Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If the Democrats dare to make ONE cut to social security

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:33 PM
Original message
If the Democrats dare to make ONE cut to social security
The party will be dead to me and it should be that way to ever self respecting liberal, leftist and/or democrat.

If these corporate wall street pocket lined hacks screw with it, I will HOPE they lose a majority for eons to come. I will not only hope they are never entrusted with the reigns of power EVER again. I will work MY ASS off to see to it. Because, at that point, truly, what would be the difference between a DEM and Repugnican?

There will be NOTHING, that will make me be a member of the Democratic Party again. NOTHING.

And call me a hater, call me a repugnican, call me a liar, call me a purist, call me the fuck whatever.

This commission on SS is looking for cuts. It seems we can't even get the head of the DCCC to make a pledge to no cuts in SS. JESUS H FUCKIN CHRIST!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. There is ONE screwing I will take
raise the cap to pay into the fund. or better yet, remove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. yeah, keep growing the trust fund so they can skim the surplus. good plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
60. lock it. make it illegal to borrow from the trust.
pay back what's been borrowed.

and, dare i say, "get rid of the pentagon".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #60
77. Who ever "locks it" can unlock it again when ever they want. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #77
104. .... especially for wars . . .. W used it for tax cuts for rich -- and war --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #77
114. well, then what's the fucking point?
you got an answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. Understandable, for me its the Bush tax cuts for the rich
If Obama and the Dems renew the obscene tax cuts for the richest Americans, I will be done with the Democratic party. I will either become a Green or an Independent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. Me too.
... I don't even have to wait for SS, renewing the tax cuts will be the FINAL INSULT and the FINAL CAPITULATION TO THE REPUBLICANS.

If Obama can't expire those cuts he might as well BE Republican as far as I am concerned.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
95. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
57. They go together. The DEFICIT commission is supposed to be looking at the DEFICIT. SS is not part of
the deficit, the fact that money was borrowed from it has nothing to do with the growing deficit.

SS has run a surplus and left alone will be solvent until 2037.

Social Security should not even be a part of the "DEFICIT" commission's purveyance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #57
73. use this link to contact your government and let them know how you feel about it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EJSTES2005 Donating Member (261 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Glenn Greenwald was all over this yesterday....
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/...

"From the start, that Commission was stacked with people from both parties with a long history of advocating for serious cuts in benefits. The Democratic co-Chair, Erskine Bowles, worked a decade ago with Newt Gingrich to try to privatize Social Security when he was Clinton's Chief of Staff, and in 1998, was hailed by Business Week as "Corporate America's Friend in the White House." Other Obama appointees include David Cote, CEO of the defense contractor giant Honeywell, and several typical corporatist Democrats with histories of explicitly advocating for cutting Social Security (watch this short video with one of them, Alice Rivlin, showing the level of transparency and responsiveness with which the Commission is working). Needless to say, all GOP appointees are also fully on board with Social Security cuts."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. Needless to say, not a single person advocating cuts in SS benefits
will ever have to depend upon those SS benefits themselves.

Hell, I could retire on what those people make in a single year.

This is class warfare, and we know what class they are fighting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #84
96. You said it. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EJSTES2005 Donating Member (261 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #84
102. Well said.
It has always been a class war, but some people forget which side they belong to with the right amount of conditioning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #84
103. Never take advice on tightening your belt, from a fat guy wearing suspenders...
A point that seems to be lost in many Americans.

Hearing all these rich hacks talk about the need for austerity is the epitome of moral bankruptcy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #73
106. Thanks -- Grayson also has a PETITION going to stop destruction of SS/Medicare ...
Sorry -- I can't pass it along -- and couldn't find it on his website!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
68. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. knr. yep. I'm with you. Third rail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. But .. but.. President Palin..
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. Van Hollen was on with Cenk
earlier and he wouldn't commit. All he could say is he had to see the 'whole' plan' first.
I think we are screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
27. Yep here is the head of the DCCC not making the pledge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
47. Because they already know how they are going to vote. It's a done deal. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #47
62. agreed.
Edited on Tue Aug-17-10 09:37 AM by tomp
why would they ever allow it to be packaged together with something else?

so, they can rob the ss fund and have a fig leaf of cover for doing it. that's it. that's how the sick fucking
game of american politics is played. and some of you still buy it, to the detriment of us all.

idiots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
97. We just haven't raised enough hell yet.
This will be a lot louder than HCR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #97
108. Seniors aren't even united --- except thru AARP, which is an insurance agency!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #108
116. ...which would profit handsomely with the privatization of SS.
I was only a member for 2 years before they backed the pharmaceutical boondoggle - tore up my card and mailed it back to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alllyingwhores Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
101. News flash...we're already screwed...oh, and what are you going to do about it?
Take it.

And who you gonna vote for between GOP and the DLC (or GOP Lite)...that's right, they know you don't have a choice. Because as they continue to F__K you (and me, and us) they know that even though they lied to our face during the campaign...and continue to lie to us as they do corporate America's bidding, there's not a damn thing we can do about it...except make things worse.

Oh yeah, vote for a third party candidate in the next election...and we'll end up putting Sarah--I'm a F__KING IDIOT--Palin in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. i'll be right behind you. that commission has no mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
35. I believe there will be millions of us. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Oh they won't cut existing benefits. They'll just wait til we are practically dead before we can
Collect. Of course they can tax future workers a third of their salary as there will be one retiree for every three workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. raising the retirement age is a cut in SS benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
41. By your stupid logic our entire country is starving to death
Have you noticed the unprecedented decline in the ratio of farmers to total population? Devastation, I tells ya! Tragedy! Alarm!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
10. They will. I can almost guarantee it.
Gotta be 'pragmatic' after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
11. YOu can meet with them and tell them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. you enjoy being condescending over this?
i'm embarassed for you. either you are a mean heartless person, or you are a political viper with a lot of frickin dough who doesn't really give a shit.

sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
29. I'm not Boston, I do go and make appointment s with these people
Over the Gulf oil spill I was down at my Senators' offices forthwith. NO condescending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. my sincere apologies for giving a false meaning to your words.
I will do that.

thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lob1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. Everyone has a bottom line. S.S is it for a lot of people.
It is for me, too.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleanime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
13. You will not be the only one!
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. There is one form of cut I would accept - means test all those who are
rich. They get to pay but they do not get to play. This is the cuts the Democrats should offer the pugs when they want to cut benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Means testing is the first step in killing Social Security.
Means tested social security = welfare and we have seen how welfare programs have "flourished" over last 50 years right?

Oh wait no they are much maligned, used as political fodder, face cuts in the good years, and downright anhilations when politicians think people aren't looking.

Means test social security and it will be dead (or at least a shadow of its former strength) in a generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
42. +10,000
Besides which, there is means testing of a sort in place already. Low income people get initial benefits that are a lot higher compared to what they put in than do more affluent people. That formula could be further jiggered to favor the low income, IMO. However, how DARE anyone say that people who paid into a retirement security program should not get any payout?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
98. Correct. No means testing.
Make the rich pay a share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
109. Agree -- 1000% -- turns it into a "Welfare program" ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. Once you means test Social Security
and that might have happened back in the 1980's when they started making it taxable income, you turn it into something the Repukes can legitimately call it a 'welfare program' and you undermine popular support for it. Plus, you guarantee that the wealthy will expend every effort in opposing it, since they will no longer get a dime from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #28
43. Taxable income is no big deal.
My SS was taxed in my retirement year because I still had fairly high income for the half year I worked. I had no problem with that. It wasn't taxed at all the following year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
36. ss is already means-tested, in 1983 they started taxing benefits.
if you want a welfare program, look to the income tax, not social security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #36
54. That was so wrong.
Some seniors need to be able to supplement S.S. as they have no pensions or savings. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pecwae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #15
50. No--unacceptable.
Means testing screwed up the veterans administration system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
72. They certainly do get to play in other ways.
They are investing in the country whose laws and economy helped them become rich. Yes, the rich should be cut off from SS because they don't NEED it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raejeanowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
75. Agreed
And while we're at it, let's start with members of Congress, who receive insane retirement benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toppertwot Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #75
93. NOT JUST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
but ALL federal employees retirement benefits should be under the gun at the Cat Food Commission! WHY are they not included?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #93
99. Absolutely! NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
78. Whenever something is "means tested" the income limits never bear
any relation to what kind of money people actually need just to get by.

Look at the income limits in the recent insurance bill - and keep in mind that the same limits apply whether you live in New York City or Rapid City.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
107. No means testing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
16. Remember when they all laughed at Gore's "lockbox"?
Nobody's laughing now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Al Gore lockbox made no sense.
Edited on Mon Aug-16-10 09:00 PM by Statistical
Didn't then and doesn't now.

What was going to be in the lock-box. dollars (without interest and subject to the slow ravages of interest compounded over the century) which is merely paper backed by full faith and credit of US treasury?

Somehow that would be superior to $2.4 trillion in US treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US treasury?

Dollars = paper instrument w/ no interest and subject to full effect of inflation & backed only by faith in US treasury.
T-bonds = paper instruments w interest and offering a shield/offset against effects of inflation. Also backed only by faith in US treasury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. I thought he wasn't even going to keep cash?
Just spend the excess redeeming bonds rather than buying them, and keep a notebook somewhere in Treasury keeping track of how much had been redeemed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
111. Both are going in and neither are coming out, except to pay benefits as promised.
Edited on Tue Aug-17-10 08:33 PM by John Q. Citizen
What Gore meant was segregating SS funds from the general fund and not using SS funds for anything except SS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-10 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #111
115. SS funds ARE only used to pay SS benefits.
However since he have $2.4 trillion surplus which makes more sense.

Hold it as cash in a giant Scrouge McDuck money vault

OR

Use those funds to buy T-bonds (exact thing pension funds & insurance companies do) to gain a small return and avoid the ravages of decades of compounded inflation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. The "lockbox" was worse than what we have now
If Gore had had his way, SS wouldn't even have the 2.5 trillion in bonds, just a "gentleman's agreement" with Congress to credit it for all the money it's paid into the general fund.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. i am. the lockbox was a fraud. gore was there in 1983 when reagan/greenspan
pushed through a "reform" which jacked up fica to collect an ever-increasing surplus. that's when gore should have spoken up -- to say what a fraud the whole idea was. he didn't. he abstained.

by the terms of the original social security legislation, any surplus HAS TO be borrowed into the general budget in exchange for t-bills. gore knew it in 1983 and said nothing. there is no lockbox, there never could be a lockbox, the fraud was (& is) collecting the extra money in the first place.

the original ss legislation mandated a pay-go system with a one-year cushion; reagan/greenspan turned the one-year cushion into a 10 year cushion & a slush fund.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
110. Agree . . . they used "baby boomers" to raise huge SURPLUSSES....
Edited on Tue Aug-17-10 08:31 PM by defendandprotect
and, at this point, we should have been calling it a SLUSH FUND rather than

a Surplus!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #16
49. The lockbox was a dumb idea.
It doesn't make any sense for a fiat currency regime to "store up" money.

My analogy is that it would be like keeping a file of alphabet letters stored on your computer to cut and paste into your DU posts. Why would you do that when you can just use your keyboard to type whatever you want whenever you want?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hugo_from_TN Donating Member (895 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #16
69. nobody?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
17. Attacking Social Security is political suicide. Whose Kool Aid are they drinking in DC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seattleblue Donating Member (437 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #17
48. It is not political suicide to attack Social Security. .
Congress raised the retirement age in 1983 to 67 from 65. Nobody paid any price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
58. Who needs people when you have corporations, their filthy lucre and riggable election processes? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #58
112. sad, but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
19. I suspect party leaders know how unpopular it would be.
Even Alan Simpson repeatedly says they aren't cutting it.

But as long as we're dealing in speculation... If Pujols leaves the Cardinals he's dead to me!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. uh, no we are not dealing with speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Oh that's right, a committee with both liberals and conservatives
plus a few accusations posted on blogs and a lack of denial by Obama is POSITIVE PROOF.

Well, I just posted that Obama might be leaving the Cardinals and Obama has yet to say it isn't happening. So this rumor has equal standing with the accusation that the deficit commission is going to cut social security!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. did Chris Van Hollen make the pledge to no cuts in SS?
Why is a democratic presidential commission even looking into SS with a deficit reduction commission.

With Alan Simpson?

You may choose to not look at the copious evidence staring you in the face, but please don't belittle others for seeing it for what it is.

Your comments are eerily reminiscent of the comments regarding the public option.

That worked out well, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. I'm sure the deficit commission
will heavily consider Obama's proposal to lift the income cap for SS taxes. That's enough to make the system solvent for many years.

The public option is in no way similar. Most Senators are cowards and they know what will happen if they cut SS benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
86. Reality. Most Senators are multi-millionaires and don't give a flying fuck.
They'll never have to deal with retirement issues - they'll just retire. And if they are voted out, they'll retire just a little sooner, but no less comfortably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #30
44. 4.5 conservatives for every liberal
If they aren't up to no good, why are they meeting secretly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #30
56. Conservatives widely outnumber liberals on this commission.
This deal is chock full of right wingers and corporate big wigs.

You do a (D) (R) head count and declare all is well. I see Jan Schakowsky as stalwart with Durbin and Stern as decent but more "flexible" than is comforting considering the general make up of the group, and Becerra as meh and broadly sympathetic to budget hawks.

After those four the rest are a fucking disaster.

Spratt, Conrad, Bowles, Baucus all suck. None of the big wigs is worthy of trust and of course the Republicans are all beyond the pale.

Don't truss it. It's not fine at all. Not a one of these people can identify with limited income, being paycheck to paycheck, or wearing out their bodies, not even Stern on a personal basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #30
59. One moderate surrounded by far right conservatives is not 'both liberals and conservatives'. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #19
70. Alan Simpson: "We're not cutting it - we're saving it."
And then he goes on to explain how cutting it is the only way to save it. So, I guess as long as they say they aren't cutting it, it's okay to cut it.

And it also ignores the fact that it doesn't need saving.

Here's the real deal. We are now stuck talking about whether or not to cut Social Security when we should be talking about expanding it. There are no businesses that are going to continue to employ workers until they are seventy years old. It ain't gonna happen, especially in this economy. Christ, it's damn near impossible to keep your job until you reach sixty-two now days. That is the cold, hard truth.

Removing the cap on payroll taxes would allow us to retire at sixty and continue to see surpluses far, far into the future - far beyond any reasonable predictions. And taking people out of the work force voluntarily at a certain age opens up jobs for younger people.

Of course, there is a problem with this solution. There are always problems. How the hell do we keep them from stealing from Social Security to fund wars and tax cuts and everything else under the sun? How do we put Social Security into a lock-box? That is where the fight should be. That is the line in the sand that will either save Social Security or not.

Cutting benefits to "save it" is just another step toward the total destruction of the Social Security system. Anyone who supports that is either lying or brain dead.

IMHO

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
20. Some see indexing to inflation (CLOA) as a cut...
We already have more than a few "cuts" built into the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
24. I'm watching it as well being a Roosevelt Democrat type.
When they cut it, they cut me as well. I will not yield to voodoo small government political based economics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
25. something would be dead if they could ever get away it,
Edited on Mon Aug-16-10 08:59 PM by G_j
& that would be the American people for letting them.

SS used to be the third rail of politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
26. Is raising the cap officially "off the table"?
If it is, then there's no real crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
39. Pete Peterson, another asshole billionaire with too much money and time on his hands.
Peterson bought the washington post to run scary deficit pieces, he put money into a campaign agaist social security on MTV to pit younger and older generations against one another. He's been pushing a commission on cuts to entitlements for a while in Washington.
The commissions purpose is to get the elite in this country out of paying back their gov. loans of our retirement money they used to finance 30 years of tax cuts and resource wars.

The elite borrowed the fund they can damn well pay it back.


"The first TFT "dispatch" to appear in the Post--"Support grows for tackling nation's debt"--made no mention of Peterson's crusade. But it featured the same devious gimmick the financier has been peddling around Washington. Congress should create a special commission of eighteen senators and representatives empowered to to make the "tough" budget decisions politicians are loathe to face--slashing benefits, raising payroll taxes or both. Other members of Congress would be prohibited from changing any of the particular measures, and would cast only an up-or-down vote on the entire package, no amendments allowed. Supposedly, this would give them political cover. Look, no hands. We just cut Social Security but it wasn't our fault.

This "reform" is profoundly antidemocratic because it would strip ordinary citizens of the only leverage they have in Washington--the ability to lean on their elected representatives and exact retribution if they get sold out. Peterson has two advocates in the Senate--Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire--who are self-righteous fiscal hawks. The TFT story describes the rising federal deficits as a threat to the republic, yet fails to explain why deficits on rising. The billions have been devoted to bailing out major banks and Peterson's old chums in Wall Street or to turning around the failed economy or fighting two wars at once.

...But the assault on Society Security, we knew, would come back sooner or later because many of Obama's lieutenants are devoted to Peterson's fiscal logic. Budget director Peter Orszag once co-authored a "reform" plan that would raise the payroll tax on young workers and cut benefits for older people near retirement. Isn't that clever? Pinhead economists evidently think that workers won't notice. Now the billionaire is cranking up another fight. We should finger him again, big-time, and all those who willingly collaborate in his plot.


...Here is what really worries the fiscal hawks: as the Social Security trust fund built up the huge surpluses, the federal government borrowed the money and spent it. The time is approaching--maybe ten or twelve years from now--when the federal treasury will have to start paying back its debts to Social Security. The accumulated wealth does not belong to the US government, any more than the money it borrowed from China. The beneficial owners are all those working people who faithfully paid their FICA taxes for all those years. If Washington stiffs them now, it will be a bait-and-switch swindle larger than Wall Street's"

http://www.thenation.com/article/looting-social-securit...

Much of what Greider writes about in this article from last january has come to pass.

Why did Obama adopt a right wing, anti-social security, billionaire's idea and staff it with anti social security right wing hacks? Why are the meetings closed to the public and why is congress only allowed and up or down vote on the recommendations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-16-10 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
40. I don't know if you'd consider this a cut....
I think the tax treatment of Social Security benefits should be changed. There should be a small or no exemption, count the rest of the benefits received as ordinary income, and make the marginal rates more progressive.

You could consider that a cut because some Social Security beneficiaries would suffer a drop in their net (after-tax) benefits. Nevertheless, I'd be in favor of that change.

Other than that, I'd agree with you -- I can't think of any cut that I'd accept. And, as a practical matter, making the tax code more progressive isn't likely to be a priority of the Cat Food Commission, given its makeup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. They already do that.
You have to have fairly high income to be paying taxes on social security. I did in my last half year of work before retirement. Fine by me. I, like the vast majority of retirees, am not now taxed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #46
74. Benefits are taxed now but only to a limited extent. I'd include them with other income.
To make this fair, though, it should be coupled with making the entire income tax system more progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
45. The can raise the cap on the earnings tax, but that
is the only change I will accept. I have and will email, call and contact my Congressional rep and Senators.

And I might point out that many have a presence on Facebook. Never hurts to post something on their FB pages to that effect (be civil, but firm). My Congressional Rep just had a post on SS's 75th Birthday, so the topic is out there to use in many cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
51. The DLC New Dems feel confident that they can cut SS because,
as always, "Who else are you going to vote for"? Of course, their claim to glory as protectors of SS will be that while they may have raised the retirement age and cut total benefits, they nevertheless stopped the GOP from "Privatizing" it. That's the entire plan in a nutshell, and after watching Van Hollen repeatedly sidestep the question asked by Cenk regarding raising the retirement age, I can virtually guarantee it's already a done deal. I am sick of these damn DLC New Dem centrists conniving with the GOP to do the work of their corporate masters. The write-in box at the polling booth is going to be getting much use from me unless The Dems run a Liberal candidate worthy of voting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. I agree
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. ..
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
55. Ed Schultz reported on a poll that
people do not trust Dems that much more than repubs to protect SS. While I find that encouraging, what does it say that the Dems are quite willing to destroy a program that should be a trophy in their case, an something to be proud of and champion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
61. K&R
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
63. Someone needs to tell the Catfood Commission that Fancy Feast is unaffordable.....


...and that food and other necessities are rising FASTER than the CPI.

They need to recognize the truth that Paul Craig Roberts, who wrote Reagan's first tax cut bill as undersecretary at Reagan's Treasury Department, has the guts to tell us: that the CPI has already been rigged to UNDERESTIMATE inflation, that this has ALREADY BEEN DONE specifically to fraudulently steal earned and paid for (by decades of payroll taxes) SS benefits, and that Allan Simpson's lie that the CPI overestimate inflation and COLA's need to be cut is not just a lie, but a damn lie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
64. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
65. I am 52, if they raise my retirement age above 66 I will be pissed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
66. If you use up your ultimatum on this, will you still try to use another one later?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #66
83. Winning hearts and minds.
It's where the money is.

The President has never not sided with average Americans.

Why do they fear the catfood commission?

They're all stupid or crazy, right Loco?

Gibbs is bringing the revelation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #83
113. My post was about game theory, not political beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
67. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
71. Hey, you, "fuck whatever"
I'm right there with you.

:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobburgster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
79. Hopefully all who reply here have.....
contacted the White House and their reps. in the House and Senate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
80. My prediction is that the Catfood Commission will come back with all sorts of recommendations
Many, maybe most, will have nothing to do with Social Security and some might even be good ideas.

Buried in all these will be the destruction of SS & Medicare. As Pelosi has promised an up or down vote our poor, beleaguered representatives will have no choice but to vote for the whole package.

And they'll tell us not to worry because they will "fix it later".

I have remained active in the local party organization - I have my resignation letter ready to go if they do anything to cut Social Security. My only regret is that Minnesota does not have party registration so I won't be able to change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
metapunditedgy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
81. Any pragmatists want to go on record saying SS cuts are unacceptable? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobburgster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. You got one here....
and I just said so in my e-mail to the White House and my reps. in congress.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
metapunditedgy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #82
87. You have my respect for saying so! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
85. Once they cross that line it is bye-bye SS
Republicans will take one crack as a signal that the Dems can be slowly backed down until it is gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
88. Those DINO bastards are playing with fire.Do they really think the people will take this lying down?
I hope those assholes all rot in hell! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sulphurdunn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
89. The American people have been softened up
for this for years. I remember 30 years ago, people saying, "There won't be any social security benefits when you're old enough to retire" Well, I planned to begin collecting those benefits I wasn't supposed to expect next year. I have been paying taxes into that system since I was 16 years old. We have a deal about this. If these political whores fuck me over on it so they can spend more money on wars and bankers and other rich people, I will spend whatever remains of my life trying to abolish both political parties and establishing a government more in keeping with the principles of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution. I probably should do that anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bc3000 Donating Member (766 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
90. I've already decided not to vote for this party again
I just keep coming back hoping something might have have changed. There's a few good ones, but until the Anthony Weiners and Alan Graysons outnumber the corporate shills why should I participate in the illusion that there's a progressive party in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
91. I agree with you completely!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
92. How about to Medicare?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
94. And after throwing billions down the
rat holes of Iraq and Afghanistan. The social security trust fund was thrown away for tax cuts for millionaires and two unnecessary wars. Those that profited from the tax cuts and the wars need to bite the bullet to reinforce social security. Not a single cut is justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
100. I am a crazed degenerate, but I agree....
The Dems would have to be dead to me.


c
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
105. If "New Democrats/DLC" dare to make ONE cut to Social Security . . . .
this is where DU'ers amd all Democrats have to wake up about WHO is doing what

to Social Security -- and WHO put Repubicans in charge of Social Security!!


I'd suggest that it's time for seniors - and all Americans to begin to unite

behind programs -- rather than permitting themselves to be pulled apart by

hate campaigns, propaganda from either side about Social Security/Medicare.

And keep in mind it wssn't only Reagan Economics which has brought us this "third

world America" -- it also includes Clinton having done his part with trade agreements!

Corporate/elites aren't dumb enough to have only one party push their destruction.

They have bought ALL of government and are working on pre-BRIBING and pre-OWNING

MOST of our elected officials -- both parties!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 14th 2019, 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC