True Democrats don't work to slash Social Security. They don't. Not Ever.

[MannyGoldstein]

True Democrats work to keep it or increase it. That's it. No negotiation. End of story.

That people who call themselves "Democrats" would work to hand the Social Security Trust Fund to the wealthiest, thereby impoverishing older Americans, sickens me to the core. It is astonishing. Amazing. Disgusting. Dreadful. These people should be thrown out of our party.

Social Security is in fine shape unless the economy stays as bad as it is now for many, many years. If it goes back to anything like the economy that we had for the 70 years before 2008, Social Security will pay full benefits for as far as the eye can see.

If Democrats actually want to "strengthen" Social Security, they must do stuff to fix the economy instead of triangulating and/or folding like cheap lawn chairs over whatever the insane Republicans want. They need to fight. Fight. Fight. For us. For the 99%.

Bragging that they're out-Hoovering Hoover doesn't count.

That is all.

[Brickbat]

1. K&R.

As usual.

[TransitJohn]

2. K to the R

Thanks again Manny!

[ProSense]

3. "These people should be thrown out of our party. "

Yup, and if President Obama ever cuts Social Security, I'll personally kick his ass.

Vice President Biden Speaks To Seniors About Retirement Security

Today, the Vice President spoke to more than 100 community leaders from across the country representing over 60 seniors groups that are part of the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations. He told the audience that when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, “the question is what are we going to do to strengthen and sustain these programs now and for the future.” In contrast, Congressional Republicans are trying to weaken or dismantle these programs.

Last year, Congressman Paul Ryan proposed to end traditional Medicare. His plan, which was embraced by his Republican colleagues, would give seniors a voucher to buy private insurance and hold them responsible for any costs that exceed the value of the voucher. As a result, the typical 65-year-old’s out-of-pocket health care costs would double over time. While Congressman Ryan introduced a revised plan this year, it still relies on a voucher system that would increase the financial burden on seniors.

President Obama and Vice President Biden want to strengthen Medicare and secure the program for the future. Our health care law extends the life of Medicare by eight years by taking smart steps like cutting waste and fraud and creating incentives to cut down on hospital readmissions. These steps will save seniors in traditional Medicare an average of $160 on premiums and copays in 2012 alone. In addition, the law has already saved 5.3 million seniors an average of $600 on prescription drugs by closing the “donut hole,” and has ensured that over 30 million have access to free preventive services like cancer screenings and annual wellness visits.

While Social Security is projected to remain solvent through 2033, it will eventually face a shortfall. Some Congressional Republicans have suggested that we should address this shortfall entirely through deep benefit cuts that could cost a typical senior hundreds of dollars every month. We believe that Social Security can be preserved for future generations without slashing benefits and we will oppose any efforts to privatize or weaken the program.

As the Vice President said today, when it comes to preserving these vital programs, we “refuse to shift the burden… onto the backs of the people who worked so darn hard their whole life, who earned their retirement.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/16/vice-president-biden-speaks-seniors-about-retirement-security

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Barack Obama appointed Simpson and Bowles, the two most virulent haters of Social Security on

our planet, to chair a "deficit commission".

Guess what they recommended!

Great stuff, marvelous.

[banned from Kos]

6. Biting the empty air again, Manny?

Let me know when Simpson Bowles gets a wet kiss from someone.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Simpson-Bowles is dead

except it isn't

http://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1FDUM_enUS475US475&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#q=simpson+bowles

[ProSense]

7. The

"Barack Obama appointed Simpson and Bowles, the two most virulent haters of Social Security on"

...panel and its recommendations are dead, more than a year now.

Are you implying that President Obama should be "thrown out of our party"?

[MannyGoldstein]

9. And again

http://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1FDUM_enUS475US475&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#q=simpson+bowles

[ProSense]

10. Are you implying that President Obama should be "thrown out of our party"?

Simple question.

[MrSlayer]

21. If he is for cutting SS then yes.

Because he would not be a democrat would he? The problem we're having is that we don't have enough Democrats in the party anymore. "Our" party is the fucking Reagan Republican party now. Corporate suck up pigs that do nothing for their traditional base any more. Instead we're called retarded and hippy punched repeatedly. And the things we want aren't anything radical. Just traditionally Democratic.

Obama is better than some psycho wingnut sure but he is hardly ideal and is certainly no liberal.

So yeah, we should disown him if he agrees to begin destroying social security because by doing so he will have disowned us.

[ProSense]

25. If?

What a mess of a comment.

[ProSense]

29. I love this part

"Our" party is the fucking Reagan Republican party now. Corporate suck up pigs that do nothing for their traditional base any more. Instead we're called retarded and hippy punched repeatedly.

Go Dems!

[MannyGoldstein]

30. I'm surprised you'd publicly admit to it

The pressure must have been awful.

[ProSense]

34. Obama's gonna announce the cuts in the SOTU

[MannyGoldstein]

37. I predicted he'd call for cuts and he did

Prove otherwise and I'll send another $50 to Elizabeth Warren.

Good luck!

[ProSense]

43. Yeah,

"I predicted he'd call for cuts and he did"

...in that other SOTU, the one that wasn't televised, right?

[MannyGoldstein]

73. Are you for real?

That was the beginning of his cutesy "cut vs. slash" crap:

"To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."

Fortunately, the press eventually called him on this clever crap: Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

[woo me with science]

88. Good god. I hadn't seen that clip before.

What oily, duplicitous GARBAGE.

[ProSense]

131. "That was the beginning of his cutesy "cut vs. slash" crap: "

That's it he said don't "slash," which means do "cut"

He "should be thrown out of our party" for confusing you!

[emulatorloo]

156. Manny is the master of "willful confusion". Reminds me a lot of the current "You Didn't Build That"

Repug talking point campaign.

He's got all the tactics down.

[xtraxritical]

194. It's so simple, raise the income subject to tax. Does it take an actuary?

[MrSlayer]

54. I don't love it.

But it is true. Outside of social issues this Democratic Party is the Republican party of twenty to twenty-five years ago.

A person like Dennis Kucinich was a mainstream, standard Democrat back in the day. Now he's considered a far left crazy ideologue. We've allowed the corporatists to move the center so far right that centrist issues of even ten years ago are considered "socialism" now.

This is the way they want it to be too, make no mistake.

[ProSense]

129. This

"A person like Dennis Kucinich was a mainstream, standard Democrat back in the day. Now he's considered a far left crazy ideologue. We've allowed the corporatists to move the center so far right that centrist issues of even ten years ago are considered "socialism" now."

...Kucinich?

Kucinich: Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Health Care Act, A Key Step in the Long Fight for Medicare For All

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement after the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Supreme Court upheld the law which passed with the critical support of Congressman Kucinich.

“Today’s ruling demonstrates that health care is not the third rail in American politics. It demonstrates that reform is possible. It demonstrates that Medicare for All is inevitable.

“The Affordable Care Act provided health care to those most vulnerable among us – those of the lowest income – by expanding Medicaid, a health insurance program for low-income Americans. It provided much-needed benefits.

“In today’s ruling, the Supreme Court held that states have the power to reject that expansion and maintain the status quo. That means that in states in which the governor decides not to prioritize providing health care to the poor, even though the federal government is paying for the vast majority of the expansion, the poor can be left out in the cold.

“Today is an important day for millions of Americans who will not be denied benefits under the Affordable Care Act. But this is not the end of the conversation. Medicare for All is the solution America needs to stop the ever-rising costs of health care and provide full coverage for everyone. I supported the Affordable Health Care Act as a step in the right direction, but it is only the first step in a long journey.

“States are not waiting for Congress to act. Vermont is moving forward on a single payer system, led by a push from small and medium-sized businesses who are getting crushed by health care costs. California has passed a Medicare for All system out of their legislature twice only to be vetoed by the Republican governor. Fourteen of the fifteen studies have showed that if a state went for a Medicare for All system, it would be cost neutral or save up to $19 billion per year while at the same time insuring everyone and improving the quality of care. Congress must help the states fulfill the will of their constituents,” said Kucinich.

The Affordable Care Act has already resulted in 12.8 million Americans benefitting from $1.1 billion in rebates from insurance companies this summer. 54 million Americans in private plans have received free preventive services. 105 million Americans no longer have a lifetime limit on their coverage. Up to 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers. 5.1 million seniors in the “donut hole” have saved $3.2 billion on their prescription drugs, an average of $635 per senior.

http://kucinich.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=301382

I'm happy!

[MrSlayer]

208. I was using him as an example.

The majority of the party was once like him is my point. Now his type is considered crazy, far left and extreme. That's a major problem with this party.

[whathehell]

189. + 1...Yes it is..There are a number here not old enough to remember the Democratic Party pre-Clinton

which was much less "conservative" and Republican Lite than the present one.

[Dragonfli]

217. That's it in a nutshell. The current favorite neo-democratic plan calls for 2 to 1 cuts

...the inter-generational promise of Social Security—our nation’s most important social insurance program—is a false one.

This idea brief summarizes the trouble with Social Security, and proposes a “Savings-Led” Social Security reform plan that actually increases the program’s progressivity. Our plan makes roughly two dollars in benefit reductions for every one dollar in revenue increases, and achieves solvency while enhancing economic growth.

http://thirdway.org/publications/363

Read the entire brief, it is full of the usual right wing talking points about how it is a scheme that is going broke and the usual right wing message that benefit reductions are the most important part to "preserving it".

I still don't see what makes the THIRD WAY anything more than the right wing corporate think tank that they pretend not to be.

[truedelphi]

218. Sad to realize tht so many in office are

Ruining the Brand.

The Blue Dogs don't care about working class Democrats. Or middle income people.

They care about slashing our Social Security, slashing MediCare, and destructive policies like giving approval for Keystone XL. And they are behind destroying a decade of hard work by activists on the legalization of medical marijuana.

The Blue Dogs don't seem interested in overturning the Bush/Cheney Oil Reforms of 2005, that basically let the Big Oil and Big Fracking interests ruin our aquifers.


We need to have the Party return to its roots.

[FiveGoodMen]

216. Simple alert bait, you mean.

[ProSense]

35. Yes, dead

"Oh, really? Dead are they? Maybe you should tell them they're dead because they're still talking the same bullshit. "

A bunch of articles by its fans doesn't make it any less dead.

[emulatorloo]

168. Yes, it was a terrible day when Obama signed the Catfood Law

Oh wait, there was no cat food law. And there was never going to be one once the commission shot its own plan down.

[pepito]

173. just wait

why SPEND taxpayer money to hire known SS assasins?



great plan there Mr.Prez

[emulatorloo]

174. I've got two words for you - Ryan Budget. A tangible existing REAL plan to destroy the safety net.

as opposed to "Obama's Secret Plan" which exists in the minds of some inflammatory op-ed writers.

[pepito]

180. uhhmm

Ryan is a Repuke

BHO is head of the Democratic Party, there is absolutely no excuse what so ever to put SS cuts/slashes/mini tweaks on the TABLE.....never...46 million people live on that money
(shame on them) 5$ means to some an extra quart of milk,or generic prescription...i know people like this.shame on you.....every penny counts to them,every penny!

[emulatorloo]

184. Obama's "Secret Plan" versus Ryan's Real Plan

Manny continually gives FREE PASSES to Repuke assholes like Ryan.

I share your anger and frustration. But I am tiring of this endless misdirection by Manny.

He has been flogging "Obama's Secret Plan" for years now.

While giving Republicans FREE PASSES on their obstruction and real honest to god Republican plans to destroy the lives of those 46 millions.

[pepito]

210. ive seen massive poverty

i wont/dont give a pass to anyone who tries to cut in any fashion money or medical care for seniors or disabled people
just came home from the store,food medicine are at record highs cut the damn million dollar missiles,and billion dollar war planes....period

[girl gone mad]

237. Only Nixon could go to China..

and only Dems will be able to force through SS cuts and/or privatizations.

[JDPriestly]

57. I have to add that Obama must not believe that the Social Security Trust Fund

is in trouble or that the Social Security system is in trouble because he gave a "vacation" on the payment of some of the payroll/Social-Security taxes. Now, he wouldn't do that if he though Social Security might not be able to pay future benefits, would he?

[abelenkpe]

58. Did you see the recent article by Dean Baker?

If true it is something to be concerned about. It's on common dreams...I'll try to find it. It would really be bad for future retirees.

[JDPriestly]

55. And he appointed Bernanke and Geithner.

Bernanke -- a Bush appointee.

Geithner -- selected for the NY Fed by a committee headed by Pete Peterson, arch-enemy of Social Security with a huge interest in the profits that could be made by forcing seniors to "invest" (donate) more of their hard-earned money in the crooked stock market.

If Social Security has a problem, it is partly due to the LIBOR scandal, and the government should pay for the fact that the FED with Geithner at the NY FED knew about the treachery and apparently did nothing to stop it at the time. As I understand it, the LIBOR rate-fixing was reported to him and he reported to someone else. The fact of the scandal is just now beginning to emerge. Am I wrong? Is there an update on that?

And that LIBOR scandal means that interest paid to savers across the board, including the Treasury which holds bonds in the US government for the Social Security Trust Fund have not been paid what they would have been paid had the market been honest.

The LIBOR scandal has hurt a lot of seniors and savers of all kinds.

[sabrina 1]

134. 'FUCK seniors and savers'??? So you agree with Republican Alan Simpson then?

I don't think I've ever seen a comment like that on DU ever. You might want to explain it as it sure is not something any Democrat would say unless you forgot the sarcasm tag??

[Autumn]

150. No that wasn't sarcasm. Never thought I would see a regular poster on DU post that and still

remain here. I guess that's the new democratic values.

[HiPointDem]

257. +1.

[suffragette]

154. Completely appalling to read that here

Does seem very similar to Simpson's views and akin to the type of statements he makes.

