Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:28 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
Third Way has been trying to privatize Social Security since 1990s. This is not playing chess.
This is for real. Our Democratic leaders have been inundated with propaganda since the late 1980s when the DLC was formed.
There is no way now that President Obama needs to be concerned about following through on his wish to use the social safety nets to achieve a "Grand Bargain". Only those up for re-election need to be concerned. Seniors are nervous now that both parties are letting them down. I think that though Obama does not have to worry about re-election.....those running next year most certainly do. And that's a shame for many of those who really care. Jon Cowan, the Third Way president, started writing stuff about this long ago. One article he addressed to Grandpa and Grandma, asking them to give up some of their entitlements so their grandchildren would not have to suffer. Baloney. But many Democrats have listened. 1993 An Appeal To Grandma And Grandpa by Jon Cowan now Third Way president. Dear Grandma and Grandpa: But that's not all he wrote. Jon Cowan was a very busy little conservative bee through the 90s. Still is. In 1995 he called for privatizing Social Security. Op ed from Third Way prez Cowan calling to privatize Social Security. Despite the truth about this imminent collapse of the system, Senate Democrats recently killed the balanced-budget amendment with claims that it left Social Security vulnerable to budget-balancing. And House Republicans swore in the 1994 elections that they'd never touch the program. Why this doublespeak from both parties? A simple political calculation: Older Americans vote, and Generation X doesn't. He then puts forth 3 principles to follow, one of which is to lower our expectations about the future benefits. He also offered to "give workers the option of putting their money into private pension programs that offer far higher returns and sounder prospects than today's Social Security system." President Obama has put benefit cuts on the table willingly, though they are calling it other stuff like Chained CPI. Enough Democrats will go along with it to get it to happen. Unfortunately the end result will be a lot of anger and frustration next year when election time rolls around. He is not being fair at all to our more progressive Democrats. It is not chess, it is a deliberate process planned through the years by our Democratic think tanks. It is playing with peoples' lives and stressing them out. Most of us thought the safety nets would be untouchable if we kept Democrats in power. But the President just warned his own party's Senators about not cooperating. That is not playing chess.
|
138 replies, 12111 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | OP |
MannyGoldstein | Mar 2013 | #1 | |
ProfessionalLeftist | Mar 2013 | #107 | |
awoke_in_2003 | Mar 2013 | #123 | |
woo me with science | Mar 2013 | #133 | |
jsr | Mar 2013 | #2 | |
duffyduff | Mar 2013 | #3 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #4 | |
duffyduff | Mar 2013 | #5 | |
RC | Mar 2013 | #81 | |
duffyduff | Mar 2013 | #84 | |
blkmusclmachine | Mar 2013 | #6 | |
bbgrunt | Mar 2013 | #12 | |
Samantha | Mar 2013 | #7 | |
duffyduff | Mar 2013 | #8 | |
Samantha | Mar 2013 | #9 | |
Egalitarian Thug | Mar 2013 | #22 | |
duffyduff | Mar 2013 | #87 | |
Egalitarian Thug | Mar 2013 | #114 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #10 | |
magellan | Mar 2013 | #11 | |
bbgrunt | Mar 2013 | #13 | |
ReRe | Mar 2013 | #25 | |
HiPointDem | Mar 2013 | #31 | |
CrispyQ | Mar 2013 | #45 | |
GoneFishin | Mar 2013 | #117 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #124 | |
whathehell | Mar 2013 | #59 | |
sabrina 1 | Mar 2013 | #97 | |
Samantha | Mar 2013 | #108 | |
w4rma | Mar 2013 | #14 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #16 | |
jsr | Mar 2013 | #18 | |
LWolf | Mar 2013 | #36 | |
eridani | Mar 2013 | #15 | |
Starry Messenger | Mar 2013 | #17 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Mar 2013 | #19 | |
HiPointDem | Mar 2013 | #32 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #39 | |
Lydia Leftcoast | Mar 2013 | #52 | |
hay rick | Mar 2013 | #71 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Mar 2013 | #93 | |
Lydia Leftcoast | Mar 2013 | #98 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Mar 2013 | #94 | |
awoke_in_2003 | Mar 2013 | #20 | |
HereSince1628 | Mar 2013 | #38 | |
ProSense | Mar 2013 | #21 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #23 | |
ProSense | Mar 2013 | #24 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #37 | |
ProSense | Mar 2013 | #50 | |
HiPointDem | Mar 2013 | #33 | |
markpkessinger | Mar 2013 | #35 | |
HiPointDem | Mar 2013 | #26 | |
RudynJack | Mar 2013 | #27 | |
markpkessinger | Mar 2013 | #30 | |
HiPointDem | Mar 2013 | #34 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #42 | |
Teamster Jeff | Mar 2013 | #28 | |
Wilms | Mar 2013 | #29 | |
Teamster Jeff | Mar 2013 | #125 | |
stevenleser | Mar 2013 | #40 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #41 | |
stevenleser | Mar 2013 | #43 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #46 | |
stevenleser | Mar 2013 | #47 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #49 | |
stevenleser | Mar 2013 | #53 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #56 | |
stevenleser | Mar 2013 | #61 | |
FogerRox | Mar 2013 | #116 | |
graham4anything | Mar 2013 | #51 | |
stevenleser | Mar 2013 | #55 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #57 | |
stevenleser | Mar 2013 | #60 | |
graham4anything | Mar 2013 | #62 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #64 | |
graham4anything | Mar 2013 | #66 | |
rhett o rick | Mar 2013 | #99 | |
bobduca | Mar 2013 | #77 | |
Samantha | Mar 2013 | #134 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #136 | |
Samantha | Mar 2013 | #138 | |
Oilwellian | Mar 2013 | #48 | |
stevenleser | Mar 2013 | #54 | |
Liberal_Stalwart71 | Mar 2013 | #102 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2013 | #74 | |
bobduca | Mar 2013 | #79 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2013 | #82 | |
bobduca | Mar 2013 | #83 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2013 | #86 | |
bobduca | Mar 2013 | #88 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2013 | #91 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #90 | |
JoePhilly | Mar 2013 | #92 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #95 | |
graham4anything | Mar 2013 | #126 | |
sabrina 1 | Mar 2013 | #44 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #69 | |
KoKo | Mar 2013 | #89 | |
jsr | Mar 2013 | #58 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #65 | |
jsr | Mar 2013 | #68 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #67 | |
Romulox | Mar 2013 | #63 | |
Douglas Carpenter | Mar 2013 | #70 | |
hay rick | Mar 2013 | #72 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #73 | |
Douglas Carpenter | Mar 2013 | #112 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #115 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2013 | #75 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #78 | |
redstatebluegirl | Mar 2013 | #76 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #80 | |
moondust | Mar 2013 | #100 | |
WinkyDink | Mar 2013 | #105 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #111 | |
WillyT | Mar 2013 | #85 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #96 | |
Liberal_Stalwart71 | Mar 2013 | #101 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #103 | |
WinkyDink | Mar 2013 | #104 | |
historylovr | Mar 2013 | #106 | |
Blue Idaho | Mar 2013 | #109 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #110 | |
KoKo | Mar 2013 | #113 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #120 | |
FogerRox | Mar 2013 | #118 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #119 | |
KoKo | Mar 2013 | #127 | |
FogerRox | Mar 2013 | #130 | |
FogerRox | Mar 2013 | #131 | |
hay rick | Mar 2013 | #132 | |
madfloridian | Mar 2013 | #137 | |
truth2power | Mar 2013 | #121 | |
on point | Mar 2013 | #122 | |
Octafish | Mar 2013 | #128 | |
woo me with science | Mar 2013 | #129 | |
Zorra | Mar 2013 | #135 |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:33 AM
MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)
