EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Zero Hour for Social Security
As I have previously warned--and I hope I'm wrong--President Obama seems on the verge of needlessly cutting America's most valued social program and the one that best differentiates Republicans from Democrats. This is part of a vain effort to appease deficit hawks in his own party and on Wall Street, as well as Republicans who are utter hypocrites when it comes to deficits--increasing them as long as the purpose is tax cuts but then turning around and demanding program cuts in order to reduce the deficits they created.
All the choreography is in place for the president to embrace Social Security cuts in his upcoming State of the Union address.
Cutting Social Security is financially needless--the program is in sound shape for the next 27 years. It has nothing to do with the current deficit. It will be solvent indefinitely if we can get some wage growth going again. Failing that, we should raise the lid on income taxed, so that millionaires pay the same rate as regular people. For more detail, see ourfiscalsecurity.org.
It's politically idiotic for democrats to join this parade. To have Republicans demand cuts in Social Security at a time when they are also demanding tax cuts for the rich is a cue for Democrats to make clear which side they're on. Obama got in big trouble with seniors in the health care bill because they were worried that it would mean Medicare cuts. In 2010, Democrats lost the senior vote, big time. Now, Obama has a splendid opportunity to point out that it's Republicans who want to cut Social Security.
But look at this exchange from CNN Friday evening. Wolf Blitzer, interviewing Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee plays a clip of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham demanding Social Security cuts as the price of extension of the debt ceiling. Goolsbee is resolute on the need to extend the debt ceiling, but strongly suggests that Obama is amenable to a deal on Social Security cuts:
[BEGIN EXTRACT]Good luck indeed! The fiscal commission called for cutting Social Security. And when the president's economic adviser is asked directly about Social Security cuts and quotes his leader saying, "Let's not rule everything out," we're in big trouble.SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I'd like to see a serious effort, bipartisan in nature, led by the White House where we look at extending the age of Social Security retirement. We all know we have to do that. And when it comes to means-testing benefits, that should be on the table.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Extending the age of Social Security benefits and having means testing. Are you open to those two proposals?
GOOLSBEE: Well, Wolf, let me separate two things. And I really wish that Republicans in Congress could separate them.
The debt limit discussion is about the full faith and credit of the United States. We should not be -- nobody should be playing chicken with that or playing games with that.
We should have an honest discussion about the budget. The president is not against that. He knows we must deal with our long- run fiscal challenges. And when he releases his budget in the a few weeks, I think it is going to be clear that he takes that responsibility seriously, and he's not averse to making tough choices.
Let us have an honest and open discussion about the budget and what we should do, what cuts ought to be made, in what areas. Do not tie the discussion about the budget to a thing that is fundamentally about the trustworthiness of the U.S. fiscal system and the government, which is what the debate about the debt limit is.
BLITZER: And what about the issue of Social Security? Are you ready to discuss that?
GOOLSBEE: Well, the president formed the fiscal commission. He was the one who authorized it over the objections of some of the opponents, and that body put out a report which I think highlights how important the longer-run fiscal circumstances are. And the president has always said, let's not automatically rule everything out before we even begin.
Let's see what plans and various people put forward, and let's deal with that as adults. Let's not try to turn this into a game of chicken where we say, unless you agree to our own specific partisan policy moves, we're going to threaten to default the U.S. government. And I would say, I hope that everyone in Congress can avoid resorting to policies that make the deficit worse while, at the same time, discussing the need for responsibility.
BLITZER: Austan Goolsbee, thanks very much for joining us. Good luck.
[END EXTRACT]
What should a Democrat sound like on the subject of Social Security? It's not really hard. Here's Harry Reid, sparring with NBC's David Gregory on Meet the Press Sunday:
[BEGIN EXTRACT]What's so lovely about this exchange is that it demonstrates how the press is utterly marinated in the conventional wisdom of the deficit hawks, and how easily some straight talk cuts through it. I am not one of President Obama's economic or political advisers, but maybe he talks to Harry Reid.DAVID GREGORY: Social Security-- how does it have to change? What they put on the agenda is raising the retirement age, maybe means testing benefits. Is it time for Social Security to fundamentally change if you're gonna deal with the debt problem?
HARRY REID: One of the things that always troubles me is when we start talking about the debt, the first thing people do is run to Social Security. Social Security is a program that works. And it's going to be-- it's fully funded for the next forty years. Stop picking on Social Security. There're a lotta places--
DAVID GREGORY: Senator are you really saying --
HARRY REID: --where you can go to save money.
DAVID GREGORY:-- the arithmetic on Social Security works?
HARRY REID: I'm saying the arithmetic in Social Security works. I have no doubt it does.
DAVID GREGORY: It's not in crisis?
HARRY REID: No, it's not in crisis. This is-- this is-- this is something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government. Social Security is fine. Are there things we can do to improve Social Security? Of course.
DAVID GREGORY: Means testing. Raising the retirement age--do you agree with either of those?
HARRY REID: --I'm not going to go to with any of those backdoor methods- you know, to whack Social Security recipients. I'm not going to do that. We have a lot of things we can do with-- this debt. It's a problem. But one of the places where I'm not going to be part of picking on is Social Security.
[END EXTRACT]
Speaking of advisers, the latest two appointments do not exactly inspire confidence for progressives. Gene Sperling, who succeeds Larry Summers as head of the National Economic Council, is the better of the two. He has been an advocate of increased social investment and a defender of Social Security, though he was the aide who pushed through a temporary cut in the payroll tax as part of last month's tax cut deal. Sperling received nearly $900,000 for part time work with a Goldman Sachs foundation before returning to government.
The bigger disappointment is Bill Daley, who is touted as a business leader but is more accurately described as a Wall Street lobbyist. JP Morgan Chase hired Daley less for his banking acumen than for his political connection, and he has led Morgan's lobbying efforts during and after the TARP negotiations.
Daley criticized Obama--from the right--on the health reform bill and on the consumer financial protection bureau. When Daley's appointment was announced, among those who pronounced themselves pleased were Republican leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, Tom Donohue, who heads the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
When your sworn enemies send you bouquets, something is very wrong. According to the Journal: "Bill Daley, we've come to praise you... Still, we've been wrong before. Whether we're wrong again rests less with the pragmatic Mr. Daley than with the man of the left who is now his boss."
The man of the left! But this propaganda game seems to get results. The more the right conjures up this mythical socialist Obama, the more he appoints conservatives. Let's see if Obama, this time, can live up to his billings and do as well as Harry Reid in standing up for Social Security.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
46 Comments so far
Show AllKuttner writes regarding Obama: "This is part of a vain effort to appease deficit hawks in his own party and on Wall Street, as well as Republicans who are utter hypocrites when it comes to deficits"
This argument is too nuanced and misleading. Obama is doing precisely what he was positioned to do: destroy Social Security and the Democratic Party, especially the few progressives that are still viable.
Democratic leaders must understand that a failure on their part to protect Social Security, even from their own president, will mean the end of their party. Social Security is the bottom line for even the most hardline members of their base who refuse to acknowledge these patently obvious betrayals. I can't imagine seniors (who vote) continuing to support a party that takes the food off their tables.
Certainly Democratic Party leaders understand this, and certainly they will put up a squawk for a day or two, and certainly they will go along with Obama's decision to impale Social Security on these false and reprehensive arguments.
Green Party recruiters, are you listening?
What squawk? Both my Senators, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar as well as my Congressman Colin Peterson voted on 12/17/2010 to defund Social Security via the Payroll Tax. Cong. Peterson had the audacity to send me this non-explanation:
"Dear Mr. M:
Thank you for contacting me to express your views on the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. I appreciate hearing from you.
I voted in favor of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act when the House passed it on December 16, by a vote of 277 - 148. I am convinced that given the current state of the economy, raising taxes is not the right thing to do and would jeopardize our nation's fragile economic recovery.
There are some bad things in this bill, like the effect it will have on our already serious budget situation. However, it is important to remember that by design this bipartisan compromise is only a temporary measure. The tax cuts will only be extended for two years and the unemployment insurance reauthorization will only be extended for thirteen months. This is only the beginning of the work that must be done to address our economic and fiscal challenges.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Collin C. Peterson
Member of Congress"
Senator Klobuchar upped the ante by asking me for a donation...twice(!) despite my less than cordial reply to her first email.
We're sooo screwed.
Those vile generic robotic replies to their constituent's appeals are one of the most disgusting aspects of our phoney representative democracy. They are practically designed to discourage citizen participation.
I would write a strongly worded letter to my Rep. vehemently opposing his vote for the Iraq invasion, and get in response a robo-letter saying that he indeed agreed with my concerns regarding Saddam and his evil WMD's.
You can bet when a rich man writes my Rep. ordering him to "jump!", he provides a prompt and personal reply asking "how high?"
By voting in favor of Obama's Bush Tax Cut Extension legislation, Congressional Democrats proved that they have no intention of "protecting Social Security, even from their own president (Obama)" as Kuttner alleges they must.
Prior to the vote on that legislation Republicans told the Democrats exactly how they would be destroying Social Security after the "temporary payroll tax holiday" was implemented, and Democrats still voted in favor of the bill.
Oilybomber has no intention of fighting for SS, his intention is to destroy it.
His the cleanup hitter for Bush baby.
Goolsbe = Ghoulsbe
Reid is either very dumb or very corrupt.
Yes, Social Security was self-funded for 75 years until Obama changed the funding process last month. Perhaps Reid was asleep at the switch for the past month.
Obama is targeting Social Security not "in a vain effort to appease deficit hawks" but to assure that Wall Street continues dumping boatlaods of money into the Democratic party coffers.
When Obama added the "temporary payroll tax holiday" to the Bush Tax Cut Extension legislation he blew the first hole in the hull of Social Security that will assure its demise. As a result of Obama's action, Social Security will for the first time in its history be funded with borrowed money ($112 billion in 2011, and more each subsequent year).
Obama has now done what Republicans have repeatedly failed to do for years.
Wall Street can't wait for the trillions of Social Security withhold dollars that will start flowing their way as soon as Obama can work his magic.
Harry Reid's exchange was "lovely"? Did he ever mention that the real problem is they spent all the money and, in order to pay it back (to us)they will have to end the empire or cut hundreds of billions from general expenditure? I think not.
If we look at the 1880's when the Sherman Anti-Trust legislation was passed and during the great Depression it wasn't the Democratic Party that forced those changes - it was 3rd parties - Progressive Party and Communist etc and spontaneous uprisings - NOT in concert w/ the Unions......
The Democratic Party and to a large extent the Unions are used to soak up the energy of Protest...... and dissipate it - to negate change.....
So any progressives who believe that change will occur thru the democratic party are living in la-la land -
I agree. I have used the metaphor before that Democratic Party leaders are like those truck ramps along freeways that are filled with sand. When any issue starts to gain public strength and momentum, they position themselves to steer the whole movement into the sandy quagmire where it becomes bogged down and couldn't possibly affect any positive change in this country.
Yes, that is why third parties have been increasingly demonized by the Democrats for the past 50 years...third parties hamper corporate contributions to the Democratic Party when the Democrats are forced to give an inch because of third parties pulling the discussion leftward.
Third Party??? What about a Second Party? Afterall, there is only One Party at present time.
mtdon, your analysis is spot on and supported by history. I've heard and read that much of the New Deal was enacted to deflate the People's interest in the Communist and Socialist Parties.
I posted the info about my senators' votes and the insipid reply from my Blue Dog Congressman to help persuade any doubters here that the Democratic Party is NOT our friend and IS NOT working for either progressives or the American people. We ALL need to stop supporting both wings of the Property Party.
Sheesh. Even here on CD there are boatloads of folks who still don't get it.
The Socialist/Social Democratic movement in our country was given the final death stab by Senator Eugene McCarthy. He also caused the leftist leaders of Labor Unions to be kicked out and replaced by criminals such as Hoffa. After Eugene McCarthy there was no longer a true labor movement in our country. Given that the minds of most of our workers are incurably infected today with the capitalist bug (a.k.a. "American Dream")or with its derivative named "Tea Partiism" there will be no change in the near future. It was not until the deranged alcoholic McCarthy threatened to take on genuine capitalist patriots that he was toppled.
it was 3rd parties - Progressive Party and Communist etc.
Specifically, it was the Socialist Party, USA, notably when Eugene Debs was its eloquent spokesman and candidate. They are still around, looking for members. Anyone can organize a SP-USA local in their community if there isn't one.
www.sp-usa.org
And ther duopoly ended Eugene Devs career by sending him to prison for claiming that the alien and sedition act od 1917 was un-constitutional.
That pronouncemnt by Mr Debs was deemed a Criminal act.
The "Alien and Sedition Act" dates back to 1798, and most parts of it expired except a law that still allows deportation of Alien enemies. The Act used against Debs was either the Sedition Act, or the closely related (and still in force) Espionage Act, both of 1917.
Cutting Social Security is what Obama was chosen to do. Haven't you wondered why the 2008 election wasn't stolen by the Republicans like the previous two? Or why the financial collapse happened two months before the election, ensuring Obama's win, instead of two months after?
The rulers wanted Obama to win, because only a Democrat could cut Social Security without igniting a firestorm. It's like Nixon going to China in reverse. That's why Wall Street backed him to the hilt all through his political rise.
"Now, Obama has a splendid opportunity to point out that its the Republicans who want to cut Social Security."
Whoa, hold the phone,come on now!, Obama takes a sledge hammer to SS, initiates in one fell swoop a fatal defunding blow to SS(did the Republicans even "require" him to do this-I don't think so), and Kuttner says let's blame this on the Republicans.
Actually, the more I think of this the more it seems normal for Obama and his Democratic minions to adopt this approach.
If nothing else, dishonesty on a massive, surreal scale is the hallmark of the Obama presidency.
'Zero Hour for Social Security' = Zero Hour for the Empire!
But, THEY don't get it.
"'Zero Hour for Social Security' = Zero Hour for the Empire!"
When Then, you are exactly right on!
Obama is/always has been a puppet for the oligarchs/wall street/the status quo elite.
He's neither smart or stupid, left or right, good or evil. He's the house slave and his talent is to follow orders, read his lines and to confound the gullible masses with the fake pass and the dark skin.
Up to this point, the O's masters have played an extraordinarily brilliant game. What could well take them down is the classic over-reach associated with isolation and arrogance.
Social Security means survival for a huge segment of our population. A population that has worked long and hard and has invested for decades not in wall street but in SS.
The elite seem to have a shocking deficit of rational thought that would allow them to even broach this subject. Perhaps it is the hubris portrayed in Greek tragedy and perhaps it is innate. But this is over-reach and it will take them down in the form of a mushroom cloud of populist rage. Any threat to SS will ignite a 'fire in the belly' of the entire middle/working class. It will unite a diverse and divided people and it will enrage my generation of Vietnam war protesters who remember how to fight.
Never imagined I'd ever feel like quoting Dirty Harry, much less GWB, but I do.
Make my day, you worthless devils. Bring it on!!!
Social Security goes to an electorate which in 2008 did not vote with a majority for candidate Obama primarily because we did not trust him on Social Security. Like the proverbial elephant Obama never forgets insults and injury hence has recently paid us back for our audacity.
Surprise, surprise, surprise!!
Kuttner wrote:
"Let's see if Obama, this time, can live up to his billings.."
Don't hold your breath, Kuttner.
One of the reasons the United Snakes is self-destructing is because "liberals" and/or "progressives" in the media such as Kuttner continuously pretend that the extreme right-wing policies of the Democratic Party are due to "weakness" or "incompetence" or election strategies of "moving to the center".
Absolute bullshit.
Obama and the Democratic Party hierarchy are bought and paid for by the wealthy elite; same as the Republican party. They are dancing to the tune of their owners.
And without a genuine left to stand up for ordinary people and oppose the Democrats and Republicans there is a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum.
The astounding shift of the United Snakes to the extreme far right is directly attributable to the lack of a left. The Kuttners and Reichs and other assorted phony left individuals and organisations (such as Moveon.org) are directly responsible for what is happening.
Chris Hedges and Glen Greenwald are two of the few political commentators that have any credibility, but they are relatively marginalised. And not infrequently they come under attack by Democratic Party henchmen as "the loony left" etc. etc.
And I have to wonder how long we will have access. Now that we've been betrayed by Obama and FCC chairman Julius Genachowski it may be only a matter of time before we find that sites like Common Dreams and TruthDig are difficult to reach due to low network priority.
So I repeat the same idea: Emigrate!!
Get the hell out of the United Snakes before it is too late. Think like it's year 1933 in Germany.
I'm certinally not leaving my 30+ of SSI contributions!
>^^<
Let's think ahead. What will we do when the Dems sell us out? I know, reaffirm our undying commitment to them because they are better than the Republicans.
Wall Street is in charge. 95% of the voters are getting what they voted for. The dem/repubs are not for the little guy - never have been.
YOU COULD HAVE VOTED FOR NADER.
Poor Kuttner! He means well, he really does, but he remains firmly mired in a classic liberal-lite fantasy of good government facilitated by Democrats.
There's no need to take on the question of whether this "social fantasy" was EVER realistic, and pull out our Walter Karp and Lance Selfa tomes. Let's just say that even if Kuttner's experience and understanding of the New Deal conditioned him to think this way, his fantasy hasn't been operational for half a century.
As previous commenters have noted, it's foolish to hope that congressional Democrats will rally and "do the right thing", even if it means pushing back against an accomodationist president.
In Amerika's prolapsed duopoly, Elected Misrepresentatives are locked into a pathological partisan mindset in which "Gotta support the team!" is the pervasive Prime Directive. Specific "issues" are subsumed into this occupational psychosis.
Just a couple of examples: Recall California Nurses Association Director Rose Ann DeMoro's candid and credible account of the belated, purely cosmetic meeting reluctantly convened by Senator Max Baucus, Democratic Senator from Big Insurance Country, to appease doomed, excluded single-payer advocates while the No Insurer Left Behind bailout was being "debated".
DeMoro noted that Baucus seemed literally confused or puzzled by the challenges and exasperation expressed by the participants; he kept coming back to the necessity of providing the President with a "Big Win", and couldn't grasp why presumably sympathetic activists kept making a fuss instead of Supporting the Team first and pursuing their apolitical goals afterwards.
Even ostensibly high-minded Democrats like Kucinich and Feingold, apart from the usual CYA blather about having "concerns" or "(grave) reservations" about this or that dubious administration position, persisted in supporting Obama's "historic presidency", which they correctly perceived was and is "under attack" from political opponents and nefarious reactionary forces.
It was particularly galling to find Kucinich loyally supporting Obama's "historic" presidency from the traditional liberal pro-civil rights perspective, even if it meant supporting an authoritarian Unitary Executive who's eagerly and unequivocally furthered the voracious Constitution-shredding and extinction of civil liberties begun by his predecessor. But, but, he's the First Black President, and we CAN'T allow his presidency to fail! Here, partisan myopia was compounded by an ideological cataract.
Sure, Democrats like "Fighting" Harry Reid may shuck and jive to save face and cover their asses when the Hollow State Social-Security Destroying Express leaves the station. But you can be sure that once it picks up steam, they'll jump on board well before the next Presidential campaign season.
At best, they'll come up with a few cosmetic tweaks and modifications-- the usual doggie treats to reassure and mollify growling partisans like Kuttner, who's always looking to have his canine loyalty vindicated so he can sleep better in the doghouse.
A person that goes by the screen name Taleisin over at Raw Story wrote this about how the rich think of Social Security. It was such a classic bit of writing I thought Id post it here. I hope he doesn't mind.
"A clear case of the poor working classes depriving the rich of a sweet, sweet honeypot.
That money is just sitting there, keeping them awake at night, whispering into their dreams.
Taunting them, teasing them. Big piles of fresh crinkly notes to be caressed and fondled.
Money that could be invested in third world countries, money to redecorate a Dubai mansion, money to brag about at the country club, but nooooo. You want to retire one day.
If you give them just a little tiny bit, they can finally be content and say,
'Now I am rich enough, I can start doing the right and honest thing by my country.'
What happened to you, America. How could you be so heartless?"
Scrooge McDuck.
Kuttner is right that traditionally the support of Social Security has distinguished Dems from Repubs.
What I am having problems discovering is where the suggestion to "temporarily" roll back the employee share of the SS Payroll Tax as a "stimulus" actually originated. Was it initiated by Obama as I have read in some places? If so the man is a traitor and would help explain why the elderly abandoned Dems in the 2010 election (any polls out there on the income profile of those elderly?).
Also, given all his verbiage in support of SS, how did Harry Reid actually vote on the relevant bill with the long-winded name?
-30-
It is inevitable:
1. That ALL retirement plans/investments will be attacked by taxes or other more confiscatory methods in the years to come. Those trillions are too tempting to the wealthy elite that have drained all other sources of wealth.
2. That Social Security for those near or in retirement now will not be reduced but, it may be effectively frozen. That is still the 3rd rail of politics as the number of voters are higher in that age group. Not so those younger who will loose that safety cushion.
3. That The pre 2007 American lifestyle will change for the worse. We have exhausted the easy/cheap resources and are now into the more expensive/difficult resources. Since GDP growth is reliant on cheap resources/energy, that economie's day are numbered.
4. That we have become a nation of Lords and serfs...or worse.
In Europe they have a Social Security Plan that run's throughout your whole life, Education, Healthcare, Housings, etc. Here in America all we have left is Social Security, that pays you after you retire, or are to sick to work. Now they want to take that..John McCain's puppy, If they are going to take away every social benifit we pay for, than we Must simply stop paying taxes ! Hell the Rich don't pay, and if they do, it is always just part of what they owe.
Our roads are falling apart ,our Schools are a sham, Healthcare is for the rich, our Police and Rescue won't even come in some towns if we don't pay privatly,what the hell is going on? How much longer do we endure this raping of our Society?
I am suprized that there have not been more killings, I guess we are lucky, but how much longer will our luck hold ? Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, who are we ? I thought we were Americans, and yet there seems to be such a different opinon on what type of people we are.
We attacked a country that never attacked us, because of that, a country is in ruins, and over one million civillians are dead in that country, and we still after 7 yrs. have no answers to how we will fix this mess, and yet still we moved into Afghanistan, and we kill those people, and we wonder why another mixed up American killed so many of his nieghbors , we have got to change the way we think, and the way we do our business. It may all look cool in the movies, but nothing America has done as a Nation in the last 30 yrs. or more, has been what our country should have been doing. In our name many of our elected officials have committed so many crimes against both us, and the world around us, that we don't even know where to begin. So we don't. What ever happened to Home of the Brave ?
Hey razormirror, you just hit the ball out of the ballpark with your shrewd analysis.
"...If they are going to take away every social benifit we pay for, than we Must simply stop paying taxes !"
Ooh schnap! That is exactly it! Taken a step further, gimme the $100K- PLUS interest- that has been taken from me over the years back IMMEDIATELY.
Democratic Propaganda -
Kuttner's first sentence: "As I have previously warned--and I hope I'm wrong--President Obama seems on the verge of needlessly cutting America's most valued social program and the one that best differentiates Republicans from Democrats."
Last sentence: "Let's see if Obama, this time, can live up to his billings and do as well as Harry Reid in standing up for Social Security."
Response: As many posters have already alluded to, Obama and Harry Reid's Democratic Senate just passed a tax bill that reduces the social security payroll tax in 2011 from 6.2% to 4.2% meaning the US government has to now borrow money to fund the difference. This is the Democrat's step to the demise of Social Security because the US can't afford to borrow to fund Social Security and the politicians won't raise taxes, that is bring it back to 6.2%. Obama isn't on the verge... as he and the Democrats have already taken steps towards the demise of Social Security.
No, the government doesn't have to borrow money. This isn't a Third World country or the EU - the US is a sovereign nation and prints its own money. Period. The US cannot go bankrupt because insolvency is banned by the Constitution. Only criminals can steal your taxes - like Cheney said, deficits don't matter. Not when you print your own money and the world trades in your dollars. Now this scenario will not go on forever - like the pound sterling, the dollar will be replaced - but that will take time. That's why the WB, IMF, and other countries are so hostile these days - they're stuck with this situation. Guess they didn't see the fascist trend until it was too late either - they were too busy counting all their dollars.
This country can be straightened out easy enough - but people will have to demand it, not just huddle in fear or blame somebody else. For the most part, the younger generations do not hate as much as the older ones - they don't know about WWII or Vietnam, and even the Muslim-hating propaganda largely goes over their heads. But they have been raised under fascism, and as Hitler warned, "your children will know nothing else" - and ours don't. And I'm running into a lot of brick walls trying to get them interested in civics (not politics, mind you, but civic responsibility) and find them ignorant and disinterested. That's the hard part - you can't organize youth if they don't know anything is wrong, and we need the energy and idealism of the young to actually get anything done. (Even the French know that.) Anybody know how we (I) can get that ball rolling?
It seems to me the SS folks have been cutting the ground under their own feet. Either we're all in this together or we aren't. The oldsters keep voting republican so they are getting republican. I guess Obama is getting the message.
I'm a conservative - who do you want me to vote for? It ain't gonna be no Democrat, I can promise you that. And what Republican (fascist) would be worse than Obomber?
Our government better remember that the millions of Social Security recipients are members of BOTH parties who have worked their ENTIRE lives in order to retire and receive their "due" for having paid into the Social Security system over all those years. For us, Social Security is NOT A PARTY ISSUE!!! IT IS OUR DUE!!!!!
Our President and Congress better remember that we seniors have nothing else to do but show up in Washington and STAY THERE, DEMANDING OUR DUE UNTIL SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY IS RETURNED TO US, ITS RIGHTFUL OWNERS!!!
And we will never take "NO" for an answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Social Security is as Harry Reid pointed out soildly stable. The idea of going after it is just part of the far right and further right's agenda,
Those senators who want to save Social Security may need to learn how to filibuster. Let's see if the jack asses who want to get rid of Social Security have the votes for cloture. This time filibustering could be a good thing. Let's damn do it!
AD
"Social Security is NOT A PARTY ISSUE!!! IT IS OUR DUE!!!!!"
It's a party issue. The republicans want to chuck it. You guys voted majority republican and left a democratic president with no choice but to begin to go down that road.
You want to understand the problem, look in the mirror.
Frank S has it pretty much right. Social Security is our DUE.
Meanwhile, people who think of themselves as "conservative" ought to recognize just how "conservative" Social Security actually is.
Any raid on SS is a raid on us all, and it just happened. It tells the world that we are bankrupt. Would the Japanese do this despite their allegedly semi-Deflationary economy?
We need a new "Over-the-Hill Gang" ASAP. Not led by Harry Reid.
You know who your are!
-30-
"Frank S has it pretty much right. Social Security is our DUE."
This is politics by mantra. Social Security will exist as long as it is defended. If seniors think voting republican is going to defend it then you live in la la land.
But it's fun to blame it on Obama and Reid and the democrats isn't it? That way you can have your bigotry and eat it too.
Dingo60 writes:
"Social Security will exist as long as it is defended."
I didn't vote Republican. I blame Obama precisely because he did NOT defend SS. And that budget bill passed when the Dems were still in charge. It was a sell-out when they/he should have taken a stand.
Meanwhile, that payroll tax cut sends what message to those younger people paying the payroll tax today?
-30-
"that payroll tax cut sends what message to those younger people paying the payroll tax today?"
That they will be paying less taxes. Who knows what the world will be like 30 35 years from now. The young are into the now.
You may not have voted republican but the majority of your fellow seniors did or they didn't vote. What do you have to say to them?
Obama can't wave a wand and make everything all right. He has to play with the cards he was dealt. And the seniors dealt him some bad cards in Congress.
Dingo60 writes:
"Obama ... has to play with the cards he was dealt. And the seniors dealt him some bad cards in Congress."
Some people who play cards don't know what cards they were dealt. Others may think they know what they were dealt, but don't play them well; perhaps because they aren't very good at the game, or perhaps for some subconscious need (given the group) to lose.
*****
Dingo60 also writes:
"You may not have voted republican but the majority of your fellow seniors did or they didn't vote. What do you have to say to them?"
Assuming you are talking about the 2010 voting cycle, their reasons are doubtless extremely diverse, but I would suggest that their prime motive is that they are really suspicious of deficit spending and, given history, still think of the GOP as the party of fiscal conservatism. Which the Boehner's of the world still pretend to be...
Meanwhile, it seems that you have something against seniors in general. Most young people didn't bother to vote in this cycle. What do you have to say to them?
-30-
OMR
"Some people who play cards don't know what cards they were dealt. Others may think they know what they were dealt, but don't play them well; perhaps because they aren't very good at the game, or perhaps for some subconscious need (given the group) to lose."
Hmmm now that last thought was interesting. Somehow it's hard to picture SS getting this far with a lot of clueless and self-destructive seniors. So let me get back on message. The republicans don't like entitlements. Seniors helped put them in power. Obama has to work with them and he can't get them to tax the rich. Where is he going to get the money to stimulate the economy and pay down the debt? He goes for one of the few options available to him provided by the republicans, take it out of the hide of SS by lowering SS payments, providing more spending money for workers. His hand was forced and the seniors helped force it. If you think seniors can keep pulling the wrong way on this tug-a-war and not suffer consequences then you don't know political physics.
OMR
"Assuming you are talking about the 2010 voting cycle, their reasons are doubtless extremely diverse, but I would suggest that their prime motive is that they are really suspicious of deficit spending and, given history, still think of the GOP as the party of fiscal conservatism. Which the Boehner's of the world still pretend to be..."
From Reagan on the republicans have been the party of deficits. How clueless can these folks be? Obama has been stuck with a pile of IOUs and he is supposed to balance the books overnight with a bunch of republicans opposing practically everything he does?
OMR
"Meanwhile, it seems that you have something against seniors in general."
I get irritated with any group that talks one and acts another. Heck we're all on our way to being seniors, why would I want to poison the well? It just seemed strange to see all these comments that said Obama was undermining SS and not see one person relate that to the position the 2010 election had put him in. SS will not survive by default. It has to be defended and if seniors won't defend it in the election process then I expect it will go the way of any program that lacks political support.