[closeupready]

171. He needs to be banned from here, as well.

If he doesn't retract that offensive remark.

[JDPriestly]

143. Actually, seniors and savers are trying to live on the fruits of their own labor.

Food costs have risen and are set to rise much more yet the money of seniors and savers is losing in value because of the extraordinarily low interest rates -- sometimes less than 1%. I realize that if you look at the official inflation rates, they are very low, but the items that seniors have to pay for are going up in price. For example, in LA our utilities are becoming more expensive -- water, gas, everything.

When you can no longer work, you live on Social Security and the interest on your savings. It isn't that you are lazy. It is that you are supposed to be able to supplement Social Security with the money you earn on your money. I am not asking for a steep rise in interest rates -- not up to 10% interest on a mortgage like we saw in the late 1980s -- just enough to help savers keep up with inflation.

And I am right, like it or not. When the LIBOR rate is low, interest rates decline internationally -- and that very definitely affects the rates on US Treasury notes including the notes of the Social Security Trust Fund. If you have proof that they don't, please show me.

The LIBOR rate is not the rate that directly determines the FED rate. The LIBOR rate, however, indirectly determines it as the LIBOR rate is a reference rate for all interest rates. That is how the market works.

[newthinking]

212. Nobody ever mentions that Baby Boomers paid *twice*, for themselves and the previous generation

From Reagan's term on they doubled the Social Security contribution. That is in what those "notes" are supposed to represent, that actually do represent real wealth.

It is inflation and the changes in taxes that are destroying our Social agreements. It is too bad that many of our own are too self absorbed to understand the importance of continuing these programs... For their own future, not just to respect life and their neighbors.

We need to start recognizing that the dialog and propaganda in this country is attempting to turn us into self interested monsters and global powers want to continue to extend that reach. By fighting things like SS benefits for the elderly, the young will virtually guarantee their own future poverty. STUPID it is!

[whathehell]

221. THANK YOU!....n/t

[JDPriestly]

246. I agree with you.

[patrice]

128. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, especially if you're an attorney. nt

[Hotler]

230. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO POINT FINGERS!!!

Do I need the sarcasum thingy????

[Hippo_Tron]

297. And subsequently tossed that report in the recycle bin, and we got sequester instead

If the President wanted a "grand bargain" on Social Security he's had ample time to do it. If he wanted it, it would be done, because it makes no sense to wait for a second term that you might not get.

But instead of the "grand bargain" that you've been predicting for years now, we got sequester, which well actually result in defense spending being cut. Why? Because the atmosphere in congress is so poisonous that they can't even agree to pass something that benefits an industry with highly paid lobbyists and a lot of PAC money. Kind of amazing, when you think about it.

No, this isn't 8 dimensional chess. A lot of things fell into place to make things happen the way they did, much of it beyond the White House's control.

But presidential commissions are a common means to kick an issue down the line that you don't want to address right away. In this case, the President wanted to address health care before having to address the deficit. Then when the commission report came out, health care was finished with. He could then take a substantive position on the issue, which is basically that his commission's report sucks.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

69. "If President Obama ever cuts Social Security, I'll personally kick his ass."

How would you intend to do that since the only way to legally kick his ass would be to either vote against him or not vote at all? If he were to cut SS when he is re-elected you won't be able to do either of those things.

I'm not sure you would be able to do that unless you are actually Mrs Obama.

He could run for the senate or house after his second term ends, but that is not very likely.

[ProSense]

109. My bad

"How would you intend to do that since the only way to legally kick his ass would be to either vote against him or not vote at all? If he were to cut SS when he is re-elected you won't be able to do either of those things."

...I'm supposed to be outraged then and not vote for him because what "if he were to cut SS when he is re-elected"?

I mean, if that's the case, might as well let Romney win, right?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

120. Not at all.

'"I'm supposed to be outraged then and not vote for him because what "if he were to cut SS when he is re-elected?
I mean, if that's the case, might as well let Romney win, right?"'


You are reading what I wrote in the wrong direction.

I was asking for a clarification (previously listed) as to how you would intend to kick his ass if he were to cut SS when he is re-elected.

[emulatorloo]

177. "if he were to cut SS when he is re-elected" IF IF IF.

We've got a real plan to destroy the safety net - Ryan Plan. Embraced by Romney.

and we have the "IF IF IF" plan promoted by op-ed writers desperate for web hits.

Sorry if I find the real plan a bigger threat.

[newthinking]

213. Folks here have short memories. The only reason it hasn't already happened

was because there was an outcry and everyone backed off for the moment.

Obama weakly supported increasing the SS tax base, while openly indicating that benefits might need to change. Members of his administration even suggested increasing retirement ages while placing cuts was clearly left on the table.

I understand that Obama sometimes acts more conservative in appearances and approach while quitely trying to find ways to soften the policy. He really does play "poker". But he does tremendous irreversable damage in the process.

Just like when it came to talking about Budget deficits. Obama gave steam to the errant theory on our current budget deficits and now, while most anyone who understands what modern money is, and how we essentially have an almost monopoly on the world currency market, knows that this is not nearly as immediate an issue as presented. But now the President is strapped to the issue because it is firmly embeded within the population psyche.

In the same manner, his verbalizations and choices have pushed the discussion on Social Security far to the right, forcing the debate toward approaches like the "Ryan Plan".

That must be recognized and our voices need to continue to let Obama know that we are not happy with the "Poker game" and that we don't want to "gamble" on such important legacies as Social Security. Instead, we need our leadership to fight and LEAD the party away from any equivilence with the Republican ideology.

[HiPointDem]

320. If he didn't intend to "compromise" he wouldn't be pretending like their talking points have merit.

He's let their side frame the debate and positioned himself as the 'kinder, gentler' dealer of 'necessary' austerity.

[sabrina 1]

219. Yes, we do have the Ryan plan. And the only way to stop Republicans from destroying the

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2012, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)

social safety net, the only way it EVER happened, was for Democrats to speak out LOUDLY and tell the public, WE WILL NEVER compromise on SS.

And that is what people are worried about, the Ryan Plan and the Heritage Foundation Plan, and the Third Way Plan, which is all over the place right now. So who is going to stop them?? You're telling something WE KNOW. We are asking that Democrats speak out NOW and tell them to take their plans and shove them. And the PEOPLE in huge majorities are behind them doing that, across political lines.

So, as you point out, we see the Ryan Plan. What we are waiting for is to hear from the Democratic Leadership telling the country that they will never, ever go along with any tampering, no 'fixing' no 'strengthening' unless that means 'raising the cap' no raising the age limit, none of these weasel words mean anything unless they are clarified.

So what is your solution to stop Ryan who is only a front guy for the far right? Who should be fighting Ryan? Where are the strong statements from the Dem Leadership telling them SS is never going to be on the table, ever, except to raise the cap, INCREASE benefits and no way are they going to raise the retirement age?

Or are you advocating that the Dem Leadership say nothing about an issue that is a sure winner for them because all polls show that a vast majority of the people do not want Ryan or anyone else touching SS??

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

222. Really. I was asking from a clarification from the poster prosense.

Prosense said "if." I was asking what form of ass-kicking s/he would use.

[hay rick]

199. Kicking shoes are a lot like "comfortable shoes."

Imaginary.

[girl gone mad]

236. Sure you will.

[Avalux]

4. SS and Medicare are worth fighting for. Any Dem who doesn't isn't a Dem. n/t

[Fumesucker]

11. Manny, Manny, Manny..

We both know that cutting and slashing are two entirely different things..

Democrats would never slash Social Security, no way, no how..

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

[NorthCarolina]

148. Not "slash", but completely agreeable to, if not eager for, "cuts".

Never any mention of simply raising the cap because doing so would not benefit their benefactors.

[madokie]

12. Very true

[braddy]

14. It has been frozen for a couple of years, seniors are dropping behind as costs climb.

[Change has come]

15. K&R

[Mojorabbit]

16. Preach it!

I still cannot believe they are thinking of further raising the age limit. Good grief.

[JDPriestly]

59. I have friends between 65 and 69.

They can't get jobs. I'm 69. I can't get a job and I have degrees and work experience out the wazoo and had planned to work until I was 70.

There are no jobs. If the economy improves, and everybody gets back to work, then we can talk about Social Security.

A lot of my friends are not healthy enough to work -- missing teeth -- aching limbs and back -- cancer -- heart disease -- lung problems. You name it.

[PSPS]

17. The verbiage is wrong

Social Security isn't a hand out or "undeserved entitlement." It is a pension plan into which we all contribute and receive benefits -- like an insurance policy. It has never contributed anything to the national debt, has trillions in surplus, and can pay all benefits for the foreseeable future (perhaps "only" 90% of benefits far into the future if you believe the worst-case scenarios.) Every penny it pays out is from its own fund which consists entirely of contributions into it by workers.

So, when someone says "slash" or "cut," what they mean is "steal."

[DhhD]

18. The Social Security Insurance Trust Fund can loan out money.

The law says that it has to be paid back any time the Trust Fund ask for it back with the fees and interests paid for its use. In times that a lot is borrowed from it, is when Republicans say that it is not going to last because if its low balance. The GOP is simply a deceiving and many times lying bunch.

[Fumesucker]

19. You're wrong on one point..

Now that the payroll tax cut is in effect Social Security does indeed contribute to the national debt, the funds not collected from payroll taxes are made up from general revenues..

No longer is the fund maintained entirely from contributions of workers..

Something else I think was a deliberate step, but then I'm a cynical old codger..

[JDPriestly]

63. The payroll tax holiday is Obama's work, Obama's fault. No one, not even

certain DUers who can never bring themselves to criticize Obama even when the facts demand it, must admit that.

The payroll tax holiday is Obama's idea, and thus, Obama had better reassure us all that Social Security does not need fixing.

[JayhawkSD]

157. That's assuming you think they actually are being repaid.

I have been looking at federal spending records for two weeks and cannot find the line item in either last year's or this year's spending where repayment to the Social Security trust fund has been made. That fact that we use a non-calendar fiscal year complicates the search.

[bvar22]

20. DURec !!

Do you think that the "temporary" FICA reductions ("Payroll Tax Holiday" in the Conservative vernacular) will be allowed to expire this year?


"Temporary" "Payroll Tax Holiday" Connects Social Security to the Deficit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1538388





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[ProSense]

23. Another Democrat

"Do you think that the "temporary" FICA reductions ("Payroll Tax Holiday" in the Conservative vernacular) will be allowed to expire this year? "

Who "should be thrown out of our party": Conyers


Despite making this unsubstantiated claim: http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=443883

Conyers voted for the payroll tax cut: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002322228

Why is he trying to destroy SS?

[JDPriestly]

64. Good question!

Or maybe he doesn't think, maybe no honest person thinks, that the Social Security Trust Fund is really in trouble.

And maybe a simple lifting of the cap would solve the problem. That is what I suspect.

[bvar22]

196. This guy agrees with you on a "simple lifting of the Cap" .

When was the last time Obama mentioned "Lifting the Cap" as a means of strengthening Social Security?
If he had campaigned on "Reducing FICA Contributions to Social Security",
he would not have made it through The Democratic Primaries.

If the Republicans had ever tried to reduce FICA Contributions
or connect Social Security to the General Fund,
they would have been met with Unified Outrage from the Opposition Party.

Will The Democratic Party Leadership stand in front of the nation this year and say,
"OK Folks. The Holiday is over.
It is time to Raise Taxes on the Working Class."


Some of us here were never fooled by the "Temporary Holiday" marketing of this reduction in funding for Social Security. The "Temporary Holiday" was a Trojan Horse for a permanent weakening to the funding mechanism for the cornerstone of the modern Democratic Party,
designed and marketed by the same people who brought us NAFTA, DeRegulation, and the Privatization of the Commons.

Back in the 90s, the DLC made no secret that one of their Primary Goals was the Privatization of Social Security (i.e., giving it to their friends on Wall Street)

Social security was designed with a completely separate funding source [font size=3] for a reason.[/font].
Blurring the line between Social Security and The Deficit WILL make it much easier for the republicans to KILL Social Security when they retake the White House in 2016.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[JDPriestly]

244. Right!

[sabrina 1]

303. Exactly. You see clearly what is going on. And no matter how many denials there are, those facts

cannot be denied. As an Obama supporter, I don't what made me more angry, the fact that he actually was willing to go along with that 'Grand Bargain' which was stopped only by the Teabaggers, or the fact that my Conservative adversaries were able to say to me when I stood up for SS against their Party's efforts to privatize it, 'see, even your President is able to see that these entitlement programs cannot go on the way they are'. That hurt.

[OnyxCollie]

48. The payroll tax holiday

will be attached to some other important funding, necessitating a "compromise" that will benefit the 1% and starve the rest of us.

Pragmatic Democrats here will cheer the President's skillful maneuvering in a tough situation to get the Republicans right where he wants them.

[pa28]

22. Yeah. I just read about Kerrey's 10 point plan to save SS.

A ten point plan means "very serious" cuts.

Protecting SS polls well and yet our leadership will not draw a line and say "no".

I wish we could hold some type of ESL seminar for our leaders that taught them words vowel by vowel with a pointer and chalk board.

Like "no", "Fuck off", "No way", "When hell freezes over".

[Fumesucker]

24. Protecting SS does not "poll well" with the Very Serious People..

And those are the ones who count..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Serious_People

[jannyk]

26. Kick & Rec!!!

[SidDithers]

27. 22%, right Manny?...nt

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

28. IIRC, Simpson Bowles calls for a 22% cut in benefits

To the average recipient over time.

Yes.

Many older Americans will starve, freeze, go without.

[dionysus]

31. oh, it's Manny, campaigning against Obama in an election season again. bless your little heart for

trying so hard.

take note of this;

i will enjoy every second of your misery for the next four years, as you try and fail.

[quinnox]

50. so, when did Obama say he wants to cut social security?

[Cherchez la Femme]

248. I'd much rather have putrid shoes and speak the truth

than have a putrid mouth that disseminates twisted &/or outright falsehoods -- even if I owned Stuart Weitzman's entire collection of jeweled shoes in toto.

Why is it to some our President is as infallible as the pope, as correctly demanding & commanding as King George the First (the loss of our Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus included), and as laudably upright --in thought and in deed-- and as effortlessly and perfectly moral as Jesus Christ Himself?

And our party was supposed to be the sane one...

[WillyT]

36. To All The Poster's Jumping Manny's Post...

Do YOU all agree to leave DU, or post apologies, if the Obama Administration decides to go for the "Grand Bargain" ???

It would only be fair.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. I like!

But they never bet me, except William Pitt. He's walking the walk.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

96. What would it matter in the long run, Manny? If President Obama does agree to the great bargain

and cut SS it won't be until after he is re-elected. What good would an apology do you then? Will anybody remember what they typed after one standard Friedman cycle? If SS is cut the apologies should come from every Real American who would be or is collecting SS in the future. There is obviously too much money and waste floating around. It will also give Real Americans the chance to work harder and compete to make this country great again.

And if that money is cut from SS you above all people should realize that it will eventually find its way to the calm waters of Wall Street where it can be wisely invested in derivative markets that will grow that capital for the benefit of all.

A rising tide raises all boats; making us all lucky duckies.

[ProSense]

40. Wow

Do YOU all agree to leave DU, or post apologies, if the Obama Administration decides to go for the "Grand Bargain" ???

It would only be fair.

So you're admitting this is speculative hyperbolic bullshit presented as something already proposed by the President?

I mean, a criticism based on "if the Obama Administration decides to" turned into an attack is absurd.

Maybe until he does, those posting such comments should hold off.

[WillyT]

44. No Pro... There Are Numbers Of Stories, All Un-sourced, That Leads Some Of Us To Believe This Is...

What Will Happen In The "Lame-Duck" session After the election.

Some believe, it has already been decided.

I hope it is untrue, but there seem to be some here willing to embrace it as "something that has to be done".

I hope to hell that is all wrong...

[ProSense]

49. Yeah

"No Pro... There Are Numbers Of Stories, All Un-sourced, That Leads Some Of Us To Believe This Is...What Will Happen In The "Lame-Duck" session After the election."

...they're called conspiracy theories. I mean, there isn't a single proposal offered by the President to cut Social Security. In fact, it was exempted for the sequestration deal.

[kentuck]

60. I can't understand why so many people feel this way??

And why the Party is unable to quell these rumors or feelings or whatever we want to call them?

[ProSense]

62. Oh, I don't

"And why the Party is unable to quell these rumors or feelings or whatever we want to call them?"

...know. The OP and the first comment at this link (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/30-11) may have something to do with it.

Obama’s Second Term Agenda: Cutting Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid

By Matt Stoller, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, for NakedCapitalism.com

"This is probably the least important Presidential election since the 1950s. As an experienced political hand told me, the two candidates are speaking not to the voters, but to the big money. They hold the same views, pursue the same policies, and are backed by similar interests. Mitt Romney implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts, or Obama implemented Romneycare nationally. Both are pro-choice or anti-choice as political needs change, both tend to be hawkish on foreign policy, both favor tax cuts for businesses, and both believe deeply in a corrupt technocratic establishment..."

I mean, it's obviously danm hard to tell the difference between Obama and Romney.

[emulatorloo]

161. For the same reasons 99% Teabaggers "feel" that Obama has raised their taxes

in spite of the fact that they got a tax cut.

[emulatorloo]

147. "There Are Numbers of Stories, All -->UN_SOURCED<---"

In otherwords, SPECULATIVE BULLSHIT from the usual sources.

[WillyT]

232. New To Politics, Are We ???

[girl gone mad]

238. Obama is a neoliberal..

and cutting SS is high up on the neoliberal agenda.

[JDPriestly]

66. Pro Sense, if Obama does agree to a deal on Social Security,

all bets are off. A lot of people will leave the Democratic Party.

Cutting Social Security or raising the eligibility age at this time would be cruel --might as well nuke about 3/4 of the seniors and some of their children.

[ProSense]

70. Nothing

"Pro Sense, if Obama does agree to a deal on Social Security, all bets are off. A lot of people will leave the Democratic Party."

...like outrage base on unsubstanciated speculation. Tell you what, throw that "if" out there every few days from now until the election.

I'm going back to criticizing Romney.

[SunsetDreams]

74. What exactly has Obama been waiting on?

I mean this rumor has been going on since the beginning?

I would have thought he would have done it by now.

[MannyGoldstein]

75. Obama hasn't gotten the Bush tax cuts repealed for the wealthiest

Does that prove he doesn't want them repealed?

[ProSense]

80. Wait

"Obama hasn't gotten the Bush tax cuts repealed for the wealthiest

Does that prove he doesn't want them repealed?"

...they automatically expire, and I guess you missed the big coup: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021021095

[Doctor_J]

229. they were going to "automatically expire" once before

and yet, here they are

[SunsetDreams]

81. At least that is something he wants

and not some made up rumor from some un-named sources who couldn't possibly have an agenda.

[MannyGoldstein]

82. Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

[ProSense]

83. Another Democrat

"Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP"

Who "should be thrown out of our party": Conyers

Despite making this unsubstantiated claim: http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=443883

Conyers voted for the payroll tax cut: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002322228

Why is he trying to destroy SS?

[MannyGoldstein]

85. Are you claiming that Conyers is lying?

Or that he never said it?

[ProSense]

87. Oh,

"Are you claiming that Conyers is lying? Or that he never said it?"

...he said it.

Are you saying he isn't complicity in trying to destroy Social Security?

Conyers voted for the payroll tax cut: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002322228


I mean, you claimed that the payroll tax cut was designed to do just that.

[MannyGoldstein]

93. I never claimed that.

More words put into my mouth.

[SunsetDreams]

92. Yes

[SunsetDreams]

91. Really? John Conyers Owes the President an Apology

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/07/john-conyers-owes-president-apology.html

First of all, let's be clear what we are talking about. It is a dastardly lie that "Social Security cuts" were proposed or even accepted by President Obama. I have covered the issue of the Social Security reform and the COLA calculation adjustment before, and suffice it to say that there are no cuts to the basic social security benefit being proposed by President Obama or anyone else. None. That is a fact.

The antics of Congressman Conyers trying to "educate" this President at an Out of Poverty Caucus event
is as rich as it is shameful. Before trying to school President Obama on poverty and jobs, maybe Congressman Conyers needs to be reminded of some things:

...

And as long as we are on the subject of the poor and Social Security, is Congressman Conyers simply unaware that the President's plan - the much derided Fiscal Commission's plan - would set a floor on Social Security benefits at 125% of federal poverty - literally lifting people who have worked all their lives in low-wage jobs out of poverty? Does John Conyers simply not care that the same plan would define full Social Security benefits at age 62 for those who cannot work beyond that because of the nature of their trade? Is John Conyers completely oblivious to the fact that the much dreaded Fiscal Commission plan would raise the basic social security benefit for those whose average lifetime income is $15,000 or less, and, for example, for someone with an average lifetime income of $15,000 (in 2010 dollars) raise the basic Social Security benefit by $3,500? Is he so caught up in the soundbites that he has entirely missed these details?

Oh, by the way, Congressman Conyers, do you remember your vote in 1993 to raise taxes on Social Security income (more details from the Social Security Administration)? But I suppose that is not a cut in benefits. No, not at all. I don't want to call you a hypocrite, Congressman; I have too much respect for you for that. But what you just did by going after the President is rank hypocrisy.

[eomer]

146. Right, it's not cuts -- just adjustments that will result in lower benefits.

Anyone who says it is cuts owes an apology because it is actually just adjustments that result in retirees receiving lower benefits.

/sarcasm off

These kind of word games are what Manny is talking about. First it's a statement that no one is planning to "slash" Social Security, cleverly leaving open the possibility of cuts that wouldn't amount to slashing. Next it's a statement that no one is going to "cut" Social Security but rather just make some adjustments in the formula (that will result in lower benefits).

Democrats should be fighting against anyone who tries to cut Social Security, including those who would use clever wording to make it seem that a cut isn't a cut.

[SunsetDreams]

182. Has Social Security been cut?

It seems that others are playing word games with what was said No "slash" No "cut".

No one is planning to slash= not slash, but they are really going to cut them
No one is going to cut= now that means lower?
Democrats should be fighting against rumor.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a bill passed. Gee you would have thought there would have been a perfect opportunity to do it between 2008-2010. Nope wasn't done then, wasn't and hasn't been done in this Congressional term, not for lack of Republicans inserting crap into bills that are not even related to the actual bill on the hopes that no one will notice.

All we have is rumor mill based on interpretation of a word and nothing that has happened or is about to happen.

[RebelOne]

191. Well, mine hasn't.

In fact, I even got a cost of living adjustment in January for the first time in 3 years.

[SunsetDreams]

205. Your social security hasn't been cut?

You even got an adjustment? That is awesome!

[eomer]

226. Are you making a distinction between "lowering" and "cutting" benefits?

As far as I understand those words, if you lower benefits then you've cut them. Are you saying that Obama is proposing only lowering benefits but not cutting them?

And regarding rumors and the interpretation of a word, the White House could have cleared that up any time they wanted to over the last year that it's been a controversy. They've chosen not to make a clear statement that they oppose any change that would lower benefits, including any change to the inflation adjustment. The reason they haven't made such a clear statement is that the President thinks (as he has stated) that we need to strengthen social security by decreasing the inflation adjustment, which is of course a decrease (AKA, a cut) in benefits.

[SunsetDreams]

251. White House Statement:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is pushing back against a Wednesday night report that the president is prepared to offer cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

"The story overshoots the runway," said a senior administration official. "The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

UPDATE 10:38 a.m: White House spokesman Jay Carney commented on the reports concerning Social Security cuts Thursday morning.

"There is no news here," Carney said. "The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/social-security-cuts-debt_n_892070.html

Here is a DUer talking about their own SS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1051447

Apparently the inflation decrease doesn't hold.

[eomer]

255. What does "preserves the promise" mean?

The only reason to give assurances that you will "preserve the promise" is if you're proposing some downward adjustments (that is, cutting) in order to "strengthen the system".This is clearly a statement that benefit adjustments are on the table but that we shouldn't worry because the President intends the adjustments to not be significant enough to dismantle the basic guarantee of security that is the main purpose of the system. The President is saying that to continue having such a system, we need to accept some cuts in the form of lower inflation adjustments.

The President said this same thing a number of times in July and August of 2011.

[SunsetDreams]

259. Well

As I said Democrats should fight against rumor. I'm not going to get into making up my own definition of what was stated "preserves the promise" or otherwise. There is no reason to just go around and speculate on that. It seems kind of curious why there is so much time spent on speculation of what was said and rumor mill. My time is better spent on fighting against something that was actually proposed, you know like Republicans wanting to privatize it? Sorry I've made post after post in this thread with links to back it up. You even have a DUer here who gets a comment basically ignored that theirs has not been cut, in fact they even got a cost of living adjustment this year.

We will just have to agree to disagree on rumors and speculation. I plan on concentrating my energy on what is about to happen, ie legislation being proposed, what's actually being said, and fighting to keep the damn Republicans out of office. Have a nice night, like I said I'm agreeing to disagree here and leaving it at that.

[HiPointDem]

249. yes, let's not discuss it until it happens. by which time it will be too late to do anything. what

some people want.

[SunsetDreams]

250. I have no problem with discussion

what I do have an issue with is rumor mill and giving credence to conspiracy type rhetoric.
He said he wasn't going to slash benefits, and his White house staff have said that. Somehow that gets turned into but what he really means is (insert whatever). There has been no cuts to Social Security period.

[HiPointDem]

253. I call a new formula that results in people getting less benefits a plan to cut benefits -- as would

most people.

Obama supported such a formula during the last round of negotiations over "entitlements". That means cuts are quite possible.

[SunsetDreams]

254. Oh I see,

Evidence does not support your claim. There is no new formula that was adopted or supported by President Obama.

He will get a second term by the way. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1050367

I responded to you there, but you never responded so I'm referencing your comment here.

[HiPointDem]

256. who are you trying to kid?

And in a move certain to provoke rebellion in the Democratic ranks, Obama was willing to apply a new, less generous formula for calculating Social Security benefits, which would start in 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all

Are the NYT and the dozens of other news outlets who reported the same information lying?

[SunsetDreams]

260. Oh another rumor mill piece lol

Last edited Wed Aug 1, 2012, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Speculating what happened behind closed doors complete with "cryptic messages" to boot with nary a proof.
I'm talking about this particular NYT piece, as in just this article. (I see that got blown out of proportion )


With that I'm done with this thread.

Have a good night.

[HiPointDem]

261. The NYT is now the rumor mill? I can't imagine what you think a legitimate news outlet is, then.

Go to bed, hide your head.

[sabrina 1]

269. I can't believe you are posting links to that

site. That site is populated with rabid, right-leaning Third Way puppets who hate, HATE anything that leans even slightly to the left. I believe many of them have been banned from Liberal forums. They have zero credibility on actual issues.

Their attack on a great Democrat like Conyers, is typical and disgraceful. I really wish, since most of us do not go to sites like that for obvious reasons, their garbage and attacks on good Democrats did not get dragged over here, but then in a way it's good to see they are still at it, what gets them thrown off liberal boards.

Just reading the excerpt, I knew where it came from. Zero credibility..

[girl gone mad]

288. The link you posted is full of people bashing DU..

and John Conyers.

Little better than Free Republic or Teabag Central from what I can tell.

[newthinking]

214. Yep. There are those that want to change historical memory on this board

The posts here by people who know better are quite frankly lies.

It may be that in the end Obama will find a different solution, as he does respond to pressure, but he and his administration have been very clear that cuts are an expected outcome.

[emulatorloo]

200. It proves there is no Boehner and Cantor in MannyLand

No republicans at all really. Manny "Free Pass" Goldstein.

Fabricate shit about Democrats, free passes to Republicans.

[MannyGoldstein]

225. Should Lincoln have fired his losing generals?

After all, the Confederacy was at fault, no?

[sabrina 1]

270. I think you got that backwards. It is the very existence of Cantor and Boehner in Mannyland

that causes him, and so many others (you do seem to be in the minority) demand that those we elected to hold back the hoards of rabid right wingers whose main goals for decades have been to destroy the Democratic Platform which includes the Social Safety Net.

Manny and the rest of us, seem far more aware of Cantor and Boehner than those who appear to think that we don't have to worry about them. There is no need to fight them, that it's best to go the bi-partisan route.

Let me ask you this, since you brought up the would-be destroyers of the Democratic Party platform, do YOU think we should 'cooperting' with these Republicans, 'reaching across the aisle' practicing 'bi-partisanship', willing to 'give them something', EVER? I'm curious.

I think Manny wants to give them nothing because he recognizes what a threat they are. He can correct me if I'm wrong. But how about you? Did you support making deals with those rabid right wing lunatics?

[bvar22]

308. Nailed IT!!!

I don't blame dogs for acting like dogs.
I expect Republicans to be Republicans.

I AM a Democrat.
I send money to The Democrats.
I vote FOR The Democrats.
I campaign FOR The Democrats.
I EXPECT The Democrats to represent my FDR/LBJ Working Class ass.
I don't get angry when Republicans act like Republicans.
I get furious when "Democrats" act like Republicans,
or "seek bi-partisan consensus" with those dogs,
and am not afraid to voice my displeasure with MY Party when they do so.

Someone would have to be very young, or willfully blind to NOT be aware of HOW FAR to the Republican RIGHT the Democratic Party has moved over the last 30 years.

http://www.alternet.org/news/149700

[HiPointDem]

319. +1. "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully

constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them..."

Orwell, 1984: "Doublethink"

Some of the posters here are poster children for Orwell.

On the one hand, Republicans are crazy fanatics who should never be allowed within a mile of the White House; on the other hand, we're supposed to reach across the aisle to these maniacs.

They've also got the "Memory Hole" working overtime.

Obama never said that, no sirreee!!!! You liar, racist, Romney supporter!!! Heresy!!!

In the novel, the memory hole is a slot into which government officials deposit politically inconvenient documents and records to be destroyed. Nineteen Eighty-Four's protagonist Winston Smith, who works in the Ministry of Truth, is routinely assigned the task of revising old newspaper articles in order to serve the propaganda interests of the government.

For example, if the government had pledged that the chocolate ration would not fall below the current 30 grams per week, but in fact the ration is reduced to 20 grams per week, the historical record (for example, an article from a back issue of the Times newspaper) is revised to contain an announcement that a reduction to 20 grams might soon prove necessary, or that the ration, then 15 grams, would soon be increased to that number. The original copies of the historical record are deposited into the memory hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

Truly, 1984 is upon us.

[still_one]

166. If Obama gets a second term, which I desperately hope he does, I suspect there will be no compromise

to what he did in the first term. His administration was treated with such disrespect, not only from members of congress but the MSM, I believe he realizes you cannot compromise with an ignoramus

[Doctor_J]

231. he could have divined that out after 6 months

the president is conservative, Wall-Street Dem, who has not stood up to the Repukes a single time, despite the abuse they've heaped on him. and when he gets re=elected, he will again take up with the repukes and Blue Dogs and leave his base some crumbs. And then he and the synchophants will tell to shut up and it's a good thing Rmoney didn't get elected.

[JDPriestly]

245. I hope so.

Anyway, I'm working to get him elected and registered more voters this evening. Whatever Obama's failings, Romney would be much worse.

[Marr]

242. If Obama ends up cutting Social Security or Medicare, I GUARANTEE you, all the people

currently insisting it's a loony conspiracy theory will flip 180 degrees in the blink of an eye, insist that he 'had no choice', that it was 'the pragmatic, adult thing to do' anyway, and that it was always his publicly-stated position.

[xchrom]

38. Du rec. Nt

[Nye Bevan]

41. Got any other purity tests? (nt)

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Reestablishing slavery or child labor

Some others.

How about you?

[Romulox]

215. Child Labor *remains* 100% legal in the United States. Always shocks people.

Agricultural employment.

Unlike the rules governing nonagricultural employment, most of the child labor provisions applicable to agricultural employment are statutory. Under Federal law:

• A child working in agriculture on
a farm owned or operated by his or
her parent is exempted from Fed-
eral agricultural child labor provi-
sions.

• Young farmworkers who are not the
children of the farmer employing
them are subject to Federal child
labor provisions that differ by age:

• Youths are no longer subject to
the Federal agricultural child
labor provisions when they reach
16 years of age.

• Children aged 14 or 15 may perform
any nonhazardous farm job outside
of school hours, and, with proper
training and certification, they also
may perform certain hazardous duties.

• Children aged 12 or 13 may be employed
outside of school hours in nonhazardous jobs,
but only on the farm on which their parent
works or with the written consent of a parent.

• Children under 12 may be employed outside
of school hours in nonhazardous jobs on farms
not subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
minimum wage if their parent also is employed on
that farm, or with parental consent.

• Children aged 10 or 11 may be
employed to hand-harvest shortseason crops outside
of school hours under special waivers granted by the
U.S. Department of Labor.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/rylf/pdf/chapter2.pdf

[HiPointDem]

258. No, it doesn't "remain 100% legal."

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets wage, hours worked, and safety requirements for minors (individuals under age 18) working in jobs covered by the statute. The rules vary depending upon the particular age of the minor and the particular job involved. As a general rule, the FLSA sets 14 years of age as the minimum age for employment, and limits the number of hours worked by minors under the age of 16.

Also, the FLSA generally prohibits the employment of a minor in work declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor (for example, work involving excavation, driving, and the operation of many types of power-driven equipment). The FLSA contains a number of requirements that apply only to particular types of jobs (for example, agricultural work or the operation of motor vehicles) and many exceptions to the general rules (for example, work by a minor for his or her parents). Each state also has its own laws relating to employment, including the employment of minors. If state law and the FLSA overlap, the law which is more protective of the minor will apply.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/agerequirements.htm

[Romulox]

263. Um, yes, it is. I quoted the relevant regulations, verbatim, as they appear on BLS.gov.

Take it up with them.

[Romulox]

264. And the *exact same* information from the DOL website.

Agricultural Jobs

If you are not yet 16, there are many restrictions on your employment in agriculture, particularly in occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. Once you turn 16 there are no restrictions that apply when you work on farms. Statesalso have rules, and employers must comply with both.

What hours can I work?

In agriculture, you can work any time outside of school hours. As with non-agricultural jobs, once you turn 16 you can work on any farm at any time. If you are home schooled, attend private school, or no school, school hours would be the same as the public school where you live while you are working.

What jobs can I do?

If you are:

Under 12: You may work outside of school hours in any non-hazardous job on a small farm that is exempt from the federal minimum wage provisions as long as you have parental consent.

12 or 13: You may work outside of school hours in non-hazardous jobs on a farm where your parent(s) work or with written parental consent.

14 or 15: You can work outside of school hours in any non-hazardous agricultural job.

16 or older: You can work in any farm job at any time.

Youth of any age may work at any time in any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or person standing in place of their parent.

What do I need to know about workplace hazards on farms?

Federal law establishes safety standards and restrictions for young workers on farms. If you are not yet 16, you are prohibited from being employed in occupations that have been declared hazardous. There may be some exceptions that apply to your particular situation. Be sure to check state regulations for young workers and the OSHA rules, which apply to all employees, regardless of their age.

Learn more about agricultural workplace hazards.

http://www.youthrules.dol.gov/know-the-limits/agriculture/index.htm

[HiPointDem]

265. You miss my point.

[Romulox]

266. You don't have a point; you're contrary to be contrary. Much of our food is picked by CHILDREN.

[HiPointDem]

267. "remains 100% legal". child labor does not *remain* *100%* *legal* -- e.g. we no longer have child

miners.

nor is much of our food picked by children.

[Romulox]

272. So now we are playing games of semantics? No thanks. Find someone else to follow around. nt

[sabrina 1]

273. What do you mean 'playing games of semantics'? Could you clarify that

statement in light of the comment you are responding to?

Child labor is NOT legal in this country. And do you have a link to your claim that 'most of our food is picked by children' because if that is the case, something needs to be done about it, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure no one here supports going back to the dark ages where child labor was legal.

[Romulox]

277. Child labor is most certainly legal in this country, in the agricultural field. It's a disgrace,

and it shouldn't be downplayed or defended.

And do you have a link to your claim that 'most of our food is picked by children' because if that is the case, something needs to be done about it, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure no one here supports going back to the dark ages where child labor was legal.

You've misquoted me. I said "much", and you've transformed it into "most". I have no fucking clue what the deal is with DU, but there is essentially no infamy that is not defended here. And all the bls.gov and dol.gov cites in the world mean not a thing here.

Some poster will just come in and misquote you, demand you defend said misquote, and then blithely ignore any link to the contrary.

Again,

[sabrina 1]

309. Ah, you are talking about Farming. Those laws do not translate into 'child labor is 100% legal'

in this country. If anything, they are an exemption given to farmers whose families traditionally worked on farms and were in no way comparable to children working in mines, or factories as in China today eg.

And while the reason for those different laws as applied to farmers may need review today, your statement implies that there are no laws against child labor in factories or mines or anywhere else.

[Romulox]

312. You responded to me with "And do you have a link to your claim that 'most of our food..." You knew

damn well we were talking about food production; the regulations I posted verbatim from the Department of Labor specifically dealt with agricultural child labor.

And you took me to task on that very subject (with a MISQUOTE. )

Have some integrity.

[sabrina 1]

314. Let me remind me of what you said. You said the the US supports Child Labor 100%

It does not and your links do not back up that claim. Thankfully!

[Romulox]

316. No I didn't. That's ANOTHER fucking misquote. You have ZERO INTEGRITY.

What the fuck is the purpose of this bizarre haranguing? You have now misquoted me TWICE.

[Romulox]

317. Here's the quote, from this VERY thread: "Child Labor *remains* 100% legal in the United States."

What do you think is gained by lying to a person's face? It boggles the mind.

Anyone who is interested can see your dishonesty.

[Romulox]

278. DOL.gov: "Under 12: You may work outside of school hours in any non-hazardous job on a small farm"

"Under 12: You may work outside of school hours in any non-hazardous job on a small farm that is exempt from the federal minimum wage provisions as long as you have parental consent. "

Deny that til the cows come home. I don't care. This place is full of bizarre arguments and insufferable people

Agricultural Jobs

If you are not yet 16, there are many restrictions on your employment in agriculture, particularly in occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. Once you turn 16 there are no restrictions that apply when you work on farms. Statesalso have rules, and employers must comply with both.

What hours can I work?

In agriculture, you can work any time outside of school hours. As with non-agricultural jobs, once you turn 16 you can work on any farm at any time. If you are home schooled, attend private school, or no school, school hours would be the same as the public school where you live while you are working.

What jobs can I do?

If you are:

Under 12: You may work outside of school hours in any non-hazardous job on a small farm that is exempt from the federal minimum wage provisions as long as you have parental consent.

12 or 13: You may work outside of school hours in non-hazardous jobs on a farm where your parent(s) work or with written parental consent.

14 or 15: You can work outside of school hours in any non-hazardous agricultural job.

16 or older: You can work in any farm job at any time.

Youth of any age may work at any time in any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or person standing in place of their parent.

What do I need to know about workplace hazards on farms?

Federal law establishes safety standards and restrictions for young workers on farms. If you are not yet 16, you are prohibited from being employed in occupations that have been declared hazardous. There may be some exceptions that apply to your particular situation. Be sure to check state regulations for young workers and the OSHA rules, which apply to all employees, regardless of their age.

Learn more about agricultural workplace hazards.

http://www.youthrules.dol.gov/know-the-limits/agriculture/index.htm

[Romulox]

280. More links to ignore/not read. Take Action: End Child Labor in US Agriculture

http://www.hrw.org/support-care

[Romulox]

281. More stuff to distort/misquote/ignore: ABC News Investigation: The Blueberry Children

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/young-children-working-blueberry-fields-walmart-severs-ties/story?id=8951044#.UBnfV7SXROo

[Romulox]

305. Oh Sabrina, I see you ignored *every last one* of those links in your attempt to pile on!

And you, a seeker after truth and all!

[sabrina 1]

310. Actually, I did not ignore them. I have responded, see above.

You posted laws that related ONLY to farming, which in no way back up your claim that 'Child Labor is 100% legal in this country'.

[Romulox]

313. You responded by pretending to not know we were talking about food production, even though you

demanded a source to defend your misquote--about farming.

Here's my original:

Romulox (21,127 posts) Response to HiPointDem (Reply #265)

266. You don't have a point; you're contrary to be contrary. Much of our food is picked by CHILDREN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1057222

Your argument is that when you typed:

"And do you have a link to your claim that 'most of our food is picked by children' because if that is the case, something needs to be done about it, wouldn't you agree?"

that you didn't know we were talking about farming? That excuse insults both of our intelligence. You can't blame cut-n-paste, remember, since you misquoted me in that post. So what's the next lame excuse?

sabrina 1 (27,851 posts) 273. Response to Romulox (Reply #272)

What do you mean 'playing games of semantics'? Could you clarify that


statement in light of the comment you are responding to?

Child labor is NOT legal in this country. And do you have a link to your claim that 'most of our food is picked by children' because if that is the case, something needs to be done about it, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure no one here supports going back to the dark ages where child labor was legal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1057856

Then your follow up:

sabrina 1 (27,851 posts) 309. Response to Romulox (Reply #277)


Ah, you are talking about Farming. Those laws do not translate into 'child labor is 100% legal'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1062609

[sabrina 1]

318. I responded to what you said. You said that 'child labor remains 100% legal in this country'.

You were challenged on that by HiPoint in post # 258. You then said that 'much of our food' is produced by child labor. That is not true either. I live near huge farms and the food is planted and harvested by ADULTS. I have never seen a child on any of those farms. These are the farms that produce much of the fruit and vegetables that are sent across the country. Meat is not handled by children either, nor have I seen any children on any of the dairy farms I have seen.

Those laws apply mostly to farmers and their own children. No commercial farming Corp that I have ever seen, hires children. HiPoint linked you to the laws regarding agriculture and children. They are very restrictive compared to the laws for adults.

And do not call me a liar. I read your own words and responded to them. If you did not express what you meant clearly, that does not mean someone else is lying.

[sabrina 1]

323. ???

That isn't helping your cause. That was a discussion in which you claimed that the US supports child labor 100%. You were wrong, as several people pointed out to you.

But that has zero to do with you calling me a liar, which is against the rules here. Hint, someone disagreeing with you is not 'dishonest' nor is it 'lying'.

You have not responded to my comment regarding why I used quotes around the word you used to call me 'dishonest'.

Nor have you explained why someone not responding to a comment makes them 'dishonest'.

Next time think before you post, some people are far quicker with the alert feature than I am and do not appreciate being called 'dishonest' or 'liars'. Fortunately for you I have developed a very thick skin so rather than hit alert I offered you an opportunity to retract your accusation.

[Romulox]

324. More misquotes. Even less integrity. Last response to you (ever). nt

[white_wolf]

114. I have several in fact.

1. Unconditional support of labor over capital. The capitalists have a party that supports them 100%, labor needs one as well.
2. Raise taxes on the rich to help fund a new public works program like FDR had.
3. End all of our foreign wars and slash the military budged by 50%.
4. Repeal the Patriot Act.

There's your bloody purity test.

[HughBeaumont]

188. 5. Rework ALL "free trade" deals to where they're either "fair trade" or abolished completely.

Addendum . . . not ONE American worker loses his or her job as a result of Fair Trade.

We the People cannot allow the capitalists to continue weighing down the scales of inequality in the name of gargantuan profit while production skyrockets but real dollar wages either decrease or remain stagnant. The unfairness has gone on long enough and it's NOT sustainable.

[girl gone mad]

239. Principles are truly horrible things, aren't they?

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Absolutely agree.

I'm an FDR Democrat. Always will be.

[JDPriestly]

45. K&R. Thanks.

There is no Social Security crisis. If there had been, Obama surely would not have sought and obtained a decrease in the percentage of payroll taxes to be paid -- which he did. So there is the proof. Whether I need a sarcasm sign is up to Obama, not me.

[quinnox]

47. of course, a no brainer if you ask me

To those who are objecting to the thread, I would love to hear your reasons why you feel a Democrat should favor cutting social security. Normally, only right wing scum favor that, so at least it would be a change of pace to hear a so called "Democrat" making the argument.

[reformist2]

51. K&R. Social Security, with its three trillion dollar surplus is off limits!

[Honeycombe8]

52. "Slash"? Or do you mean "tweak"? Or "fix"? I'm 100% in favor of preserving Soc Security....

but with the baby boomers starting to retire, things are going go belly up with Soc Security in a decade or so, I read.

This happens every decade or two. Social Security is tweaked, and it remains solvent. Until the next decade or so.

This is what I seem to have noticed over the years. Now, with the baby boomers retiring, the problem is going to be bigger than before. We can't tax our way out of it, I think.

Some tweaking will have to be done, I'm sure. But I don't call that slashing. I'm in my 50's. I will desperately need every penny of my Social Security benefits, when my time has come. But I'm not willing to take my benefits and risk those who come after me losing theirs or their cuts having to be drastic because I wouldn't accept anything being done.

There are various ways to fix it. They don't have to all be only the way you think it should be. Reasonable people can differ on the solution.

[RC]

68. There is nothing wrong with Social Security.

The problem is the lack of Living Wage Jobs that used to pay into Social Security much more than was being paid out.

Fix the real problem, get our Living Wage Jobs back into this country. Do not compound the problem by diddling with Social Security by cutting paid for benefits.

[Honeycombe8]

233. I think there is. This is about the third time I've seen this happen.

You have to start working on the solution years before a crisis hits.

[girl gone mad]

240. No, not really.

When the financial crisis hit, our government wasted no time printing several trillion dollars in bailouts and backstops for the banks.

That's the beauty of operating under a sovereign fiat currency system. There is no crisis and there will never be a crisis, except in the imaginations of those who would like it to be so.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Ever wonder if you're buying into a lie?

I think you are.

Nothing is happening now that wasn't planned for many, many years ago. Unless this depression never gets better, Social Security is fully solvent, boomers and all. Just think: we knew decades ago that the boomers would retire. Social Security was adjusted in the early 80s to deal with this.

[Honeycombe8]

234. I don't think I am. I researched it long ago. This was expected to happen, BTW, before

the recession/depression even hit.

It's because of the huge number of baby boomers retiring, whose benefits will be paid for the current work force, which is the younger, smaller group of workers.

Social Security was based on the premise that every succeeding group of workers would be larger than the preceding one. Then they figured out that this would not happen because of the baby boomer generation.

Social Security Admin. says it will not have all the $ it needs for the benefits in some certain year in the near future (I forget the year - and every year they redo the numbers, and the year may change somewhat).

I understand the resistance by younger people not to believe this. It sounds suspicious. But this is an issue that has been discussed for years. It is no surprise to me. I totally believe it.

Now, one of the things they can do is borrow the $. They can also raise taxes. They can also raise the retirement age one year. They can also cut monetary benefits. Or they can do all those things.

The problem should iron itself out in time, because the work force AFTER the next work force should be larger, again.

[woo me with science]

94. Pssst. You must have gotten the wrong schedule.

You're not supposed to JUSTIFY the cuts yet. Look upthread. You are still supposed to be in denial that they will happen.

Remember: First deny and mock. THEN justify.

You will get the memo indicating when the shift to rationalizing and justifying should take place.

[eridani]

144. We goddam fucking well have ALREADY taxed our way out of it!

FICA taxes were doubled in 1983 precisely to build a trust fund surplus to take care of boomer retirement, making boomers the first generation to prepay their own retirement in addition to paying benefits to their parents. That fund is supposed to go to zero as the last of the boomers kicks the bucket. At that point we we have to rebuild the surplus to take care of the baby boom echo--our second large demographic lump. We can best do that by scrapping the cap.

[Honeycombe8]

235. I don't recall that. So I looked it up.

Yes, there was a sharp increase in FICA in 1983. That was to create a Trust Fund to make SS solvent until 2021. That's about 9 years from now. Which is what I've heard: Social Security is going to fall short in the amt of $ it has to pay all benefits in about 10 years or so.

What happened: Bush stole the Trust Fund (I think he called it "borrow" - ha!). And we've had a severe recession/depression. I was under the impression that the fed govt is in the process of paying back the "loan" that Bush made when he stole the Trust Fund.

I'm not saying benefits should be cut. I'm saying that an issue is looming, and something will have to be done. Raising the cap is a way to go, as are other things. I think cutting benefits & raising retirement age should be LAST on the list.

But I don't have a horse in this race, I think. I think by the time anything is done, I'll fall under the current benefits/retirement age. I just hate to see the program "wither on the vine" because of money problems.

[girl gone mad]

241. Nothing was stolen.

A government which can issue its own money has no need to save or store up its own fiat dollars in a special fund.

Take two minutes to think it through.

[Honeycombe8]

275. I'll 'splain it to you. Printing money....

If you print more money, which is not backed up by gold, then inflation soars.

What Bush's loyalists said during his term, when he was driving up the deficit from the surplus we'd had: Oh, we can just print more money.

It doesn't work that way.

The Trust Fund is supposed to be in a lockbox of sorts, unable to be taken by the W.H., Congress, or other agencies. But it is "borrowed" from on occasion. Bush "borrowed" from it....I don't know if he took the whole surplus the SS Trust Fund had, but he took a lot, if not all of it.

However, the fed. is paying it back. It was a loan. Don't know if interest is being paid. The payments back to the SS Trust Fund that the fed borrowed is part of the deficit we hear so much about.

With or w/o the "loan" to Bush, though, it was known that Social Security would have a money problem at some time during the baby boomer retirement years. This really is a known issue. It's not questionable. Like global warming. You can probably find someone who disagrees, but most economists over the past few decades agree: Social Security will run out money to pay all benefits at some time during the baby boomer retirement years.

[girl gone mad]

289. Sorry, but you are 100% wrong.

Inflation is the result of aggregate demand in excess of productive capacity, not simply the result of printing money. If printing money always caused inflation to "soar", we would be dealing with massive inflation right now resulting from our government having printed trillions of dollars to bail out the banks after the financial crisis.

Social Security essentially functions like a retirement savings annuity account for those who are enrolled. Paying out as currently slated could not possibly cause inflation. To believe continuing SS as planned could cause inflation, you would have to believe that SS beneficiaries had been expecting the government to default on payments and therefore had not planned to receive those benefits, would be surprised to receive the money and thus would cause a sudden significant increase in demand for goods and services which could not be met easily through expansion of current employment and production.

To repeat, preserving benefits at the current schedule could no more cause inflation than insurance companies making annuity account disbursements or banks making good on Certificates of Deposit does.

[Honeycombe8]

315. You misunderstand. I didn't say anywhere in my post that printing $ was the ONLY cause of inflation.

But it IS most definitely a cause. If you print more money, then each dollar is worth LESS, meaning goods and services will start rising to get value for the dollar. This is because the amount of gold giving value to the paper is still the same. Paper money is really worthless; it's only the gold backing it up that gives it any value. You can have only two pieces of paper representing that gold, in which case those 2 pieces of paper would be worth a LOT. Or you can have billions of pieces of paper representing that gold, in which case those pieces of paper would be worth a lot LESS.

I ALSO did not say that SS causes inflation. Don't know where you got that. I don't even think that.

I SAID that SS will fall short of having the $ to pay all benefits in about 10 years, so something will have to be done before then. There are several things that can be done. (Printing more paper isn't one of the solutions, as you suggested.)

I was merely responding to your comment that the answer is to print more paper, as if that would help. It won't. Besides, some function would have to put the extra paper in the SS account. Paper money doesn't just appear there. It comes from taxes.

[OnyxCollie]

53. K&R. nt

[abelenkpe]

56. Is this the story that has you thinking social security may be cut?

The CEO Plan to Steal Your Social Security and Medicare
Dean Baker
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/30-11

Many people are following the presidential election closely with the idea that the outcome will have a major impact on national policy. However, according to Steven Pearlstein, a veteran Washington Post columnist and reporter, it may not matter who wins the election. In a column last week, Pearlstein told readers that the top executives of some of the country's largest companies are getting together to craft a budget package that they will try to push through Congress and get the president to sign.

While Pearlstein clearly sees these backroom meetings of corporate chieftains in positive terms (he refers to them as "grown-ups" who have been noticeably absent from the conversation about the budget), the rest of us might view this plotting a bit differently. As Pearlstein openly acknowledges, this corporate coup is an end-run around the electorate. As corrupt as the political process may have become, at least we will get a vote in the election. Pearlstein's plotters are not inviting the rest of us into the conversation.

Many of the same folks who brought the economy to ruin just a few years ago are now going to come up with a plan that is supposed to set the budget and the economy on a forward path. At the center of their proposal are big cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

The most popular Social Security cut among this gang is a reduction in the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) by 0.3 percentage points. They are betting that ordinary people are too dumb to notice this cut since it is a relatively small amount each year.

However, the effect of this cut accumulates into a much bigger deal over time. After 10 years it is roughly 3 percent, after 20 years it would be close to 6 percent, and after 30 years it would be close to 9 percent.

If we assume that an average retiree collects benefits for 20 years, this implies an average cut in their benefits of 3 percent. Is that a big deal? Well, there are a lot of would-be Social Security cutters who are screaming bloody murder because President Obama wants to increase the tax rate on a portion of their income by a bit more than 3 percentage points. This means that if President Obama's proposal to increase taxes on the richest 2 percent is a big deal, then the plan to cut the Social Security COLA is also a big deal.

The corporate CEO crew is also considering a plan to raise the normal retirement age for Social Security to 69. And, they want to reduce the benefit formula for high income workers which, incredibly, they define as people who earn more than $40,000 a year.

(more at link)

[limpyhobbler]

61. Sorry. Third Way is here to stay.

The days are over when the Democrats could be counted on to defend the interests of the working class consistently.

The politics is just an expression of where the underlying power is in our society. I don't think things will ever turn in a positive direction unless there is a mass movement of people to force the powerful interests to give us some more money.

[dkf]

65. Leaving social security as is = cutting benefits. I wonder how many understand this.

I bet most don't have a clue.

[Yeah Its Spin]

71. Enjoy your vouchers

[lib2DaBone]

72. Democrats DO NOT destroy Social Security....

..Waiting to see where Mr. Obama stands on SS.....

[NorthCarolina]

151. The "Democrats" you speak of were purged from the party long ago

in a systematic effort by the DLC whose creedo is/was "run left, govern right".

[woo me with science]

76. No, they don't. Not real ones.

But we don't have very many real ones left, do we.

The plan appears to be to phase the cuts in gradually so as to reduce protest from the masses. After all, they consider us to be stupid sheep who won't notice a few dollars at a time.

Desperately poor elderly people across the country are about to suffer the consequences of our having allowed corporate Trojan horses in Democrat suits to infiltrate our Party. Shame on all of us for tolerating any of it.

[Zanzoobar]

77. What if we could cut SS to one recipient

And save a million recipients?

[MannyGoldstein]

84. How could that possibly happen? nt

[arely staircase]

79. and no true scotsman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

When your headline for your op is an almost word for word paraphrase of a famous logical fallacy, your ability to argue it is retarded (not as in mental health, but as in stunted, from the start.

Furthermore, to whom are you reffering?

[JoeyT]

101. "People that aren't from Scotland aren't Scotsmen"

isn't a logical fallacy. What you seem to think it means completely negates anyone's ability to define anything. That seems to kind of ruin the ability to argue too.

Generally No True Scotsman is a justification for excluding someone from your group because you don't want to be associated with them for whatever reason, even when they actually fit the definition of being a member of your group. What Manny is doing is actually defining "Democrat" as a person that doesn't want to cut social security. "Not cutting social security" used to be a defining characteristic among Democrats, so it isn't a wild stretch.

If we accept the premise that we can't define Democrat as anything to do with an actual definition, the word becomes arbitrary and meaningless and communication becomes impossible. "Bob is a Democrat" has no meaning, since you can't define "Democrat" as anything, including a person that supports the Democratic party.

[arely staircase]

130. i come from a long line of the sons of Alban

Lassie.

[still_one]

86. I will go a step further, there is no difference between those democrats and the republicans.

Social Security is an annuity that congress stole from to fight the wars

It is our annuity. Any Democrat who plays with that will never get my support or vote

[woo me with science]

89. That's why they will postpone it

until after the election.

[OnyxCollie]

97. Careful where you tread.

Last edited Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:01 AM - Edit history (1)

If you cross the line and make a comparison between Obama and Bush, you'll get your post deleted.


At Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:23 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:

Comparing Obama is James Holmes is inappropriate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=179617

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This poster is visiting from an offsite website that is populated by people that have been tombstoned from here. Saying - and yes this was validated by the poster downthreads - is just like Bush is crap on the highest order. This kind of anti Obama rhetoric should be banned from DU particularly during a general election. That USED to be a DU rule. Is it still?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:31 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Such comparisons are not welcome here.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Banning language. It's not just for Republicans anymore.

[still_one]

164. I made no such comparison. Any democrat who dismantles Social Security is no Democrat. If

you read the other posts in this thread from what I have seen, it looks like most people do NOT want their social security messed around with

[OnyxCollie]

172. I agree with you.

Just saying, if you pull off the mask to fully reveal the visage below, you will become persona non grata.

Some people avoid the truth because it scares them; others obfuscate the truth because they have an incentive to do so.

[still_one]

186. Appreciate the cautionary note /nt

[99Forever]

90. Hey, those bluemutts have their ...

... lifelong pensions and healthcare all lined up, why give a crap about the rest of us? Fucking peasants get too old to work, just hurry up and die and get the fuck out of the way. Teh 3rd way.

[rks306]

95. They don't have to

Just raise the cap.

[scheming daemons]

98. Manny... attempting divide and conquer again

Obama has done NOTHING to Social Security.

Nothing at all.

Keep building your strawmen, Manny.

[woo me with science]

99. Ah, you got the correct schedule, I see.

Deny now. Rationalize later.

[SunsetDreams]

100. You should check it out, links to back it up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021049495

[woo me with science]

102. Here's a link for you:

In his own words:

"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

President Obama
July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president

[SunsetDreams]

103. LOL unnecessary Administrative costs don't cut it nt

[ProSense]

105. Obama cut Medicare is a RW talking point. n/t

[SunsetDreams]

107. People just believe anything that unnamed sources tell them.

[sabrina 1]

268. Conyers is not an unnamed source.

But you're right, some people will believe what they want to believe. I believe people like Conyers when it comes to Democratic issues like SS and I am very grateful to the few in Congress who, like him, stand up and fight against the use of the Social Safety Net for political purposes, or as part of any bargain with the Far Right Lunatics. We elect Democrats to stand up against that army of thieves in the Republican Party because we KNOW what they will do.

So thanks go to Conyers and the Progressive Caucus who appear to be among the few who actually are standing up for the people. We need lots of more of them in Congress.

[woo me with science]

113. Still trying desperately to avoid the President's own proposal, huh?

"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

President Obama
July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president

[SunsetDreams]

116. Still avoiding this?

This morning we heard that Congressman John Conyers - whom I have a lot of respect for and who has done wonderful things on behalf of the American people - let loose on President Obama at an event held by the House Out of Poverty Caucus. He is calling for White House protests because he claims that the President put Social Security "cuts" on the table in the debt limit talks, not the Republicans. In fact, Conyers went on to pretty much absolve the Republicans of their responsibilities. He has had it with the President. Well, Congressman, some of us out here have had it with you and your pals talking out of whack.

First of all, let's be clear what we are talking about. It is a dastardly lie that "Social Security cuts" were proposed or even accepted by President Obama. I have covered the issue of the Social Security reform and the COLA calculation adjustment before, and suffice it to say that there are no cuts to the basic social security benefit being proposed by President Obama or anyone else. None. That is a fact.

...

And as long as we are on the subject of the poor and Social Security, is Congressman Conyers simply unaware that the President's plan - the much derided Fiscal Commission's plan - would set a floor on Social Security benefits at 125% of federal poverty - literally lifting people who have worked all their lives in low-wage jobs out of poverty? Does John Conyers simply not care that the same plan would define full Social Security benefits at age 62 for those who cannot work beyond that because of the nature of their trade? Is John Conyers completely oblivious to the fact that the much dreaded Fiscal Commission plan would raise the basic social security benefit for those whose average lifetime income is $15,000 or less, and, for example, for someone with an average lifetime income of $15,000 (in 2010 dollars) raise the basic Social Security benefit by $3,500? Is he so caught up in the soundbites that he has entirely missed these details?

Oh, by the way, Congressman Conyers, do you remember your vote in 1993 to raise taxes on Social Security income (more details from the Social Security Administration)? But I suppose that is not a cut in benefits. No, not at all. I don't want to call you a hypocrite, Congressman; I have too much respect for you for that. But what you just did by going after the President is rank hypocrisy.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/07/john-conyers-owes-president-apology.html

Conyers also voted for the Payroll Tax Cut? REALLY? Why yes he did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002322228

[woo me with science]

125. What a fucking pantload. What unadulterated right-wing bullcrap that is.

You just posted a link to a right-wing defense of the chained CPI, which will lower projected benefits for SS recipients.

Good god.

Right wingers in Democrat suits, who would steal the subsistence of elderly poor Americans, do not belong in this party. Period.

[SunsetDreams]

138. Are you serious? Peoples View is Liberal

The People's View is primarily a political blog, published by Spandan Chakrabarti (that would be me). I have been participating in online and offline liberal activism since 2003, when Gov. Howard Dean ran for president. I am a proud liberal and proud American who believes in pragmatic solutions.

The word "view" in the name of this site is not meant to define "opinion." For any blog or blogger to claim to represent "the people's" opinion would be foolish. The word view here is view as in a "bird's eye view" - in other words, perspective. Our goal is to analyze issues with the primary perspective of how totalities policies affect ordinary people, and what it means from that view, or perspective.

This blog is devoted to examining issues from a liberal perspective, on factual bases and on fair analysis. This site is also deeply zealous about liberal Democratic activism. At The People's View, we are committed to giving readers as much additional resources (mostly via links) as possible to educate as well as activate. The People's View is also a public policy blog for reasoned debate and discussion. At the moment, it is primarily covering issues of economic policy, health policy and civil rights issues. However, other issues of local, state or national interest will also be addressed. I am based in Silicon Valley, California; so Bay Area and California state issues may sometimes be of interest.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/p/about-peoples-view.html

Nice try though.

[girl gone mad]

290. You believe that site is liberal?

Their economic views appear far to the right of Reagan, Bush, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

[woo me with science]

106. Where on earth do you get that?

Nice try, but weak.

[SunsetDreams]

108. No, you should look into it

Rather than taking a quote without any context.

[woo me with science]

111. So you have nothing.

Psst. Making stuff up does not count as making a point.

[SunsetDreams]

115. Obama Aide On Social Security Cut Story: It 'Overshoots The Runway'

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is pushing back against a Wednesday night report that the president is prepared to offer cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

"The story overshoots the runway," said a senior administration official. "The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

UPDATE 10:38 a.m: White House spokesman Jay Carney commented on the reports concerning Social Security cuts Thursday morning.

"There is no news here," Carney said. "The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/social-security-cuts-debt_n_892070.html

[woo me with science]

118. Obviously you are ignoring the oily exchange pointed out here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1049288

[SunsetDreams]

119. Christian Science Monitor? No thank you

[woo me with science]

123. There's a video at the link, genius. nt

[SunsetDreams]

139. got another link?

[girl gone mad]

291. What's wrong with the Christian Science Monitor?

Their liberal credentials are solid. They've done excellent reporting for many years.

[ProSense]

104. And one for you:

<...>

Under Obama’s approach, for instance, higher-income seniors would pay more for doctors visits and prescription coverage beginning in 2017 and all new enrollees will pay a $25 deductible as part of their Part B premiums. But for the most part, the budget is similar to the administration’s September 2011 deficit reduction plan and recoups the greatest savings from drug rebates and modernizing provider payments to achieve greater efficiency. Here is a chart showing where all the savings come from:



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/13/424136/obama-budget-health-care-savings-in-one-chart/

[woo me with science]

110. More non-responsive crap.

What does this have to do with Social Security cuts?

And, by the way, Obama already proposed raising the Medicare age of eligibility.

[ProSense]

112. Wait

"What does this have to do with Social Security cuts? "

...are you saying that the word "cuts" only applies to Social Security? You provided the quote:

In his own words:

"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

President Obama
July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president

Clearly the chart proves that the statement isn't about cuts to benefits. Well, onto the next bullshit rumor.

"And, by the way, Obama already proposed raising the Medicare age of eligibility."

Got a link to that proposal?

[woo me with science]

122. The Washington Post report of Obama's "Grand Bargain":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-evolution-behind-the-failed-grand-bargain-on-the-debt/2012/03/15/gIQAHyyfJS_print.html

$1.2 trillion in agency cuts, smaller cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, nearly $250 billion in Medicare savings achieved in part by raising the eligibility age. And $800 billion in new taxes.

The Washington Post adds, "The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, Daley recalled....Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan."

Shame on you, Prosense. You know all of this full well. When did brazen denial of recent history replace honest argument?

And let me add this reality sandwich, to counter your absolutely ridiculous claims that Obama never meant to cut benefits: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130

I will end this discussion with the President's own words again. Everyone should remember them:

"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

President Obama
July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president

[ProSense]

124. I see the problem

"The Washington Post report of Obama's "Grand Bargain":"

...you're confusing a WaPo article, no, a point in a WaPo article with an actual proposal. I asked for a link to a proposal.

I mean, the media reported that the Obama was going to announce cuts to Social Security in his SOTU. That seemed pretty far-fetched, and it never happened.

Now, got a link to a proposal by the President?

[ProSense]

127. WTF? n/t

[Vattel]

321. So that's the best you can do?

You demand a link to a proposal knowing that the proposal in question was not placed in the public record.

Do you really expect people to believe that all of the sources for the Post's claim (that raising the eligibility age for Medicare was part of Obama proposal) are lying? And you expect people to believe that even though the Whitehouse did not deny the truth of that claim?

Amazing.

[MannyGoldstein]

322. Do you have a link to a media report stating that

"Obama was going to announce cuts to Social Security in his SOTU"?

[sabrina 1]

142. John Conyers is not a liar. Thank you for the links. I remember that last statement

very well.

[newthinking]

243. Yep, some here conveniently leave out that little "poison nugget"

So at the same time that we are going through a productivity and globalization boom that will make it terribly difficult for the elderly to continue to work we will move the baseline further back. That is not an improvement, it is a faustian bargain.

[whatchamacallit]

117. K&R! n/t

[SidDithers]

121. True Democrats don't put their citizens in internment camps. They don't. Not Ever...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

135. True Democrats do not support assassinating American Citizens without charges or trial. What is your

Point?

[dionysus]

136. True Democrats don't use Skinners web site to post dumbass OPs campaigning against Dems, either. nt

[Iggo]

132. So what's the punchline?

Obama is for it? And therefore he's not a true Demaocrat? And how can any true Democrat vote for him?

Am I close?

EDIT: I just clicked on the link. Got it in one! Am I that good? Or was it just that predictable?

[emulatorloo]

153. Just the usual Fox-and-Friends-style fear and smear stuff that Mr. Manny does.

He's mastered every trick in the book from the rightwing noise machine. Applies them from the left, but for the same result.

[jtuck004]

133. The economy will be bad, many will think they must accept the unthinkable to get what they want...

[font size="12"]"We ALL bundle"[/font]



And I think the road to a change in that thinking is as long as it has ever been...

[Poll_Blind]

137. Looking upthread, it appears that Chef DLC brought the copypasta!

You drive the Blue (link) Dogs crazy, Manny. And with every plate of copypasta they deliver, your thread gets bumped to the top, more people read it, more people rec it, which frenzies the Turd Way folks even more.



PB

[SunsetDreams]

140. Oh noes

there was a blue link from May in the OP

[emulatorloo]

152. Actually no. Manny creates strawman Democrats.

[Poll_Blind]

160. And the 119 recs are just DUers who are just easily duped? And only you and a few others who...

...disagree know Tha Truth?



You're greatly misguided and failing the attempt to misguide others.

PB

[emulatorloo]

163. Some DU'ers enjoy Manny's brand of "truthiness"

He uses every trick in the right wing tool book

Willful misinterpretation, projection of Republican plans onto Democrats, speculative bullshit as fact.

Upthread I compared it the current repub "You didn't build that" propaganda campaign. Out of context quote, pretending Obama said something he didn't and running with it.

If you like it that's cool. Recommend away. But don't confuse 119 recs with a "majority opinion"

I have never seen Manny post anything about the Ryan Plan. Have you?

[girl gone mad]

292. The Ryan plan has no chance of passing.

[SidDithers]

193. Manny could post the phone book and the usual suspects would give it 100+ recs...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

198. Calling out DUers as a group? Who are the 'usual suspects'?

Implying that a whole lot of DUers are too stupid to be able to think for themselves?

No democrat better touch SS in this country, and if the Dem Party gets on board after the election and does so, it will be the end of the Party. I guess you don't live here so you are not familiar with just how volatile a subject this is.

Democrats should never even consider any kind of 'compromise' or 'bi-partisanship' or even think of remaining silent when Republicans lie about SS. Every American understands SS so there is no way to fool them or to make unclear remarks and not expect a virtual uprising or at least a demand for clarification. There is NO ONE in this country who does not know someone among their friends and family who rely on SS.

We, here in the US, were opposed to the 'tax holiday', and opposed to those two years with no cost of living raise. That was a cut. For seniors and the disabled that showed them how vigilant they must be even with Democrats.

So you can trash DUers all you want. Even if no one here on DU ever said a word about it, this is one topic no one will remain silent about and it is a topic that is discussed in this country every day in every family.

Anyone who is a 'true Democrat' therefore, will not allow this party to go down the path, which they started doing by cutting the cost of living raise, of touching SS.

Even Bush with all his arrogance, found that out.

[LanternWaste]

204. And I imagine the "other" group of usual suspects would then immediately

". Manny could post the phone book and the usual suspects would give it 100+ recs..."


And I imagine the "other" group of usual suspects would then immediately post links denying not merely the credibility and validly of the phone book, but its very existence.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other-- yet both sides pretend to see a distinction without a difference...

[MannyGoldstein]

228. I'm flattered by the thought!

But highly doubtful, sorry.

[HiPointDem]

141. kr and piss on the folks pretending like the bargaining hasn't been going on.

[cali]

145. Absolutely true.

some of the posts in this thread are.... interesting.

[emulatorloo]

149. Karl Rove toolbox: Speculative Bullshit as Fact, Willful misinterpretation, Out of context quotes

Projecting what Ryan and Romney will do onto Obama.

You've got the tactics all down. Good for you, Manny.

Still don't understand your endgame.

[a2liberal]

155. K&R (n/t)

[emulatorloo]

158. Related Thread: "Why Romney keeps attacking things Obama didn’t say"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125162389

[JoePhilly]

159. Definitely, positively, absolutely ... any second ... here it comes .... here it comes ...

... nothing.

[emulatorloo]

169. It is odd to me that Manny never writes about the Ryan Plan

which is real and verifiable.

Instead he has been trolling this "Obama secretly wants to destroy medicare and Social Security" bs for as long as I can remember.

[leftstreet]

181. You're calling a member in good standing a 'troll?'

So now it's 'trolling' to examine and criticize Obama's policies?

DU3 really sucks

[emulatorloo]

185. I don't know what to call a member who continuosly makes up shit about Democrats

and never posts anything bad about Republicans.

He's been trolling his fabricated "Obama's 'Secret' Plan" to destroy the safety net for a long time. It just isn't credible.

Fabricating shit is not "examin(ing) and criticiz(ing) Obama's policies". It is fabricating "secret plans" and passing them off as real.

While ignoring REAL policies like the Ryan Plan.

I have no idea what motivates Manny, all I can do is observe how he operates.

He uses every tool from the right wing tool book against democrats - willful misinterpretation, selective quotation, presenting speculation as fact, fear and smear.

Yes I am to the point where I feel it is all about distracting from actual Honest to God Republican plans to destroy the safety net. Manny gives those guys a free pass.

But I have no clue as to Manny's motivation or what he is trying to accomplish. Only Manny knows for sure.

[procon]

279. Well, I thought he was a troll, too.

I'm not familiar with all the 'personalities' here, so all I can go on is his repetitive and hyperbolic criticisms of even the most innofensive comments made by others in this thread. There are too many aggressive and contentious posters who attack the individual rather than debate the issues; that's why I mostly stick to lurking.

[sabrina 1]

285. Well, you can be forgiven for being wrong seeing as you appear to be new to DU.

Trolls generally do not post facts, just FYI. Manny generally does. Hope that helps. And welcome to DU!

[procon]

294. "Forgiven"???

I'm not part of your pecking ordering and I didn't imply that I was seeking approval for adding a comment.

[sabrina 1]

301. Alright, 'excused' then, for being so wrong about the OP.

[JoePhilly]

195. It's like the NRA saying that Obama not taking your guns in term #1 PROVES he will take them

in term #2.

Its a double super secret plan, the elements of which can only be determined by the most pure among us.

And if you are not running around with your hair on fire, you're clearly part of the conspiracy.

Meanwhile ... who's Paul Ryan again?

[emulatorloo]

202. Perfect analogy.

[MannyGoldstein]

227. The Ryan plan is horrific

Way worse than anything Obama and the rest of the Third Way have proposed.

I'll make it an OP if you'd like.

I understand that the Right is terrible. I just want Democrats that act like Democrats so we can have good government again

[ProSense]

162. President Carter, not a "true Democrat"

<...>

The new administration of President Carter sent its proposals to Congress in May 1977. Its package included the same "wage indexing" solution proposed by the Ford Administration as well as many new tax and financing proposals.

Despite the two Administrations' support for wage indexing, Congress examined numerous alternative proposals!! in a lengthy series of hearings. Ultimately, both the House and the Senate adopted legislation replacing the flawed 1972 method with a wage indexing method, and President Carter signed these new Social Security amendments into law on December 20, 1977.

These new amendments preserved the way that benefits were adjusted for inflation for those already on the rollsCin other words, existing beneficiaries continued to receive annual increases (COLAs) based on the percentage increase in the CPI. The way initial benefits were calculated. however, was completely revised.

Under the old law, a person's initial benefit was determined by averaging the actual wages he or she earned (in "covered" jobs) over a period roughly equivalent to a working lifetime. A benefit table was then used to determine the basic amount payable.

But since earnings levels in the economy tend to increase each year, initial benefits tended to creep up as the worker's average earnings rose. In addition, these benefits were also "price-indexed" -adjusted for inflation - since the figures in the table rose by the percentage increase in the CPI.


Fixed Formula Introduces Wage Indexing

Thus the old law generated, under some economic conditions, inflated initial benefits by linking, or "coupling," the effect of both wage and price increases. The 1977 legislation "de-coupled&quot 23) those two elements, substituting a fixed formula for determining initial benefits: (24)

1. 90 percent of the lowest range of average indexed monthly earnings, plus
   
2. 32 percent of the mid range of such earnings, plus
   
3. 15 percent of the highest range of such earnings (up to a maximum based on amount of earnings on which taxes are paid).

Like the old approach, this new approach used average earnings over a "working lifetime." But those earnings would now be adjusted ("indexed&quot to reflect the growth of wages in the economy Cin other words, past wages would be translated into their equivalent in current wage levels.(25)

By adopting this new method, Congress purposely lowered initial benefits to offset the unintended increases that would have occurred as a result of the flawed 1972 method. However, it protected anyone who reached eligibility age prior to 1979Cthat is, anyone born before January 2, 1917 Cby "grandfathering" them under the old law. This protected people already on the benefit rolls as well as those who could have retired in 1978 or earlier but continued working. For those who continued working, the initial benefit calculations resulting from this grandfathering proved especially generous.

Thus a worker retiring under the new law would generally receive lower benefits than a worker I retiring under the old law, which was the intent of Congress. To minimize the abruptness of this change, however, Congress created a special five-year "transitional method" for people who would become eligible for benefits beginning in 1979.(26) In other words, those born between 1917-21 would I be the first to have their benefits calculated under the new law. This "transitional method" was designed to ease their transition to the new, lower level of benefits.

The transitional method was identical to the old method except (1) earnings after age 61 could not be used in figuring benefits, and (2) after 1978, no inflation adjustments would be made until age 62.(27) Individuals eligible for the transitional method would have their benefits computed under the new law method if it produced higher benefits.

The transitional method did not alterCnor was it intended to alterCthe fact that people born after January 1, 1917 would receive, with few exceptions, lower benefits than those born prior to that year. That was the purpose of the 1977 law.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/notchfile1.html

The fascinating thing is that President Obama isn't pushing such a proposal. In fact, other than a bunch of unelected clowns writing op-eds, no one in the Democratic leadership is pushing for any such change.

So who is the OP referring to?

[still_one]

167. Bob Kerry came out yesterday and said he would /nt

[ProSense]

170. He's running for Congress right?

He's a tool, never liked him.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/KerreyDanforth/KerreyDanforth.htm

He is not in the Democratic leadership.

[still_one]

187. yes, Nelson's seat from Nebraska. At least I think that is what the OP is referring to. /nt

[bahrbearian]

175. K&R

[calmeco702]

176. K&R

[leftstreet]

178. K&R

[fascisthunter]

179. Everyone, do yourselves a favor and...

... place the DLCers on ignore.

[Egalitarian Thug]

197. I like to read their fantastic wishing and baseless accusations. It's somehow comforting to see

where and how the Democratic Party is getting support for destroying the nation more slowly than the republicans want to.

[emulatorloo]

201. "Fantastic wishing and baseless accusations" is a good description of the OP

Creating straw man democrats, while ignoring the real threat to the safety net from the Ryan Plan.

[Egalitarian Thug]

209. Really? How so? It was our Democratic President that both created the catfood commission,

chaired by two of the very worst bastards from either party that made gutting SS their life's work in office, and who brought cuts in benefits, unbidden, to the table (and redirected half a billion dollars of SS revenue into the general budget). It was, and remains, Democratic Party leadership that keeps the Big Lie campaign going and, in so doing, gives it credence.

I think the OP makes a good point. Democrats don't win because they push a republican agenda, they win in one of two ways; Waiting for the republicans to make things so bad that more people will for vote for anybody else, or the preferred method untried for three generations, by standing up for the principles that used to define this party.

[pepito]

211. NOT ONE of

the Presidents defenders can explain the Catfood Commission away....they go straight to hypocrite Randian Repuke Ryan,who is obviously a sociopath (no empathy).Hay Mr. President how about supporting your real base,200,000,000 working Americans,we brung ya to the dance.

[ProSense]

286. NOT ONE of

"NOT ONE of the Presidents defenders can explain the Catfood Commission away"

...the people harping on a dead commission trying to shit stir based on speculation about some shit that didn't happen a year ago can explain why Obama didn't just stack the commission with people who agreed with his sinister plot, ensuring that the report would be approved and presented to Congress for an up or down vote.

Explain that! Yeah, I'll wait for the conspiracy theory explaining that.

[girl gone mad]

295. It's so dead that the NY Times just published a major op-ed pushing for its recommendations..

to be enacted post-haste.

When Obama chose to empanel the Simpson-Bowles-Peterson cat-food commission, he effectively shifted the economic priorities of his administration away from much needed growth and jobs and reconfigured the agenda toward long-term deficit reduction and economic austerity.

Maybe you don't understand just how irresponsible and outright destructive this decision was. Shortly after this pivot to deficit reduction, Obama publicly stated that our government was "out of money". What message could Americans take away from such a (patently bogus) statement other than that our country is facing insolvency, like Greece? How is this (dumb) rhetoric helpful in the midst of a recession, or preceding debt ceiling battles? The President essentially handed an assault rifle and thousands of rounds of ammunition to right wing enemies of the New Deal. This was unbelievably foolish, or worse.

It's difficult enough to get intelligent people to understand the difference between public sector debt and private sector debt. This task becomes virtually impossible when political leaders of both parties are lying to the people about our nation's fiscal status in an effort to undermine our social safety net.

We're facing another decade of high unemployment and broad economic decline because of our political leaders' dishonest deficit hysteria and debt fear-mongering.

[ProSense]

296. So

It's so dead that the NY Times just published a major op-ed pushing for its recommendations..

to be enacted post-haste.

...you're under the impression that a NYT op-ed retroactively resuscitated a dead commission and its dead report?

People are still talking about Reagan, and he is still dead.

[girl gone mad]

299. Obama opened Pandora's box.

It's important to remember that he had a choice. He chose to pivot to deficit hysteria and austerity. Why?

[ProSense]

302. You can't be serious. n/t

[girl gone mad]

304. Can you ever answer a direct question?

Why did Obama shift to deficit hysteria? Why did he say "We are out of money"?

[ProSense]

307. Well,

"Why did Obama shift to deficit hysteria? Why did he say "We are out of money"?"

...I don't give a shit because that has nothing to do with the fact that the commission is dead.

All these bullshit non sequitur arguments don't change the fact that Obama has not cut Social Security, nor does he have or has ever had a proposal to cut the program.

Effing Period.

[raouldukelives]

183. True Democrats should support Main St over Wall St.

But that is just an opinion. I feel like we are in uncharted territory. This new America, the new influx of Democrats & self-identifying liberals, who don't seem to feel as strongly about certain issues as those of the past. Things like war, environmental disasters, corporate crime & fighting for the little guy. Putting the needs of the many over the needs of the few.
Things that are very easy to say you are for, but appear to be very hard to prove you are for.
I never really imagined my country heading in the direction it seemingly is. The last few decades, the bulk of my life, I have watched the change. The corporations, Wall St and the willing supporters who have helped them to purchase positions of influence in our govt. One must be subservient to them and their goals in order to even have a voice. All the while our moral compass becomes ever more deadened. More willing to see the side of the large donors in order to fund an election that can do battle against the ever increasing madness that is the GOP. More willing to consider compromises that put the needs of the few over the needs of the many.
And that is frightening. For all of our futures. Thanks Manny for continuing to push hard towards the left. I think our party needs all the help it can find to get it moving in that direction. I think our President wants to move in that direction and I think deep inside, most Democrats do too.

[grahamhgreen]

190. The payroll tax cuts ALREADY Damages the long term solvency of SS! Note

"President Obama put Congress on notice Tuesday in a speech in Osawatomie, Kan.

He said that unless a temporary payroll tax cut is extended this month, 160 million Americans would see their taxes go up next year by an average of $1,000. But there's concern on both sides of the political aisle that the payroll tax holiday might be undermining the solvency of Social Security.

Fact No. 1: Last year, for the first time in its 75-year history, Social Security took in less money than it paid out.

Fact No. 2: This year, the first of the baby boomers reached retirement age and began collecting Social Security benefits.

Fact No. 3: The payroll tax holiday that Congress approved a year ago reduced Social Security's revenues this year by $105 billion." http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143241709/how-payroll-tax-cut-affects-social-securitys-future

Personally, I am advocating to turn everyone's 401k's and other retirement plans into additional SS benefits, as well as being able to voluntarily pay more in, to get more bacK!

I just wish I had enought time in my day to convince the DLC think tank crowd on this one.

Obviously, Obama, ent al, should be pushing hard to raise the SS cap.....

[stupidicus]

192. Sure they do, if they are redefined to repub-lite

well, in terms of what the repubs use to be. http://www.alternet.org/story/154175/why_obama%27s_the_least_socialistic_president_in_modern_history_%28and_that%27s_a_shame%29?akid=8275.20699.QVbCh7&rd=1&t=5

Let's face it -- this has been why, starting with the DLC, that the ideological center line has been moved rightward, and what use to be unquestioned third rails have lost their jolt, because only dems have ever had a political chance at altering them significantly.

To those oblivious to or in denial of the many deleterious effects of the third-way BS and its role in this, I'd simply ask them to explain this http://www.americablog.com/2012/05/obama-2006too-many-of-us-have-been.html because it seems to unquestionably confirm that suspicions regarding his desire to "work with" the rightwingnut extremists on SS and Medicare "reform" are warranted, leaving only the type and magnitude of the tweaks he's willing to negotiate away, not whether he's willing to put his foot on the rail.

In other words, to harbor fears or apprehension about these matters is reasonable, and voicing concerns of them should be promoted and tolerated, and the senseless need to shit down and shut up if all they have are the usual "conspiracy theorist!", "you're the one that's not a real dem!" BS that defines who and what they are -- the functional equivalent of dem Bushbots. http://www.americablog.com/2011/08/barack-obama-best-president-ever.html If he has intentions of negotiating changes that will be unacceptable to the majority of his base, the time to let him know about that unacceptability is before he arrives at the negotiating table, not after he signs something. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/guy-saperstein-time-negotiate-obama-n

As one who's long thought and predicted that the fear of rightwingnuttery is his biggest trumpcard this fall, the ugly side to it is that it leaves his base ripe for exploitation. In my experiences, even those the most disappointed in him intend to vote for him again because of the alternative, and the idea that the "x" dimensional chess player isn't acutely aware of this is silly. The fact of the matter is imho, is that the charade of being a "uniter" (because surely he was aware of the folly of that from those determined to make him a one term pres, no?) was really just a facade produced by the same good cop/bad cop act we've been subjected to since the DLC rose from the political muck.

congrats -- good post

[Jamaal510]

203. That would be political suicide for the D's to cut SS.

They know very well that liberals overwhelmingly support it. If a Democrat ever wanted to cut SS, that would be a humongous middle finger to the base and to all working class Americans. It would paint the picture that they're no different than the G0Pee.

[bananas]

206. k&r! nt

[lark]

207. Please get this message to our president!

He's definitely on the folder and bender over side and has hinted broadly and often that he wants to cut social security - or as he says it - change it so it lasts. Only all his changes hurt the working class and do nothing to increase the revenue by taxing income after $110,000 or so. Obama is part of the problem in Washington. Wonder if he will sound like a progressive once he's won the election, or will he go back to middle right of the road Repub like he was prior to starting to campaign again?

BTW - I will 100% vote for him and pray for the best later. He's far from perfect, no Bernie Sanders or Al Franken, but at least he's not batshit crazy.

[Oilwellian]

220. Manny, I guess we're supposed to forget last summer's "Grand Bargain"

The "Grand Bargain" was a huge eye-opener for Democrats who were paying attention, and it convinced many of us that the Democratic leadership was weak, their ability to negotiate was mind-numbing, and they were indeed willing to bow to the new Tea Party majority in the House by agreeing to their demand of cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits. It seems the DLC'ers want us to believe President Obama's attempt to strike this "grand bargain" never happened because the deal fell through. Ironically, it fell through because Boner didn't have control of his new Tea Party members who would would never agree to the tax increases that the Republican leadership was willing to negotiate as part of this "grand bargain." (The increases finally agreed to by the Obama team were an effing pittance compared to the cuts they put on the table.)

A few months before the "Grand Bargain" began, the Washington Post article linked below, described President Obama's mindset as follows:

Against the vehement advice of many Democrats, including some of his own advisers, Obama was pursuing a compromise with his ideological opponents, a “grand bargain” that would move into unmarked territory, beyond partisan divides, pushing both parties to places they did not want to go. Now might be the moment.

Let's take a walk down MEMORY LANE, shall we?

On that Sunday in July, Boehner, the old-school pol from Ohio, seemed willing to hash it out. He had met in private with the president and his aides many times. Their sessions were so sensitive — especially for the speaker, who was dealing with a House teeming with tea party rebels — that Obama’s aides were under strict orders to “protect Boehner” and not talk about his private entreaties. Obama liked Boehner; they got along well during the private sessions and a round of golf.

The conversation during that brief gathering inside the Oval Office did nothing to dampen the optimism. When the trio emerged and returned to the roomful of aides, Obama appeared upbeat. “I want a deal,” he said.

The major elements of a bargain seemed to be falling into place: $1.2 trillion in agency cuts, smaller cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, nearly $250 billion in Medicare savings achieved in part by raising the eligibility age. And $800 billion in new taxes.

Secrecy would be essential as the details came together, the president told everyone. He spoke openly with Boehner about how the two sides might sell the emerging plan to their respective parties, an imposing task from either end.

A senior administration official said the White House team recognized that the two offers were coalescing and that the time for a decision was at hand. People asked themselves, the official said: Is this something we can sell? Is this a deal we can live with?

That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases.

Would they support him?

The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, Daley recalled.

By this time, Obama had become the face of the bitter debt-ceiling talks and his poll numbers were dropping. His allies on Capitol Hill cringed at his predicament but also at what he was asking them to do.

Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan.

During the on again/off again negotiations described in the WP article, the Gang of Six entered the picture offering a $2 trillion increase in taxes and better protection for the poor and elderly than what the Obama/Boehner negotiations offered. When the Democrats attempted to use the Gang of Six's report as levy for a better deal, Cantor and Boehner went into a tizzy and the deal fell through. My initial response was "good!" Had the Democrats made cuts to the social programs they created and have protected for decades, it would have destroyed the party. I have absolutely no doubt about it. But here's the real kicker to this story and explains why so many Democrats are leery of what Obama will do once the election is over and this issue is on the table again. After all of the capitulating to Tea Party demands, and it was apparent the Republicans weren't going to budge, Obama did this:

Two day later, July 24, one week after the Sunday morning meeting that sparked such optimism, the president found himself trying to turn back the clock. Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. His message: I’ll take your last offer.

The Young Turks did an excellent report on this at the time:

Like you said Manny, no Democrat would put Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid on the chopping block...ever...period. I swear to God I will be wearing a clothespin on my nose when I vote one last time for a Third Wayer as president. Never again.

[Poll_Blind]

223. Thanks for including the TYT- they've done a great job covering these "deals". nt

PB

[hay rick]

224. Thanks for the memories.

I had suppressed them.

[sabrina 1]

271. Most of us have not forgotten, excellent post and it's hard to understand how

anyone else has forgotten.

[Oilwellian]

283. Thanks so much

Coming from one of my favorite DUers means a lot.

I will never forget the Democrats drastic move to the right last summer.

[sabrina 1]

311. I won't either, it has made many people very nervous regardless of the attempt to

try to force people to forget. People do not forget threats to SS, even implied threats. We need to hear a clear statement from the leadership of the party that no reduction in SS benefits will be tolerated, whether by raising the retirement age or NOT paying a Cost of Living increase (a cut that already happened for two years) and that the payroll tax holiday will be ended.

We also need to hear that SS had ZERO to do with the deficit and Republicans making that claim are lying. And, we need to hear plans to ensure SS's longevity such as RAISING THE CAP which makes so much sense.

And btw, you are one of my favorite DUers also

[Teamster Jeff]

276. Very depressing

I must make sure I don't eat anything for at least 24 hrs before I vote.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

252. K&R

[stevenleser]

262. I can think of several scenarios where good democrats would

Tops on my list would be a law setting up a scenario where all poor and middle class Americans were guaranteed a pension that was equal to a living wage. I would easily vote to cut Social Security to get that.

[hobbit709]

274. Damn Right!!

[NashvilleLefty]

282. There are SO many things wrong with that OP

Let's start with the "No True Scotsman fallacy". I mean, seriously, "True Democrats don't..."?

Then this OP totally misrepresents the Simpson-Bowles commission: both it's creation and the purpose. Obama appointed people on BOTH sides of the issue.

This is just a Obama hit-piece, with no regard for reality whatsoever. I watched this closely from the beginning, and I'm NOT going to let you re-write history. That's a RW technique. We're better than that!

[sabrina 1]

284. Welcome to DU. We all watched this from the beginning and I disagree with you completely.

To put actual enemies of SS on any Commission, (something btw the president once stated he would never do, appoint commissions which he called 'a run around Congress' and rightfully so) simply boggles the mind and did. Manny is not the one rewriting anything here. You can make a case if you can for inviting Grover Norquist, Alan Simpson and a list of well known Republicans whose greedy eyes have long been on the SS fund, if you can, but don't expect too many Democrats to buy it.

I agreed with the President when he promised NOT to appoint commissions and the reasons he gave for his opinion. But then, he changed his mind. Sorry, when we Dems throw Republicans out of office we do not want them appointed to commissions or cabinet positions or even, except on rare occasions, Ambassorships. The current itteration of the Republican Party needs to be wiped out, not appeased.

[ProSense]

287. It's dead

"To put actual enemies of SS on any Commission"

Evidently, he didn't put enough "enemies" to keep it alive and validate its report.

And its still dead.

So basically, there are a bunch of people pissed that a commission that died a year ago is still dead.

[girl gone mad]

298. Unfortunately, the arrow of time is unidirectional.

We can't alter the past. Those recommendations live to be implemented another day.

[ProSense]

300. What?

"We can't alter the past. Those recommendations live to be implemented another day."

The streets of DC are littered with dead proposals from dead commissions. The report was proposal soup, designed to piss everyone off. Actually, it was designed to entice everyone, specifically with the good parts. No one targeted bought it, which is why it failed.

And it's still dead.

The commission is dead, the proposal is dead. The ideas, good and bad, that they tried to push are not new. People were pushing them before and they'll continue to be pushed by those who support them.

Still, it's funny that all that's left is speculation about something that might happen...another day.


This is like a useless exercise is tail chasing.

[yellowcanine]

326. Time is unidirectional. Ideas/proposals aren't.

Ideas get changed. They get refuted. They get supplanted by other ideas. There are probably closet Whigs around still but I am not going to worry about them at this time, if ever.

[Romulox]

306. Let see: You *did* have time to pile on, upthread, but *didn't* have time to read any links...

What. a. shock!

[Oilwellian]

293. So-called Democrat Erskin Bowles, co-chair of what we Dems call the Catfood Commission...

The deficit report put out by the commission's co-chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, had one striking omission. It does not include plans for a Wall Street speculation tax or any other tax on the financial industry.

This omission is striking because the co-chairs made a big point of saying that they looked everywhere to save money and/or raise revenue. As Senator Simpson said: "We have harpooned every whale in the ocean - and some minnows." Wall Street is one whale that appears to have dodged the harpoon.

This omission is made more striking by the fact that at least one member of the commission, Andy Stern, has long been an advocate of such taxes. Presumably he raised this issue in the commission meetings and the co-chairs chose to ignore him.

The co-chairs apparently also chose to ignore the I.M.F. Noting the waste and extraordinary economic rents in the sector, the I.M.F. has explicitly recommended a substantial increase in taxes on the financial industry. It is even more striking that the co-chairs apparently never considered a speculation tax since Wall Street's reckless greed is at the center of the current economic crisis.

In this context, it is worth noting that one of the co-chairs, Erskine Bowles, is literally on Wall Street's payroll. He earned $335,000 last year for his role as a member of Morgan Stanley's (one of the bailed out banks) board of directors. Morgan Stanley would likely see a large hit to its profits from a financial speculation tax.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/erskine-bowles-morgan-stanley-and-the-deficit-commission

Sorry, you can't call yourself a Democrat, be a cheerleader for cuts in Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, and at the same time protect your Wall Street buddies from a highly recommended tax, while being on their payroll. That is the definition of a fascist, not a Democrat.

[yellowcanine]

325. Granted. And what exactly was the problem being solved by the OP again?

STRAW MAN ALERT at 8 O'clock!