1. Appointing Simpson and Bowles was war, not chess.
And here we are.
|
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:53 PM
ProfessionalLeftist (4,982 posts)
107. +1 n/t
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:56 PM
awoke_in_2003 (34,582 posts)
123. Nah, it was chess...
we are but pawns.
|
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 07:41 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
133. +100000
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:36 AM
jsr (7,712 posts)
2. Everything is going well according to plan.
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:56 AM
duffyduff (3,251 posts)
3. Yep
I have been reading this bullshit against Social Security and still peddled by some unnamed people on this board and other places for over 30 years. The origins began with the far right Cato Institute and the Concord Coalition when they decided to twist the projections made in 1983 to suit their ideology that Social Security is going "broke" (it CAN'T go broke because it is a federal program) so they can undermine it and destroy it.
Obama subscribes to this same bullshit, and other so-called Democrats subscribe to it also. It has no bearing on the truth. That's why I implore people to look closely at what Obama and his cohorts REALLY are and who they TRULY represent. |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:58 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
4. I don't like being told "but the Democrats do it, too".
We really can't defend our party's stances to Republicans, though I would love to be able to do so.
The Iraq War was Bush's doing mainly with all the lies, but enough Democrats went along to get the job done. I can't defend the party to teachers who say it is our party's policy that they don't have job security. They are right, Bush's policies are being fulfilled now. They must stop stressing seniors out over these possible cuts. Playing political games or not...it just might happen. Scared seniors are not good voters. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #4)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:00 AM
duffyduff (3,251 posts)
5. It's worse when "Democrats" do it
I put "Democrats" in quotes for a reason, and that reason is because these neoliberals are NOT Democrats as I have known the party.
The party has been infected with a cancer called neoliberalism, and it is going to destroy the party and the country if it isn't removed from the body politic. |
Response to duffyduff (Reply #5)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:44 PM
RC (25,592 posts)
81. +100 Many here agree with what you said.
Just because the have (D) my their name, doesn't mean they are. There are many here on DU that still think that is the case, though.
|
Response to RC (Reply #81)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:51 PM
duffyduff (3,251 posts)
84. I think that is the hardest thing to persuade people of, plus the hardest thing to accept
We really do live in a "post-partisan" world, which means that both political parties are actually on the same side as they represent the same economic elite, neoliberal interests.
Both parties have the same goal of being AGAINST the best interests of the American people. They pretend they are "different" parties, but it's all political theater. Very few Democratic politicians are actually Democrats at all. |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:01 AM
blkmusclmachine (16,149 posts)
6. "Third Way," also known as the "New Democrats." They're GOP-lite all the way.
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:04 AM
Samantha (9,314 posts)
7. I have lived in the DC metro area since I was in the 4th grade of elementary school
Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1) People said then Wall Street was trying really hard to get their hands on the Social Security funds because it was like a guaranteed revenue stream coming in every month.
I asked the question if the Social Security Trust Fund had been invested by financial brokers at the time of the crash, how much would have been lost. Paul Begala answered that question: 40 percent. This is not about our grandchildren. This about eliminating all of the aspects of the New Deal. Republicans have ALWAYS resented it and sought to find ways to do away with all of it. The New Dems are the Third Way and the old DLC. You have heard that phrase about a rose by any other name -- a pile of manure renamed a scoop of fine chocolate still stinks to high heaven. And that is exactly what these people are pitching -- a load of crap. Sam |
Response to Samantha (Reply #7)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:06 AM
duffyduff (3,251 posts)
8. The party has been infiltrated by neoliberals who are little more than gangsters
out to kill the country.
These people ought to be in jail, not be running the country. |
Response to duffyduff (Reply #8)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:07 AM
Samantha (9,314 posts)
9. I have to agree
I wrote a thread here some time ago entitled "The Economic Hit Men Are Among Us" and that is exactly how I think of them.
Sam |
Response to duffyduff (Reply #8)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:52 AM
Egalitarian Thug (12,448 posts)
22. Little more than gangsters? No, they're republicans too weak to make it their own party. n/t
Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #22)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:57 PM
duffyduff (3,251 posts)
87. They're gangsters. It's all about robbing the public treasury for private profit. n/t
Response to duffyduff (Reply #87)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:36 PM
Egalitarian Thug (12,448 posts)
114. I can accept that premise as well. But living in a city that was run by actual gangsters, I have to
that the gangsters were a lot smarter. They understood that if you spread it around and keep your business to yourself, people really won't give a damn about what you don't want them to give a damn about.
|
Response to Samantha (Reply #7)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:20 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
10. Well said.
I find myself angry tonight. No one listens about all the harm we are doing to education. No one is listening about the safety nets except the Democrats up for election next year.
This is not even checkers right now... |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #10)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:35 AM
magellan (13,257 posts)
11. I think the problem is there's so much damage being inflicted
...in so many different areas and at so many levels, people have a hard time keeping up with it. That's undoubtedly intentional. I doubt most know even half of what's going on. Others keep investing their hope in this or that politician or party to rectify things.
It's way beyond that now...and I think it has been for some time. There's so much broken in this country - on purpose - that it'd be easier to list what's still intact. It ain't much. And neither party has clean hands. |
Response to magellan (Reply #11)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:38 AM
bbgrunt (5,281 posts)
13. kabuki theater at its finest.
Response to magellan (Reply #11)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:19 AM
ReRe (10,597 posts)
25. Hear! Hear!
Wouldn't change a word. Exactly as you said it...
|
Response to magellan (Reply #11)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:48 AM
HiPointDem (20,729 posts)
31. indeed, they're attacking on all fronts.
Response to magellan (Reply #11)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:46 AM
CrispyQ (32,392 posts)
45. Shock Doctrine, state by state.
Snyder, Walker, Scott, Brewer, the list goes on. Once Detroit goes under the management of one person, how long until they get their democratically elected government back? Goodbye democracy.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to magellan (Reply #11)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:39 PM
GoneFishin (5,217 posts)
117. Well stated. Seems intentional. Sometimes I think the social wedge issues
are inflamed deliberately to redirect public outrage away from economic injustices.
|
Response to magellan (Reply #11)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:05 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
124. Do you remember this excerpt from Milton Mayer's book?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11845.htm
"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing. |
Response to Samantha (Reply #7)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:23 AM
whathehell (27,158 posts)
59. You are absolutely correct in saying
"This is not about our grandchildren. This about eliminating all of the aspects of the New Deal. Republicans have ALWAYS resented it and sought to find ways to do away with all of it"
It reminds me of the old "Only Nixon could go to China" meme. Now it's "Only Obama could cut Social Security". They must think we're stupid. We're not accepting this pile of shit from ANYONE. |
Response to Samantha (Reply #7)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:56 PM
sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)
97. Good post and you are absolutely correct. They are hit men and now they
are in both parties. It is up to us to rid the Democratic Party of these infiltrators before they destroy the programs that have saved so many lives, Democratic programs that every real Democrat would risk his/her own career to protect.
'We shall know them by their works' or something like that. From now on anyone with a 'D' after their names who even hints that SS is any part of the problems that collapsed this economy, or who even mentions it in the same breath as the Deficit, should be viewed as one of those infiltrators who needs to return to their own party and be replaced by a real Democrat. |
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #97)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 05:57 PM
Samantha (9,314 posts)
108. I am glad to see you share my views on this
I think these right-wing Dems posing as one of us do need to be called out. I am very prepared to call out mine once he quits equivocating about where he stands. If the Grand Bargain actually comes to a vote, his constituency will know which way he went.
I think we need to publicly tell any Dem that supports altering Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid in a manner that penalizes recipients he or she needs to identify with the Independents or any other party except the Democratic party. We do not want them, and we will campaign against them. If we don't become more proactive aboout this, in the same manner as the Tea Party minority blocks a lot of legislation in the House today, these fake Dems will be doing the same with our party if we let them get away with it. Sam |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:06 AM
w4rma (31,700 posts)
14. Obama's Third Way crew sure is destroying our public education system. (nt)
Response to w4rma (Reply #14)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:14 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
16. Yes, they are.
And most of the time when I post about education, the posts drop rapidly.
![]() |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #16)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:42 AM
jsr (7,712 posts)
18. Cockroaches hate daylight. It's obvious.
Response to w4rma (Reply #14)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:10 AM
LWolf (46,179 posts)
36. YES.
Destruction of public education, of social security, of labor...what will be left?
|
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:14 AM
eridani (51,907 posts)
15. This amounts to a plan to execute old people without a lot of money n/t
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:16 AM
Starry Messenger (32,334 posts)
17. k&r
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:44 AM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
19. The big question is which is more powerful?
Obama's Liberal base or Clinton's "New Democrats"?
Considering the DLC closed it's doors and a bunch of Blue Dogs were booted in the last mid-term and Obama just got reelected.... |
Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #19)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:49 AM
HiPointDem (20,729 posts)
32. huh?
Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #19)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:00 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
39. The DLC simply morphed into the Third Way.
Obama's "liberal" base is not being heard. He is too concerned with a Grand Bargain with the Republicans.
|
Response to madfloridian (Reply #39)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:05 AM
Lydia Leftcoast (48,217 posts)
52. Obama's liberal base was snookered
into voting for a guy who talked a good game but is really a corporatist. The mask has come off.
I was never fooled. I voted for him because he wasn't McCain and again because he wasn't Romney. I do not like it when people use thinly veiled racist arguments against him. But he is no liberal and never has been. He is continuing most of Bush's policies. It really makes me see red when tighty-righties call Obama a "socialist," because if they're that ignorant, they'll believe anything. (I know a fair number of real Socialists, and none of them think of Obama as a "comrade." In fact, they really don't like anything he's done.) I'm at a loss for how real left-of-center people can take back the party. Even in Minnesota, which has a caucus system that allows anyone to show up and vote on candidates and proposals, grassroots movements get squelched, and Third Way types like Amy Klobuchar are openly disdainful of their constituents---and popular with Republicans, not surprisingly, which is how she got re-elected. I have some good local legislators, my Congressman, Keith Ellison is pretty decent, and Senator Al Franken has been better than anyone expected, but as long as the Democratic Establishment keeps acting as if its primary purpose is to play nice with the Republicans, it's hard to be optimistic. |
Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #52)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:54 PM
hay rick (6,232 posts)
71. Gotta laugh or you'd have to cry.
I voted for Obama in 2008 expecting him to be more liberal than he turned out to be. By 2012 I was looking to support a primary opponent against him. I moved to Florida and found out that there would be no Democratic primary. I voted for Obama again only because Romney proved to my satisfaction that he was clearly much worse.
The "Obama is a socialist" remark is irritating because it causes me to make a snap decision on the appropriate level of civility/contempt to inject into the conversation. I moved to a deep red county. Nevertheless, I have become active in the local Democratic Party. I am trolling for progressive candidates to push up the ladder. |
Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #52)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:30 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
93. I voted for Kucinich in the primary....
But then, he's a classic Bobby Kennedy type of Democrat.
I never understood why Liberals threw their support behind Obama. He had the longest timetable to end the war in Iraq. Kucinich on the other hand won every debate to the point where they refused to let him in. |
Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #93)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:58 PM
Lydia Leftcoast (48,217 posts)
98. The mainstream Dems dissed him in every
possible way.
People were hungry for a populist candidate, but DK was populist to a degree that scared the people who deserve to be scared, based on what they've done. Their solution? To find someone who pretended to be a populist during the campaign but who, unlike DK, was vague about exactly what he would do. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #39)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:40 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
94. The "Third Way" guys are wimps terrified of being beaten up by Conservative Media...
They are always shocked that after they cave in on every demand that the Republicans STILL call them a bunch of commies.
|
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:49 AM
awoke_in_2003 (34,582 posts)
20. The DLC is an enemy...
And Hilary is a DLCer, just like her husband.
|
Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #20)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:59 AM
HereSince1628 (36,063 posts)
38. Blind Pragmatism is the enemy. It's only care is to do the doable & compromise makes more doable
People who hold traditional ideals/principles associated with your Grandfather's Democratic Party see this habit of compromise as constant spineless caving. It's not. It's the core tactic of blind pragmatists... a group typified by people like Rahm Emmanuel who as we remember got this administration off to the right start as Obama's Chief of Staff.
Pragmatism, and it's slowly creeping seismic compromise, has emboldened the obstruction and intransigence on the part of Republicans. The R's recognize that the DC Dems will come toward them in order to "do the work of the American people", whether or not the work that gets done is what the American people wanted. How does that work, you ask. Provide an example or shut up or look like a Dem basher Well, it works just like it did with DC reacting to the Newtown shootings. The Dems jumped knee-deep into gun-regulation immediately after Newtown pushing assault weapons and high capacity magazine bans, because frankly it looked doable considering citizen outrage. But just 3 months later it doesn't look like DC Dems were really committed to fight for gun-regulation. They seem to have just thought it was a reasonably doable thing. The leader of the party was was seeking action on doable 'common sense' things. The facility of dusting off old legislation was confused with do-ability. A mere 12 weeks later, in Congressional time just midway into the first semester of this Congress, Fienstein is folding on her assault weapons. Why? A clear majority, 57% of the American people, want it. But the R's were intransigent, and the Dems are moving on to do what's doable. What's doable appears to be pushing states to comply with NICS reporting already required under law and pushing for private guns sales to always involve a background check system. Well, that's better than nothing, and with 90% of Americans supporting it. It was doable. The politics of cutting SS is predictably going to go down the same way. To get the Grand Bargain that will provide Obama a headline that can be passed as a legacy, Obama must have something to 'sweeten the deal' to get the R's to accept it. Americans will be lucky if the R's are willing to settle for SS only getting deformed by a Chained-CPI. |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:52 AM
ProSense (116,464 posts)
21. Social Security is not going to be privatized
Sure Republicans and Third Wayers would love nothing more and are still gunning for it, but the fact is that Democrats have prevented this from happening as recently as 2005 to 2006.
There was a perfect opportunity with Bush pushing that objective, and Democrats stopped it. What I'm not understanding about this debate is, given the make up of the Senate, why would any proposal damaging Social Security pass? |
Response to ProSense (Reply #21)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:09 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
23. Why did Obama lecture them today?
Was it for show? Was he serious? Inquiring seniors want to know. They are tired of being threatened with cuts.
|
Response to madfloridian (Reply #23)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:18 AM
ProSense (116,464 posts)
24. I don't know, but
"Why did Obama lecture them today?"
...that's a separate issue from my point about efforts to privatize the program in 2005. I'm not sure what the deal is with the President's proposal. Still, I expect that Senate Democrats would reject it. Senate Democrats Press Obama on Chained CPI
George Zornick <...> Senator Bernie Sanders described the exchange to The Nation on Tuesday afternoon. “The issue came up. The president raised his concerns about the long-term sustainability of programs like Social Security, and indicated that he believed something like Chained CPI is an effective way—what he considers to be (an effective way), to protect the program,” said Sanders. On that, Obama got pushback from multiple senators. “Some of us suggested there are other ways to address the problem in terms of the long-term solvency of Social Security, such as doing what he proposed in 2008, which is to lift the cap of taxable income,” said Sanders. Indeed, Obama’s preferred approach in 2008 was to move the ceiling on FICA taxes, which fund Social Security, to $250,000. (It is currently around $113,000.) He briefly raised this on the campaign trail in 2012 in an appearance before AARP members, but also embraced the general goals of the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan during his acceptance speech at the DNC, and is now calling for Chained CPI. After getting pushback, Obama mainly stuck to his position, according to Sanders, though he sense a little bit of daylight. “I think the president, while he continues to voice his support for the Chained CPI, I think he does understand that there are other ways to tackle this problem, and I think he left the door open a little bit to hear other points of view.” - more - http://www.thenation.com/blog/173314/senate-democrats-press-obama-chained-cpi |
Response to ProSense (Reply #24)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:53 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
37. Actually 2005 is connected to today.
It's all part of the conservative push to cut Social Security. I am not sure that enough Democrats would reject it.
There are not enough of them speaking out right now to suit me. Too many using the same spin. I notice the Democrats overall refer to the possible benefit cuts as being done by Republicans. The elephant in the room is that our president put it on the table for deficit discussion. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #37)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:00 AM
ProSense (116,464 posts)
50. Well,
"I am not sure that enough Democrats would reject it. "
...the rejected it then, and that was when Bayh, Conrad, Lieberman, Lincoln and others were in the Senate. Again, the Senate gained a few good Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren. Looking at who signed Sanders' letter, they should have no problem blocking any proposed cuts, and they damn sure aren't going to vote to privatize it. Now, all this could change if Republicans take control of the Senate and retain control of the House. |
Response to ProSense (Reply #21)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:50 AM
HiPointDem (20,729 posts)
33. not this term, no. just moved closer to that end goal.
Response to HiPointDem (Reply #33)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:07 AM
markpkessinger (8,077 posts)
35. Exactly! n/t
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:34 AM
HiPointDem (20,729 posts)
26. +100000000000. Anyone who trusts what a politician says on this issue just because s/he
is a democrat is asking to be conned.
An overwhelming majority of democrats voted for ronald reagan's 1983 amendments to the program. The amendments that: 1. Began taxing workers more than needed to support beneficiaries and a reasonable cushion in the trust fund. This is how we got where we are today, overtaxed for 30 years, supposedly to 'save social security forever,' only to now be told we need to 'save' it again -- EVEN WHILE WE ARE OWED NEARLY $3 TRILLION DOLLARS for all those years of overpayment. 2. Began taxing Social Security beneficiaries -- which amounted to a BENEFITS REDUCTION. 3. Removed certain benefits from the program. For example, did you know that children of Social Security beneficiaries attending college used to get a small tuition benefit? That was taken away. http://www.ehow.com/about_5075175_social-security-benefits-children-college.html |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:38 AM
RudynJack (1,044 posts)
27. Of course
it's never Republicans. It's always the DLC, a pretty-much defunct group. Blame Clinton, blame Dems in general, but god forbid the GOP takes any grief.
|
Response to RudynJack (Reply #27)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:48 AM
markpkessinger (8,077 posts)
30. Nobody here has absolved Republicans of anything . . .
. . . but the reality is Republicans will do what Republicans will do. And it is beyond pathetic for us, as Democrats, to bitch and moan about Republican obstruction when our own elected officials, including the POTUS, have adopted the opposition's framing of the question: i.e., that we must begin to address the deficit right now in order to ward off the inflation bogeyman, who lurks just around the bend, even if that means hacking away at two of our party's signature accomplishments of the past century, and even if that will mean a reduction in assistance to people who are already really hurting. But no Republican has put a gun to the President's head demanding he include chained CPI and a rise in the eligibility age for Medicare on the table, and to do so as part of his opening volley in negotiations with House Republicans. He came up with that all by himself.
Now, I realize this may be part of some calculated strategy, banking on the fact that Republicans aren't really interested in making any deal at all. But as Paul Krugman recently pointed out, if that is indeed the case, the President is playing a very dangerous game, because one of these days Republicans might just wake up to the fact that here's an opportunity to make a dent in the social safety net they've wanted to dismantle for the last 70 years. As for the DLC, while the organization, per se, may be defunct, the philosophy that gave rise to it -- right-wing, corporatist economics with a few liberal social stances thrown in so as not to scare the horses -- is alive and well in the very party to which it should be anathema. That's right: the Democratic Party. |
Response to RudynJack (Reply #27)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:19 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
42. DLC simply changed their name. Policies the same in Third Way.
It is NOT the Republicans who put Social Security on the table in these deficit talks.....it was the president.
Now they can claim the president wants to cut Social Security, and we can not defend him because he did put it right square on the table. He then lectured the Senate Dems to go along with it. |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:31 AM
Teamster Jeff (1,598 posts)
28. K&E
Response to Wilms (Reply #29)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 05:34 AM
Teamster Jeff (1,598 posts)
125. R
Fat fingers.
![]() |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:04 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
40. Name who you are talking about. Let's stop using bogeyman terms. Which elected officials are
doing the things you don't like.
|
Response to stevenleser (Reply #40)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:14 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
41. I am NOT using "bogeyman" terms. I am quite clear.
Most of the Democrats will go along with Obama in this area. The others who don't will suffer.
Only a few are speaking out, and you know I am absolutely right. You can count on one finger the ones who will come right out on TV and say this is wrong. When I post you know what I am saying, and I am tired of pretending all is okay in our party right now. It simply is not okay right now. That's a tactic I hate, trying to put someone on the spot to name names when it is not needed. Even the ones who speak out against benefit cuts will probably vote them in when the time comes. It seems like the minority has the majority by the short hairs, has for a long time. The minority is controlling the message right now. I resent your implications, you have done this to me before. My post stands as is. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #41)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:23 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
43. I resent your use of bogeyman terms. You named only two people in your OP.
If that is all there is, there is nothing to worry about. Two people alone cannot pass laws in this country.
When I rail against PNAC, I name the individuals who I am talking about. The other point is, do the people you name self-identify as "Third Way"? Have they ever? If not, why are you calling them that? I do not believe Obama has ever self identified as Third Way or DLC or any of the other bogeyman terms people like to toss about. At least with PNAC, the individuals specifically joined that group. They cosigned letters and other documentation with the letterhead listed as "Project for a New American Century". They chose to be identified with that association. If you need to use bogeyman terms, particularly ones where the people involved do not self-identify as such, your argument is probably weak. |
Response to stevenleser (Reply #43)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:52 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
46. I resent your defense of cutting Social Security.
The GOP holds the House. If the president, Barack Obama, and the Senate Dems who control the Senate....go along with the cuts they will go through.
There is no need to name names because the ones speaking out are so obvious. I can NOT name names because the vote has not been taken. I would say just listen to the Democrats who go on TV and blame the Republicans for allowing this discussion. They know better, they don't have the courage to cross the president. PNAC? That has nothing to do with this. We control the WH and the Senate, if the cuts to Social Security go through....more shame to us. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #46)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:55 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
47. That is a straw man. I never defended cutting Social Security. Moreover...
If it is done, I will criticize anyone who participated during my show.
|
Response to stevenleser (Reply #47)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:58 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
49. Stop your generalizations. "Straw man" "bogeyman"
That is the tactic used against those of us who speak out. It happens to me when I post about education, and now about Social Security.
I try not to get in arguments, and I think this is becoming one quickly. I am backing off, I hope you will do the same. Democrats have no business negotiating with extremists on Social Security, and I am exactly right in this post. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #49)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:07 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
53. Stop using logical fallacies and generalizations and then you won't be accused of doing it. nt
Response to stevenleser (Reply #53)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:10 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
56. Then let the Democrats prove me wrong. They need to go on TV or write op eds...
denouncing the cuts to Social Security.
They need to do it loudly and quickly. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #56)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:26 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
61. Like whom? Again, same issue. nt
Response to stevenleser (Reply #61)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:37 PM
FogerRox (13,211 posts)
116. Cato Institute, Leninist strategy
Response to stevenleser (Reply #43)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:04 AM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
51. +MILLION The OP placer loses me at saying "third way".
Response to graham4anything (Reply #51)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:09 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
55. If you have a strong argument, you don't need bogeyman terms. It's that simple.
A person, B person and C person are bad because they are doing X thing.
If X thing is bad then you don't need to use a special term for it. |
Response to stevenleser (Reply #55)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:12 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
57. Being in denial on purpose and attacking those who are being honest...
is harmful to the party and the country.
|
Response to madfloridian (Reply #57)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:25 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
60. Then I think you should stop doing that. nt
Response to madfloridian (Reply #57)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:33 AM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
62. Protest voters against the democratic party have allowed the teaparty to take office
thinking any of the teaparty or protest candidates(Nader/Stein/Rand/DavidDuke/RonPaul) would do even remotely better when they would all take things a million times backward is not being honest
Thinking of doing the same next time would only yet again delay by 50 years any further movement. |
Response to graham4anything (Reply #62)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:36 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
64. I have always voted and supported Democrats.
Because I trusted them to stand firm for our safety nets.
|
Response to madfloridian (Reply #64)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:46 AM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
66. Now be honest, if they said anyone 50 and over will be grandfathered in
do you think that anyone in their teens, 20s and 30s should think that everything has to remain constant for the next 40 to 70 years?
The #s were never meant to remain constant, and always subject to change. JFK said "ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country" and having a young person think they should not have different numbers (especially when people are living longer, the younger one is (assuming they don't consume 48 ounce sodas and 2 tubs of popcorn lathered in butter a day) Show me where FDR said the #s remain constant for infinity |
Response to graham4anything (Reply #62)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:08 PM
rhett o rick (55,981 posts)
99. It's a strawman to suggest that anyone here would not support Democrats. The discussion is about
holding them accountable. Now you want us to use blind faith and live with whatever happens. I choose to lobby MY representatives and make sure we are on the same page. Why do you try so hard to stifle honest discussion? If you think it will hurt the Democratic Party, I say you are wrong. Requiring blind loyalty is a conservative value and harmful, not helpful for our party.
All I ask is for Democrats to speak out in support of not cutting benefits. I get nervous when they refuse to speak out. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #57)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:39 PM
bobduca (1,763 posts)
77. The DLC is strong in this thread
This acronym has been deleted from our collective memory. There is no DLC. Repeat after me.
|
Response to stevenleser (Reply #43)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 08:03 PM
Samantha (9,314 posts)
134. Wait a minute please -- the "Third Way" nomenclature was openly discussed in Clinton's autobiography
Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:08 PM - Edit history (2) "My Life" by Bill Clinton, pages 381-2, 813, 854, 878-9, 907-8,934 (pages enumerated from Index which discuss the term "Third Way."
![]() at pages 381-382: I was amazed by some of the criticisms of the DLC from the Democratic left, who accused us of being closet Republicans, and from some members of the political press, who had comfortable little boxes marked "Democrat" and "Republican." When we didn't fit neatly in their ossified Democratic box, they said we didn't believe in anything. The proof was that we wanted to win national elections, something Democrats apparently weren't supposed to do. *** The principles and proposals I advocated could hardly be called Republican-lite or lacking in conviction. Instead, they helped to modernize the Democratic Party and later would be adopted by resurgent center-left parties all over the world, in what would be called "Third Way." Most important, the new ideas, when implemented, would prove to be good for America.... These are Bill Clinton's own words, but they could have easily enough been written by President Obama, who described himself as a "New Dem." I have no link, but heard him say this in an interview. Of course, I immediately recognized that term and knew instantaneously that I am much farther left than he. I point this out to answer your question "... do the people you name self-identify as "Third Way"? I believe you overstepped when you referred to the terms Third Way or DLC as "bogeyman terms." Obviously, these are legitimate terms used by people who want to be recognized as having separated themselves from -- now I will openly make up a term -- Classic Dems. I have read several bios about Clinton, one of which specifically mentioned his search for a term to particularly identify his brand of politics. He wanted to differentiate his brand of politics from the DLC, from whence he came, thus the search for a different branding. He came up with the term Third Way, but I do not believe it truly stuck. New Dem in the political world today is synonymous with Third Way. The DLC (Democratic Leadership Conference) openly publicly published its membership list, so there was no secrecy about it. I think of the New Dems as the "remains" of the DLC with a few having left and some new having joined. Sam Edited to add President Obama's declaration of being a New Democrat: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html "Surrounded by 65 moderate Democrats on Tuesday in the State Dining Room, Obama was happy to portray himself as simpatico with a group of members who are largely socially liberal but fiscally more moderate to conservative." |
Response to Samantha (Reply #134)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:09 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
136. Remember when Tony Blair and the Clintons formed the Third Way concept?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/7777
Then when the Iraq invasion started the Democrats who supported it were called Blair Democrats by the DLC? |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #136)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:22 PM
Samantha (9,314 posts)
138. I didn't really remember that but your link was interesting, particularly this:
"On the agenda for Chequers are social security, welfare, crime, health policy and education, with eight to 10 participants from each side." Sounds a lot like today's issues, doesn't it?
I have often wondered exactly how much advice Bill Clinton has given President Obama in private about how to deal with Republican obstructionism. I guess we will never know, unless, of course, there is a book.... Sam |
Response to stevenleser (Reply #40)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:56 AM
Oilwellian (12,647 posts)
48. It can't be more obvious...
who Madfloridian is referring to. Have you been to the White House website lately? Obama's been very outspoken about his desire to cut SS.
So much denial or outright manipulation...so little time. Mother Fuckers. |
Response to Oilwellian (Reply #48)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:07 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
54. It's not obvious. nt
Response to Oilwellian (Reply #48)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:22 PM
Liberal_Stalwart71 (20,450 posts)
102. Can you post a link and point to the obvious? I've seen no such thing.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #40)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:17 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
74. Its just another edition of the recurring soap opera ...
Hair-on-fire Underground.
Tune in again tomorrow for a more proof of how Obama, as a child in Hawaii, determined that Social Security was really a ponzy scheme. It really has become a soap opera. Same basic OP, day after day. Pretty soon, they'll introduce Obama's evil twin. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #74)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:42 PM
bobduca (1,763 posts)
79. you didnt even read the op.
circle the wagons, and drown out the critcs!
|
Response to bobduca (Reply #79)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:48 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
82. I read the OP, and responded to a specifc post in the thread.
And in doing so, I can *gasp* actually take the discussion in any direction that I want.
And how could I possibly "drown out the critics" when they post the same basic OP day, after day, after day for weeks on end. Oh yea .... welcome to the internet, and DU. ![]() |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #82)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:50 PM
bobduca (1,763 posts)
83. Yeah my post count is low & rofl-worthy
If you circle the wagons close enough you can get a circle jerk going!
|
Response to bobduca (Reply #83)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:54 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
86. Your comment was what was rofl-worthy.
And as for circle jerks ... that's actually a pretty good description of these hair-on-fire threads.
The perpetually disgruntled gnashing their teeth and rending their garments over the impending (impending for about 4 years now) death of Social Security. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #86)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:57 PM
bobduca (1,763 posts)
88. Yeah people here shouldnt be upset about anything
We got ours, right? All this is just empty worrying, better to just smile and love the impending cuts, because they are not as bad as if a republican was doing it.
|
Response to bobduca (Reply #88)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:11 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
91. "We got ours"?
Not sure what that means.
Regardless ... there is a rather vast space between "Hair-on-fire" and "just smile". No where did I suggest that folks take the extreme position of "just smile", but I guess you might think that while sitting on the "Hair-on-fire" end of the spectrum. Because clearly, those are the only possible positions. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #74)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:06 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
90. lol "Hair-on-fire Underground" ?
Where people come to read the truth, not spin.
|
Response to madfloridian (Reply #90)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:15 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
92. Actually ...
Hair-on-fire Underground is a great place to find the most up to date conspiracy theories about Obama's plan to kill Social Security.
I can no longer count how often the death of social security has been predicted here in the last 4 years. Each time, presented as an impending truth. Absolutely about to happen. Any minute now. Threads burst into flames of outrage. Then ... nothing. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #92)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:48 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
95. This is the 1st time in my memory that a Dem president OFFERED it up to extremists.
You can poke fun all you want, but people are waking up to the truth that the safety nets are not guaranteed by Democrats. We always thought they would be, now they are not.
That has terrible implications for the future of our party. And my personal issue is with the education reform that is not reform at all....just the rapid turning over of public schools to private companies. Again, I always thought of Democrats as being supportive of public education. Now they are not. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #92)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 06:06 AM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
126. +ten zillion, three hundred million
and almost all of them have many people in it that want to put borders on the US to keep anyone in the outside world out of the US
The real agenda shines through like a summer day. |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:34 AM
sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)
44. It's really very simple, no one who lies about SS in order to try to cut benefits,
no one who cleverly, or who thinks they are being clever, by tying SS to the Deficit, this includes talking about SS and the Deficit in the same sentence, no one who is not standing up strongly and objecting strenuously to the Third Way lies about SS, can expect to be called by a Democrat. Not by this Democrat anyhow.
|
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #44)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:17 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
69. Obama will now have to "deal with the losers in a globalized economy." His own words.
He said it would not be bloodless, and it is not going to be. He was right in 2006 when he said those words.
Obama and the Hamiltonian Democrats. Obama is speaking of Robert Rubin. They were talking about the "losers" in the new free market economy. Seniors will be the "losers", and I fear the Democrats up for re-election will also be losers if the president follows through on compromising with the extremists. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #69)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:59 PM
KoKo (84,711 posts)
89. I saw Glenn Hubbard on Bloomberg Financial this a.m.
He was in Bush Administration as Economic Adviser and has been consulted by Obama.
He Said: "Entitlement cuts are absolutely necessary...and Global Trade will cost jobs but, it's what is needed." And then there's Bernanke: Ben Bernanke in his recent hearings before Congress when criticized over Fed Policy keeping interest rates so low for savers.. said:"The Fed has been successful for decades in keeping interest rates low because it kept worker's wages low and that was good for the economy in the long run." |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:23 AM
jsr (7,712 posts)
58. It's an idea from the Hamilton Project
Barack Obama at the launch of the Brookings Institute's Hamilton Project
Obama's speech on April 5, 2006 Big Bank Funds New "Liberal" Think Tank? The Young Turks FAST FORWARD TO PRESENT DAY: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130313/COLUMNIST0150/303130065/Ruth-Marcus-Hamilton-Project-offers-ideas-on-fixing-federal-budget Hamilton Project offers ideas on fixing federal budget Mar. 12, 2013 8:50 PM Written by Ruth Marcus Hence this suggested reading: a new report from the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, “15 Ways to Rethink the Federal Budget.” Granted, the Hamilton Project is associated with Democratic policymakers, albeit centrist ones such as its co-founder Robert Rubin; its animating vision of government is not the same as, say, Paul Ryan’s. So proposals such as a carbon tax or value-added tax, however sensible, aren’t likely to fly in the current climate. But the Hamilton report contains several ideas that even Ryan could love — or, at the very least, that the House Budget Committee chairman should not reject out of hand. For example, where Ryan proposes giving Medicare beneficiaries a set amount with which to obtain insurance, Michael Chernew of Harvard Medical School and Dana Goldman of the University of Southern California propose giving Medicare providers a set amount to cover beneficiaries... |
Response to jsr (Reply #58)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:41 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
65. Transcript Obama's speech to the Hamiltonian Democrats. You are right.
Obama and the Hamiltonian Democrats.
Obama is speaking of Robert Rubin. They were talking about the "losers" in the new free market economy. Thanks for the video link. |
Response to madfloridian (Reply #65)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:57 AM
jsr (7,712 posts)
68. Awesome journal.
Thanks!
|
Response to jsr (Reply #58)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:50 AM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
67. You need to post Obama's speech in the video forum.
![]() |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:35 AM
Romulox (25,960 posts)
63. The Third Way (with their outsourcing and "free trade") destroyed the tax base.
Who did you think was going to pay for your Social Security? The workers who made your Prius?
![]() |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 12:37 PM
Douglas Carpenter (20,226 posts)
70. The third way are an essential mechanism whereby the right-wing achieves their core economic agenda
The politically dominant but numerically insignificant third way are simply right-wingers minus the radical religious/social conservatism and purest ideological stridency. They are more than willing to use a measured amounts of Orwellian populist rhetoric to sell a very unpopular agenda to moderate and liberal leaning voters. Their presentation of reactionary economics is made quite easy by the likes of Tea Party Republicans and the dominance of the lunatic fringe in the modern Republican entertainment industry who are now leading rather than following the legislative wing of the GOP. When the alternative is a bunch Fox News lead right-wing nuts - the so-called third way Democrats are able to support polices that Ronald Reagan himself would have never hoped to put on the table. Who actually joined with the lunatic fringe of the GOP in enacting the most reactionary rollbacks of the New Deal and the Great Society - was it Reagan or was it a Democratic president whose sacred name must not be spoken?
|
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #70)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:07 PM
hay rick (6,232 posts)
72. Restricted choice.
The media's version of the public debate is between Tea Party crazies who will blow up the country (debt ceiling, vouchers, Iran) vs. reasonable realists who are willing to snip just a pinch from grandma's Social Security check. Reasonable realists are so much better than Tea Party crackpots, QED.
We, the people, need to change the terms of this debate or we will surely suffer the consequences. |
Response to hay rick (Reply #72)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:14 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
73. Amen to that.
Response to hay rick (Reply #72)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:26 PM
Douglas Carpenter (20,226 posts)
112. Just a few nights ago I saw David Brooks and Mark Shields "debating" but actually agreeing
that we need the President to show leadership in "entitlement reform." I'm quite certain that "entitlement reform" does not mean improving the living standard of the elderly and disabled with better benefits. One of the other Sunday infotainment panel discussion shows started right off with talking about needing to find an alternative to the far right and the far left. The "far left" being defined as those who are resisting "entitlement reforms." Note "far left" does NOT even mean people who want to improve the things for the disabled and the elderly - it means - what once would have been called conservative - holding on to the status quo. I thought "far left" meant people who wanted to nationalize all the industries and make a socialist republic. But no, far left is now being defined by the "reasonable center" - including the third way Democrats - not even as wanting to expand assistance to the elderly and disabled - but holding the real meaning of the word conservative and simply wanting to hold on to the status quo. All of this against the backdrop of the full knowledge that the public is overwhelmingly against their so-called "entitlement reforms," and now defining the disregarding of the will of the people as "showing leadership and courage." Orwell must be rolling in his grave.
|
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #112)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:49 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
115. "defining the disregarding of the will of the people as "showing leadership and courage."
Good point.
When the polls are in the 80s against "reform", you would think they would listen. |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:21 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
75. The Third Way is the pinnacle of "not as bad" politics.
They do the same things that the Republicans do and then advertise their sell outs as "not as bad".
|
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #75)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:41 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
78. Very true.
That's exactly what they do.
|
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:32 PM
redstatebluegirl (11,960 posts)
76. After listening to some MBA students
last night say it was about time we "gutted medicare and social security" I couldn't help but think what it would be like for them when they have to take care of their parents as they age with no net. SS and Medicare do not just impact the elderly but also their families and the economy. If 40 somethings and in some cases 30 somethings have to help with the finances of their parents, maybe even have to allow them to move in with them they do not have as much money to spend on eating out, larger houses, new cars etc. Not to mention needing some psychological care with all the pressure of two generations under one roof and one or two incomes.
By they way, these 20 somethings were laughing at the thought of getting rid of social security and medicare, they called both welfare. |
Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #76)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:42 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
80. Yes, full care of their parents...that would change their minds suddenly.
And paying for their medical care? Change their minds faster.
They are so indoctrinated. |
Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #76)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:14 PM
moondust (18,497 posts)
100. Ahh, a whole new batch
of brainwashed short-term thinkers anxious to devour what's left of a dying planet and its sick people! Me richer faster! Me richer faster! Me richer faster! Me richer faster!
How refreshing. ![]() ![]() |
Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #76)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:35 PM
WinkyDink (51,311 posts)
105. "maybe even have to allow them to move in with them": And when there are several siblings?
Response to WinkyDink (Reply #105)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:24 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
111. Methinks these young folks haven't thought thru the consequences.
As soon as they do, their views on the safety net will change.
![]() Sounds like they are parroting talking points. |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 01:53 PM
WillyT (72,631 posts)
85. K & R !!!
![]() |
Response to WillyT (Reply #85)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:50 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
96. Thank you WillyT
![]() |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:16 PM
Liberal_Stalwart71 (20,450 posts)
101. Still waiting on a proposal from said Democrats that gives specifics re: "cutting" The Big Three.
Until then, trashing these threads.
|
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:32 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
103. Third Way site today is recycling a 2012 article called Collision Course, lecturing baby boomers
and all of the rest of us who feel "entitled".
Link to the front page: http://www.thirdway.org/ Note the picture of JFK and LBJ grinning. Then follow the link to the Bill Keller article from 2012 at the NYT. |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:34 PM
WinkyDink (51,311 posts)
104. Where are these "far higher returns"???????????????????
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 03:54 PM
historylovr (1,557 posts)
106. K & R
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:02 PM
Blue Idaho (4,825 posts)
109. Millionaire Politicians don't need Social Security...
That's the real problem. Its easy for the greedy little bastards to casually talk about eliminating things that won't impact their lives.
They chuckled, lit their cigars with fifty dollar bills and snorted - let them eat dog food. |
Response to Blue Idaho (Reply #109)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:08 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
110. Yep.
It has no impact on their lives.
|
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 06:57 PM
KoKo (84,711 posts)
113. Thanks "MF" for all you do here...informing us of the REAL NEWS!
Response to KoKo (Reply #113)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:19 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
120. I just noticed your sig line.
I love it. That cat must have been a happy cat.
![]() |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:43 PM
FogerRox (13,211 posts)
118. Hello Madfloridian !!!!
Achieving a Leninist Strategy (1983) Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis "... the strategy must be to propose moving to a private Social Security system in such a way as to ... neutralize ... the coalition that supports the existing system." (p. 555) "The next Social Security crisis may be further away than many people believe. ... it could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible. But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform." http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/11/cj3n2-11.pdf |
Response to FogerRox (Reply #118)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 09:58 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
119. Ooh, read this "calming" part.
Darn, it won't let me copy paste, it just shows up as one word on a line. But the paragraph about Calming Existing Beneficiaries really hits home.
Reassure us we will get full benefit because we are a powerful voting block. It must be made to sound good to seniors. Decades they have planned for this moment when both parties align. |
Response to FogerRox (Reply #118)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 01:18 PM
KoKo (84,711 posts)
127. Fascinating read, Roger Fox...
The Playbook...
Thanks for posting this. |
Response to KoKo (Reply #127)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 06:13 PM
FogerRox (13,211 posts)
130. The Playbook, yup.
Skinner told me we're getting a Social Security - Medicare group soon. I cant wait. Items like that will be included ASAP.
|
Response to FogerRox (Reply #118)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 06:28 PM
FogerRox (13,211 posts)
131. SS/M group is open for business
Response to FogerRox (Reply #131)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 06:37 PM
hay rick (6,232 posts)
132. Just subscribed.
Thanks for pushing for this group.
|
Response to FogerRox (Reply #131)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 11:10 PM
madfloridian (88,117 posts)
137. Thank you very much.
![]() |
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:28 PM
truth2power (8,219 posts)
121. K&R to read later. n/t
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Wed Mar 13, 2013, 10:38 PM
on point (2,506 posts)
122. it is theft.
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 02:05 PM
Octafish (55,745 posts)
128. Rich people hire people to do stuff.
Stuff like pass laws that benefit rich people at the expense of everyone else, laws like the tax code.
|
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 04:06 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
129. K&R
Response to madfloridian (Original post)
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 08:24 PM
Zorra (27,670 posts)
135. Thank you, madfloridian. I'm so very glad that you are posting your excellent, informative threads
expressing concern about the the takeover of our party and democracy by wealthy special interests again.
![]() |