Morning Joe: Everyone talking and laughing openly about "need to cut Social Security and Medicare"

[whathehell]

after showing Chris Christie's calling for the usual need for deficit cuts....NO mention, as usual, of Raising Cap.

Group included: Joey Scar, Mika, Harold Ford and Andrew Sorkin (isn't he supposed to be a liberal?) and former Bush Teamer Nicole Wallace, who crowed that Christie "not only TOUCHES the Third Rail, he puts his ARMS AROUND IT"!

They all responded to her statement as a kind of "high five" celebratory moment.


OMG....How is this going to play out?


This is the Democrats' Armageddon...If we cave, we lose EVERYTHING...Party Over.

[old mark]

1. The "BIG LIE" - repeated over and over till it is believed by most people.

Social Security problems would be solved by raising the cap or even eliminating it all together and Mdeicare is one of the most effective programs we have ever had - except for the fraud and the GOP sponsored inability to lower drug costs.


It is bullshit, but it seems like it will be a large part of the GOP controlled congress's agenda in January.

We have to stop it.



mark

[whathehell]

16. Yes...and it's no accident that Raising the Cap

is virtually NEVER mentioned as an option (I've yet to hear it in the MSM)

Why?..because, IMO, the "bigger picture" in the Repuke Agenda is to kill off the New Deal programs entirely...

It' beyond this particular "problem"..It's Part of The Plan.

I just signed on to National Association to Protect Social Security and Medicare.

I will fight this with all of my might.

[old mark]

19. I just found that organization last week, and joined it, too -

Yes, it IS a GOP plan to kill all social programs and take us back to the early 20th century...


mark

[Capitalocracy]

22. Of course they never mention it!

Then people would know about it!

[Creative]

78. "Raising the Cap" has occurred on many occasions.

Year Wage Base Increase Social Security Employer and Employee Share Total Contribution

2011 $106,800 0.0% $6,621.60 $13,243.20
2010 $106,800 0.0% $6,621.60 $13,243.20
2009 $106,800 4.7% $6,621.60 $13,243.20
2008 $102,000 4.6% $6,324.00 $12,648.00
2007 $97,500 3.5% $6,045.00 $12,090.00
2006 $94,200 4.7% $5,840.40 $11,680.80
2005 $90,000 2.4% $5,580.00 $11,160.00
2004 $87,900 1.0% $5,449.80 $10,899.60
2003 $87,000 2.5% $5,394.00 $10,788.00
2002 $84,900 5.6% $5,263.80 $10,527.60
2001 $80,400 5.5% $4,984.80 $9,969.60
2000 $76,200 $4,724.40 $9,448.80

[dkf]

2. When you look at the budget that is where most of our spendng will be.

It doesn't really matter if it funds itself or not, the fact is that the majority of the taxes we need to collect will go towards our elderly and the majority of the effort our Government focuses on will be on people who are finished working.

It is nice to be able to provide for your elderly, but that isn't money invested in the future of this country, not on educating the scientists of the future, nor in building the infrastructure...nothing that helps us keep up with the rest of the world.

It's not even focused on helping the poor working class.

[whathehell]

4. Yes, and that's where it should be...

It's "nice" to be able to take care of your elderly?..a nice little "extra" the richest frigging country in the world can't AFFORD??

Are you effing KIDDING me?

I can't believe I'm actually having to state this, but, uh..not..It's not "nice"..It's mandatory for any civilized society..Unless, as it seems, you want to go back to the 19th century and simply let them starve..

And BTW, do you actually belive this nation is SO strapped that we "need" to take from the poor and the middle class who have paid into this their ENTIRE lives?

How OFTEN do you need to be told? -- Social Security is NOT part of the Deficit!


Social Security has a SURPLUS....It is NOT ripe for Discretionary Stealing!

[dkf]

7. That surplus was a gimmick to fund the Federal Government.

Other countries actually have sovereign funds where they own stocks and bonds. Now when they are desperate they are "raiding" the funds and putting their IOUs in there. But we have already done it! From the beginning we were throwing our IOUs in there. We didn't even get to the part where we had to raid the funds.

In our zeal to make sure there was no hint of privatization in Social Security we disallowed investing in the companies we claim are taking all the wealth. At least if Social Security owned stocks and bonds that could have been recouped back to the people. But no, we forbade it. Now we have these slick IOUs to ourselves and we say we are funded for years and years.

[starroute]

21. These are Republican arguments that I'm really surprised to see at DU

The companies that we "claim" are talking all the wealth are taking it for their top executives -- not their shareholders. The middle class is already devastated by the collapse of the 401(k)'s that were supposed to provide the other leg of their retirement. If Social Security "owned" stocks and bonds, it would be in just as much trouble as those 401(k)'s.

These "slick" IOU's you discount are funded by exactly one thing -- the taxing power of the United States government, which is not subject to any kind of Wall Street manipulation. All we need to do is use it to get back what Reagan and Bush gave away to their wealthy buddies.

The only question is whether we have the will to do it, or if we would rather impoverish ourselves and our children and grandchildren to keep propping up the crime of the century.

[whathehell]

26. Thank you...My thoughts exactly. n/t

[dkf]

35. You take a look at the returns of the bond market lately?

It's really not so bad. They've been good enough that some are worried we are in a bubble.

[dkf]

36. You do realize that the Social security surplus was engineered by Reagan?

Why do we not think it was a shenanigan? I am suspicious of it for exactly this reason.

Personally I think it was an effort to make taxes more regressive.

Look at us now...begging and pleading to make sure everyone pays that extra 2% to the social security system. This is the one tax that the poor pay that the wealthy don't. Ronald Reagan made us want to pay these regressive taxes even when he knew the future Demographics would make it very hard to provide benefits at decent levels.

[Divernan]

49. Agreed! That is why the soc. sec. program has been the 3rd rail all these years.

Anyone who attacks the continuation of the Social Security is not a Democrat at heart.

[whathehell]

23. Social Security is supposed to be a floor - not an investment fund

The idea was to protect the money. By law, it had to be invested in government securities and not stocks or bonds. Remember, Social Security was created during the Great Depression. Congress rightfully distrusted the stock market.

The truth is the stock market is not such a good investment anyway. If you listen to the supporters of stock investments, they keep extending the time period over which stocks show better returns than CDs or government bonds. It used to be 10 years, but the last 10 years have shown little net gain. Then it was 20 years, but the last 20 years suck too. Now you hear 30 years... 'Yes ladies and gentlemen! Over the last 30 years the returns on stocks beat all other forms of investments.'

The surplus is there and it is real. It is in goverment securities, where it should be. This is money the government did not have to borrow from the Chinese. If our tax structure is revised to balance the budget, there should be no problem for Social Security to cash in those government bonds. The government could pay out that money with money borrowed from the Chinese. After all, the cost is the same either way. The government has to pay interest on that debt. Now the interest is payed to the Social Security Trust Fund. When the Fund needs the cash, the interest will be paid to whomever the government borrows the money from.

[Divernan]

46. If Social Security owned stocks & bonds it would have been wiped out

just like my retirement savings/stocks & bonds. The IOUs are from the government/politicians to American workers.

So you are pro-privatization? After all that we've seen of the financial bubble/crash?

Absolutely incredible.

[Hannah Bell]

47. why are you at DU?

[Divernan]

50. My thoughts exactly.

[bobbolink]

53. Because this attitude is now a strong element of the Democratic Party.

[shanti]

70. she must be young

to be making those kind of remarks about SS and to be a longterm DU'er:( sad... i've seen that kind of attitude among a lot of young people (under 40). they don't think they will get SS, so nobody should! makes me sick!

[eridani]

86. Why do we need this Repuke horseshit on a Dem board? n/t

[stray cat]

9. Is it wrong to have trump pay more for Medicare than someone at the poverty level?

[whathehell]

45. No and hell no.

[Imajika]

20. You know there is no actual "surplus" right?

I mean, there is just IOU's.

I agree with you about raising the cap. An easy fix to a lot of these problems is just collecting SS tax for all income, and that would be my solution. Still there is no actual surplus as we have spent it all and left a giant pile of IOU's.

[whathehell]

25. IOUs that those who "borrowed" don't want to pay back?...

I'd believe that in a heartbeat...Where I might have a problem is in the statement that "we spent it all"

Does anyone have an actual accounting of Who, When and under what administration(s) these funds were raided?

[Imajika]

33. For decades now...

...perhaps since near inception, the Social Security funds have been mixed with the general revenue.

We "borrowed" all that money to use for spending priorities and left IOU's instead.

There is no pot of money to pay SS benefits. There is no money at all actually.

When people say it solvent for X many years, they mean on paper it is solvent - solvent if we had left all the money in a "lock box" (remember Al Gore pushing this idea). We didn't and therefore there is a giant pile of IOU's.

It's not that we don't want to pay it back, it is just that the whole thing has been an accounting gimmick. All the money has been spent.

Saying that, a relatively easy fix for much of this problem is to simply apply the SS tax to ALL levels of income going forward. Eventually we will have to do this anyway.

[Divernan]

51. It has NOT been mixed with the general revenue.

IOU's are legally binding contracts.

I deposit $1,000 in a savings account at my bank. The bank contracts to pay me interest on that $1,000 until I withdraw it. You apply to my bank for a home mortgage & sign a note to repay said loan. The bank invests my $1,000 in you. My savings account and your home mortgage loan are never mixed together. There is a legal wall between the two.

As Theodore Roosevelt said:
"We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.”

[Imajika]

54. Sure, they are legally binding...

Doesn't mean they aren't still IOU's.

Every time someone declares bankruptcy they are voiding legally binding contracts too.

The government has been operating by using SS contributions as if that money was a part of the general revenue. Yes, they use an accounting trick, writing IOU's to the SS fund, to make it all work out but the effect is that SS contributions are not separated and saved the way they should have been from day 1.

The bank is obligated to keep at least some cash on hand to pay it's IOU's. If it doesn't, FDIC comes in and closes it down. The Federal Government on the other hand has NO money on hand because it has spent everything. The entire social security trust fund is nothing more than a pile of IOU's. Period.

[Hosnon]

61. Franklin, not Teddy. nt.

[Hannah Bell]

48. there's just iou's in any kind of debt instrument. it doesn't prevent billionaires from "investing"

in them.

[ljm2002]

59. "just IOU's"...

...so U.S. Treasure bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America, are "just IOU's"???

If that is the case, then we have worse problems than just Social Security.

Now one can argue that our leaders weakened Social Security when they borrowed its funds to finance their off-books wars, etc. But when one argues that those Treasury bonds are "just IOU's", one buys into the Republican framing.

If the U.S. won't honor its bonds, then the entire global financial system is at risk.

[Hosnon]

62. But what's the practical difference?

Money from the general fund will have to be used to pay back the IOUs. And that money comes from tax revenue.

It's not like the IOUs are owed by a separate government or entity.

[ljm2002]

68. The difference is...

...that the money was borrowed. The government borrowed money from an insurance program that we citizens paid into for a specific purpose, and the government owes that money back, period. Just as we owe money to China and other countries from whom we borrow.

Are you arguing that the U.S. government can default on its obligation to its own citizens, whose retirement money it borrowed, because it's all just government money anyway? That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security and how it is financed. That money was paid by citizens to cover their retirement and it must be used for that.

The current assault on Social Security is designed to foster this sort of thinking. "Oh, we borrowed it, but really we just borrowed it from ourselves, so who really cares?"

A long campaign of obfuscation, framing, and general all around poisoning the well of political discussion has fostered misunderstanding around this issue.

The money that was put into Social Security in the first place was NOT general tax money. Just because the government chose to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, and would have to repay it from general revenues, does not in any way, shape or form mean that Social Security was funded with general tax dollars. It was self-funded, with both employees and employers paying into it for the specific purpose of providing a base retirement stipend for employees when they retire. Those so-called IOUs (another brilliant bit of framing by the right) is a valid debt that the U.S. owes. If the U.S. chooses to default on that debt then it would amount to actual theft by the government.

[Hosnon]

69. Of course I'm not arguing that. But it is not at all like owing China or any other country.

The debt is to ourselves, which is really just an accounting trick.

The big mistake was requiring the surplus to be invested in government securities. I don't know how it should have been invested but it shouldn't have been through any mechanism that transferred the surplus to the US government to spend. The net effect is that while there is a huge surplus on paper, for all practical purposes, it's just more debt that must be paid with tax revenue.

Then: $100 went from workers to the SSA. SSA paid out $50 in benefits. The SSA purchased $50 worth of government securities. The US government then spent that $50.

Now: SSA cashes in its security. The US government cannot default but has spent the money. Therefore, it must use general fund money to make good. Where does that general fund money come from? The same workers who paid in the original $100 "then".

It's similar to Hosnon buying a bond from Hosnon. When it matures, guess who has to pay it back? Hosnon. The circular nature of the system is why it is nothing like owing China or any other country.

And let me be clear, given the nature of DU discussions: I do not want the US government to default on the securities, nor do I think it should. But there is little practical difference between (1) raising taxes to prevent a Social Security shortfall and (2) raising taxes to fund the repayment of the securities to prevent a Social Security shortfall.

[ljm2002]

72. "The debt is to ourselves, which is really just an accounting trick."

So if I borrow from my 401k account, I owe it to myself, and it's really just an accounting trick?

No, it is not just an accounting trick. It is reflected in the accounting, but the transactions are clear and the debt is indeed just like any other debt that must be repaid.

Now it is true, if I default on my 401k debt repayment, I won't come and break my own kneecaps in order to collect. So in that sense it is different from owing (say) the Mob. But the debt is owed fair and square, and there is no "accounting trick" about it.

[Hosnon]

73. If I loan myself $100,000 by going into debt with myself for $100,000, and then

try to finance a mortgage by claiming my net worth is $100,000, what do you think the bank would say?

It's an accounting trick because it hides the true nature of things. Yes the debt is valid, etc., but in the big picture, it's like claiming 2+2=4 is different from 2+2+2=4-2.

[ljm2002]

77. So all that money that we sent in...

...on our FICA taxes, is just no different from the rest of our income taxes? Is that what you are saying?

Or are you saying, hey, the US Congress is a bunch of crooks who stole your retirement funds and there's not a whole lot you can do about it?

"The true nature of things" is that money was borrowed from one account (the Social Security trust) to cover debts that were accrued in the other account (the general funds). These have different sources of revenue. One is funded strictly by a payroll tax, intended for people's retirement. The other is funded from all tax sources -- income, capital gains, inheritance, etc. They are not the same. In the big picture, if it is not paid back for the purpose intended, then we have been defrauded.

[CTyankee]

39. And Joe and Mika KNOW BETTER! They have had many panelists on

the show who have said exactly that....that SS is NOT in trouble and has a surplus. To which, Joe and Mika sit mute...they can't refute it and so they don't! Then they come right back, brazen as thieves at high noon, and regurgitate the same old LIES!

[whathehell]

43. Yes....They and others like them are probably "part of the plan"

The entire "takeover" of our media by right wingers is VERY disturbing in my view.

[ljm2002]

58. "Social Security is NOT part of the Deficit!"

But guess what? After next year's payroll tax holiday, with the $120B of Social Security's funds replenished from our general fund, Social Security *will* be part of the deficit for the first time ever! Then watch as the efforts to weaken Social Security gain steam...

[bobbolink]

52. Then be fucking honest about, it and provide easy and painless "exits" for those you would do

away with!

STOP pretending you are sooooo compassionate, and then just let people die on the streets in misery.

DAMMIT..... get rid of us in a humane way!

:nuke:

[CTyankee]

63. But look at it this way: if the younger workers are saddled with taking care of

their elderly parents health care and with their daily living expenses, they will have a severely circumscribed set of opportunities so they CAN "help us keep up with the rest of the world." It's not us v. them, we're all in this together...

[shanti]

71. divide and conquer

the way it's always been...

[CTyankee]

79. but you really don't because the young will be saddled with their elderly

if they don't understand what is happening to THEM! It's up to US to do that...

[shanti]

80. oh i agree

what about the elderly who have no family to take them in? without SS, they won't last too long. i know lots of boomers with no children OR pension.

[CTyankee]

91. good question! I really don't know...

[eridani]

85. So what? Productivity has gone up by a factor of FOUR since 1947

When fewer and fewer people make more and more stuff, supporting the elderly is an excellent way of keeping demand up. The alternative is to declare 20% of the un- and underemployed population disposable human garbage permanenently, because they are no longer needed for making stuff.

[redirish28]

3. I told you people this was going to happen. That the Republicans

Especially on FAUX news are going to start saying this stuff.


Are you really surprised Joe-I'm sooo dense and Mika-the bobble head ARE saying these things.

Plant the idea into peoples mind by using the media. (This is how Repugs have been working for 10 years.)



The Tax cut deal is the going to lead to these types of conversations. Bernie Sanders laid it out on the floor during that 8 1/2 hour speech.

They are going to cut social security in 2 years UNLESS the repugs can do it sooner.


But than again I have no clue what I'm talking about in most peoples view around here.

[dkf]

5. Maybe they will make cola adjustments but that is about it.

They aren't raising the retirement age yet. That won't happen til the IMF takes us over after no one wants our bonds and we can't fund the Government.

[madrchsod]

6. nope...you are right.

the oligarchy has always been out to destroy social security and they finally found a democrat that was willing to accommodate them.

obama opened pandora`s box.

[bluethruandthru]

8. The repugs have worked hard to plant in the minds of most Americans

that "Social Security won't be around when I need it anyway". By working that angle over and over for decades, they've convinced people that since they won't see it anyway...why bother to fight for it? And it's worked!
How many of your friend will say something similar when you bring up social security...dems and repubs. It scares me that I barely know anyone who will say we need to fight for Social Security.

[redirish28]

10. It is the Baby Boomers who will fight for social security. We are seeing

the dying of the middle class. My wife and I have friends (we are in our thirties) who believe unions have destroyed the middle class and they are corupt system.


My wife and I know the truth because my father and her mother both belong to unions and we saw the good done unions.


The scary part is that these friends of ours say why should I give my hard earn money to pay for the old people.

[SoCalDem]

15. Be sure to remind them to not get old

:) because no one will give a crap about them either..

[whathehell]

24. You are correct, Sir...

and I'm glad to hear that people in their Thirties still get this...My spouse and I are in our late fifties and OUR parents were old FDR Democrats in and "of" the union and we know history.

So many others, it seems, after being brainwashed by decades of Right Wing Spin, have bought the "unions are bad" and other corporate bullshit...It concerns me greatly.

I'm not at all surprised about your friends attitudes towards unions, etc...It IS creepy that they don't think "old people" are worth caring for.

Jeebus..don't they have parents and grandparents?

[dkf]

11. My high school economics teacher told us this.

I've grown up believing it to be true.

Are you teaching your kids and grandkids that it will be there when they retire no ifs ands or buts?

[whathehell]

34. Your high school economics teacher may have been a repuke

Maybe you should have gotten a second opinion.


My kids and grandkids?...I'm teaching them that they have two options:

Gear up to KICK the Ass of the Corporatocracy or leave this effing place and go somewhere where average people still COUNT.

[jtown1123]

64. Yeah, that teacher drank the CATO, Pete Peterson Koolaid.

[YvonneCa]

65. Mine too. 1968. I grew up believing it 'could' become...

...true, unless I fought for it. Same with other things they take for granted now because they never lived without them, like equal rights for women and the right to choose, the existence of unions and their value, the importance of a social safety net, etc.

THAT's what I'm teaching my kids and grandkids.

Still fighting here... :patriot:

[whathehell]

41. It's true...but it seems to work better on generations younger than the Boomers

..But yes, I have often heard from people that "It won't be there when I retire".

I'm a boomer close to retirement and I've always been surprised to hear that, and I'd try to dissuade them...


I'll be damned if I'll let them steal this, those bloodsuckers.:mad:

[jtown1123]

66. I've always believed Social Security is the one issue that will get pple rioting on the streets.

I think we're going to find out pretty soon...

[whathehell]

81. I think so...It's the "Third rail" in more ways than one.

It's important in and of itself, of course, but also HUGELY symbolic to those of us who remember the Sixties, raised on our parents New Deal faith.

[former9thward]

82. Congress raised SS age from 65 to 67 in 1983.

No one said a word.

[whathehell]

84. I think I speak for many when I say that...

Things looked a lot different then...We thought friggin' Reagan was an anomaly.

I think I speak for many, if not most boomers when I say we NEVER imagined how far right this country would go.

[former9thward]

90. I know, except one thing..., the Congress that raised it was our party..not Reagan.

[whathehell]

93. My understanding was that it was done to keep it solvent. n/t

[former9thward]

95. Yes but that is exact same argument that will be used this time.

"No really! This time for sure!" Especially with the almost 1/3 of the employee contributions being "temporarily" stopped.

[progressoid]

12. There goes that darn liberal media again.

[City Lights]

13. Corporate masters manipulating their viewers.

Turn up the heat slowly so no one realizes they're being cooked until it's too late.

[whathehell]

29. Yes....this is the second time I've seen it social security (in its present form) so openly attacked

The first time, a few weeks ago, was by Repuke Tool, Candy Crowley on CNN.

She mentioned Social Security and Medicare as "popular but unsustainable programs".

I picked up on it immediately and emailed CNN to protest that "editorializing" but then more or less

put it to rest, figuring it had more to do with HER politics than a "national talking point".

Cerripes!...This is really SHOWDOWN Time!

[SoCalDem]

14. Zack Wamp (now there's a name for you) wants spending to go back to 2008 levels

goodie.. then insurance premiums will be going back to those levels, and rents & car prices & our 401 k balances too and our housing equities, and 40,000 factories will be back in business hiring people, etc... Go Zack:)

[CTyankee]

31. Zack revealed his true colors when he called Medicare and SS the "entitlement beast."

I wonder if his grandma considers them a beast...

[NNN0LHI]

17. Andrew Sorkin a liberal? Lol

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4HPIA_enUS306US306&q=Andrew+Sorkin%2bmediamatters#hl=en&rlz=1T4HPIA_enUS306US306&q=+site:mediamatters.org+Andrew+Sorkin%2Bmediamatters&sa=X&ei=0VIPTb7vNYaglAet96nbCw&ved=0CBkQrQIwAA&fp=c341562a61b59af3

[whathehell]

27. You're point is taken. n/t

[Vinca]

18. Peggy Noonan ruined my breakfast with her cackling over cutting

"entitlements." I wondered out loud why no one bothers to ask her who she wants to dump off Social Security - the old people or the cripples.

[whathehell]

30. I would imagine they are getting a Huge influx of protest emails right now..

but of course, I don't know.

[The Wizard]

28. Republicans ought to be careful

what they wish for. The bitten ass can be painful.

[Skidmore]

32. My response is as follows

Talk to me about cutting the INSURANCE program known as Social Security which I have paid into for decades AFTER you start talking about how to reimburse my retirement plan (which I also paid into for decades) savaged by the Wild West deregulation of the financial sector and the wink-wink at the hedge fund industry brought to the nation by a Republican president and Congress. Until then, the wealthy are fair game for an expectation to reimburse the lower classes whom they have ripped off and scammed. They ignore this part of the equation...the great lie is that there has been no shakedown of the lower clazsses.

[whathehell]

37. You betcha...

"paid into for decades is right"...Actually, paid twice, if you're talking about the Boomers

Since 1983, we have paid, not only for OUR retirement but for our parents retirement too.

This should meet a PROTEST on a scale to match anything this nation has seen.

[whathehell]

38. Important: Link to National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare

http://www.ncpssm.org/

We all need to join together on this.

[Skidmore]

40. And the sooner the better.

[jtown1123]

56. Thanks for sharing. They have a really active Facebook page too...

http://www.facebook.com/NationalCommittee

Some great discussion and sharing of articles/news.

Here is also their mythbusting toolkit: http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/ss_toolbox/

[whathehell]

76. Sure...and thanks for the FB page.

[bullwinkle428]

42. One only has to go back to Ike's famous letter to his brother, in which he states

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."


http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ike.asp

[whathehell]

44. Love that quote....

Do you think the president's heard it?

[bobbolink]

57. You think it would matter if he heard it?

[whathehell]

74. Umm......

Guess not?...I guess.:shrug:

[eridani]

87. He doesn't give a shit. He'd jsut as soon that old sick people without money

--were hunted for sport.

[whathehell]

92. You're being sarcastic, right?

Jeebus, even I'm not that cynical about the prez.:shrug:

[eridani]

94. Yes and no. Sarcasm re the prez. However, he is perfectly willing to "compromise"

--with those who would like to see people without money killed out of hand.

[zalinda]

55. Not Andrew, but Aaron Sorkin (West Wing) is the liberal. n/t

[CTyankee]

67. I dunno...Andrew got a scathing remark aimed at him by Peggy Noonan this a.m.

when he challenged one of her inane RW talking points.

The enemy of Peggy Noonan has to be my friend...

[marew]

83. You've got that right.

She is one of the most pompous people I've ever seen!

[whathehell]

75. Yep....I see the point of confusion. Thanks. n/t

[librechik]

60. Play out? The rich will be stepping over the lame &dead in the streets as they step into their limos

just the way they like it.

[JamesA1102]

88. Joey was talking about "Middle class" entitlements

a week or two ago and then railing about the estate tax. He and the people on his show are in a bubble and they don't know anything about how real people live.

I"You can't maintain a middle class democracy with a millionaire press corps."

[whathehell]

89. I like your quote "you can't maintain a middle class democracy with a millionaire press corps". n/t