Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Take away this plank in our platform and we have nothing to stand on

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 10:57 AM
Original message
Take away this plank in our platform and we have nothing to stand on
"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, 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." --Franklin Roosevelt's Statement on Signing the Social Security Act August 14 , 1935




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. K/R that's all I can say
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. I agree. If we are not about helping the poor, then what are we about?
Keeping our powder dry? Winning elections? I want to vote for something, not against something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Under FDR - relegating some people to poverty
FDR worship is tiresome given his attitudes toward people with disabilities. Despite having one himself, FDR's WPA discriminated against people with disabilities. It is my belief that he was saving WPA jobs for nondisabled people without considering the idea that there were people with disabilities who would rather work and earn more money than is provided under SS insurance. That idea still exists in disability laws where there are work penalties that keep people with disabilities in poverty.

Compromise is nothing new. Despite the great things FDR did, he was flawed, and he indeed did throw some of of us under the bus.


"The League of the Physically Handicapped was formed in New York City in May 1935. This almost forgotten disability rights group was rediscovered and researched by historian Paul Longmore. Initially a group of six people with disabilities, this seminal precursor of the disability rights movement grew to a membership of several hundred. The league's first action was a sit-in of the office of the Emergency Relief Bureau in New York City. The six had requested a meeting with the director of the ERB to protest the Bureau's unwillingness to refer people with disabilities to the Works Progress Administration for employment. The director refused to meet with the league and the six then started their sit-in. The action attracted popular support and press attention."

http://www.disabilityhistory.org/militanc.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Trust me, I have no love for FDR. I have had posters put me on ignore for attacking FDR. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. FDR bashing is counterproductive ... it's not about FDR ... it's about our social security
He got the program started. It is our job to keep it safe from harm. If not, this will be our biggest failure. Worse than anything Republicans can do to us. And it will be a self-inflicted wound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Bashing?
I really don't think I was bashing FDR. I'm sure I would have voted for him.
I'm just pointing out that neither he nor SS law are not so perfect that I would not be willing to explore the possibility for improvements. I am not talking about private sector solutions or anything destructive. Just putting absolutes aside and having an open mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
44. It was not the topic of this thread -- Social Security is
Going into why you think we should not "worship" FDR is really off-topic is what I meant to say. Your opinion of FDR is not bashing. I stand corrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #19
92. oh great, an open mind
that'll be a big help for the people when the retirement age is raised, when benefits are slashed. Oh but their minds will be open, yippee! Improvements! What a fucking joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
103. Compromise is nothing new
Maybe compromise is nothing new, but the point of thsi friggin thread is that we SHOULDN'T compromise away social security.

And if you think somehow FDR didn't go far enough to protect people with disabilities how could you possibly bring up that argument in a modern context at a time when Compromise = capitulation to the forces that want to cut and savage social security.

I just can't figure out what your damned perspective is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
4. FDR never REALLY supported Obama.
Therefore he's just not to be trusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
87. Good point.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuart G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iemitsu Donating Member (524 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. from the days when elected officials
had a sense of morality. or at least some of them did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
7. There in lies the problem....

"protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."

Rather than poverty, retirement, disability insurance protection, the idea that SS was in intended to be some kind of retirement savings was pushed to court middle and upper class. "I've paid into all my life and I deserve to get it back" as opposed to a cushion when the investments or pension don't materialize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ship of Fools Donating Member (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You mean kinda like my mother's bridge partners?
Rich, widowed old broads who -- not kidding -- SAVE up their SS dollars left from their husbands and go on a CRUISE together at the end of the year?? Being goofy here, of course ... :)

What about the damned cap?? Why is THAT being protected? I've never understood that. Could someone enlighten?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Well, my millionaire uncle
continued to collect earnings from his corporate law firm that bore his name and represented casinos. He also benefitted from investments and he got his SS that he felt entitled to.
Why is it so ridiculous for a person who has done so well because of the design of this country not be willing to enjoy the personal wealth that they have gathered without supplementing it with SS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. The wealthy can donate the money to charity
And I suspect many do so. I have no beef with the wealthy being awarded a share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Like churches?
or other organizations that refuse to serve people they have moral or personal biases against?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ship of Fools Donating Member (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. The problem I have with it:
When it's suggested that we need "reform," i.e. CUTS, fifty dollars a month cut (or whatever) could be a MUCH GRIMMER situation than 500 dollar cuts to another. That's all. I don't hold it against someone collecting SS when it is due them. My problem, as in taxes & the loopholes, is the disparity of it all.

As far as donating it, there are many, MANY above-board organizations out there, other than churches, who could use help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
40. Trust me, I know about that $50 it could buy a wardrobe on my budget
I am also personally familiar with the operations of charitable organizations. There are many details. No former felons, no people who appear to be using drugs or alcohol, rehab is too full. There are legitimate limits. I just think looking at things with full context has some value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. We all paid into social security and we are all owed
That was our money and we agreed to put it into a system to provide for our old age. That is the bottom line. No changing this fact. If a rich gal buys sequins and feathers with her check that's her business. Other people need bread. Neither is more or less entitled to the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
59. Insurance
Do we get all $$ back when we pay for insurance and never have a car accident, a disaster never hits, we never get sick, etc? There are different understandings of SS.
I believe that it was conceived and intended to be kind of insurance protection against poverty- as stated above. That was a hard sell to middle class and\or wealthy people.
So the marketing was reconstructed so that people who would have resented paying into it to cover people who were "so irresponsible that they hadn't saved and acquired $ for retirement" would get on board. And so arose the talking points about how "I paid into it I should get it back" - whether I need it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #59
66. We were never told we could only have it if we were in poverty
That's revisionist crap. It's more like unemployment insurance. You collect it when you are no longer working. And the fund is only there because we agreed to make the investment.

We will have nothing when it's gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I realize that
I'm saying it was re- marketed in order to appease people with privilege...

"protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age." sounds like insurance to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progressive dog Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #59
102. Social Security is not AND HAS NEVER BEEN A WELFARE PROGRAM
Social security was begun for not 1 but 2 principal reasons.
First to allow the aged to retire with a small amount to live on.
Second to free up jobs for those who had none.

There was a surplus of labor (or according to the Hooverites and their fellow travellers, there were a lot of lazy people).
There are no different understandings of SS, there are only people who would ignore what SS became and has remained for most of it's history until the neo-Hooverites
again took control of the government. If one holds a view iws completely divorced from the facts, this is not an understanding. Since I am trying to be polite, I'll bite my tongue and call it a misunderstanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #42
95. Precisely
The money came (and continues to come) out of every paycheck with the promise (or implied contract if you will) that you will receive benefits when you retire. What you choose to do with the money is your choice just as the money from your paycheck.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ship of Fools Donating Member (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #40
64. I get you ... but really -- Red Cross? United Way? The Humane Society?
Fifty bucks can add to a wardrobe. Fifty bucks can also mean the difference between food on the table AND medications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Depends on where you shop
and I agree about the food vs. medication. I once saw an elderly man stealing vitamins at a pharmacy. Seems like if a portion of my uncle's check had been sent in his direction maybe he would not have found it necessary to shoplift.
I'm not saying that people who have earned a good living should be relegated to poverty. Only that there are some people who need help more than others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #65
80. loyalsister, are you prepared to volunteer to decide who should get
Social Security and who should not?

Cause somebody would have to do it -- and paying people just to determine whether their income entitles them to actually take the Social Security insurance they paid for would take a lot of time and a lot of people to check the forms, talk to people, help people fill out forms, etc.

Better just to have people pay their taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
79. The way to handle it is to tax the highest income bracket.
People who receive Social Security pay income taxes on their incomes just like everybody else. If the tax code were truly fair, a millionaire would pay most of his Social Security benefits in taxes.

So the really important thing is to raise taxes on the wealthy. That would adjust any "unfairness" that could result from wealthy people receiving Social Security.

Means-testing Social Security would add another expensive layer of bureaucracy and mean that elderly people would have to fill out forms in addition to their tax forms. It's best to just handle any "injustice" through the tax code and let the IRS handle the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
72. Lemme guess. 23? 27?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
77. loyalsister, most Americans do not earn enough during their
working years even when they work full-time for most of those years, to save for a meaningful pension. Today, most people who have pensions work or worked for the government. So, people have to save their own retirement money. The problem is that right now jobs are hard to get so a lot of baby boomers are living on the money they saved for retirement. Also, wages adjusted for inflation have been stagnant since the 1980s at least if not before.

Also, a person aged 65 may think he has saved enough to retire. And if he dies at 75 or so, he may be right. But we never know how long we will live. If you retire at 67 and live to the age of 98, you could easily run out of money even if you saved diligently.

And when you do run out of money, the government will have to take care of you. Social Security and Medicare are cheap and relatively easy to administer because they cover you without a lot of ifs ands and buts. Ironically, trying to save money can add to the administrative costs for a program.

. . . .
The typical pre-retiree household (age 55 and up) has a retirement savings of $60,000.

. . . .


According to a survey, 51 percent of workers age 55 and up have saved less than $50,000 in retirement savings (not including the value of a primary residence). And 39 percent of workers in the same age group have saved less than $25,000 in retirement savings.

Another survey estimates that one in five pre-retirees age 50 to 64 has less than $5,000 in retirement savings.

http://www.zero2rich.com/average-retirement-savings.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #77
83. Most Americans are not millionaires, either
I am well aware of the fact that I don't have all the answers. I'm just questioning the status quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
13. Nothing? Ahem, corporate donations are not nothing!
What do you think he's doing this for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Corporate donations are made of super glue
He's gonna be sorry. They will sell him down the proverbial river.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PotatoChip Donating Member (481 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
15. Absolutely!
Thank you. :thumbsup:

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. Where is this documented?

Where, in platform or rules, is the Democratic Party unconditionally dedicated to Social Security?

I do not think any such commitment exists and that things are not as many assume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. page 13 of the 2008 Democratic Party Platform for one
"We will fulfill our obligation to strengthen Social Security and make sure that it provides guaranteed benefits Americans CAN COUNT ON, now and in future generations."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. 2004 Party Platform
"We are absolutely committed to preserving Social Security. It is a compact across the generations that has helped tens of millions of Americans live their retirement years in dignity instead of poverty. Democrats believe in the progressive, guaranteed benefit that has ensured that seniors and people with disabilities receive a benefit not subject to the whims of the market or the economy. We oppose privatizing Social Security or raising the retirement age. We oppose reducing the benefits earned by workers just because they have also earned a benefit from certain public retirement plans. We will repeal discriminatory laws that penalize some retired workers and their families while allowing others to receive full benefits. Because the massive deficits under the Bush Administration have raided hundreds of billions of dollars from Social Security, the most important step we can take to strengthen Social Security is to restore fiscal responsibility. Social Security matters to all Americans, Democrats and Republicans, and strengthening Social Security should be a common cause."

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29613#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. 2000 Party Platform
Americans' golden years should be times of calm and security, not concern and stress. Few achievements testify more to the ability of government to do good than Social Security. It has lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty and helped them make ends meet. Social Security is more than a government program. It is a solemn compact between the generations. It is our nation's most important family protection. The choice for Americans on this vital part of our national heritage has never been more clear: Democrats believe in using our prosperity to save Social Security; the Republicans' tax cut would prevent America from ensuring our senior citizens have a secure retirement. We owe it to America's children and their children to make the strength and solvency of Social Security a major national priority.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29612#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. 1996 Party Platform
Democrats created Social Security, we oppose efforts to dismantle it, and we will fight to save it. We must ensure that it is on firm financial footing well into the next century. We call on Republicans to put politics aside and join us in a serious bipartisan effort to make sure that Social Security will continue to provide true security for future generations, as it has done for millions of older Americans for decades.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29611#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. 1988 Party Platform
WE BELIEVE that all Americans have a fundamental right to economic justice in a stronger, surer national economy, an economy that must grow steadily without inflation, that can generate a rising standard of living for all and fulfill the desire of all to work in dignity up to their full potential in good health with good jobs at good wages, an economy that is prosperous in every region, from coast to coast, including our rural towns and our older industrial communities, our mining towns, our energy producing areas and the urban areas that have been neglected for the past seven years. We believe that, as a first-rate world power moving into the 21st century, we can have a first-rate full employment economy, with an indexed minimum wage that can help lift and keep families out of poverty, with training and employment programsincluding child care and health carethat can help people move from welfare to work, with portable pensions and an adequate Social Security System, safeguarded against emasculation and privatization, that can help assure a comfortable and fulfilling old age, with opportunities for voluntary national public service, above and beyond current services, that can enrich our communities, and with all workers assured the protection of an effective law that guarantees their rights to organize, join the union of their choice, and bargain collectively with their employer, free from anti-union tactics.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29609#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. 1980 Party Platform
The Democratic Party will oppose any effort to tamper with the Social Security system by cutting or taxing benefits as a violation of the contract the American government has made with its people. We hereby make a covenant with the elderly of America that as we have kept the Social Security trust fund sound and solvent in the past, we shall keep it sound and solvent in the years ahead.


Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29607#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. 1972 Party Platform
Edited on Fri Jul-29-11 01:20 PM by Generic Other
The Democratic Party pledges, as a final step to economic security for all, to end povertyas measured by official standards-among the retired, the blind and the disabled. Our general program of economic and social justice will benefit the elderly directly. In addition, a Democratic Administration should:

Increase social security to bring benefits in line with changes on the national standard of living;

Provide automatic adjustments to assure that benefits keep pace with inflation;

Support legislation which allows beneficiaries to earn more income, without reduction of social security payments;

Protect individual's pension rights by pension re-insurance and early vesting;

Lower retirement eligibility age to 60 in all government pension programs;

Expand housing assistance for the elderly; Encourage development of local programs by which senior citizens can serve their community in providing education, recreation, counseling and other services to the rest of the population;

Establish federal standards and inspection of nursing homes and full federal support for qualified nursing homes;

Take the needs of the elderly and the handicapped into account in all federal programs, including construction of federal buildings, housing and transportation planning;

Pending a full national health security system, expand Medicare by supplementing trust funds with general revenues in order to provide a complete range of care and services; eliminate the Nixon Administration cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid; eliminate the part B premium under Medicare and include under Medicare and Medicaid the costs of eyeglasses, dentures, hearing aids, and all prescription drugs and establish uniform national standards for Medicaid to bring to an end the present situation which makes it worse to be poor in one state than in another.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29605#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. 1968 Party Platform
A lifetime of work and effort deserves a secure and satisfying retirement.

Benefits, especially minimum benefits, under Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance should be raised to overcome present inadequacies and thereafter should be adjusted automatically to reflect increases in living costs.

Medical care for the aged should be expanded to include the costs of prescription drugs.

The minimum age for public assistance should be lowered to correspond to the requirements for social security.

America's self-employed citizens should be encouraged by tax incentive legislation to supplement social security benefits for themselves and their employees to the same extent that employees of corporations are encouraged.

In addition to improving social security, we must develop in each community a wide variety of activities to enrich the lives of our older citizens, to enable them to continue to contribute to our society, and to permit them to live in dignity. The aged must have access to better housing, opportunities for regular or part-time employment and community volunteer services, and cultural and recreational activities.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29604#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. 1964 Party Platform
"End the neglect of our older citizens. They deserve lives of usefulness, dignity, independence, and participation. We shall assure them not only health care, but employment for those who want to work, decent housing, and recreation."

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1961 broadened benefits to 5.3 million persons, increased minimum benefits for retired workers from $33 to $40 per month, permitted men as well as women to begin collecting reduced benefits at age 62.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29603#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. 1960 Party Platform
We shall provide medical care benefits for the aged as part of the time-tested Social Security insurance system. We reject any proposal which would require such citizens to submit to the indignity of a means testa "pauper's oath." <...>

The Republican Administration refused to acknowledge any national responsibility for health care for elder citizens until forced to do so by an increasingly outraged demand. <...>

The most practicable way to provide health protection for older people is to use the contributory machinery of the Social Security system for insurance covering hospital bills and other high-cost medical services. For those relatively few of our older people who have never been eligible for Social Security coverage, we shall provide corresponding benefits by appropriations from the general revenue.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29602#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. 1956 Party Platform
The Democratic Party believes that America can and must adopt measures to assure every citizen an opportunity for a full, healthy and happy life. To this end, we pledge ourselves to the expansion and improvement of the great social welfare programs inaugurated under Democratic Administrations.

Social Security.

By lowering the retirement age for women and for disabled persons, the Democratic 84th Congress pioneered two great advances in Social Security, over the bitter opposition of the Eisenhower Administration. We shall continue our efforts to broaden and strengthen this program by increasing benefits to keep pace with improving standards of living; by raising the wage base upon which benefits depend; and by increasing benefits for each year of covered employment.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29601#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. 1952 Party Platform
Social Security

Our national system of social security, conceived and developed by the Democratic Party, needs to be extended and improved.

Old Age and Survivors Insurance

We favor further strengthening of old age and survivors insurance, through such improvements as increasing benefits, extending them to more people and lowering the retirement age for women.

We favor the complete elimination of the work clause for the reason that those contributing to the Social Security program should be permitted to draw benefits, upon reaching the age of eligibility, and still continue to work.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29600#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. 1948 Party Platform
Ours is the party which was entrusted with responsibility when twelve years of Republican neglect had blighted the hopes of mankind, had squandered the fruits of prosperity and had plunged us into the depths of depression and despair.

Ours is the party which rebuilt a shattered economy, rescued our banking system, revived our agriculture, reinvigorated our industry, gave labor strength and security, and led the American people to the broadest prosperity in our history.

Ours is the party which introduced the spirit of humanity into our law, as we outlawed child labor and the sweatshop, insured bank deposits, protected millions of home-owners and farmers from foreclosure, and established national social security.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29599#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. 1940 Party Platform
Social Security

The Democratic Party, which established social security for the nation, is dedicated to its extension. We pledge to make the Social Security Act increasingly effective, by covering millions of persons not now protected under its terms; by strengthening our unemployment insurance system and establishing more adequate and uniform benefits, through the Federal equalization fund principle; by progressively extending and increasing the benefits of the old-age and survivors insurance system, including protection of the permanently disabled; and by the early realization of a minimum pension for all who have reached the age of retirement and are not gainfully employed.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29597#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. 1936 GOP party platform
Every American citizen over sixty-five should receive the supplementary payment necessary to provide a minimum income sufficient to protect him or her from want.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29639#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
71. Thank you Generic for documenting this
Let's hope our 'fearless leaders' read and heed this and let us never forget!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #71
101. Adding my thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. 1948 GOP Platform
No mention of social needs at all. Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. 1952 GOP Party Platform
Social Security

Inflation has already cut in half the purchasing power of the retirement and other benefits under the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance system. Sixty million persons are covered under the system and four and one-half million are now receiving benefits.

The best assurance of preserving the benefits for which the worker has paid is to stop the inflation which causes the tragic loss of purchasing power, and that we propose to do.

We favor amendment of the Old Age and Survivors Insurance system to provide coverage for those justly entitled to it but who are now excluded.

We shall work to achieve a simple, more effective and more economical method of administration.

We shall make a thorough study of universal pay-as-we-go pension plans.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25837#i...


Interestingly this year, the GOP was more interested in accusing Democrats of being socialists, waging class warfare and taxing them to death! They are broken damn records!

"We charge that they work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism.

We charge that they have disrupted internal tranquillity by fostering class strife for venal political purposes.

We charge that they have choked opportunity and hampered progress by unnecessary and crushing taxation."

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25837#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
46. 1956 GOP party platform
No mention of the social needs of citizens at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
47. 1960 GOP party platform
The Republican Party has acted and will act decisively, compassionately, and with deep human understanding in approaching such problems as those of the aged, the infirm, the mentally ill, and the needy.

This is demonstrated by the significant increase in social security coverage and benefits as a result of recommendations made by the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25839#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #31
48. 1968 GOP party platform
Elderly Americans desire and deserve independence, dignity, and the opportunity for continued useful participation. We will strengthen the Social Security system and provide automatic cost of living adjustments under Social Security and the Railroad Retirement Act. An increase in earnings permitted to Social Security recipients without loss of benefits, provision for postage 65 contributions to Social Security with deferment of benefits, and an increase in benefits to widows will also be provided. The age for universal Social Security coverage will be gradually reduced from 72 to 65 and the former 100 percent income tax deduction will be restored for medical and drug expenses for people over 65. Additionally, we will take steps to help improve and extend private pension plans.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25841#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
49. 1972 GOP party platform
We commit ourselves to helping older Americans achieve greater self-reliance and greater opportunities for direct participation in the activities of our society. We believe that the later years should be, not isolated years, not years of dependency, but years of fulfillment and dignity. We believe our older people are not to be regarded as a burden but rather should be valuable participants in our society. We believe their judgement, their experience, and their talents are immensely valuable to our country.

Because we so believe, we are seeking and have sought in many ways to help older Americansfor example:

Federal programs of direct benefit to older Americans have increased more than $16 billion these past four years;

As part of this, social security benefits are more than 50 per cent higher than they were four years ago, the largest increase in the history of social security;

Social security benefits have become inflation proof by making them rise automatically to match cost of-living increases, a protection long advocated by the Republican Party;

We have upgraded nursing homes. Expenditures under the Older Americans Act have gone up 800 per cent since President Nixon took office, with a strong emphasis on programs enabling older Americans to live dignified, independent lives in their own homes.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25842#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #29
52. 1980 GOP party platform
Edited on Fri Jul-29-11 02:20 PM by Generic Other
Social Security is one of this nation's most vital commitments to our senior citizens. We commit the Republican Party to first save, and then strengthen, this fundamental contract between our government and its productive citizens. <...>

Republicans have resisted Democratic electioneering schemes to spend away the Social Security trust funds for political purposes. Now the bill has come due, and the workers of America are staggering under their new tax burdens. This must stop.

Precisely because Social Security is a precious lifeline for millions of the elderly, orphaned, and disabled, we insist that its financing be sound and stable. We will preserve Social Security for its original purpose.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25844#i...


Uh...say what????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
54. 1988 GOP platform
After eight years of President Reagan's youthful leadership, older Americans are safer and more secure. In 1980, we promised to put Social Security back on a sound financial footing. We delivered. We established the national commission that developed the plan to restore the system and led the way in enacting its recommendations into law.

Now that Social Security is in healthy shape, congressional Democrats are plotting ways to use its short-term revenue surplus for their own purposes. We make this promise: They shall not do so. We pledge to preserve the integrity of the Social Security trust funds.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25846#i...

Ah. The lies begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
55. 1996 GOP platform
Because older Americans have built our past and direct us, in wisdom and experience, toward the future, we believe we must meet our nation's commitments to them by preserving and protecting Medicare and Social Security.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25848#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
56. 2000 GOP party platform
"Social Security is a defining American promise, and we will not turn back. This issue is a test of government's capacity to give its word and to keep it, to act in good faith and to pursue the common good."
George W. Bush

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25849#i...

I won't quote all the draconian measures they proposed to save it but "no taxes" and "personal savings" are the key phrases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. 2004 GOP party platform
yada yada terror terror tax cut terror.

No mention of Social Security at all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Yes but....

Nowhere is it stipulated that benefits be maintained, only that Social Security be maintained, so death by a thousand cuts could be achieved within the strictures of the platform. Squishy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. This is only so if you are an oily sleezebag politician who is not as good as your word
Good grief. I have dug out my reading glasses and read the fine print. It's not "squishy" to me!

I hope you are just playing devil's advocate. Otherwise, I don't get you at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
43. Reread your subject line.....

and get back to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. So you think we are at the mercy of 1000 squishy politicians?
Edited on Fri Jul-29-11 02:14 PM by Generic Other
It was interesting reading the platforms of the parties over the years. Seems like the language was clear that they were committed to increasing the amounts seniors received not cutting them. Even the GOP platform...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Yes, and the money bags they rode in on. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jumptheshadow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #51
98. Self-delete
Edited on Sat Jul-30-11 07:51 AM by jumptheshadow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
84. Dude! You JUST got PUBLICLY SPANKED.
Give it UP, for fuck's sake! Nobody will ever take you seriously on this subject again as it is, so LEAVE IT ALONE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
85. LMAO you were just totally owned.
Walk away quietly now and don't make a fool of yourself over this.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #26
93. TOTAL smackdown. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapislzi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
53. Nice string n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #53
61. What a load of propaganda all those platforms are
Especially the Republicans whose platforms have been mostly diatribes against Democrats in the past. They do reveal our principles over time though. We seem to have shifted. Sadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
60. 2008 GOP party platform
Entitlement Reform

The job of modernizing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid calls for bipartisanship, not political posturing. Through the last four presidential terms, we have sought that cooperation, but it has not been forthcoming. The public demands constructive action, and we will provide it.

Social Security

We are committed to putting Social Security on a sound fiscal basis. Our society faces a profound demographic shift over the next twenty-five years, from today's ratio of 3.3 workers for every retiree to only 2.1 workers by 2034. Under the current system, younger workers will not be able to depend on Social Security as part of their retirement plan. We believe the solution should give workers control over, and a fair return on, their contributions. No changes in the system should adversely affect any current or nearretiree. Comprehensive reform should include the opportunity to freely choose to create your own personal investment accounts which are distinct from and supplemental to the overall Social Security system.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78545#i...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. See...that perpetuates the MYTH that Social Security is an entitlement
...meaning, that S.S. recipients are sucking up money provided by other workers.

In reality, YOU get back YOUR money when you retire. It doesn't matter if the worker retiree ratio is 3.3 to 1, or 2.1 to 1, or even .01 to 1. The retiree gets back HIS OWN money he paid into the system!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
88. A commitment must exist.
Edited on Sat Jul-30-11 04:57 AM by Enthusiast
If it does not exist it must be created.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
18. Who is the really the democratic party??
are the elected officials the party
or are the people the party??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
45. Them what hold the purse strings. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
57. 2012 DNC Platform: Eat your fucking peas. Shared sacrifice requires delaying and/or reducing
benefits for those already hamstrung by being the first generation to have less opportunities than previous generations and a boom and bust economy with long periods of high unemployment and decades of stagnant wages in order to ensure the continuity of Pax Americana and so that the wealthy are not unduly burdened with a few pennies of taxation on their excess resources.

Give us money and votes or face President Boogieman and suck it the fuck up, you worthless fucking eaters and assorted "small people".

Thanks Suckas!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. Why did he have to say that? That "eat your peas" part is so insulting...
I wish he'd stop. I am sick of wiping his butt after he soils himself!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
63. Excellent job Generic Other, I appreciate the links. It is abundantly clear
you are correct what the intention was to not only maintain/sustain but strengthen SS, not to be confused
with substituting cuts in order to preserve.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
68. The Mass Workers Movement in the Period of Economic Crisis (19291933)
http://www.leninist.biz/en/1976/HUWWI500/03.3-Mass.Work...

The movement of the unemployed in the USA was the first mass movement of the American proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party. By December 1929 the CPA leadership, having achieved the complete ideological defeat of right opportunism, worked out a program of action for the unemployed. The Communists mobilized them to struggle for the introduction of state social security benefits, including unemployment relief, and for immediate aid from the federal and state governments and from the municipal authorities. The CPA called for just wages for public work.

The mass movement of the unemployed made its presence felt in the very first year of the crisis. On March 6, 1930 protest demonstrations against unemployment were held throughout the country under the leadership of the Communist Party. Tens of thousands of working people took to the streets of New York, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburg, Philadelphia and other major industrial centers. The number of demonstrators on this day reached 1,250 thousand. In June 1930, the first National Unemployed Convention was held in Chicago. The convention delegates, who came from all parts of the country, approved the Communist-initiated program of action for immediate aid for the unemployed and for introduction of a federal social security system. The convention established a National Unemployment Council to coordinate the activities of the numerous local councils of unemployed leading the workers struggle in the various cities, countries and states. Large segments of the Black population played an active role in the movement of the unemployed.

Following the Chicago Convention decisions in the summer of 1930 the CPA worked out and presented to the workers for consideration a social security plan. This plan envisaged the payment of relief for unemployment, old age or illness to an amount equal to the average wages of an industrial worker. The social security fund was to be created through a surtax on big capital and at the expense of the 98 military allocations. The activities of the federal social security bodies were to be under the constant control of elected workers organizations. The program drawn up in the Workers Unemployment Insurance Bill became the demand of demonstrations and hunger inarches that mushroomed throughout the country in 19301931. In this new upsurge of the labor movement, the first National Hunger March of the unemployed, initiated and led by the Communist Party, moved on Washington in November-December 1931. On December 7, 1931, the opening day of the regular session of Congress, the marchers moved through the streets of the US capital, demanding immediate aid to the unemployed. The Washington authorities, frightened by the scale of the demonstration, mobilized the police and refused a delegation of the unemployed access to the Capitol building and to the White House. However, the determination and high measure of organization evinced by the hunger marchers produced a strong impression on the nation.



This plank in the Democratic Platform was borrowed from someone else's. Now that the powers that be in this country are no longer feeling the heat from the competition, they feel safe taking a whack at the biggest draw they ever had. No coincidence our social safety net has been eroding by leaps and bounds since 1993--the year of the fall of the Soviet Union. Will the Democratic Party have the nerve to play this fatal game of chicken with the American people? Time will tell...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libmom74 Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #68
81. This is why we need a strong Labor movement
that can run strong primary challengers when/if necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
70. ABSOLUTELY
Every once in a while we need to point out the obvious!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
73. Pictures of old people really bring out
the hidden right wing desires of some on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
74. Yeah k&r
Fuck those that would think otherwise,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
75. Anyone including Obama who suggests, supports or votes
for cuts to Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid is not a Democrat and does not deserve our votes.

Those programs are the basis for everything else our party stands for -- social justice.

Obama cannot talk about cooperation or working together or all being in it together if he doesn't stand up for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid above all else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 05:01 AM
Response to Reply #75
89. We need a Democratic equivalent to Grover Norquist
to assure that social security and medicare will be preserved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #89
94. Yes. Well, Bernie Sanders is doing a pretty good job.
The problem isn't that we don't have capable leaders. It's that we don't follow them.

Bernie Sanders should receive a lot more support from those of us who agree with his ideas. He is putting himself on the line.

Kucinich does the same thing over and over.

Alan Grayson is another one we should support. I bet he could tell us where we could cut fat in our government. He is really sharp on the specifics of government fraud, government contracts and financial matters.

We need far more transparency with regard to the Fed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #94
100. I have sent all three, and others, what
I can afford. I wish I could send more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
R. P. McMurphy Donating Member (394 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
76. I am so tired of those people who say "I'm never going to see . . .
any Social Security anyway!" I remind them that the fund IS solvent but that those bastards in Washington have looted it for tax cuts and wars and pork-barrel projects. I remind them that THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID and that THEY ARE DUE and that the Washington assholes want them to believe that their money is gone and they can't do anything about it. I ask them why they don't DEMAND THAT THE MONEY BE PUT BACK INTO THE FUND? Unfortunately it too often falls on uncomprehending ears here in East Tennessee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #76
90. Getting millions of people
to walk around saying, "Medicare and social security won't be there for me when I retire." was the goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
78. It makes me so sad that a rogue group of traitors are trying to destroy this country.
Those things that made us great - the underpinnings of our society, are being attacked and dismembered and it seems there's nothing to be done about it. There really is nothing to be done about it - the corporations are pulling the strings of the rogue group of traitors, and the corporations have all the power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-11 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
82. hmm... "old age INSURANCE", not
"old age entitlement".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #82
91. Ah is that the new Democratic definition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #82
104. So "insurance" apparently means "worthless promise" in your word salads?
We are "assured" we will get a monthly check because we are "insured." In my world, words have meaning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. what? my "word salads"?
I don't know what you are inferring but I was noticing that it was called "insurance" and I still believe it should be referred to as an insurance plan - not as "entitlement" only because the Repubs have twisted the meaning of that term. Better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. People are using the term "insurance" to argue that it is not an "entitlement"
I thought that was what you were implying. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. no problem
sorry for the confusion. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
86. The enemies of social security are
just as surely the enemies of my country as Al Queda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #86
97. Agreed
but they are more insidious in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fadedrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
96. K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
99. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - HUGE K & R !!!
Exactly!!!

:kick:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC