board and other places for over 30 years. The origins began with the far right Cato Institute and the Concord Coalition when they decided to twist the projections made in 1983 to suit their ideology that Social Security is going "broke" (it CAN'T go broke because it is a federal program) so they can undermine it and destroy it.

Obama subscribes to this same bullshit, and other so-called Democrats subscribe to it also. It has no bearing on the truth.

That's why I implore people to look closely at what Obama and his cohorts REALLY are and who they TRULY represent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:58 AM

4. I don't like being told "but the Democrats do it, too".

We really can't defend our party's stances to Republicans, though I would love to be able to do so.

The Iraq War was Bush's doing mainly with all the lies, but enough Democrats went along to get the job done.

I can't defend the party to teachers who say it is our party's policy that they don't have job security. They are right, Bush's policies are being fulfilled now.

They must stop stressing seniors out over these possible cuts. Playing political games or not...it just might happen. Scared seniors are not good voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:00 AM

5. It's worse when "Democrats" do it

I put "Democrats" in quotes for a reason, and that reason is because these neoliberals are NOT Democrats as I have known the party.

The party has been infected with a cancer called neoliberalism, and it is going to destroy the party and the country if it isn't removed from the body politic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:44 PM

81. +100 Many here agree with what you said.

 

Just because the have (D) my their name, doesn't mean they are. There are many here on DU that still think that is the case, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #81)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:51 PM

84. I think that is the hardest thing to persuade people of, plus the hardest thing to accept

We really do live in a "post-partisan" world, which means that both political parties are actually on the same side as they represent the same economic elite, neoliberal interests.

Both parties have the same goal of being AGAINST the best interests of the American people. They pretend they are "different" parties, but it's all political theater.

Very few Democratic politicians are actually Democrats at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:01 AM

6. "Third Way," also known as the "New Democrats." They're GOP-lite all the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:36 AM

12. aka DLC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:04 AM

7. I have lived in the DC metro area since I was in the 4th grade of elementary school

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

People said then Wall Street was trying really hard to get their hands on the Social Security funds because it was like a guaranteed revenue stream coming in every month.

I asked the question if the Social Security Trust Fund had been invested by financial brokers at the time of the crash, how much would have been lost. Paul Begala answered that question: 40 percent.

This is not about our grandchildren. This about eliminating all of the aspects of the New Deal. Republicans have ALWAYS resented it and sought to find ways to do away with all of it.

The New Dems are the Third Way and the old DLC. You have heard that phrase about a rose by any other
name -- a pile of manure renamed a scoop of fine chocolate still stinks to high heaven. And that is exactly what these people are pitching -- a load of crap.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:06 AM

8. The party has been infiltrated by neoliberals who are little more than gangsters

out to kill the country.

These people ought to be in jail, not be running the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:07 AM

9. I have to agree

I wrote a thread here some time ago entitled "The Economic Hit Men Are Among Us" and that is exactly how I think of them.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:52 AM

22. Little more than gangsters? No, they're republicans too weak to make it their own party. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:57 PM

87. They're gangsters. It's all about robbing the public treasury for private profit. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #87)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:36 PM

114. I can accept that premise as well. But living in a city that was run by actual gangsters, I have to

 

that the gangsters were a lot smarter. They understood that if you spread it around and keep your business to yourself, people really won't give a damn about what you don't want them to give a damn about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:20 AM

10. Well said.

I find myself angry tonight. No one listens about all the harm we are doing to education. No one is listening about the safety nets except the Democrats up for election next year.

This is not even checkers right now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:35 AM

11. I think the problem is there's so much damage being inflicted

...in so many different areas and at so many levels, people have a hard time keeping up with it. That's undoubtedly intentional. I doubt most know even half of what's going on. Others keep investing their hope in this or that politician or party to rectify things.

It's way beyond that now...and I think it has been for some time. There's so much broken in this country - on purpose - that it'd be easier to list what's still intact. It ain't much. And neither party has clean hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:38 AM

13. kabuki theater at its finest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:19 AM

25. Hear! Hear!

Wouldn't change a word. Exactly as you said it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:48 AM

31. indeed, they're attacking on all fronts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:46 AM

45. Shock Doctrine, state by state.

Snyder, Walker, Scott, Brewer, the list goes on. Once Detroit goes under the management of one person, how long until they get their democratically elected government back? Goodbye democracy.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:39 PM

117. Well stated. Seems intentional. Sometimes I think the social wedge issues

are inflamed deliberately to redirect public outrage away from economic injustices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magellan (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:05 PM

124. Do you remember this excerpt from Milton Mayer's book?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11845.htm

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

..""To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:23 AM

59. You are absolutely correct in saying

"This is not about our grandchildren. This about eliminating all of the aspects of the New Deal. Republicans have ALWAYS resented it and sought to find ways to do away with all of it"

It reminds me of the old "Only Nixon could go to China" meme. Now it's "Only Obama

could cut Social Security".

They must think we're stupid. We're not accepting this pile of shit from ANYONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:56 PM

97. Good post and you are absolutely correct. They are hit men and now they

are in both parties. It is up to us to rid the Democratic Party of these infiltrators before they destroy the programs that have saved so many lives, Democratic programs that every real Democrat would risk his/her own career to protect.

'We shall know them by their works' or something like that. From now on anyone with a 'D' after their names who even hints that SS is any part of the problems that collapsed this economy, or who even mentions it in the same breath as the Deficit, should be viewed as one of those infiltrators who needs to return to their own party and be replaced by a real Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #97)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:57 PM

108. I am glad to see you share my views on this

I think these right-wing Dems posing as one of us do need to be called out. I am very prepared to call out mine once he quits equivocating about where he stands. If the Grand Bargain actually comes to a vote, his constituency will know which way he went.

I think we need to publicly tell any Dem that supports altering Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid in a manner that penalizes recipients he or she needs to identify with the Independents or any other party except the Democratic party. We do not want them, and we will campaign against them.

If we don't become more proactive aboout this, in the same manner as the Tea Party minority blocks a lot of legislation in the House today, these fake Dems will be doing the same with our party if we let them get away with it.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:06 AM

14. Obama's Third Way crew sure is destroying our public education system. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to w4rma (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:14 AM

16. Yes, they are.

And most of the time when I post about education, the posts drop rapidly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:42 AM

18. Cockroaches hate daylight. It's obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to w4rma (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:10 AM

36. YES.

Destruction of public education, of social security, of labor...what will be left?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:14 AM

15. This amounts to a plan to execute old people without a lot of money n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:16 AM

17. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:44 AM

19. The big question is which is more powerful?

Obama's Liberal base or Clinton's "New Democrats"?

Considering the DLC closed it's doors and a bunch of Blue Dogs were booted in the last mid-term and Obama just got reelected....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:49 AM

32. huh?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:00 AM

39. The DLC simply morphed into the Third Way.

Obama's "liberal" base is not being heard. He is too concerned with a Grand Bargain with the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:05 AM

52. Obama's liberal base was snookered

into voting for a guy who talked a good game but is really a corporatist. The mask has come off.

I was never fooled. I voted for him because he wasn't McCain and again because he wasn't Romney. I do not like it when people use thinly veiled racist arguments against him. But he is no liberal and never has been. He is continuing most of Bush's policies. It really makes me see red when tighty-righties call Obama a "socialist," because if they're that ignorant, they'll believe anything. (I know a fair number of real Socialists, and none of them think of Obama as a "comrade." In fact, they really don't like anything he's done.)

I'm at a loss for how real left-of-center people can take back the party. Even in Minnesota, which has a caucus system that allows anyone to show up and vote on candidates and proposals, grassroots movements get squelched, and Third Way types like Amy Klobuchar are openly disdainful of their constituents---and popular with Republicans, not surprisingly, which is how she got re-elected.

I have some good local legislators, my Congressman, Keith Ellison is pretty decent, and Senator Al Franken has been better than anyone expected, but as long as the Democratic Establishment keeps acting as if its primary purpose is to play nice with the Republicans, it's hard to be optimistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #52)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:54 PM

71. Gotta laugh or you'd have to cry.

I voted for Obama in 2008 expecting him to be more liberal than he turned out to be. By 2012 I was looking to support a primary opponent against him. I moved to Florida and found out that there would be no Democratic primary. I voted for Obama again only because Romney proved to my satisfaction that he was clearly much worse.

The "Obama is a socialist" remark is irritating because it causes me to make a snap decision on the appropriate level of civility/contempt to inject into the conversation.

I moved to a deep red county. Nevertheless, I have become active in the local Democratic Party. I am trolling for progressive candidates to push up the ladder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #52)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:30 PM

93. I voted for Kucinich in the primary....

But then, he's a classic Bobby Kennedy type of Democrat.

I never understood why Liberals threw their support behind Obama. He had the longest timetable to end the war in Iraq.

Kucinich on the other hand won every debate to the point where they refused to let him in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #93)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:58 PM

98. The mainstream Dems dissed him in every

possible way.
People were hungry for a populist candidate, but DK was populist to a degree that scared the people who deserve to be scared, based on what they've done.
Their solution?
To find someone who pretended to be a populist during the campaign but who, unlike DK, was vague about exactly what he would do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:40 PM

94. The "Third Way" guys are wimps terrified of being beaten up by Conservative Media...

They are always shocked that after they cave in on every demand that the Republicans STILL call them a bunch of commies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:49 AM

20. The DLC is an enemy...

And Hilary is a DLCer, just like her husband.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:59 AM

38. Blind Pragmatism is the enemy. It's only care is to do the doable & compromise makes more doable

People who hold traditional ideals/principles associated with your Grandfather's Democratic Party see this habit of compromise as constant spineless caving. It's not. It's the core tactic of blind pragmatists... a group typified by people like Rahm Emmanuel who as we remember got this administration off to the right start as Obama's Chief of Staff.

Pragmatism, and it's slowly creeping seismic compromise, has emboldened the obstruction and intransigence on the part of Republicans. The R's recognize that the DC Dems will come toward them in order to "do the work of the American people", whether or not the work that gets done is what the American people wanted.

How does that work, you ask. Provide an example or shut up or look like a Dem basher

Well, it works just like it did with DC reacting to the Newtown shootings.

The Dems jumped knee-deep into gun-regulation immediately after Newtown pushing assault weapons and high capacity magazine bans, because frankly it looked doable considering citizen outrage.

But just 3 months later it doesn't look like DC Dems were really committed to fight for gun-regulation. They seem to have just thought it was a reasonably doable thing. The leader of the party was was seeking action on doable 'common sense' things. The facility of dusting off old legislation was confused with do-ability.

A mere 12 weeks later, in Congressional time just midway into the first semester of this Congress, Fienstein is folding on her assault weapons.

Why? A clear majority, 57% of the American people, want it.

But the R's were intransigent, and the Dems are moving on to do what's doable.

What's doable appears to be pushing states to comply with NICS reporting already required under law and pushing for private guns sales to always involve a background check system.

Well, that's better than nothing, and with 90% of Americans supporting it. It was doable.


The politics of cutting SS is predictably going to go down the same way. To get the Grand Bargain that will provide Obama a
headline that can be passed as a legacy, Obama must have something to 'sweeten the deal' to get the R's to accept it.

Americans will be lucky if the R's are willing to settle for SS only getting deformed by a Chained-CPI.














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:52 AM

21. Social Security is not going to be privatized

Sure Republicans and Third Wayers would love nothing more and are still gunning for it, but the fact is that Democrats have prevented this from happening as recently as 2005 to 2006.

There was a perfect opportunity with Bush pushing that objective, and Democrats stopped it.

What I'm not understanding about this debate is, given the make up of the Senate, why would any proposal damaging Social Security pass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:09 AM

23. Why did Obama lecture them today?

Was it for show? Was he serious? Inquiring seniors want to know. They are tired of being threatened with cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:18 AM

24. I don't know, but

"Why did Obama lecture them today?"

...that's a separate issue from my point about efforts to privatize the program in 2005.

I'm not sure what the deal is with the President's proposal. Still, I expect that Senate Democrats would reject it.

Senate Democrats Press Obama on Chained CPI

George Zornick

<...>

Senator Bernie Sanders described the exchange to The Nation on Tuesday afternoon. “The issue came up. The president raised his concerns about the long-term sustainability of programs like Social Security, and indicated that he believed something like Chained CPI is an effective way—what he considers to be (an effective way), to protect the program,” said Sanders.

On that, Obama got pushback from multiple senators. “Some of us suggested there are other ways to address the problem in terms of the long-term solvency of Social Security, such as doing what he proposed in 2008, which is to lift the cap of taxable income,” said Sanders.

Indeed, Obama’s preferred approach in 2008 was to move the ceiling on FICA taxes, which fund Social Security, to $250,000. (It is currently around $113,000.) He briefly raised this on the campaign trail in 2012 in an appearance before AARP members, but also embraced the general goals of the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan during his acceptance speech at the DNC, and is now calling for Chained CPI.

After getting pushback, Obama mainly stuck to his position, according to Sanders, though he sense a little bit of daylight. “I think the president, while he continues to voice his support for the Chained CPI, I think he does understand that there are other ways to tackle this problem, and I think he left the door open a little bit to hear other points of view.”

- more -

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173314/senate-democrats-press-obama-chained-cpi



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:53 AM

37. Actually 2005 is connected to today.

It's all part of the conservative push to cut Social Security. I am not sure that enough Democrats would reject it.

There are not enough of them speaking out right now to suit me. Too many using the same spin. I notice the Democrats overall refer to the possible benefit cuts as being done by Republicans.

The elephant in the room is that our president put it on the table for deficit discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:00 AM

50. Well,

"I am not sure that enough Democrats would reject it. "

...the rejected it then, and that was when Bayh, Conrad, Lieberman, Lincoln and others were in the Senate.

Again, the Senate gained a few good Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren. Looking at who signed Sanders' letter, they should have no problem blocking any proposed cuts, and they damn sure aren't going to vote to privatize it.

Now, all this could change if Republicans take control of the Senate and retain control of the House.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:50 AM

33. not this term, no. just moved closer to that end goal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #33)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:07 AM

35. Exactly! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:34 AM

26. +100000000000. Anyone who trusts what a politician says on this issue just because s/he

 

is a democrat is asking to be conned.

An overwhelming majority of democrats voted for ronald reagan's 1983 amendments to the program. The amendments that:

1. Began taxing workers more than needed to support beneficiaries and a reasonable cushion in the trust fund. This is how we got where we are today, overtaxed for 30 years, supposedly to 'save social security forever,' only to now be told we need to 'save' it again -- EVEN WHILE WE ARE OWED NEARLY $3 TRILLION DOLLARS for all those years of overpayment.

2. Began taxing Social Security beneficiaries -- which amounted to a BENEFITS REDUCTION.

3. Removed certain benefits from the program. For example, did you know that children of Social Security beneficiaries attending college used to get a small tuition benefit? That was taken away.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5075175_social-security-benefits-children-college.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:38 AM

27. Of course

it's never Republicans. It's always the DLC, a pretty-much defunct group. Blame Clinton, blame Dems in general, but god forbid the GOP takes any grief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:48 AM

30. Nobody here has absolved Republicans of anything . . .

. . . but the reality is Republicans will do what Republicans will do. And it is beyond pathetic for us, as Democrats, to bitch and moan about Republican obstruction when our own elected officials, including the POTUS, have adopted the opposition's framing of the question: i.e., that we must begin to address the deficit right now in order to ward off the inflation bogeyman, who lurks just around the bend, even if that means hacking away at two of our party's signature accomplishments of the past century, and even if that will mean a reduction in assistance to people who are already really hurting. But no Republican has put a gun to the President's head demanding he include chained CPI and a rise in the eligibility age for Medicare on the table, and to do so as part of his opening volley in negotiations with House Republicans. He came up with that all by himself.

Now, I realize this may be part of some calculated strategy, banking on the fact that Republicans aren't really interested in making any deal at all. But as Paul Krugman recently pointed out, if that is indeed the case, the President is playing a very dangerous game, because one of these days Republicans might just wake up to the fact that here's an opportunity to make a dent in the social safety net they've wanted to dismantle for the last 70 years.

As for the DLC, while the organization, per se, may be defunct, the philosophy that gave rise to it -- right-wing, corporatist economics with a few liberal social stances thrown in so as not to scare the horses -- is alive and well in the very party to which it should be anathema. That's right: the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:50 AM

34. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:19 AM

42. DLC simply changed their name. Policies the same in Third Way.

It is NOT the Republicans who put Social Security on the table in these deficit talks.....it was the president.

Now they can claim the president wants to cut Social Security, and we can not defend him because he did put it right square on the table. He then lectured the Senate Dems to go along with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:31 AM

28. K&E

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:46 AM

29. ^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 05:34 AM

125. R

Fat fingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:04 AM

40. Name who you are talking about. Let's stop using bogeyman terms. Which elected officials are

doing the things you don't like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #40)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:14 AM

41. I am NOT using "bogeyman" terms. I am quite clear.

Most of the Democrats will go along with Obama in this area. The others who don't will suffer.

Only a few are speaking out, and you know I am absolutely right.

You can count on one finger the ones who will come right out on TV and say this is wrong.

When I post you know what I am saying, and I am tired of pretending all is okay in our party right now. It simply is not okay right now.

That's a tactic I hate, trying to put someone on the spot to name names when it is not needed. Even the ones who speak out against benefit cuts will probably vote them in when the time comes.

It seems like the minority has the majority by the short hairs, has for a long time. The minority is controlling the message right now.

I resent your implications, you have done this to me before. My post stands as is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:23 AM

43. I resent your use of bogeyman terms. You named only two people in your OP.

If that is all there is, there is nothing to worry about. Two people alone cannot pass laws in this country.

When I rail against PNAC, I name the individuals who I am talking about.

The other point is, do the people you name self-identify as "Third Way"? Have they ever? If not, why are you calling them that? I do not believe Obama has ever self identified as Third Way or DLC or any of the other bogeyman terms people like to toss about.

At least with PNAC, the individuals specifically joined that group. They cosigned letters and other documentation with the letterhead listed as "Project for a New American Century". They chose to be identified with that association.

If you need to use bogeyman terms, particularly ones where the people involved do not self-identify as such, your argument is probably weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #43)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:52 AM

46. I resent your defense of cutting Social Security.

The GOP holds the House. If the president, Barack Obama, and the Senate Dems who control the Senate....go along with the cuts they will go through.

There is no need to name names because the ones speaking out are so obvious.

I can NOT name names because the vote has not been taken. I would say just listen to the Democrats who go on TV and blame the Republicans for allowing this discussion. They know better, they don't have the courage to cross the president.

PNAC? That has nothing to do with this.

We control the WH and the Senate, if the cuts to Social Security go through....more shame to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #46)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:55 AM

47. That is a straw man. I never defended cutting Social Security. Moreover...

If it is done, I will criticize anyone who participated during my show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #47)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:58 AM

49. Stop your generalizations. "Straw man" "bogeyman"

That is the tactic used against those of us who speak out. It happens to me when I post about education, and now about Social Security.

I try not to get in arguments, and I think this is becoming one quickly.

I am backing off, I hope you will do the same.

Democrats have no business negotiating with extremists on Social Security, and I am exactly right in this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #49)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:07 AM

53. Stop using logical fallacies and generalizations and then you won't be accused of doing it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #53)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:10 AM

56. Then let the Democrats prove me wrong. They need to go on TV or write op eds...

denouncing the cuts to Social Security.

They need to do it loudly and quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #56)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:26 AM

61. Like whom? Again, same issue. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to stevenleser (Reply #43)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:04 AM

51. +MILLION The OP placer loses me at saying "third way".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #51)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:09 AM

55. If you have a strong argument, you don't need bogeyman terms. It's that simple.

A person, B person and C person are bad because they are doing X thing.

If X thing is bad then you don't need to use a special term for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #55)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:12 AM

57. Being in denial on purpose and attacking those who are being honest...

is harmful to the party and the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #57)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:25 AM

60. Then I think you should stop doing that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #57)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:33 AM

62. Protest voters against the democratic party have allowed the teaparty to take office

 

thinking any of the teaparty or protest candidates(Nader/Stein/Rand/DavidDuke/RonPaul) would do even remotely better when they would all take things a million times backward is not being honest

Thinking of doing the same next time would only yet again delay by 50 years any further movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #62)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:36 AM

64. I have always voted and supported Democrats.

Because I trusted them to stand firm for our safety nets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #64)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:46 AM

66. Now be honest, if they said anyone 50 and over will be grandfathered in

 

do you think that anyone in their teens, 20s and 30s should think that everything has to remain constant for the next 40 to 70 years?

The #s were never meant to remain constant, and always subject to change.

JFK said "ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country"
and having a young person think they should not have different numbers (especially when people are living longer, the younger one is (assuming they don't consume 48 ounce sodas
and 2 tubs of popcorn lathered in butter a day)

Show me where FDR said the #s remain constant for infinity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #62)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:08 PM

99. It's a strawman to suggest that anyone here would not support Democrats. The discussion is about

holding them accountable. Now you want us to use blind faith and live with whatever happens. I choose to lobby MY representatives and make sure we are on the same page. Why do you try so hard to stifle honest discussion? If you think it will hurt the Democratic Party, I say you are wrong. Requiring blind loyalty is a conservative value and harmful, not helpful for our party.

All I ask is for Democrats to speak out in support of not cutting benefits. I get nervous when they refuse to speak out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #57)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:39 PM

77. The DLC is strong in this thread

This acronym has been deleted from our collective memory. There is no DLC. Repeat after me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #43)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 08:03 PM

134. Wait a minute please -- the "Third Way" nomenclature was openly discussed in Clinton's autobiography

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:08 PM - Edit history (2)

"My Life" by Bill Clinton, pages 381-2, 813, 854, 878-9, 907-8,934 (pages enumerated from Index which discuss the term "Third Way.")

at pages 381-382:

I was amazed by some of the criticisms of the DLC from the Democratic left, who accused us of being closet Republicans, and from some members of the political press, who had comfortable little boxes marked "Democrat" and "Republican." When we didn't fit neatly in their ossified Democratic box, they said we didn't believe in anything. The proof was that we wanted to win national elections, something Democrats apparently weren't supposed to do.

***
The principles and proposals I advocated could hardly be called Republican-lite or lacking in conviction. Instead, they helped to modernize the Democratic Party and later would be adopted by resurgent center-left parties all over the world, in what would be called "Third Way." Most important, the new ideas, when implemented, would prove to be good for America....

These are Bill Clinton's own words, but they could have easily enough been written by President Obama, who described himself as a "New Dem." I have no link, but heard him say this in an interview. Of course, I immediately recognized that term and knew instantaneously that I am much farther left than he.

I point this out to answer your question "... do the people you name self-identify as "Third Way"?

I believe you overstepped when you referred to the terms Third Way or DLC as "bogeyman terms." Obviously, these are legitimate terms used by people who want to be recognized as having separated themselves from -- now I will openly make up a term -- Classic Dems.

I have read several bios about Clinton, one of which specifically mentioned his search for a term to particularly identify his brand of politics. He wanted to differentiate his brand of politics from the DLC, from whence he came, thus the search for a different branding. He came up with the term Third Way, but I do not believe it truly stuck. New Dem in the political world today is synonymous with Third Way.

The DLC (Democratic Leadership Conference) openly publicly published its membership list, so there was no secrecy about it. I think of the New Dems as the "remains" of the DLC with a few having left and some new having joined.

Sam

Edited to add President Obama's declaration of being a New Democrat:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html

"Surrounded by 65 moderate Democrats on Tuesday in the State Dining Room, Obama was happy to portray himself as simpatico with a group of members who are largely socially liberal but fiscally more moderate to conservative."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #134)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:09 PM

136. Remember when Tony Blair and the Clintons formed the Third Way concept?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/7777

Then when the Iraq invasion started the Democrats who supported it were called Blair Democrats by the DLC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #136)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:22 PM

138. I didn't really remember that but your link was interesting, particularly this:

"On the agenda for Chequers are social security, welfare, crime, health policy and education, with eight to 10 participants from each side." Sounds a lot like today's issues, doesn't it?

I have often wondered exactly how much advice Bill Clinton has given President Obama in private about how to deal with Republican obstructionism. I guess we will never know, unless, of course, there is a book....

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #40)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:56 AM

48. It can't be more obvious...

who Madfloridian is referring to. Have you been to the White House website lately? Obama's been very outspoken about his desire to cut SS.

So much denial or outright manipulation...so little time.

Mother Fuckers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #48)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:07 AM

54. It's not obvious. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #48)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:22 PM

102. Can you post a link and point to the obvious? I've seen no such thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #40)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:17 PM

74. Its just another edition of the recurring soap opera ...

Hair-on-fire Underground.

Tune in again tomorrow for a more proof of how Obama, as a child in Hawaii, determined that Social Security was really a ponzy scheme.

It really has become a soap opera. Same basic OP, day after day.

Pretty soon, they'll introduce Obama's evil twin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #74)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:42 PM

79. you didnt even read the op.

circle the wagons, and drown out the critcs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #79)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:48 PM

82. I read the OP, and responded to a specifc post in the thread.

And in doing so, I can *gasp* actually take the discussion in any direction that I want.

And how could I possibly "drown out the critics" when they post the same basic OP day, after day, after day for weeks on end.

Oh yea .... welcome to the internet, and DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #82)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:50 PM

83. Yeah my post count is low & rofl-worthy

If you circle the wagons close enough you can get a circle jerk going!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #83)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:54 PM

86. Your comment was what was rofl-worthy.

And as for circle jerks ... that's actually a pretty good description of these hair-on-fire threads.

The perpetually disgruntled gnashing their teeth and rending their garments over the impending (impending for about 4 years now) death of Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #86)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:57 PM

88. Yeah people here shouldnt be upset about anything

We got ours, right? All this is just empty worrying, better to just smile and love the impending cuts, because they are not as bad as if a republican was doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #88)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:11 PM

91. "We got ours"?

Not sure what that means.

Regardless ... there is a rather vast space between "Hair-on-fire" and "just smile".

No where did I suggest that folks take the extreme position of "just smile", but I guess you might think that while sitting on the "Hair-on-fire" end of the spectrum.

Because clearly, those are the only possible positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #74)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:06 PM

90. lol "Hair-on-fire Underground" ?

Where people come to read the truth, not spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #90)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:15 PM

92. Actually ...

Hair-on-fire Underground is a great place to find the most up to date conspiracy theories about Obama's plan to kill Social Security.

I can no longer count how often the death of social security has been predicted here in the last 4 years.

Each time, presented as an impending truth. Absolutely about to happen. Any minute now.

Threads burst into flames of outrage.

Then ... nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #92)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:48 PM

95. This is the 1st time in my memory that a Dem president OFFERED it up to extremists.

You can poke fun all you want, but people are waking up to the truth that the safety nets are not guaranteed by Democrats. We always thought they would be, now they are not.

That has terrible implications for the future of our party.

And my personal issue is with the education reform that is not reform at all....just the rapid turning over of public schools to private companies.

Again, I always thought of Democrats as being supportive of public education. Now they are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #92)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 06:06 AM

126. +ten zillion, three hundred million

 

and almost all of them have many people in it that want to put borders on the US to keep anyone in the outside world out of the US
The real agenda shines through like a summer day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:34 AM

44. It's really very simple, no one who lies about SS in order to try to cut benefits,

no one who cleverly, or who thinks they are being clever, by tying SS to the Deficit, this includes talking about SS and the Deficit in the same sentence, no one who is not standing up strongly and objecting strenuously to the Third Way lies about SS, can expect to be called by a Democrat. Not by this Democrat anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:17 PM

69. Obama will now have to "deal with the losers in a globalized economy." His own words.

He said it would not be bloodless, and it is not going to be. He was right in 2006 when he said those words.

Obama and the Hamiltonian Democrats.

Obama is speaking of Robert Rubin. They were talking about the "losers" in the new free market economy.

Bob and I have had a running debate now for about a year about how do we, in fact, deal with the losers in a globalized economy. There has been a tendency in the past for us to say, well, look, we have got to grow the pie, and we will retrain those who need retraining. But in fact we have never taken that side of the equation as seriously as we need to take it. So hopefully, this is not just going to be a lot of preaching to the choir. Hopefully, part of what we are going to be doing is challenging our own conventional wisdom and pushing boundaries and testing these ideas in a vigorous and aggressive way.

....Just remember, as we move forward, that there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. There are people in places like Decatur, Illinois, or Galesburg,Illinois, who have seen their jobs eliminated. They have lost their health care. They have lost their retirement security. They don't have a clear sense of how their children will succeed in the same way that they succeeded. They believe that this may be the first generation in which their children do worse than they do. Some of that, then, will end up manifesting itself in the sort of nativist sentiment, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiment that we are debating here in Washington. So there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. This is not a bloodless process.


Seniors will be the "losers", and I fear the Democrats up for re-election will also be losers if the president follows through on compromising with the extremists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:59 PM

89. I saw Glenn Hubbard on Bloomberg Financial this a.m.

He was in Bush Administration as Economic Adviser and has been consulted by Obama.

He Said:

"Entitlement cuts are absolutely necessary...and Global Trade will cost jobs but, it's what is needed."


And then there's Bernanke:

Ben Bernanke in his recent hearings before Congress when criticized over Fed Policy keeping interest rates so low for savers.. said:"The Fed has been successful for decades in keeping interest rates low because it kept worker's wages low and that was good for the economy in the long run."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:23 AM

58. It's an idea from the Hamilton Project

Barack Obama at the launch of the Brookings Institute's Hamilton Project
Obama's speech on April 5, 2006


Big Bank Funds New "Liberal" Think Tank?
The Young Turks


FAST FORWARD TO PRESENT DAY:

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130313/COLUMNIST0150/303130065/Ruth-Marcus-Hamilton-Project-offers-ideas-on-fixing-federal-budget
Hamilton Project offers ideas on fixing federal budget
Mar. 12, 2013 8:50 PM
Written by Ruth Marcus

Hence this suggested reading: a new report from the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, “15 Ways to Rethink the Federal Budget.” Granted, the Hamilton Project is associated with Democratic policymakers, albeit centrist ones such as its co-founder Robert Rubin; its animating vision of government is not the same as, say, Paul Ryan’s. So proposals such as a carbon tax or value-added tax, however sensible, aren’t likely to fly in the current climate.

But the Hamilton report contains several ideas that even Ryan could love — or, at the very least, that the House Budget Committee chairman should not reject out of hand.

For example, where Ryan proposes giving Medicare beneficiaries a set amount with which to obtain insurance, Michael Chernew of Harvard Medical School and Dana Goldman of the University of Southern California propose giving Medicare providers a set amount to cover beneficiaries...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #58)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:41 AM

65. Transcript Obama's speech to the Hamiltonian Democrats. You are right.

Obama and the Hamiltonian Democrats.

Obama is speaking of Robert Rubin. They were talking about the "losers" in the new free market economy.

"Bob and I have had a running debate now for about a year about how do we, in fact, deal with the losers in a globalized economy. There has been a tendency in the past for us to say, well, look, we have got to grow the pie, and we will retrain those who need retraining. But in fact we have never taken that side of the equation as seriously as we need to take it. So hopefully, this is not just going to be a lot of preaching to the choir. Hopefully, part of what we are going to be doing is challenging our own conventional wisdom and pushing boundaries and testing these ideas in a vigorous and aggressive way.

....Just remember, as we move forward, that there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. There are people in places like Decatur, Illinois, or Galesburg,Illinois, who have seen their jobs eliminated. They have lost their health care. They have lost their retirement security. They don't have a clear sense of how their children will succeed in the same way that they succeeded. They believe that this may be the first generation in which their children do worse than they do. Some of that, then, will end up manifesting itself in the sort of nativist sentiment, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiment that we are debating here in Washington. So there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. This is not a bloodless process."


Thanks for the video link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #65)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:57 AM

68. Awesome journal.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #58)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:50 AM

67. You need to post Obama's speech in the video forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:35 AM

63. The Third Way (with their outsourcing and "free trade") destroyed the tax base.

Who did you think was going to pay for your Social Security? The workers who made your Prius?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:37 PM

70. The third way are an essential mechanism whereby the right-wing achieves their core economic agenda

The politically dominant but numerically insignificant third way are simply right-wingers minus the radical religious/social conservatism and purest ideological stridency. They are more than willing to use a measured amounts of Orwellian populist rhetoric to sell a very unpopular agenda to moderate and liberal leaning voters. Their presentation of reactionary economics is made quite easy by the likes of Tea Party Republicans and the dominance of the lunatic fringe in the modern Republican entertainment industry who are now leading rather than following the legislative wing of the GOP. When the alternative is a bunch Fox News lead right-wing nuts - the so-called third way Democrats are able to support polices that Ronald Reagan himself would have never hoped to put on the table. Who actually joined with the lunatic fringe of the GOP in enacting the most reactionary rollbacks of the New Deal and the Great Society - was it Reagan or was it a Democratic president whose sacred name must not be spoken?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #70)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:07 PM

72. Restricted choice.

The media's version of the public debate is between Tea Party crazies who will blow up the country (debt ceiling, vouchers, Iran) vs. reasonable realists who are willing to snip just a pinch from grandma's Social Security check. Reasonable realists are so much better than Tea Party crackpots, QED.

We, the people, need to change the terms of this debate or we will surely suffer the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #72)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:14 PM

73. Amen to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #72)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:26 PM

112. Just a few nights ago I saw David Brooks and Mark Shields "debating" but actually agreeing

that we need the President to show leadership in "entitlement reform." I'm quite certain that "entitlement reform" does not mean improving the living standard of the elderly and disabled with better benefits. One of the other Sunday infotainment panel discussion shows started right off with talking about needing to find an alternative to the far right and the far left. The "far left" being defined as those who are resisting "entitlement reforms." Note "far left" does NOT even mean people who want to improve the things for the disabled and the elderly - it means - what once would have been called conservative - holding on to the status quo. I thought "far left" meant people who wanted to nationalize all the industries and make a socialist republic. But no, far left is now being defined by the "reasonable center" - including the third way Democrats - not even as wanting to expand assistance to the elderly and disabled - but holding the real meaning of the word conservative and simply wanting to hold on to the status quo. All of this against the backdrop of the full knowledge that the public is overwhelmingly against their so-called "entitlement reforms," and now defining the disregarding of the will of the people as "showing leadership and courage." Orwell must be rolling in his grave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #112)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:49 PM

115. "defining the disregarding of the will of the people as "showing leadership and courage."

Good point.

When the polls are in the 80s against "reform", you would think they would listen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:21 PM

75. The Third Way is the pinnacle of "not as bad" politics.

They do the same things that the Republicans do and then advertise their sell outs as "not as bad".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #75)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:41 PM

78. Very true.

That's exactly what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:32 PM

76. After listening to some MBA students

last night say it was about time we "gutted medicare and social security" I couldn't help but think what it would be like for them when they have to take care of their parents as they age with no net. SS and Medicare do not just impact the elderly but also their families and the economy. If 40 somethings and in some cases 30 somethings have to help with the finances of their parents, maybe even have to allow them to move in with them they do not have as much money to spend on eating out, larger houses, new cars etc. Not to mention needing some psychological care with all the pressure of two generations under one roof and one or two incomes.

By they way, these 20 somethings were laughing at the thought of getting rid of social security and medicare, they called both welfare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #76)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:42 PM

80. Yes, full care of their parents...that would change their minds suddenly.

And paying for their medical care? Change their minds faster.

They are so indoctrinated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #76)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:14 PM

100. Ahh, a whole new batch

of brainwashed short-term thinkers anxious to devour what's left of a dying planet and its sick people! Me richer faster! Me richer faster! Me richer faster! Me richer faster!

How refreshing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #76)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:35 PM

105. "maybe even have to allow them to move in with them": And when there are several siblings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #105)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:24 PM

111. Methinks these young folks haven't thought thru the consequences.

As soon as they do, their views on the safety net will change.



Sounds like they are parroting talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:53 PM

85. K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #85)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:50 PM

96. Thank you WillyT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:16 PM

101. Still waiting on a proposal from said Democrats that gives specifics re: "cutting" The Big Three.

Until then, trashing these threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:32 PM

103. Third Way site today is recycling a 2012 article called Collision Course, lecturing baby boomers

and all of the rest of us who feel "entitled".

Link to the front page:

http://www.thirdway.org/

Note the picture of JFK and LBJ grinning.

Then follow the link to the Bill Keller article from 2012 at the NYT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:34 PM

104. Where are these "far higher returns"???????????????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:54 PM

106. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:02 PM

109. Millionaire Politicians don't need Social Security...

That's the real problem. Its easy for the greedy little bastards to casually talk about eliminating things that won't impact their lives.

They chuckled, lit their cigars with fifty dollar bills and snorted - let them eat dog food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Idaho (Reply #109)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:08 PM

110. Yep.

It has no impact on their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:57 PM

113. Thanks "MF" for all you do here...informing us of the REAL NEWS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #113)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:19 PM

120. I just noticed your sig line.

I love it. That cat must have been a happy cat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:43 PM

118. Hello Madfloridian !!!!



Achieving a Leninist Strategy (1983)
Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis

"... the strategy must be to propose moving to a private Social Security system in such a way as to ... neutralize ... the coalition that supports the existing system." (p. 555)

"The next Social Security crisis may be further away than many people believe. ... it could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible. But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform."



http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/11/cj3n2-11.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #118)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:58 PM

119. Ooh, read this "calming" part.

Darn, it won't let me copy paste, it just shows up as one word on a line. But the paragraph about Calming Existing Beneficiaries really hits home.

Reassure us we will get full benefit because we are a powerful voting block.

It must be made to sound good to seniors.

Decades they have planned for this moment when both parties align.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #118)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 01:18 PM

127. Fascinating read, Roger Fox...

The Playbook...

Thanks for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #127)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 06:13 PM

130. The Playbook, yup.

Skinner told me we're getting a Social Security - Medicare group soon. I cant wait. Items like that will be included ASAP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #118)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 06:28 PM

131. SS/M group is open for business

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #131)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 06:37 PM

132. Just subscribed.

Thanks for pushing for this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #131)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:10 PM

137. Thank you very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:28 PM

121. K&R to read later. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:38 PM

122. it is theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 02:05 PM

128. Rich people hire people to do stuff.

Stuff like pass laws that benefit rich people at the expense of everyone else, laws like the tax code.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 04:06 PM

129. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 08:24 PM

135. Thank you, madfloridian. I'm so very glad that you are posting your excellent, informative threads

expressing concern about the the takeover of our party and democracy by wealthy special interests again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread