Let's hear the excuses for why the dems need to cut social security now

[no limit]

When the deficit commission gives their report after the election everyone knows cutting social security will be part of the deal. I also know that the democrats will let this happen.

And as a result when people like me freak the fuck out when that time comes (rightfully so) we will be called whiners, cry babies, and idiots by a certain population here. So 6 months or so before this report is due I would like to hear the excuses some of you will be making when that time comes (you know who you are). So please, lets hear those excuses now. I know the talking points on this won't be faxed until after the election so maybe getting those excuses today is wishful thinking on my part, but I would appreciate it.

I'm willing to take a stand now. I will not tollerate any social security cuts from this administration, if they do cut social security the democratic party won't be getting my vote for a very long time. Anyone else willing to take the same stand? If you aren't willing to make the same stand please tell us why.

DCCC chairman, Rep. Van Hollen, refusing to commit to not cut social security and being a total weasel in the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHr3nMG6Y4&

[uponit7771]

1. Link to DNC wanting to cut social security, TIA

[sabrina 1]

15. Link to DN C outrage over

Republican Deficit Commission 'recommendations' to view erroneously, SS as part of the Deficit?

[kenny blankenship]

2. I don't know - maybe it's a preemptive double super secret strategy thing?

Let us Democrats lead the cut on Social Security - that way it will be harder for Republicans to do because the principle that Social Security can be cut will have been established?

[dionysus]

3. rather poor flamebait, you can do better.

:shrug:

[gratuitous]

4. We had to cut Social Security, because the Republicans would have cut it more

So, instead of retirees getting a $100 a month cut, they're only getting a $75 a month cut, so the Democrats actually saved you $25 a month. The Republicans will yammer (1) that the cuts weren't big enough and the deficit's out of control; and (b) that the Democrats cut Social Security. Yes, the two talking points conflict, but that will not be a problem for Republicans who will successfully argue both sides of the issue and get away with it.

[TiredOldMan]

5. I paid into it for 57 years!!

Speaking as someone who paid into the system for 57 years I can tell you it makes me pretty angry. I just started collecting this year.

[valerief]

6. 3D chess on the back of a pony. nt

[county worker]

7. Here are the current code words, "we want to save social security"

Social Security doesn't need saving at this time. Also the baby boomers will require more money coming out than is being paid in but that is temporary. When we boomers die it will go back to more paying in than taking out. To get over the hump there can be an increase in the cap to $250K.


Also there will be a wedge driven between older people and younger people. Young people will be told that it is better for them if they put their social security in the stock market to get a better return. Well the system isn't set up for that. To do that there has to be a big in flush of cash because those paying in support those taking out, not themselves. Also the market has risks. Over time the market evens out in a macro sense but the stocks a young person buys could lose value and there is no way of getting the money back. Look at the people invested in Enron. The winners are the brokers who get a commission no matter what and who will have more cash to gamble with.

Another thing, social security should have nothing to do with the deficit. The money is not supposed to be given to the government to operate on. It is a loan that is to be paid back. Why do we expect our citizens to take a default position when we would never do that to China?

If social security is used to reduce the deficit it means we will not be repaid what is owed to us.

[vanbean]

8. The only reason they want to privatize social security is so they can steal it.

[godai]

9. Raising the $106k limit should be a given.

Why should the SS deduction stop at $106k? These are the people who can most afford it and it would help the long term health of SS. Good luck getting this passed, however, with the usual...hurts small business, massive tax increases propaganda.

[Edweird]

10. The usual suspects will be here claiming that "you didn't do enough".

"You didn't stop it". They will attempt to absolve Obama of any responsibility for creating the commission and appointing known enemies of social security as chairs by blaming the victim yet again.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Oh, you're all worried over nothing.

You see, as we have seen over the past 18 months, the Republicans will not pass ANYTHING proposed by the Democrats. So, with the Democrats proposing the privatization of SS, the Republicans will have to vote AGAINST said privatization, thus saving Social Security. And after saving SS, they could hardly turn around and privatize it a few months later after the Dems lose the next election over that issue, could they?

See? It's all a super-duper plan to SAVE Social Security!!!

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. (All this seven-dimensional chess is giving me a headache.)

Actually, I came up with the perfect reason: Because in 900 days (but who's counting?) I'll begin collecting SS as it stands now. This, of course, must be avoided at all costs. So if the universe doesn't settle the issue a month or so earlier (12/21/12, y'know), the government must have a viable proactive fallback position.

(Why, no, I'm not taking any medications for the treatment of paranoia. Why do you ask?)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Not to worry. They'll "compromise" with the Repugs and claim it's "not as bad".

[Donnachaidh]

14. that, or we'll get the *we'll fix it later* mantra

and all the pom poms will be fluttering all over the place.

:puke:

[sabrina 1]

16. They 'didn't have the votes' to stop it.

They formed a Commission to try to expose the Republicans as the real culprits, but it got out of hand and when they put it up for an up-or-down vote in the lame duck Congress, Dems didn't have enough votes to stop them.

Of course, a Deficit Commission should not be discussing SS at all, since SS has nothing to do with the deficit. But how could the poor Democrats know that Republicans, (I know, why are they even on the Commission but forget about that, it's post-partisanship time) would not act in good faith and do what they always do, go straight for the privatization of the SS fund? Who would have thought that?

Oh, and it's the all-powerful Jane Hamsher's fault because of her association with Grover Norquist who she must have invited to speak to the Commission. I mean who other than Hamsher would have dragged him out of the political gutter to advise a Dem. administration on the Deficit?

:sarcasm: for those who might be confused.

[bvar22]

17. Van Hollen gave you the preview in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHr3nMG6Y4&

It plays like this:

"I voted FOR a Comprehensive Economic Reform Package that was necessary to Save the Economy. I am on the record as opposing cuts to Social Security, but I had to vote FOR the bill because the Good outweighs the Bad, and we can't let the Perfect be the Enemy of The Good.
This is a giant step forward."

Sound familiar?

The Message Control Teams WILL be very busy catapulting the propaganda on this one.