HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sabrina 1 » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

sabrina 1

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Mar 30, 2008, 05:51 AM
Number of posts: 45,918

Journal Archives

Proud Member Of "The Glenn Greenwald Left" Here.

Right Versus Wrong is my barometer for who has credibility and who doesn't.

RIGHT V WRONG!

Greenwald earned his credibility over nearly a decade when it came to issues of Civil Liberties and the near destruction of them by the Bush Administration.

And I'm happy to know who was and still is part of the 'Greenwald Left'.

I know I am on the Right side of issues, not just because of my own assessment of the situation, but by who opposes and who supports my position.

Anti-Greenwald Left:

1) Dick Cheney
2) George W. Bush
3) Ari (the liar) Fleischer.
4) Peter (we count the votes) King
5) John (where are the jobs) Boehner
6)Sarah (I can see Russia from my house) Palin
7) Almost EVERYONE at Faux 'News'.
8) Rush Limbaugh
9) Free Republic

Well, you get the idea.

Even if I knew nothing about the issues about which Progressive Democrats were, are and will continue to be concerned about, just seeing who is opposed them would be enough to assure me that I am on the right side of the issues.

Thanks Glenn Greenwald for never wavering despite the vicious attacks from the Right and even the revelations that the Big Banks were hiring 'security contractors' to smear you, in the pursuit of the facts.

I always wondered who got the HB Gary Contract to smear Greenwald after they were exposed?

CIVIL LIBERTIES was, is and will always will be of huge concern to Progressive Democrats.

Not so much to the other side.












In the US, Support Grows for Whistle Blower Snowden as Anger Increases over Massive Surveillance

America is finally showing signs of waking up after more than a decade of looking more like the Land of the Cowardly than the Home of the Brave.

This despite the Corporate Media's slanted coverage of the latest leaks from the latest Whistle Blower regarding the destruction of the 4th Amendment rights of the American people, policies which began under Bush and as has been revealed, continued and expanded under President Obama.

Americans say Snowden isn’t a traitor

Approximately 55% of American voters view Snowden as a “whistle-blower,” according to new Quinnipiac University poll. Only 34% consider him a “traitor” for revealing details on two of the nation’s top secret surveillance programs.

A majority view him as a whistle-blower in every subgroup–political party, gender, income, education, and age–except for African -American voters, among whom 43% call him a traitor and 42% a whistle-blower.

Researchers also spotted a “massive swing in public opinion” when it comes to how the public feels about spying programs in relation to civil liberties. Now, 45% of voters say the government goes way too far restricting civil liberties in regard to its anti-terrorism efforts. That’s a big switch from 2010 when 63% felt the government didn’t go far enough in its efforts to protect the country from terrorists.


A 'massive swing' since just two years ago. That's good news, but it's difficult not to be angry that it took so long because that is what made it possible for all these abuses to take place.

Voters Support Snowden



U.S. Voters Say Snowden Is Whistle-Blower, Not Traitor, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Big Shift On Civil Liberties vs. Counter-Terrorism

The opinions about Snowden were fairly independent of political party association, education level or household income. Only one demographic factor did show a significant effect; that was age, with support for Snowden declining with the increasing age of the respondents.


Take that Dick Cheney, George Bush, Ari Fleischer, John Boehner, and Peter King who once again are on the wrong side of history and a few of them still on the wrong of the prison walls. Some day maybe justice will be done.


The only solution is for the International Community to come together, as they have in the past after a crisis that affects humanity as a whole, and begin the process of ending these abuses against Civil Liberties everywhere.

NOW It IS About Snowden.

They made it about Snowden, despite all the efforts to make it about the issues. To most people, it WAS about the issues.

But they insisted, the smears, the lies, the talking points, you can always recognize a talking point by how many times it is repeated.


They failed, they tried the 'ballerina' smear, people laughed.

Then there were the 'boxes in the garage' and people laughed even louder.



Because these smear campaigns are so familiar now.

We know this is going to happen and in fact it was predicted two minutes before it began. Right here on DU airc.

Failure doesn't stop them. It costs big money for these smear campaigns.

Not everyone is paid of course, but they can always count on the freebies. Good business always thinks of the bottom line so the fewer paid operatives the better.

HB Gary's planned smear campaign against Glenn Greenwald which was exposed by Anonymous, forever buried all doubt that this is big business for the Private 'Security' Contractors.

So each day after every failure, they sent out more talking points, and every day they got sillier and sillier.

And then a strange thing happened. Rather than turning people AGAINST Snowden, they turned him into an International hero!

THEY did that. THEY insisted on it in fact!

The whole campaign BACKFIRED!

So now, we ALL want to talk about Snowden, to hear what HE has to say.. And people who might not have bothered before ARE listening, because they made him famous.

And he is impressive, when he speaks for himself, people are saying. Daniel Ellsberg is impressed and he should know, better than anonymous people all saying the same boring things on the internet.

If they had ignored Snowden, the world wouldn't be marching in the streets to protect him.

Foreign nations wouldn't be offering him asylum, no one would be thinking about him.

They PERSONALIZED him. They created an image. Not the one they were trying to create, but one that has caused people all the over the world to root for him.

From Hong Kong:



To Missouri, to Denver, to NYC, to London, to Latin America.

He is DAVID fighting GOLIATH. THAT is what they have done:



Just like we rooted for Salman Rushdie. THEY tried to demonize him, they issued a Fatwa on him. People who would never have heard of him, became protective of him. They wanted to save him!! If they had IGNORED him, no one would have ever read his book, which was terrible anyhow, and no one would have wanted to save him.

So let's keep talking about Snowden. It's working, for HIM.

And people are talking about Snowden, all over the world.

They are asking 'what he do' and and when they do, they learn about the information he is releasing.

So when you can't stop them, USE them. After all they are using our tax dollars to pay for all this so we may as well get some use out of it!

Or you could alwys support this man:



'Snowden is a traitor'

'All Your Bank Records Are Belong To Us'

One of the latest defenses of the theft of the American People's personal phone data and other personal material, such as personal emails etc is this:

You don't own your records.


I don't recall this defense when Bush was caught using the telecoms to collect people's phone data. All I remember from back then was outrage at the Government intruding into people's private lives, in clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

I have been told that this includes your Bank Records, your Sales Records, Medical Records, and anything you do where someone else, a store, a phone company, a bank etc. is involved in the transaction.

I am also being told this:

It is perfectly legal


Which reminds me of this:

Martin Luther King: ' Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal'


But is it legal? Where are the laws that back up these claims that anyone can have access to your Bank Records eg? Or your SS# simply because you are required to supply it when you open an account somewhere?

If this is true, which I have some serious doubts about, then every thief and stalker and peeping tom iow, criminal, can now freely do, without consequences, what was more than likely to get them thrown in jail just before these leaks exposed the massive surveillance of the American people.

The ramifications of throwing out all the laws protecting people from such invasions of their property, such as their Bank and Medical records are enormous.

If your records don't belong to you, then anyone can access them and you have no say in who these 'third parties' choose to give them to.

So, a disgruntled employee can get his/her hands on the records of his/her boss, 'collect and store them' for future use.

A thief can get into your bank account and move your money to his/her account without too much effort simply by taking the info from wherever he/she can get it, then later claim when you whine about it: 'Your records don't belong to you'.

I was certain there were privacy laws governing Medical Records eg.

Now I am being told this is not the case, those records don't belong to you.

So what laws destroyed all the protections we used to have?

When was the 4th Amendment of the Constitution rescinded?

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Is it time to change the Oath of Office taken by all Military Personnel and by Elected Officials since they have failed so miserably to uphold it anyhow?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


It varies a little depending on who is being sworn in, but not much, this has been deemed the most important possession we have, the US Constitution!

Not the 'Homeland' or the 'President' or 'The People', but the Constitution.

It doesn't say: 'But you're free to change it when you feel like it'.

Or 'ignore it when Corporations demand you do so'.

Nor does it say that you can ignore it when you are afraid of 'terrorists'.

There are no 'outs' in these oaths.

But clearly we have a government that has abandoned its sworn duty, so why keep up the pretense? Why not just be honest and drop the pretext of what we claim to be?

That would definitely make it easier for the defenders of what is now indefensible.

Change the law to make legal what is not legal? Well, they did it before when they added an Amendment to the FISA Bill to make Bush's illegal acts legal.

I'd rather have the fight out in the open and let's see what the American people have to say about it.

They don't have the guts to do that, they would rather spin and turn themselves into pretzels trying to defend what has no defense under our current system than face the American people with the truth.

Who is right and who is wrong?

That's easy, just read the document everyone swears to defend and protect and if you don't feel any urge to try to change it?

YOU are RIGHT!

And if you find yourself desperately trying to avoid the message, arguing that the anti-Constitutional polices we have learned about, are LEGAL? then

YOU are WRONG.

It's not rocket science.

So, where do we go from here?




Timothy Geithner Owed Back Taxes, Became Treasury Secretary.

Owing back taxes has suddenly become a major crime in America, it appears. But just a few years ago, it was so inconsequential that it had no impact on a nomination for Treasury Secretary in the President's cabinet.

Here's how it works, it depends on who you are. IF you are a journalist who has published leaks that are embarrassing to the US government, smearing your reputation by digging up information such as you owed back taxes, is supposed to make the stories you published somehow less important.

That's not true of course. Those stories will continue to be important as they should.


We have 'Security Contractors' now who get contracts for this kind of work, which is then spread around by using rags like The Daily Mail and of course, internet operatives.

HB Gary's exposed emails revealed that they, a 'Security Contractor', had proposed a smear campaign against Greenwald a few years ago, then just a blogger, in order to get him to stop writing about Bank of America and The Chamber of Commerce. How many others are doing so, we don't yet know, but let's hope more Whistle Blowers step forward because knowledge is power.

More facts emerge about the leaked smear campaigns

The emails also show that it was Barr from HB Gary] who suggested pressuring Salon.com journalist Glenn Greenwald, though Palantir, another firm working with HBGary Federal, quickly accepted that suggestion and added it to the PowerPoint presentation that the group was assembling.

Greenberg is referring to this series of emails, first from HBGary’s Barr — addressed to Palantir’s Matthew Steckman and Eli Bingham along with Berico’s Sam Kremin (click image to enlarge):




Yes, they were planning a smear campaign against Glenn Greenwald to 'pressure him' to stop telling the truth about Bank of America and The Chamber of Commerce, for money!


Anonymous was responsible for the HB Gary exposures.

But, what happens if you are a member of the top 1% and you 'forget' to pay taxes on your housekeeper for several years? Will people dismiss you once it's been exposed?

Hardly, you apologize, pay your back taxes, and Congress will nominate you to the position of Treasury Secretary:



Timothy Geithner says he regrets tax mistakes

Geithner, who as Treasury secretary would be in charge of the IRS, paid back taxes for 2003 and 2004 after an IRS audit in 2006. Geithner paid further back taxes and interest after similar problems for his 2001 and 2002 returns were discovered during vetting by the Obama team.

In total, Geithner paid $34,023 in back taxes and $8,679 in interest.


Well, we should all be glad that in the end the taxes got paid.

HB Gary had to forget about their 'contract proposal' to BOA and The Chamber of Commerce because Americans on the whole, are nice people. They don't like to see these kinds of dirty tricks being played to try to silence a journalist. Sometimes they have the opposite effect. See Clinton eg. And BOA and The Chamber weren't happy to have these things see the light of day, the way they deal with people who tell the truth about them.

But just because HB Gary didn't get the Contract to smear Greenwald, doesn't mean someone else didn't get one. Apparently there is money in smearing Greenwald. For being a real journalist. It looks like someone else did get that contract.

Is this the kind of country we want? Because if it is, then once it is exposed, as it has been, it won't be just one side doing it. I personally think it is despicable and will not be distracted from the main issue which they are attempting to cover up.

Watch out Journalists, if you are even thinking of publishing the facts. Watch what is happening to journalists who do and then decide if your country is worth the risk.

Give them hell Glenn. You are one hell of a reporter and the more they do this the more we know you are telling the truth!

Conyers, Nadler, and Scott: NSA-Phone Tracking is Overbroad; Call for Immediate Hearings

Apparently there is some effort to discredit even Jerry Nadler now, in favor of Mueller. From what I have read, the only argument appears to the source from which the story came.

Jerry Nadler is one of the foremost experts on Constitutional issues in Congress and has always stood up for the rights of the people granted in the Constitution.

The claim that he 'might have misunderstood' the bumbling excuses being offered so far by the likes of Mueller, Clapper, Cheney, King, Fleischer et al strains credulity.

Here are his concerns about what is going on in his own words.

You can decide whether you trust him or Mueller. I trust Democrats like Nadler, Wyden, Conyers, Grayson with my rights and security. I do not trust Republican war criminals and their supporters

Conyers, Nadler, and Scott: NSA-Phone Tracking is Overbroad; Call for Immediate Hearings

(WASHINGTON) – Following the public revelation concerning the collection of phone records, Ranking Member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) issued the following statement:

“The recent revelation that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved the blanket and ongoing collection of telephone records -- including those of everyday Americans with absolutely no ties to terrorism – – is highly problematic and reveals serious flaws in the scope and application of the USA PATRIOT Act. We believe this type of program is far too broad and is inconsistent with our Nation’s founding principles. We cannot defeat terrorism by compromising our commitment to our civil rights and liberties.

“As senior members of the Committee, we have long fought against Congress’s grant of such overbroad surveillance authority to the executive branch. The intended goal of Section 215, was to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the ability to investigate foreign-based terrorist activities. But we have long voiced our concerns that, as drafted and interpreted, Section 215 does not require a sufficient connection to terrorist activity before allowing for the potentially overbroad collection of information.

“And while the recent revelations confirm our fears – that the law would be distorted to allow for ongoing, indiscriminate collection of data – this problem unquestionably predates the current Administration. Indeed, once the National Security Agency’s vast over-collection of metadata like that at issue here was publicized during the Bush Administration, we fought for meaningful Congressional review and amendment of the PATRIOT Act’s surveillance authorities – introducing legislation, offering amendments, and ultimately voting against blanket reauthorization of the very provision at issue here.

“We strongly disagree with those who would assert that because this type of program appears to be long standing and Members of Congress may have been briefed, that it is acceptable to us or the Congress. A classified briefing which does not permit any public discussion does not imply approval or acceptance. We believe the House Judiciary Committee should conduct oversight hearings about this situation and promptly consider legislation to help correct this matter.”



We need more Jerry Nadlers and Ron Wydens in Congress. They actually take their oaths of office seriously.

Why Snowden's Resume Actually Is Important!

If the stories are correct about Snowden's resume, we should be even more concerned about our 'Intelligence' community and the standards required of those entrusted with our Rights and Security.

Do they really hire people and give them access to such sensitive information without knowing anything about their backgrounds?

Us Fears Snowden Will Defect to China

When Edward Snowden revealed himself to be the source of the NSA leaks in an interview with The Guardian Sunday, he briefly described how he went from a high school dropout to a man entrusted with some of the nation's most closely guarded secrets. An investigation by ABC News pieced together the many parts that he left out.

After Snowden quit high school, he earned his GED and then undertook a self-designed college education through a patchwork of classes at community, for-profit and online schools.



To those who are using his resume to discredit HIM, they need to ask themselves who hired him?


Jeremy Bash, former CIA and Pentagon Chief of Staff, told ABC News today that the possibility of Snowden defecting to China, or even cooperating with Chinese officials, is a top concern for U.S. officials.

"He could do tremendous damage," Bash said during an interview for the ABC News/Yahoo Power Players series. "I think if a foreign government learned everything that was in Edward Snowden's brain, they would have a good window into the way we collect signals intelligence… He had access to highly classified information."


Really? I am sure those who are raising the issue of his resume must now be very concerned about this massive surveillance program we are supposed to 'trust' our government with.

It certainly isn't his fault if they didn't care about his resume, is it? 'Everything that is in Snowden's brain' could give people a window into all our secrets'. Really?

How many other twenty somethings are running around with our personal data 'in their brains' and how many of them are likely to use it on a personal level to satisfy a personal grudge of some kind?

And yet, those outraged over his resume, are totally trusting with placing the protection of our Rights and Security in the hands of THOSE WHO HIRED HIM??

Does that make any sense?

I don't care much about his resume, I oppose Bush's policies period. There would be no Snowden without Bush's policies.

But if his resume is your concern, have you even asked yourself why he was hired with such a resume and how many others there are that our leaders know so little about but are trusting with your personal information and security?

It is dangerous to allow any Government to have this kind of power.

Let's hope Snowden isn't petty and vindictive as they gave him access to all that personal information.


Editing to include the Rude Pundit's take on Snowden's Detractors:

See, if Snowden is a misfit toy crossed with Rain Man, how the fuck did he get such a high security clearance? If he was such a loose cannon-in-waiting, why didn't the intelligence apparatus see that in him and not give him the ability to deal with Top Secret material? How good is an intelligence organization that can't successfully vet its workers? And if we can't trust them to read the tea leaves on the people who are being asked to read the tea leaves, how the fuck can we trust them to sift through our metadata or web histories?


Lol, he beat me to it!

H/T to DU's Meegbear. You can read the rest of the Rude One's opinion here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3016093





Are The American People Being Spied On Or Not?

I see there are attempts to distract from this question. And we should expect more, lots more.

However the President confirmed for me this week, that my telephone company has been spying on me.

That is the issue for the American People.

Wrong doing on the part of Snowden is the business of our judicial system.

That has zero to do with the question 'Is our government spying on us'.

For anyone who has doubts that their phone companies have any right to spy on them without their knowledge, I am posting the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Pay particular attention to the part that requires 'probable cause'.

And here is the oath of office taken by our elected officials:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


Note, there is no requirement to protect Corporations, or secret courts or elected officials who betray this country. Just the US Constitution. If anyone doesn't think this is how it should be, then they need to work to change it. But for now, the most important duty of an elected official is to protect and defend the US Constitution.

If Snowden is guilty of some crime, then he should be prosecuted and tried, in public, with no 'redacted' material hidden from the public.

His guilt or innocence however has nothing to do with what we have learned over the past week and will not distract from the even more important issue for the American people. Is our government spying on us without probable cause?

I fully expect that if he is a traitor, he like all other traitors, (Bush, Cheney, Rummy and all the rest of those who failed to defend and protect the US Constitution, come to mind), will be indicted, prosecuted and tried for those crimes.

Just wanted to add, that last part re the War Criminals was wishful thinking on my part. If he IS treated like those traitors, he has nothing to fear. But he won't be, the laws are different for the 1%.

'No one is above the law'!

Or are they?

We will not be distracted from the most important issue, which is our Rights under the US Constitution however.

Democratic Strategy for the 2014 election. Is it working?

President Obama offered Republicans Chained CPI as a compromise in his budget proposal.

A majority of Democrats AND Independents oppose any bargaining with Social Security and always have.

We have been given a dozen different reasons as to why Obama, a Democrat, introduced SS into these discussions in the first place. Most of them make little sense to Democrats.

Millions of Democrats and Independents signed a petition asking the President not to include Chained CPI in the budget.

Republicans have, as expected, turned it down. Several Prominent Republicans have called it 'trying to reduce the deficit on the backs of Seniors'.


A majority of Democrats are outraged. Certainly the Republicans are lying by claiming they are now the party of the people who will protect SS benefits from Democrats. It is laughable to anyone who is has been paying attention over the past several decades.

But this is politics. A chess game we are told. So, it was all predictable. First that Republicans would refuse the offer and then that they would turn it against Democrats, which they have.

The WH spokesperson stated, when asked why the president put CCPI in the budget, that it was because 'Republicans asked for it'.

A few people, like James Carville wondered if it was because the Presidents 'likes getting The Left angry'.

Howard Dean tweeted that if this was true, he might have to become an Independent. And the list goes on.


So the end result of this 'strategy', if that's what it was, is that the President is now viewed by most Democrats as someone who is willing to compromise anything in order to 'get a deal' and, if making them angry was the goal as Carville suggested, then that goal was accomplished.

He is being portrayed by Republicans as someone who is willing to get what he wants, a budget deal, 'on the backs of seniors'.


Since this occurred we are getting more and more excuses/reasons for it. Not many are buying them.

So, if this is Democratic strategy, in my opinion, we are guaranteed to lose the next election. If I accept it as strategy and not what the president believes, then my advice is 'fire the strategists, this is a disaster'.

Does anyone else think we can win with this kind of strategy?

To be honest, I don't see 'strategy' here at all. Am I just not politically savvy or something?

My opinion is that the President supports the idea of a CCPI. From all I have read I see nothing that tells me he does not. I could not disagree with him more.

Others think he doesn't, but 'had to compromise' to make a deal and it was better strategy to get a deal than to protect SS.

Still others just trust him and claim he got the result he wanted, Republicans turned it down.

That last one makes zero sense at all. If that is the case, he should have typed up a Progressive Wish List which is what people would be talking about right now. THAT would have been good strategy for 2014, getting attention for OUR issues.

But I'm not a political strategist, just someone who wants an end to Republican ideas being passed into law here. They are a disaster for this and other countries.

Do YOU think the President offering the Chained CPI was a good or bad idea? What WAS his strategy in your opinion?

I Love Social Security

There are literally millions of reasons to love this program but I'll start with this one:

I am a Democrat. The SS Program makes me proud to be a Democrat. FDR called it 'the cornerstone of my administration'. And it has become the cornerstone, the crown jewel of the Democratic Party.

I tried to think of any piece of Republican Legislation over the past 60 years that could compare to the brilliance, morality, ethics and incredible success of this program and I can't think of one.

This Democratic program has helped to drastically lower the poverty rate of seniors.

Texas Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson says Social Security slashed poverty among the elderly

"In 1935, more than 50% of the elderly population lived in poverty. Today that poverty rate stands officially at 9.4%."


The linked article is a fact check piece. It concludes that the poverty rate among elders in 1935 may have been way higher than the Congresswoman stated. However, as they said, her point stands.

Whenever I am talking to a Republican who is ranting about Democrats and 'Commies' and 'Socialists' I always ask them if they or anyone they know has ever benefited from Social Security. It is amazing how most of them too love SS. Equally amazing is how few of them know that it was a Democratic President who initiated it. I get such a thrill out of telling them that. .

Some of them deny it and call me a liar! Lol, well, you know how they are!

But even after being shocked to find out that they are benefiting from a Socialist Democratic Program, most of them reluctantly admit that at least 'Democrats did something worthwhile decades ago'.

Here is another reason I love it:



Francis Perkins, the woman behind Social Security. She was a witness to the Shirtwaist Fire and was so affected by it that she worked tirelessly for the rest of her life to establish workers' rights and to provide for the working class in their older years.

Social Security Pioneers

She had powers of persuasion obviously, not ever compromising her ideals even with those who were difficult to convince, as this excerpt shows:

Prior to going to Washington, Perkins held positions in State government in New York, first as an aid to governor Al Smith and then to Franklin Roosevelt when he became governor. Smith, a machine politician from the old school, was an early social reformer with whom Frances Perkins made many a common-cause. At Smith's funeral in 1944 two of his former Tammany Hall political cronies were overheard to speculate on why Smith had become a social crusader. One of them summed the matter up this way: "I'll tell you. Al Smith read a book. That book was a person, and her name was Frances Perkins. She told him all these things and he believed her."


She stated that:

"I came to Washington to work for God, FDR, and the millions of forgotten, plain common workingmen."

Who could not be proud to be a member of the same party as this brilliant, compassionate, . ethical, moral woman? She is the epitome of what I always think of when I think of a Democratic Woman.



The closest woman to her today imo is Elizabeth Warren.

And FDR, he had the foresight and courage to appoint a woman as Secretary of Labor. He so respected her opinions, he didn't go to Wall St Bankers for advice on the matter of how to help the working class, he listened to this truly Progressive woman and fought to implement her ideas into legislation.

Republicans always claim that privatizing SS would make it a more 'independent program' lying of course, that SS is some kind of 'welfare' program or misusing deliberately the word 'entitlement to create the image of people who have a 'sense of entitlement' about something they did not earn.

However, because FDR thought this through, another thing I love about SS is that he went to great lengths to prevent the program from taking away any dignity from its beneficiaries by using Insurance policies as a model for it.

Life Before Social Security; 'A Great Calamity Has Come Upon Us'

Roosevelt insisted that the new program not look like a dole, his aides later explained; rather, it should resemble a private insurance plan, tied to an individual's contributions in their working years. ''You want to make it simple, very simple,'' Roosevelt told his aides, Perkins later wrote in a memoir. ''Just simple and natural nothing elaborate or alarming about it.''


The Chained CPI would allow Republicans to refer to SS Beneficiaries as 'welfare/dole cases. A shame to undo the work done by FDR to make sure SS was never viewed that way.

But the right was busy back then also as Frances Perkins illustrates in this amusing anecdote:

Perkins wrote that when she went before Congress to present the plan, Senator Thomas Pryor Gore of Oklahoma had a pointed question.

'''Isn't this socialism?' he asked me. My reply was, 'Oh, no.' Then, smiling, leaning forward and talking to me as though I were a child, he said, 'Isn't this a teeny-weeny bit of socialism?'''

David M. Kennedy, the Stanford historian and author of ''Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War,'' said that he found it paradoxical that the current debate over Social Security ''is being couched in terms of individual ownership and privatization of the system, when those kinds of ideas deeply informed the way the original Social Security system was put together.''


SS has expanded since then to the disabled and to dependent children.

I love Social Security because it demonstrates what De Togueville said about the American people. He noted that the American people had a generosity of spirit that allowed them to want to help each other. I believe that most Americans do want a society where we take care of those most in need. That they are generous, compassionate and kind for the most part.

Roosevelt sent his Social Security plan, which included unemployment insurance, to Congress in January 1935, and by August he was able to sign it into law. Some New Dealers chafed at its limits, but the law was widely seen as a moderate alternative to the more radical proposals -- like a guaranteed minimum income for the elderly -- that were stirring then from the grassroots.

''We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life,'' Roosevelt declared. ''But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.''


I think part of the reason Social Security is still one of the most popular programs is because the American people really are the generous, compassionate people described by De Toqueville. That in general, they do want a society that takes care of its own.

I also think they understand the need for a permanent safety net. They may not remember the Great Depression out of which SS was born, but we have read about it.



I don't love politicians. I don't think you can love someone you don't know. I do want them to understand that the majority of Americans love and support the few safety nets we have in this country. I would love it if they represented a majority of the American people rather than the minority that will always be there trying to take away those safety nets.

I don't understand why they don't listen to the people.

Hands OFF Social Security!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »