Obama campaign REFUSES to disclose plans on Social Security, says discussion belongs with senators

[woo me with science]

I have very few words for this that are printable on DU. We are on the verge of a historic assault and theft of OUR Social Security, and Axelrod has the unmitigated gall to say that Americans should be kept OUT of it. We have suspected that we are headed for a new Grand Bargain and that our candidates, running on being defenders of the 99 percent, want to keep the topic quiet....But now journalists and the American people are told *directly* that we should shut up and stop asking questions.

How DARE they.

It is time to raise hell, because this is OUTRAGEOUS.



Debating Social Security: If Not Now, When?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101643786

The remark in question came during last week’s debate about fiscal issues on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” In an otherwise forgettable conversation, things became newsworthy when the conversation turned to Obama’s position on Social Security reforms. At that point, the president’s consigliere, David Axelrod, responded not with a clear position, but instead by trying to halt the conversation.

“I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table, we’ll have that discussion,” he told the panel.

When pressed, Axelrod insisted that the election season meant no debate should proceed. “This is not the time, he said. “We’re not going to have that discussion right now.”

There are two disturbing problems with Axelrod’s statements. First and foremost is his suggestion that a Social Security policy debate should only be conducted between White House officials and U.S. senators—not between all government officials and the general public. It’s a fundamentally elitist idea that evokes notions of smoky back rooms and secret deals. Not only that, it both contradicts basic notions of civic engagement and confirms Americans’ fears about a government that wholly disregards the citizenry....

[awake]

1. Ya this is what we really need at this time on DU

Social Security is not the problem that we need to worry about it is electing Dems instead of Repuks. I do not see any benefit in moving our focus off of Mitts desire to dismantle medicare and Obamacare and start a debate on Social Security, Axelrod was right this subject will only help distract from the fight we are in right now. If you believe the MittWit and Liar will protect Social Security better than Obama then vote for him. Now is not the time to open a new front in this war to protect our country form the "teabaging, I got mine you get yours" Repuks.

[ann---]

2. I think all he'll do is

raise the cap on Social Security and raise the retirement age. I can't see Obama - or any Dem - dismantling it the way Rmoney/Lyin' Ryan would do. Of course, Obama said he's a Blue Dog Democrat so we don't really know.

[nc4bo]

3. Jeez, at the rate we're going w/age increase, it won't be long before it's 70, 75. Why not 80?

Fund the damn thing. Protect it like Mitt Romney protects his foreign bank accounts.

[southernyankeebelle]

60. Give those mother fers time they will get there. The dems aren't any more honest then the repubs.

They only ones I truly trust are the true liberal wing of the party.

[TheKentuckian]

30. Raising the retirement age is not acceptable policy but rather a massive effective cut

A poverty inducing cut that not only cuts Social Security but reduces life time wages and increases the likelihood of unemployment by inflating an already glutted labor pool.

Better than Weird WiLIARd and the TeaPubliKlans is a nothing measuring stick, Ronald Reagan and Poppy Bush can fit that criteria (hell, an argument can be mounted for Junior Bush and Jeb too) and still fucked the American people every which way but loose.

I say we'd best being applying pressure to shape the policies of the people we have some influence over rather than meekly accepting whatever is offered because the alternative sucks more ass.

It is important to elect Democrats but it is far more important to make them work in our interest rather than making bullshit excused for them and granting passes in fear that the opposition will do worse.

Hell yes, Obama should be cornered into positions that favor the people and Social Security should absolutely be discussed in the election. The President and our party should have very little room to negotiate because room cannot benefit poor and working class Americans.

[ChazII]

181. Your 4th paragraph

is spot on.

[Le Taz Hot]

202. Excellent!

[eridani]

58. Raising retirement age, and Medicare eligibility age = mass murder n/t

[jtuck004]

76. Stalin would be proud. n/t

[HiPointDem]

106. regardless of your snark, it will kill people.

[jtuck004]

108. Who said it is snark? He killed about 3 million, irrc, we have about 80 million

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

on SS, around 30% rely on it for more than 90% of their income.

We have the potential to kill, impoverish, and send to utter ruin millions more than he did.

Without firing a shot.

[HiPointDem]

112. apologies then. i thought it was snark. and in fact, most of the folk who died under stalin

died from 'the economy' as well, not from firing squads & gulags.

[jtuck004]

115. This is extremely dangerous, and even the people who want so desperately to

elect Obama seem swayed by the arguments.

You are right, of course, about how most died in Russia, but many were pushed into that by force. Today even our "friends" are making excuses to send people to their own destruction. Doesn't even require an army to herd them into cattle cars...

[HiPointDem]

120. no, just 'the law'.

[abelenkpe]

251. To hell with raising the age

That better not be what happens

[OrwellwasRight]

293. "All he'll do is . . . raise the retirement age"

Really? Meaning bus drivers, longshoremen, forklift drivers, trash collectors, warehouse workers, waitresses, and everyone else who doesn't sit behind a desk and work at a computer all day long will have to work till age 70? Really? Is that the country we want? I take public transportation to work and I can tell you I don't want to ride to work everyday with 70 year old reflexes driving my bus. The retirement age is already 67 -- that is bad enough. Raising the retirement age is a HUGE benefit cut for all us of. We do need to talk about this now because if we don't make it clear that it is unacceptable, then they will think it is acceptable.

[HiPointDem]

18. of course now is the time. after the election we have no leverage.

[OldDem2012]

23. Just curious, but what "leverage" do you think you have now?...

...Are you going to threaten to not vote for Obama and let Romney win? Seriously?? What do you think will happen if Romney gets elected?

Fact: Neither party is going to discuss this topic before the election.

[HiPointDem]

25. 'Neither party is going to discuss this topic before the election.' = oh really? and why is that, i

wonder?

[OldDem2012]

78. Why don't you ask the candidates? nt.

[HiPointDem]

82. I don't have to. There's only one possible answer.

[OldDem2012]

88. Yes, and I told you what that answer will be, whether we like it or not. nt.

[HiPointDem]

92. Yes.

“This Week with George Stephanopoulos on May 13, 2007"

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?

OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?

OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.

Last week’s Presidential debates. October 3, 2012:

OBAMA: “You know, I suspect that on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position.”

The Republican platform:

“While no changes should adversely affect any current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform should address our society’s remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as supplements to the system.”

The White House position (website):

Seniors and Social Security

He [Obama] believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced and he will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations. The President also stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/links-10612.html#7ZFVsioli03GQs3a.99

[TheKentuckian]

36. Who is running who then? You're argument is we choose masters rather than representatives.

You've got Dem in your name and you think this is an acceptable paradigm? Seriously?

This fuckers are supposed to work for and answer to us.

[OldDem2012]

75. Yes, I've been a registered Democrat since I was old enough to vote back in 1970...

....I'm probably older than 60-70% of the posters on this board. And yes, I seriously "think this is an acceptable paradigm". Since when did telling the truth become an issue on DU?

We've got a month until Election Day....let's stick together long enough to win the election. Or do you have a problem with that, too?

[TheKentuckian]

356. Democracy is far older than you and yes it seems the truth is a problem for you.

The real truth about the welfare of the American people both working age and seniors.

What you are pushing is not even kin to self determination but rather select rulers to determine our futures instead of representatives holding power in stewardship and at the will of the people.

That is what I have a problem with.

[OrwellwasRight]

294. We can make it politically untenable to cut Social Security.

The only way to make it untenable is to talk about it. Loudly and often. Get it on the agenda and make them go on the record.

[woo me with science]

302. Thank you for a great post that sums it all up.

I like your screen name.

[Oilwellian]

306. I like it as well

And indeed it was a great post.

[OrwellwasRight]

338. Thanks!

I guess we both have a fondness for Eric Blair. And a tendency to believe that instructions to sit down and not make waves are not completely consistent with a well-functioning democracy.

[OrwellwasRight]

337. Sadly, I thought the name would be less relevant

after Bush left office. But it is still relevant -- the media does act like things go down "memory hole." So often I find myself saying "We're at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia." But I think that is what the media does when they refuse call the GOP on its bullshit when it does a 180 on some issue or other.


Anyway, hi! It's always nice to have a positive interaction outside the Lounge. DU has gotten so hostile these days.

[w4rma]

31. We have less leverage than ever, right now.

We have the absolute most leverage before the primary elections. This issue would be a sideshow, with so many other issues surrounding the general election right now.

[HiPointDem]

37. social security is a sideshow to other issues? that's bs.

[eridani]

59. With 56% of November's electorate age 55 and over?

You've got to be fucking kidding me!!

[awake]

65. It is not that SS in not a issue it is that Medicare is a better battle field to fight on

With 56% of November's electorate age 55 and over Medicare means just as much as SS but with the Medicare fight we have Lyin' Ryan's budget to hit them over the head with. with 30 days to go I feel we need to use are strongest ammunition to blow them away and not get side tracked in fighting on the wrong battle field.

[eridani]

66. Both are important

There is absolutely NO reason for Obama to not state clearly that he is in favor of raising the cap, and against raising the retirement age and implementing chained CPI COLA.

[awake]

72. I am not saying Both are not important

I am saying with little time left we should use our strongest weapons in this fight and chose which battle field to fight on. I feel the Obama team knows what they are doing I am just suggesting that when and were we can we should back him up. I do not see how raising the SS question will help at this time. Now if and when Romoney step on the SS third rail, then we hit and hit hard. Bringing up SS durning a election usually does not end well so lets let the other side make the first move. We have them on record as far as Medicare goes so for me that is what we should hit them with.

[tokenlib]

91. We don't have time to wait. The "grand bargain" may be struck within weeks of the election...

They will be moving fast becuse they don't want the masses riled up. Raising the question NOW is the only chance of derailing the train.. It will take weeks to get awareness up--heck too many people still think "they'll never do that."

[awake]

98. All the more reason to stop Mitt from being elected

I just fail to see how this infighting is helping to reelect Obama.

[tokenlib]

103. We must do both..too many dems are open to a Simpson-Bowle-SHIT" "grand bargain."

This is not infighting as much as it is part of the family letting Obama and the "third way" types know that there are "lines not to be crossed." We have no time to waste--the hints have been dropped. Social Security should NOT be on the "grand bargain" table--yet we know it is.. There is no need to "tweak" with future recipients--yet they keep insinuating as if we have no choice.

Time is of the essence--and I am sorry for those who cannot see that.

[HiPointDem]

104. +1

[HiPointDem]

100. bull. what use is medical care if you're homeless?

[hay rick]

243. You have it exactly backwards.

The elections are the sideshow. If we can't protect Social Security through our elections, our elections are pointless.

[tama]

20. Aww,

just buy the pig in a poke, peasant, and keep your mouth shut...

[kurtzapril4]

69. ^^This^^

[Blecht]

241. Too true

[elleng]

29. Thanks, awake; you've got a good sense of proportion an timing.

And I REFUSE to participate in the fearmongering. (I am a recipient of SS, by the way.)

[Iliyah]

68. I see a lot of right wingers lately posting on this board

I'm getting tire of them. Go to your own blogs and spew the trash cause they love trashing America and its people!

Thanks elleng!

[Zalatix]

144. There is no fearmongering involved here, only a reality check.

he remark in question came during last week’s debate about fiscal issues on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” In an otherwise forgettable conversation, things became newsworthy when the conversation turned to Obama’s position on Social Security reforms. At that point, the president’s consigliere, David Axelrod, responded not with a clear position, but instead by trying to halt the conversation.

“I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table, we’ll have that discussion,” he told the panel.

This did happen. This is not something that a politician says if they respect the democratic process.

[me b zola]

189. so you don't care that they raise the retirement age because you already are recieving ss?

Simpson Bowles states that they plan to raise the retirement age...as part of the deficit reduction "plan" although we all know that social security has absolutely nothing to do with the budget nor deficit as it runs on its own independent of the national budget.

For social security to even be mentionened, let alone butchered, in the deficit battle is an assault on social security.

The President was quite clear in the debate that he fully supports Simpson Bowles and is going to "fight" for it. So the question that I have for DUers is, are you going to support--and push for--cuts to social security--or or you going to fight for social security?

[goclark]

32. Right Welcme to DU!

[awake]

73. Thanks guys

nice to know one is welcome here

[freshwest]

308. Welcome. awake!

[flamingdem]

43. I agree, let's not get into attack out of fear mode

Obama said social security is sound. The tweaks are the negotiation and in my opinion it IS worth fighting but they may be very logical tweaks, we just don't know. He cannot say since the right wing would go nuts with ads scaring seniors with any thing he says on this.

[eridani]

253. Like hell we don't know. Raising the FICA cap and setting the initial benefits

--formula to further benefit lower income people are acceptable tweaks. Raising the retirement age and using chained CPI for COLA calculations ARE FUCKING WELL NOT OK!

So why can't Obama say what he means? The RW has no possible counter if he would just make the above assertions.

[rhett o rick]

52. Why dont you make a listing of what we may or may not discuss. nm

[kurtzapril4]

70. Yes! I would very much love to see a list of what is forbidden speech. nm

[woo me with science]

204. What should concern us all

is that this new, creeping meme....this outrageous, flagrantly anti-democratic claim that citizens should shut up and not ask questions during election season....is now moving beyond political discussion boards to the campaigns themselves.

It's time to give our politicians a strong reminder of what "representative political system" is supposed to mean.

[hay rick]

227. Well said.

Debate makes us stronger.

[pasto76]

64. exactly. Imagine the "outrage" if Romney is in office

[tokenlib]

86. If you are one of the "tweakees" to be "tweaked" it is a worry RIGHT NOW!!

Especially with all the hints and comments that insinuate Simpson-Bowle-SHIT" to be reasonable. It also takes time to get people riled up and mobilized--if a "grand bargain" is being discussed in "quiet rooms"--we dont have much time..

[march starling]

123. May I suggest a name change?

ASLEEP suits you far better...

LOL--it's a distraction that we are finding out what a lame duck plans to do? It's all about Bears vs. Packers to you, isn't it?

[awake]

131. No this is not a game

I want to have the strongest hand when the talks start and for me that means working together to beat Romoney and his ilk. Now some here seem to think putting other people on this site down is a good for the cause of winning the election. I do not question most peoples intention I do hear their concerns. I am equally concerned that we pull together and fight to reelect all who can help keep SS and Medicare as well as Obamacare (which I see as the 1st step to true universal health care)

So as someone has Said WAKE THE F*#k UP and Vote.

[OrwellwasRight]

295. No one said anything about not voting

So that argument is a red herring. We can vote and we can put pressure on Obama to do the right thing after the election as well.

[Honeycombe8]

213. Ditto. Not now. We know the philosophies & policies of the 2 parties. We don't need

a debate on provisions of some possible Social Security program, which may or may not ever get passed.

With Obama, we know what we will NOT be getting. THEN we can fight with the Dems over details of "fixing" Social Security.

But first, you have to win before you can have that sane debate.

[sabrina 1]

229. Wrong, defending Social Security strenuously, is a WINNING election tactic and everyone

knows it. Across the board polls show that Americans overwhelmingly love SS. It is the third rail of politics NOT to come out strongly in support of it.

THIS IS THE TIME to USE this issue to push this President over the top while slamming Paul Ryan and his years long war on Social Security.

Since this is COMMON KNOWLEDGE, the very idea that Axelrod made this outrageous statement is huge cause for concern, and now is the time to let them know.

If he was in the real world, instead of hanging out with his corporate buddies, he would know that one of the most important issues to Americans is protecting Social Security.

This is a real problem that needs to be addressed NOW, during election season, the ONLY time when the PEOPLE are of any interest to politicians.

This argument Axelrod is making is pure BS and we are sick of having them assume we are so stupid that we are going to buy it. All political operatives should be made illegal. They are destroying our electoral system.

[fredamae]

4. I trust Sen Sanders---

He is the only credible politician imo---I share his concerns and Axelrod owes us a better explanation.
He was right to point out in 2008 Candidate Obama left no doubt of his intent to Protect SocSec no matter-This "pot of cash" belongs to "The People"-period.
I am not hearing anything close to that from Candidate Obama 2012...and it does concern me--deeply.
$7.2 Trillion is a Lot of money and the last big pot o'gold and "they" want it bad..we just don't know who all the players are who are vying to get their grubby mitts on it....

[Ninga]

5. My thinking is with Axelrod. What will be the balance of the House/Senate starting 2013?

The President needs more support than he has now in the House/Senate.

He needs the election to put a fork in Mitch McConnell, so he can move on to do the country's business.

I fully get Axelrod.

[Teamster Jeff]

6. We are going to get a bi-partisan f*cking, absolutely, no doubt about it.

The creation of Simpson-Bowles was all I needed to see to know this.

[bigtree]

7. Congress is ultimately responsible for this

. . . and this is yet another hair-on-fire projection and manufactured outrage on SS.

The manner in which you smear the administration and Axelrod in your premise and post . . .

[ProSense]

9. Seriously, what's the point?

It's a month before the election, and there seems to be the need to prove that Obama will screw us over.

Is the point we're screwed no matter what? OK, now what?

Nothing is going to change over the next month. Obama or Romney is going to get elected.

[TheKentuckian]

44. There have been major differences between the parties on Social Security

since before it was enacted so what is the consensus that both major parties have arrived at, apparently in a top down fashion?


A month before an election the people deserve to know and further have an absolute duty to know, this is structural and will impact almost all of us.

An elections seems the exact time to fully understand positions and use public pressure to shape policy.

That Axlrod quote is absolutely shit can worthy, that is not the sentiment of a public servant. I don't want anyone who holds such a sentiment anywhere near my government and sure as hell as a part of one getting my vote.

How is that kind of statement even remotely acceptable in a land of free people with self determination?

The point would seem to me to be to drive policy into daylight and of course in the light of day it is not politically plausible for a Democrat to run on any shenanigans and they are pigeonholed into acting appropriately as not to kill their election. Then based on positions espoused and oaths sworn a political environment is created that doesn't give wiggle room for bullshit which in turn impacts the voting pattern of legislators who know they have to run again and face a shitstorm if they do the wrong things.

It also makes the TeaPubliKlans accountable for their shitty positions which means they have to either also fall in line or try to run against the wind. This should be an easy issue to beat the fuckers upside the head with except if you don't want to.

[kentuck]

133. We absolutely deserve to know.

We are not and have been a Party that operates on blind faith. If we don't know, we have a duty to vote likewise.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Hold your tongues, knaves! Just send us your tributes!

[JaneyVee]

10. You're worried about Obama's plan for Social Security?? Do you know what Romney's REAL plan is?

To ELIMINATE it altogether.

[freshwest]

309. Ah, but see, the beauty of scaring off Obama voters is that glorious revolution by the workers!

The fact that the revolution will be won by teabaggers organized and funded by the reactionary Koch family hasn't sunk in yet. Viva the Revolution! All of the capitalist running dog lackeys will...



Take over just as planned...

[Comrade_McKenzie]

11. From the Obama TRUTH TEAM:

"President Obama and Romney agree that we need to make gradual changes to make sure Social Security stays solvent over the long term. The disagreement is over how to do it — and that’s where President Obama and Romney have fundamentally different ideas.

President Obama will under no circumstances agree to put your retirement at risk by privatizing Social Security, and he will reject any plan that slashes Social Security benefits. Because Romney opposes any effort to raise a single penny in new revenue, his Social Security plan is forced to rely solely on big benefit cuts to maintain solvency — analysis of a similar plan showed current workers would see cuts of up to 40 percent that would badly hurt their financial security.

Romney and Ryan also supported the Bush privatization plan that would have had exposed Social Security benefits to the financial crisis that devastated many pension funds and retirement accounts."

[K8-EEE]

13. +1 "under no circumstances" will he privatize social security

OK?

[HiPointDem]

19. privatization is a red herring. cuts are the danger.

[K8-EEE]

94. With Romney + teabaggers we would be starting on the road to "private accounts" a la GWB and FAST

Believe it -- elect Obama then fight the cuts....better strategy.

[tokenlib]

113. There won't be enough time after the election to get mobilized..the "grand bargain" is coming...

..they will be too gutless to get too close to the fiscal cliff.

[uberblonde]

290. Look, you're right.

But most Dems don't want to hear it. It's almost impossible to discuss this with people, they simply want to believe it won't happen.

Even though it will.

[hay rick]

245. We saved you from privatization, now eat your catfood.

Bipartisan "compromise"- we'll forget about privatization (for now) if you give us the chained CPI.

[HiPointDem]

250. and 'for now' is the operative phrase. it's a steady process of boiling the frog. for 30 years.

[still_one]

56. All they need to do is raise the cap, problem solved, yet no one brings that up

[savannah43]

273. Or they can pay back the $1.7 trillion BushCo embezzled from the SS fund.

And then raise the cap.
The big issue is: Who owns this country--the majority of the people or the corporations/1%?

[Sirveri]

275. That was actually one of the things the Simpsons Bowles commission said to do.

[ProSense]

15. Obama is not to be trusted, which

begs the question: Why would anyone who doesn't trust Obama believe a word he says, and keep insisting that he states his case exactly how they want to hear it?

Do you think if he did, they'd believe him? Isn't he the guy who'll say anything to get elected? Why would such a person believe Obama would keep his word whatever he says?

[still_one]

57. What are you saying, Obama is lying?

[tokenlib]

99. Obama is good person who may think "a grand bargain" best for the country..

..but he did invite Simpson and Bowles to a commission that had a bias toward cuts instead of revenue enhancement. So he may need a "nudge" to stay grounded.

[alarimer]

134. He's a fool if he thinks that.

He has been far too willing to give the other side (who really should be treated as an enemy) too much credit for being sane. They HATE him. They hate liberals, they hate Democrats. They will drag this country down with them and ruin everything.

There is no bargaining with snakes. There simply isn't and if Obama still thinks there is he is either a fool or in on it. At this point I don't trust him at all and I won't vote for him.

[ProSense]

145. No, I'm saying this

is handwringing. Nothing Obama says now will change anything. The people handwringing will continue handwringing, and no decision on the issue is going to be made before the election.

[girl gone mad]

333. The decisions were made long ago.

Obama should just be honest with the people from whom he is seeking votes.

[frazzled]

12. Any article that uses the word "consigliere" is immediately suspect, imo

It reveals the "eye for critique and the instinct for the jugular" (John Podesta, Center for American Progress) and "take-no-prisoners mind-set" (New York Times book review) that David Sirota has always had.

Remember that David Sirota was the one who brought us the swooning reverence for the politically centrist-conservative John Edwards as the savior of all things progressive. Yeah, right.

I don't like David Sirota's kind of histrionics and fear-mongering.

[TheKentuckian]

77. I'm proud and determined to take no prisoners and go for the jugular on this.

Why aren't you? Why aren't Democratic Representatives and Senators? Why isn't the President?

[frazzled]

84. Because I believe the promise that has been made

President Obama will under no circumstances agree to put your retirement at risk by privatizing Social Security, and he will reject any plan that slashes Social Security benefits. Because Romney opposes any effort to raise a single penny in new revenue, his Social Security plan is forced to rely solely on big benefit cuts to maintain solvency — analysis of a similar plan showed current workers would see cuts of up to 40 percent that would badly hurt their financial security.

There will be some minor, non-painful adjustments to work out in the next several years, nothing big. But I don't believe in crying "The sky is falling!" until the appropriate time. The posting of Sirota's article is meant to depress support for the president in advance of any meaningful Congressional or presidential action: and that's a very negative thing to do. Because if President Romney gets his hands on Social Security, it won't be minor at all.

Why do you want to go jugular on the basis of such an innocuous, 4-weeks-from-the-election statement? I don't blame them for wanting to keep away from any complex policy discussions right now: the Republicans are very good at twisting everything, as you can see from the "716B cuts to Medicare" bullshit.

Oh yes, and because Sirota is a hack political operative who uses exactly these kinds of theatrical scare tactics. Fall for it if you like.

[woo me with science]

129. Obviously you missed the administration's clever word game on "cut" versus "slash"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021048521#post73

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0707/Briefing-room-word-games-What-s-a-slash-versus-a-cut-in-Social-Security

They vehemently and clearly reject "slashes."

But "cuts"?.... Not so much.

[Ikonoklast]

14. Oh, it's you.

[HiPointDem]

16. kr.

[Fumesucker]

17. You people have heard enough about Social Security.

Leave it up to your betters, they know what's good for you and what you really need.

[woo me with science]

200. Indeed.

The contempt in that statement for Americans' participation in our own representative government is outrageous and deeply disturbing.

We have heard this new meme that the people need to shut up during election season more and more on political discussion boards, but I believe this is the first time I have heard a political campaign or political representative have the unmitigated gall to use it.

[quinnox]

21. recommended

The "stop asking questions and just vote damnit" response is very lame indeed. Whatever happened to the concept of being an informed voter?

[ProSense]

22. "stop asking questions and just vote damnit"

You can also keep asking question and not vote.

"Whatever happened to the concept of being an informed voter?"

What's is the information being passed on in the OP, and what is the point?

Is the information going to change a voter's mind?

[quinnox]

24. Tama's post #20 said it much more cleverly and

eloquently than I did. Anyway, no third degree game today, not gonna play.

[awake]

26. To me this issue is of no help to our cause

At this time it is just a distraction from the real fight. Sort of like quick look, look over there see that shiny object.

[HiPointDem]

27. what is 'our cause' then?

[awake]

33. Our cause is to

..."to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office" from DUs terms of Service

[HiPointDem]

38. i am happy to elect democrats that will enact & protect democratic policies.

[quinnox]

41. did someone appoint you as discussion monitor or something?

[quinnox]

34. why do you always talk using "we" and "our"

that is pretty annoying.

[awake]

49. I am sorry if my use of "we" or "our" offends you

I joined this group with the understanding that it saw its self as a "online community" with a shared desire to "to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office" for that reason I use often us the terms "we" or "our". I am well aware that not all here share that same view so please accept my apologies if my speech has offend you or anyone else. I have only tried share my views in a way which I hoped would further the cause of this site as I understand it.

[quinnox]

48. but...what if other people still want to discuss it?

[woo me with science]

28. ATTENTION, Third Way calendar watchers!

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The Third Way Brigade has officially shifted from denying that Democrats will attack Social Security and mocking those who would even suggest such a thing....to defending the assault and lowering the bar. As long as SS is not wholly privatized, no big deal! To hell with the millions of seniors who are already desperately struggling and never mind the millions to come. And never mind that SS was supposed to be wholly independent of the budget and a promise and a compact with Americans. Never mind that the poor and middle class have been systematically looted from and impoverished already by billionaires who have taken 40 percent of our wealth AND virtually all new wealth in this country.

Yes, our campaign theme this year is standing up for the people. Chained CPI? Bring it on. Catfood is nutritious. And working until you're nearly 70? You got a problem with that, Grandpa?

Welcome to the Democratic Party under corporate rule, and to the new corporate DU. It is not only okay now for Democrats to ATTACK Social Security. Now the campaign's right to tell Americans to shut up and stop asking questions about it will also be vehemently defended!

Welcome to neoAmerica. This is what we get, when we allow corporate rule.

[awake]

40. Or we can remove the cap on the level of income that SS tax is applied

and apply SS tax on all forms income. I do not suggest that talking about these "solutions" in this election year because what ever big money that is helping Obama will dry up.

[tokenlib]

111. The problem is all the positive comments about "Simpson-Bowle-shit"..they've telegraphed too much...

We know they won't just raise the cap without bringing out the "leeches" for future recipients.

[snooper2]

224. you forgot to throw a "truthy to power!" in there

[dflprincess]

238. Thank you

for this and your OP

[rudycantfail]

248. Busted. n/t

[Oilwellian]

307. Most excellent n/t

[jberryhill]

35. Obama's going after social security again, eh?

This has got to be about the 30th time he's done that.

[SidDithers]

74. This time, for sure...nt

Sid

[jberryhill]

175. Surprised he has the time, what with fighting against equality and all

[Robb]

119. He just sucks at it.

[DevonRex]

152. LOL.

We are supposed to be scared because this time it really, really might happen.

[MannyGoldstein]

237. So you're equally sure that Obama doesn't want the Bush tax cuts to expire for the 1%?

Bonus question: why were Simpson and Bowles the two people picked to chair Obama's debt commission?

[jberryhill]

249. Yes, I am a horrid person who supports an equally horrid candidate

Being a closer to 65 than 21, I feel it's my obligation to make idiotic choices so I get screwed.

When I do, you be sure to let me know.

[Luminous Animal]

272. You won't get screwed. Current and almost there retirees are a protected class.

[jberryhill]

274. Well I'm the kinda guy who pulls the ladder up behind him

And I'm voting for Obama so I can watch him slash all social spending and sell poor people to China for the protein!

[99Forever]

39. I want this issue discussed by Obama BEFORE I vote.

This is critical and I'm on the cusp about whether to leave the top of the ticket blank or not. This could tip me one way or the other.

[awake]

42. Oh? you might want to reread our terms of service

"Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to All LEVELS of political office." I highlighted All LEVELS just incase you missed it.

[Teamster Jeff]

47. I'll highlight...

politically liberal people Blue Dog centrists and Third Way types don't get hassled with "terms of service"

[awake]

53. You will be happy to know that I do not see my self as a

"Blue Dog centrists" or a "Third Way type" as you can see from my post above #40 "we can remove the cap on the level of income that SS tax is applied and apply SS tax on all forms income." this view I do not believe is view outside the views of the online community.

[Xedniw]

276. TOS

TOS

[blue neen]

51. .

Welcome to DU!

[99Forever]

89. I didn't ...

... "miss" anything newbie, including the ignore feature. Welcome to it.

[blue neen]

132. Well, you basically stated that you may or may not vote for the President.

So, actually "newbie" was on the right track.


Feel free to ignore me, too...if you aren't already.

[99Forever]

137. Thanks for permission.

Consider it done.

[Le Taz Hot]

205. Who the fuck died and made you

DU sheriff? And what the fuck is this "us" and "we" bullshit. "Us" and "we" are not all blind partisans and some of us are actually capable of independent thought. You want serial blind partisanship? Go to Democrats.com. You want a DISCUSSION board? DU is your place provided you don't try to pull this "loose lips sinks ships" bullshit. Goddess I'm so sick of binary "thinkers."

[blue neen]

324. Weird. You're the second poster I've seen use the term "binary thinkers".

Is that some new kind of meme? If everyone is saying the same phrase, IMHO it doesn't seem so much like we're all using independent thought.

[Le Taz Hot]

349. I've used the term for decades.

Perhaps it's just new to you. Of course the word "meme," now that IS one of those lock-step words.

[lonestarnot]

46. Really?

[lonestarnot]

50. Are you encouraging people not to vote by way of foot stomp?

[99Forever]

93. Do you always put words in other peoples mouths?

I suspect you do.

I care fuckall about strawmen.

[eridani]

255. What about encouraging people to walk and chew gum at the same time? Would that be OK?

Rmoney is an obvious disaster, so we must re-elect Obama. However a deficit "crisis" will follow shortly after the election, in which the amoral sociopathic Simpson-Bowles recommendations will be used to impoverish and kill the elderly. We can't afford to wait until the last minute here.

[lonestarnot]

292. N. s.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. You must have the archaic notion that your vote belongs to you rather than to a politcian.

Tsk. Tsk.

[99Forever]

85. Yes I know...

... shame on me for insisting that I make up my own mind.

[CthulhusEvilCousin]

95. I wouldn't

I wouldn't be worried if I were you. Judging from Obama's history and record, I don't see any chance of him cutting social security or harming it in any way. Keep in mind this is an election year, and until he wins he has less flexibility to go after all his goals.

[99Forever]

102. I want to hear it directly...

... from the source, just as I heard directly from the source that his position and Rmoney's are very similar.

I learned last go around to pay careful attention to EXACTLY what the man says, not the lofty verbiage that doesn't really mean much at all. Once burned, twice learned.

[dflprincess]

239. His payroll tax "holiday" has harmed it. n/t

[progressivebydesign]

118. LOL. Please VOTE FOR ROMNEY.. seriously. Because I think THEIR plans are really awesome. nt

[99Forever]

136. I've never said I would ...

...VOTE FOR ROMNEY. Not even once. Anyone who says I have is a lying sack of shit.

You may only be capable of binary thinking, but some of us progressed past that a very long time ago.

[blue neen]

171. You did say that you might not vote for the President.

So, if you don't vote for Obama, who would you vote for?

[NCTraveler]

315. "leave the top of the ticket blank "

Reading. It's fun.

[blue neen]

323. Voting. For President Obama. It's fun.

"Leave the top of the ticket blank" is not going to help the President get re-elected, is it?

[NCTraveler]

325. No it is not. I fully agree. nt

[randome]

172. Well...it won't be. So keep wishing.

[99Forever]

188. You misplaced this steaming pile. n/t

[lonestarnot]

45. K & R!

[judesedit]

54. If Obama does anything with social security, it will benefit us...not hurt us. If Rob-me gets hold

of it..start digging through the trash now. You may as well get a head start cuz that's where you'll be if you have to count on his government for anything. Wake up, woo me with science. I'm starting to think you're one of the suckers for the GOP bullshit.

[Oilwellian]

55. Well, like Obama said in the debate...

There's a reason why Romney won't share his plans with the American people because more than likely, what he wants to do is something most Americans would not like...or something to that effect.

The same could be said about Obama and his plan for cutting aka slashing aka tweaking Social Security. We're so happy to see the Republican party in disarray today, however, Democrats will be facing the same problem if they raise the retirement age like they were willing to do during last year's Grand Bargain negotiations. There were no discussions about raising the cap, but there was a promise by Harry & Nancy to help Obama raise the retirement age to 69.

I can understand why Axelrod doesn't want to discuss that right before the election.

[Autumn]

61. I think that is a discussion that belongs to the American people

fuck anyone who says otherwise. I wouldn't trust the Senate or Congress to walk my dog, with the exception of Bernie.

[tokenlib]

116. Yeah, Bernie is the best--may he be blessed with great health and a long life!!

We need him now like never before....

[tularetom]

62. There is probably going to be an attempt to fuck with Social Security regardless of the election

There's a 100% chance of that with a Republican administration and I'd say a 50% chance of it with a Democratic administration.

There are no other options. We're going to get one or the other in November.

Based on those odds alone, the only hope is to vote for Obama.

The other consideration is how each side attempts to fuck with it. I can envision a Republican proposal for complete dismantlement of the program and replacement with some goofy sort of 401(k) that puts your retirement in the hands of Wall Street thieves. On the other hand I believe Obama's proposals would be much less drastic and would probably be limited to an increase in the age limit for full benefits, and likely offset by lifting the contributions cap.

Once again unless you want to put your retirement in the hands of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, you have no choice but to vote for Obama.

[woo me with science]

63. We drown in bullshit propaganda, lies, and deceptions.

The vultures who want to steal your retirement have money, time, and planned, relentless penetration into every place where opinions can be shaped, including the new DU. And the propaganda will be just as thick at the Town Hall meetings.

Meanwhile, every legitimate poll shows that Americans across party lines want to protect Social Security benefits.

[emulatorloo]

67. You drown DU in propaganda, lies, and deception

That's your MO. You are all about distracting from the real threat posed by Romney/Ryan.

[Autumn]

79. Perhaps the problem lies with our President.

When the President says to Romney "I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position," " Who" is drowning DU in propaganda, lies, and deception?

Are those word lies? I heard Obama say that, probably millions of people heard that.

Yeah there is a real threat posed by Romney/Ryan. I also felt threatened by Obama when he said that. Nothing wrong with Woos post. It's the truth

[awake]

83. Did you think that maybe Obama was baiting Romoney

into saying something about SS by saying "I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position," since most of the time repuks will disagree with anything Obama says? I bet he did not intend to start a shit storm with his backers, but hey it was not his only misstep that night. I do not suggest we point out all of his fuck ups for what good would that do unless you are fighting for the other side.

[Autumn]

97. I don't fucking play games and have no use for that shit. If you are posting that for Obama

and in a position to know that for a fact, then say so. Otherwise it's bullshit.

I am too fucking old to pretend that something a President said is 3000 gazillion dimensional chess .
That's not a misstep, he said he was in agreement with Romney, and has said nothing since to clear it up.

From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. That's what I was taught and that is what I live by.

[Oilwellian]

101. Was he "baiting Romney" when...

he strong-armed Nancy & Harry to support his plan to raise the retirement age during the Grand Bargain negotiations?

[emulatorloo]

138. Woo and Goldstein have been pushing this bullshit "secret plan"

for several years now.

Ryan and Romney have a REAL PLAN to destroy the safety net.

I have no idea of what motivates Woo - in general he is drawn to far fetched conspiracy theories.

The end result is he is distracting from the REAL DANGER we face: Romney/Ryan and Republican Control

[Autumn]

142. Read what Axelrod said and re watch the debate and hear what

Obama said and then fucking preach your anti Woo bullshit. It's not a fucking secret. This is not a fucking distraction. OBAMA and AXELROD brought this up Obama said it and Axerlrod said it. It is worth discussing.

Yeah Romney/Ryan are a real fucking deadly danger, but Obama and his advisers are shooting arrows at us too.

[emulatorloo]

146. The problem is Woo NEVER goes after Republican in his posts

only Democrats.

That's why I don't find him credible.

[Autumn]

155. Look. We are intelligent liberals. We know republicans.

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

We know they are scum sucking ignorant low life fucking pigs who will fuck over the poor, women. gays children and anyone else they can. Fuck republicans. They are out to FUCK US.

I don't care what a republican does unless I want to mock it. This board is full of people who know exactly what fucking republicans do. We fucking know, we have been living it here on this board since 2000, some of us don't need to see someone go after them.

I want to know what the Democrats do. That is all that matters to me. What the Democrats in my party do and say is what matters to me. Tell you the truth, I don't care if a fucking republican screws me over and stabs me. I expect them to do that. I can get over that. I do care if a Democrat screws me over and stabs me in the back. That I can not get over. And at this time there are too many people in my party who call themselves " Democrats" and in reality are nothing more that fucking republicans.

I say hell yes, hold their feet to the fire. I consider Woo posting this story to be a very good thing. I won't watch the TV pundit shows and I would never have known about this. So I find Woo very credible, and I appreciate him posting this.

[emulatorloo]

167. You are right, there is no need to fight

99.999% of DU is liberal and progressive. We all have the same goals and the same values.

IMHO we are going to have a much better chance moving closer to those goals with a clear Dem majority in the house and senate and a Dem in the White House.

In reality I think you and I could sit down and make a list of a handful of Democrats who want to damage the safety net.

On the other hand, you and I know almost EVERY Republican wants it gone.

The notion of those people in control scares the hell out of me.

I do appreciate talking with you, I probably should not be posting on DU today as I'm tired and a little touchy.

[Autumn]

173. I think we are all a little tired and a little touchy.

We are facing the fight of our lives. If republicans gain power we will never recover, never. That is indeed a terrifying notion. So we go on, we drag our party back to the left, because watered down Democratic policies only hurt us. For ourselves and our children and their children.

[emulatorloo]

174. . . .

[Bobbie Jo]

87. This exactly.

The "messenger" has been exposed repeatedly.

[Oilwellian]

105. What about Obama's Grand Bargain...

is propaganda, lies or deception?

[emulatorloo]

149. No, that was a bluff to EXPOSE BOEHNER was not serious about deficit reduction.

Please note there is no "Grand Bargain" law on the books, nor is Obama or any Democrat pushing a "Grand Bargain" bill.

On the other hand Woo has been pushing his bullshit "Secret Plan" crap for years now.

[Oilwellian]

209. A bluff? Really? What are you basing that opinion on?

Here is what I'm basing my opinion on:

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

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

That doesn't sound like someone who's bluffing. And neither does this:

Two day later, July 24, one week after the Sunday morning meeting that sparked such optimism, the president found himself trying to turn back the clock.

Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. His message: I’ll take your last offer.

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

I highly recommend you read this play by play of Obama's attempts to cut Medicare & Social Security benefits. Folks like Manny, Woo, myself and many other DU'ers are SCREAMING about this because I guarantee you, after the election and before the end of the year when the debt trigger hits, Obama will be resuming his efforts to cut a major pillar to the Democratic party platform, for a pittance of revenue in return.

Putting party before the well being of the American people isn't a good idea, ever. When I see members of my own party become minions for the Koch Brothers, you better damn well believe this lady will NOT remain silent about it.

[sabrina 1]

353. Thank you. I am sick to death of those who are willing to put blinders on until it is way too

late and then attack those of us who pay attention and who are not willing to blindly follow anyone who is willing to sell out this country even in the smallest way.

There is simply NO EXCUSE to even be talking about SS in the same breath as the Deficit because no matter how deceptively they try to word it, SS had ZERO to do with the deficit and anyone who tries to pull that shit, is someone to be very suspicious of.

Politicians come and go, but the American people are left to deal with the disasters they leave behind. And anyone who cares about this President at all, will be doing everything in their power to make sure he does not go down in history as the politician who sold out on one of the Democratic Party's most successful and most popular Social Safety Nets.

Even Bush learned that despite all the advice he got that SS 'was no longer the third rail of politics' it WAS, it STILL IS, and while Republicans are expected to attack it, no Democrat should be doing anything other than fighting off anyone who even tries. I have not seen this President take a real stand, as Bernie Sanders does, eg, on SS and that makes me want to get a direct answer from him and from the Democratic Leadership.

[Le Taz Hot]

208. Name the "propaganda, lies and deception"

in the OP.

[dionysus]

320. +100000

[Larkspur]

80. This is what we do after the election..

We pressure our senators and US Reps to support Sen. Whitehouse http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-sheldon-whitehouse/stand-strong-for-social-s_b_892554.html and Sen. Bernie Sanders in declaring that benefit cuts, including raising the retirement age, to Social Security and Medicare are off the table.

The Lame Duck session will be Election 2012 version 1.1.

[jtuck004]

81. "I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table" Axelrod

Let me tell you something motherfucker. I got a seat at that table when I was made a citizen of this country and your arrogant ass better be careful about getting in my way if you want my support.

[awake]

90. Nice

Or what you will vote for Mitt or just not vote? Ya that worked out so well in 2010. Can we get a grip and put off our own fight till after we finish off "Mitt the sh*t" We know for a fact if he gets in then we will all be f*cked. I suggest if we can we keep our eyes on the prize.

[jtuck004]

96. You think killing millions of seniors is a prize? What a pathetic, ill-thought out opinion.

Sounds like Charles Davidson or Michelle Bachman, pushing that "slavery is good for you" line.

Isn't that what Joe Biden just warned against? The chains?

[awake]

107. No

The Prize is taking back the House, holding the Senate and reelecting our President Obama!
No one here has showed how bringing up this issue at this time will help win any of those prizes, and as for the best way to protect SS I feel our strongest position will be to defeat Michelle Bachman and her teabag friends.

Now if you feel other wise fine but can we be kind to each other and fight our common enemy?

[jtuck004]

148. Who is the enemy when we are sending $40 billion a month to wealthy people so their

asset-backed mortgages, which they invest in to the tune of a $billion or so each, won't decrease in value. Chris Hedges recently wrote of $16 trillion that has been paid out in outright gifts and loans to keep the people who brought us our current financial crisis (through their fraud) in their seats, We are told this is good for all of us - maybe, but it's certainly good for the billionaires. Yet we tell a third of 80 million people who depend on this for heat, or a roof, or medicine, or a lousy meal every day, that they haven't got enough value, that we will just let them die?

Maybe the prize for some is just not dying hungry and cold?

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm

In 2012, over 56 million Americans will receive $778 billion in Social Security benefits.
December 2011 Beneficiary Data
ο Retired workers 36 million $44.7 billion $1,234 average monthly benefit
dependents 2.9 million $ 1.8 billion
ο Disabled workers 8.7 million $ 9.7 billion $1,111 average monthly benefit
dependents 2.1 million $ .67 billion
ο Survivors 6.3 million $ 6.5 billion $1,190 average monthly benefit

 Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.
ο Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits.
ο Social Security benefits represent about 39% of the income of the elderly.
ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of
unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security.
ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 23% of married couples and about 46% of
unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. <<--

In other words SS is the only thing keeping about 24 million people from begging for bread on the street or freezing in their home.

How many more can we consign to death so we can keep paying billionaires their tribute?

You want to be kind. Is there a kind way to kill them?

The best way to protect SS is for the administration to come out and say there will be no cuts, and create the jobs program that should have started 4 years ago.

[woo me with science]

201. Beautiful, important post. Thank you.

Policies are about choices, and often moral choices.

It should be an OP.

[KoKo]

316. An Excellent Post...! Thank you....because that fills in the details about Bailing out the Banks

and how those who had nothing to do with the Wall Street Criminality are made to suffer.

Holding interest rates at near to 0% for Savers for 8 years (Fed says will got to 2015) means that retirees and savers can't even keep up with inflation. Now a safety net insurance they paid into their whole working lives is on the chopping block.

[jtuck004]

334. It really bothers me. People are losing their homes, seniors were told their equity would

be part of their retirement, we were even told by the Fed Reserve chairman that he saw no possibility that the inflated values would ever drop...

Now we are supporting the assets of people who buy into $2 billion dollar mortgage-backed asset pools. That gave us the the "Twist" you mentioned - 0% interest for banks, as well as millions losing their homes, millions more moving into the category of "working poor" or even into abject poverty, all while a few thousand of the very wealthy, the people whose fraud brought us this, are made whole. All while we replace mid-wage jobs with large numbers of low-wage home health aides and coffee servers.

They were discussing voting on tv the other night, and all the polls showing Barack ahead. But then they turned to the surveys which show how likely voters in different categories and ages are to turn out - still supportive, but in some cases 20 full percentage points LOWER than 2008. I see that as a direct result of the actions of many of our elected representatives, in both parties.

Imagine what the $16 Trillion or so that Chris Hedges calculates we have paid and are paying to keep the wealthy whole since 2008 would have done if instead they had INVESTED in the American people, maybe in a jobs program in 2009, or a housing support program, or creating vo-techs across the country that would bring everyone's skills up to date for today at little or no cost, or...

[KoKo]

339. Nice post from you about our Economy and Stock Market...and how much we don't know..and

how much if you read the Financial Sites..both the Anti-Greenspan and the Pro-Stiglitz, Krugman and so many others.

And...loved your Chris Hedges:


"Imagine what the $16 Trillion or so that Chris Hedges calculates we have paid and are paying to keep the wealthy whole since 2008 would have done if instead they had INVESTED in the American people, maybe in a jobs program in 2009, or a housing support program, or creating vo-techs across the country that would bring everyone's skills up to date for today at little or no cost, or..."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

151. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

Even in election years.

[tokenlib]

124. Axelrod is the one you should "admonish"..for sounding like "Willard" with his "quiet room" comment.

I found Axelrod's comments offensive as well.

[woo me with science]

121. THANK YOU. This should be the response by every citizen who is *EVER*

*EVER* told to sit down and shut up by a political campaign or elected representative.

Authoritarian garbage like this must be met head on, with outrage. Americans must remember what representative government is supposed to mean, and never, EVER tolerate being treated like this.

[AtomicKitten]

109. Uh huh.

[arely staircase]

110. awesome post

what other "Obama sucks" missives do you have on deck? If you hate democrats and the president so much, go vote for Mitt f'ng Romney! Seriously. Obama will still win without your vote. You are statistically insignificant so go with you heart. Pull a straight GOP lever. It will make you feel better and won't affect any other god damned thing in the world.

[HiPointDem]

114. 56 & over = a majority of the electorate. SS is an important issue; I don't understand why

democrats on this thread are minimizing it.

It should also be an important issue to younger people who will have to help support, or else abandon, aging & disabled relatives -- and will themselves be condemned to cobbling together support for the old age in a low-wage economy where 2/3 of the population will, math-wise, be unable to do so.

[arely staircase]

128. it is a very important issue to me - one of the main reasons i am a democrat and an obama

supporter. fyi - the other guy wants to destroy it. his whole party does. they were against it from the beginning and have been trying to get shed of it ever sice.

[HiPointDem]

222. Then I think we should be able to discuss it.

[Autumn]

117. I'm sorry that you think Obama's White House Senior Adviser sucks.

Well, right now I kind of agree with you. But I think that Axelrod's remarks are very much worth discussing. He speaks for our President. If the truth bothers you and you can't handle what our Administration says and you feel that Obama doesn't need every vote he can get, you have a problem. In fact, YOU are the problem.

[arely staircase]

130. here is the truth - and it bothers me not one bit.

Obama and Democrats are pro social security.

Romney and the Republicans are anti social security.

David Axlerod is one bad ass mofo who is, as I write this, putting a serious ass kicking on the GOP.

Maybe that truth bothers you?

[Autumn]

139. Obama and the Democrats need to CLEARLY be pro social security.

Not say he believes and Romney are in agreement on SS. So it sounds like to me Obama has joined Romney and the Republicans opinions on social security.

I don't give a flying fuck who's ass that Axlerod is busy kicking. That bad ass mofo had better change his fucking tone if he expects my support otherwise he is just one bad ass mofo idiot who can get seniors up in arms and cost Obama votes.

I didn't elect him and I wouldn't trust the Senate and Congress with shit, much less SS. He has no business saying that the American people should shut up and sit down. I don't OWE any person in this government my fucking vote.
That's the only voice I have, and they better damn well fucking earn it. Without SS some of us would be dead or on the streets.

Now that's the fucking truth, and I don't care if it bothers you or not.

[arely staircase]

298. well, they are

so problem solved

[Autumn]

299. The problem might be solved in your mind

but I'm not quite that simple. And your little Ohh I'm right and your wrong just doesn't fucking work with me.

[arely staircase]

350. please, by all means continue to worry over non-existent things. here in the reality based community

"obama will cut social security" is about as credible as "he is a kenyan muslim communist fascist." i tend to worry about actual threats like Romney/Ryan and their real life plans to gut our Democratic created social safety net.

but keep jousting them windmills.

[Autumn]

354. Well bless your heart arely. It's good you feel so positive about things.

Now if you announce you know this straight from the horses mouth or Obama and some elected officials, you might just be a little more convincing . Otherwise it's an opinion, and everybody's got one of those too. Now you have a real nice day .

[arely staircase]

355. positive? hell i am fired up!

I'm all in for our president and ready to fight the real enemy!

Join us!

[awake]

122. I can not help but think that this issue will backfire

My whole life I have never known a discussion of SS this late in the race not going bad. Now maybe someone here can show how exactly that by bringing this issue now will help to reelect Obama?

I could be wrong put this seem to be red meat bait thrown out to distract us.

[Autumn]

127. If this issue backfires, it will be Obamas and Axelrods fault.

Why do you think this should be swept under the rug???

Obama says he and Romney are in agreement on SS and Axelrod said what he said and some how you figure that that some evil asshole put this out there as "red meat bait thrown out to distract us"???

Now maybe someone here can show how exactly how this is "OUR" fault because this issue came up? SS is a lifeline for a lot of us. We would be dead or on the streets without it.

WHO brought this up? The poster for posting about it on a message board? Or Obama at the Debate? Or Axelrod?

The only voice I have in this government is my vote. My one vote.

By the way, this message board was created for Discussion.

[emulatorloo]

140. Election night, DU 2004. The Great Reveal

Several fake "progressives" took their masks off and gleefully proclaimed victory, after spending months attacking John Kerry with fake leftist arguments.

When posters continuously post anti-democratic conspiracy theories and never take Republicans to task, I get a bit leery.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

[Autumn]

143. I see some at this time that are masked very poorly

they usually take the form of moderates.

[emulatorloo]

150. Sorry no - that's not how it works. "Pot Stirrers"

attack from the left.

That's what our "friends" did in 04.

Now I am not calling woo a troll, I have no idea what motivates him to push his conspiracy theories for the last several years.

All I know is that he NEVER attacks Republicans. Only Democrats, by projecting republican policies onto Democrats.

The end result is the same - blame Democrats for what Republicans are doing.

[Autumn]

163. Okay. So, Axelrods words are projecting republican policies onto Democrats.

Never mind the fact that Woo's post was about an interview Axelrod did, not a conspiracy theory. And for what it's worth I have seen Woo criticize republicans.
And if our elected Democrats want to join or praise Republicans policies , they should be blamed for it

[dkf]

125. He said in the debate he had a version of Simpson-Bowles in front of congress. I wonder if this is

What he meant

[LiberalAndProud]

126. When I read the piece here about Peter G. Peterson, I finally understood.

When I was in the eighth grade I heard for the first time that I shouldn't expect to receive any Social Security benefits. My science teacher explained it to me.

It was sometime after that that Social Security was "fixed". My contribution rate was raised so that I would be contributing to my own retirement, as well as those already retired. Social Security was in surplus and all was well with the world. Fast forward to today.

My husband is in the "safe" group and will be eligible for benefits when he turns 65. So far, my retirement age is 67. Until they change it again. Even with full benefits, we have no savings and can't afford to retire. We are both resigned to the very real probability that we will work until we die. Some days I think dieing sooner is the better option.

Don't mind me, Peter G. Peterson wants the government to confiscate my future well-being. Class warfare. Surrender.

[woo me with science]

135. Authoritarians attempt to breed passivity in those they control.

Note how the messaging of the Third Way and their ilk has shifted. At first we were mocked and derided for even suggesting that Obama would EVER do such a thing. Now we get bids for passivity and resignation.

We are being told to sit down and shut up and accept that the Third Way factions of our Democratic Party, historically the ONLY institution that has stood between all of us and the looting of our country and our futures....are now prepared not only NOT to fight to defend or improve already insufficient SS benefits, but to join with Republicans in STEALING them. And to accept that our opinions are not welcome in this decision.

Not just no, but HELL NO.

[LiberalAndProud]

141. What do you propose?

I contacted Obama when Simpson-Bowles was first appointed. I remembered what Candidate Obama-04 said about sending things to committee, so I thought it was probably a stalling tactic. I believe he has been schooled on who actually runs this country. The truth is, I will be represented in DC exclusively by (R-Tea) proponents. They tend to not be interested in my concerns.

Right now we have a choice. Maybe it's not much of a choice, but if I have to take half a loaf or none, I'll take the half, because the looting isn't quite complete and Romney has an agenda.

[woo me with science]

154. "If I have to take half a loaf or none, I'll take the half."

Spare me the Third Way garbage. Social Security was never meant to be a bargaining chip, and it was never meant to be linked with the general fund. We are talking about theft. The one percent have been eyeing this money for generations and planning how to get ahold of it, and they have finally figured out a way to do it...by buying into the media and both political parties.

Nobody is *giving* anyone half a loaf. They are preparing to *steal* the meager benefits that Americans are entitled to and have paid into all of our lives. This following the most massive looting of the poor and middle classes since the Great Depression.

What do I advocate? Not being passive when we are about to be betrayed by Third Way infiltrators into our own party. Not being passive when we are told, with breathtaking arrogance, that we have no right to take part in this conversation.

Shame on you and on *any* Democrat who tries to justify either Axelrod's comments or an assault by DEMOCRATS on Social Security

[LiberalAndProud]

158. NOT BEING PASSIVE!!!

Now there's something I can sink my teeth into! What are our alternatives? Not vote? Excuse me but fuck that shit. At least I did what I could. I don't have a few billion dollars to throw at this fight, and the other side does. I don't care for your name calling (third way my ass). I would truly welcome some solid points of action. All I'm seeing here is reactionary caterwauling and I want no part of it. Either give me a course, a strategy, SOMETHING, or stop eating my bandwidth.

[woo me with science]

177. Ah, the Third Way bids for passivity. Textbook.

Let's look at the absolutely ludicrous assumptions in your post:

1. We have no alternatives. Best to sit back and be passive. Even though nearly ALL Americans have a stake in Social Security, and even though the polls show consistently and powerfully that Americans *across party lines* want to defend Social Security benefits, we should accept that we really can't do much about what is going to happen to us. Best to shut up.

2. Speaking out, demanding answers from our party, raising awareness of political issues that are important to us, and pushing our party to represent us is mere "caterwauling" and should be discouraged and denigrated as trivial and unimportant. You sound like Axelrod: Nobody's voice counts unless they are at the Senate table. No, "LiberalandProud," speaking out is, historically and now, the greatest weapon and leverage that citizens of this country have.

We have in recent years witnessed a creeping, growing, extremely disturbing line of argument on political discussion boards about shutting up during elections, as though it is a given that good citizens must do that so as not to disturb the delicate strategies being implemented by our parties. Now we begin to hear this garbage from the party itself? This at the same time that our political venues are being corrupted by "free speech zones," ....as though our entire country should not be a zone for free speech.

It's textbook spin, a textbook bid for passivity by authoritarians who have infiltrated our parties, and it's a reeking, steaming load. The entire foundation of our political system is supposed to be responsiveness to the people. It's called representative government, and citizen participation in the political process is at the core of it. ESPECIALLY during election seasons.

It is noteworthy that your post also includes the utterly predictable, albeit clumsy, attempt to smear any speaking out as disloyal to the party and an attempt to get people not to vote.

We have a serious problem of growing corporate control and authoritarianism in this country and in our two political parties, and your post is an excellent example of the garbage we are being fed. Everything you wrote is a corruption of what elections are supposed to be about in this country.

It is well past time that the people of America stand up forcefully and remind our politicians on both sides that THEY WORK FOR US....not the other way around.

[LiberalAndProud]

180. Lot of words and no substance.

Campaign all you want. The only voice I have is my vote, and I will exercise it. End of discussion. Your agenda is clear. Do what you're going to do and I will do as I will.

As for the rest of your many many words. Dismissed.

[woo me with science]

183. Voting is not enough all by itself anymore, and voting is absolutely NOT the only voice we have.

That is a despicable, utterly familiar Third Way bit of spin, another bid for passivity and silence.

Our power is in our voices as citizens.

Nice authoritarian dismissal there at the end. Sort of sums the whole attitude up.

[LiberalAndProud]

184. Just a critique.

Categorizing my point of view as third way doesn't win you any points in swaying my opinion. As for my dismissal, I return to my point of reactionary caterwauling. You have offered no course of action. None. Get back to me when you have a call to arms instead of sowing your disgruntlement. My daughter is on the same boards you must frequent, and I can't tell you how distasteful I find their talking points.

When you have a viable alternative, I'll deign to listen. Otherwise, you've got nothing.

[woo me with science]

185. If this weren't such familiar, textbook spin,

one would have to conclude that either you could not read well, or you had a fundamental lack of understanding of how citizen participation works in a representative government.

Here it is again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1485767

[tama]

263. "There is no alternative"

That has been the neoliberal propaganda line I've been hearing few decades. There is no alternative, so just bend over, get raped and put on a happy smile. Yawn.

There are always alternatives. Most simple is to grow a spine and follow your heart.

[LaydeeBug]

147. and the alternative is much MUCH FUCKING WORSE, so howzabout we stop enabling it? nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

153. It is the reponsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

Even in election years and even if they have a (D) after their names.

[awake]

156. Yes and if your elected "servant" is not elected or reelected

then how do you hold them accountable. Good luck holding Mitt accountable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

194. Obama is the public servant in question at this time.

Should we give him a pass because he's running?

[emulatorloo]

157. Maybe you and Woo can provide me a list of Democrats in the House and Senate

who have a "secret plan" to destroy the safety net.

Then I will know which ones to write and call.

[tokenlib]

160. Well, let's start with the Senators who didn't sign the letter opposing Soc Sec cuts....

And it isn't so much a "secret plan"...it is all the ones who keep name dropping Simpson-Bowles as if it is a "good" thing..or a basis for a "bargain" to avoid the fiscal cliff.

[randome]

162. And yet we have a problem when Republicans take the 'Norquist' pledge.

No one should sign anything regarding the future. Period.

[tokenlib]

165. At least we know where the Norquest pledge signers stand--they make better targets..

..for calls and letters of course..

[randome]

170. Not signing something is evidence of nothing.

[randome]

159. Right. Because a 'discussion' with 300 million people will certainly clear things up.

A democracy is when we elect officials to make these decisions for us. I trust the current administration to make the right decisions.

For those who say we need to hold them accountable...um, there isn't anything to hold them accountable FOR, yet. No decisions have been made. This is premature exasperation.

[tama]

264. Actually, no,

that is not democracy. It's "representative" oligarchy, and as we know, it's representative only in theory, not in practice.

Founding fathers very much opposed democracy, which they considered "mob rule" and created a republic.

[DevonRex]

161. You've cried wolf so many times on SS we're laughing

about it. I don't know how much longer we'll laugh, though, if the polls tighten up much more.

[dionysus]

321. bless their little hearts, they try so, so hard...

i, myself, after a hearty chuckle, have busted out the extra premium stash. care for a truffle?
i got platinum sprinkles this time!

[DevonRex]

327. I'd love one!!

Do they come on a bed of yellow sapphires and chocholate diamonds? All the best ones do you know.

[kentuck]

164. The campaign cleaned up the confusion last night

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021485446

[tokenlib]

168. They cleaned it up with holes large enough to drive a "Simpson-Bowles" bannered semi through....

[woo me with science]

179. That is not a cleanup. Those words are disturbing as hell.

Vague platitudes, and a promise not to privatize Social Security? Really?

How much trouble are we in, when the only specific promise we can extract from the Democratic nominee for re-election re: Social Security is that he won't PRIVATIZE it? Who the hell expected a Democrat to PRIVATIZE Social Security in the first place?

Where are the promises not to cut or slow benefits?

Keep raising hell, people. This is not acceptable.

[JNelson6563]

166. The President's "consigliere"? lolz

Hmmm. That's a fair and balanced start here in your thread, you, who harbors such a deep dislike for Obama and all things Dem.

So the promise is to not touch benefits for current recipients and to figure out a way to keep it solvent past when you'll be needing it.

And of course you leave out the fact that the Senate alone cannot make law, bills need to pass the House and the Senate to become law.

But it's a lot more fun to declare Obama and the uber-elite Senate are going to meet in secret and screw us all over, isn't it?

How sad to see anyone else buy into this pap.

It's a veritable who's-who of the skilled long-time radar evaders.

Julie

[Cha]

169. Thanks Julie..now this

whole thread is going where it belongs.

[tokenlib]

176. Instead of insulting those who raise concerns--a little respect for their positions would be welcome

A lot of people are going to need the minimum level of dignity provided by Social Security in the coming years. If people don't like the wiggle room in the administration's statements on Social Security--and if they are concerned about the name dropping of Simpson-Bowles as a "good and acceptable" thing--they have a right to object. They can find a way to keep Social Security solvent and not hurt the benefits of future beneficiaries ---and people have a right to push the President on this.

There is little time after the election..especially when conversations are being held NOW to avoid a fiscal cliff. If we want to have any influence on a "grand bargain" the time to express our concern is now--and we can support the President and democrats while doing it.

It's ok if you think we're crying wolf, or if you disagree,...BUT DAMN IT some of us are the ones who will be TWEAKED and there are a lot of us who can ill afford it. The majority in this country OPPOSE cuts to Social Security--why should we allow our politicians to simply assume future recipients must get shafted.

[DevonRex]

195. So I'll put you down as "OK with the Godfather comparison."

And as such, you have no right to even bring UP the word respect.

Axelrod is NOT a consigliere and Obama is not the Godfather. This administration is not the Mafia. Got it?

[tokenlib]

203. No I don't get it...

I am speaking about the knee-jerk reaction of those who seem to be displeased with anyone bringing up legitimate concerns on legitimate issues. Just because some of us feel the President's defense on Social Security has weakened since 2008 does not mean that we are not working for him, voting for him, and contributing to him and other democratic candidates. For some to respond to posts by those concerned about an issue with snark, belittling, and insults (which I have noticed or been the recipient of) on a few of the Social Security threads in the past 24 hours or so) instead of the issue at hand is why I speak of respect. These are legitimate concerns to some of us.Just because someone may not like or approve of a particular poster on DU is no reason to generalize about all those who share a concern in a negative manner-assuming they are the enemy.
I've been here long enough to know how upset and annoyed some people get with "trolls" and "troublemakers." Sadly I have seen attitudes get carried away so that people with legit concerns get stereotyped and labeled by those who overreact and decide they are all of a sudden the enemy. Most all of us are supporting the President and the democratic slate. Fortunately most people on DU are welcoming, agree to disagree when necessary, and make this a great place.

I made no comment about the terms "godfather" and "consigliere" and do not get your lecturing tone.

[DevonRex]

220. The term is in the link. Credibility lost. Nt

[tokenlib]

223. You seem so eager to just diss me...

Just because I think Axelrod's comment is worrisome, and the President's defense of Social Security a bit lacking, and express my concerns doesn't mean I agree with every term in the link. Some of you people are just so touchy and quick to condemn.

[Warpy]

178. He's right, he could propose the most enlightened plan in the world

and we could all count on Congress, especially the Senate, to fuck it up beyond all recognition.

It's up to us to give him as many reasonable Senators as possible.

[mzmolly]

182. I enjoy the new "transparency" system at DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=137805&sub=recs

It's helpful in determining motives n' stuff.

[woo me with science]

186. Is this supposed to be some bizarre version of "Are you now or have you ever been..."?

Because I am proud of every rec there.

Which ones do YOU have a problem with, mzmolly?

And, more importantly, do you have a comment on the chained CPI or other assaults to Social Security, or did you just come by to attempt to talk about me?

[mzmolly]

187. I have a problem with people here not supporting the Democratic

nominee and President.

Do you support Obama? If so, you sure missed several opportunities to recommend positive posts about him vs. the BS you appear to enjoy.

[99Forever]

190. Oh kewl!

It's the Thought Police!

[mzmolly]

193. No. Just the reminder police. This IS a discussion board for those supportive of Democrats

and our Presidential nominee, per the DU TOS agreement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[99Forever]

196. Good bye.

[mzmolly]

198. Cheerio.

[eridani]

258. There is voting for Democrats period. And then there is voting for Democrats comma.

After the comma comes "because we fucking well OUGHT to expect good public policy benefitting the 99% from Democrats." If we don't get it, we are fucking well NOT going to shut up. Cutting benefits and raising retirement age is NOT an acceptable Dem alternative to Repuke abolitionism, period.

Just checking the whole thread, and not a single one of the "we have an election going on here" replies deigns to mention the terms "chained CPI" or "retirement age." Why not? Because you don't give a shit one way or another?

[mzmolly]

284. It's pretty clear what the DU TOS says -

Winning elections is important — ... when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees ... For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. ... Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

In the words of Skinner,

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/255

... most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

exclamation point!!

[girl gone mad]

335. You can have your lockstep..

or they can have a viable discussion board.

It's not possible to have both.

[mzmolly]

336. DU has been a "viable discussion board"

for many years. So, it IS possible.

Democrats are not here, to entertain the opposition.

[woo me with science]

191. Well, that was ugly beyond words.

If you don't read my posts, you have no business making suppositions and claims like you just made in your subject line. If you DO read my posts, then you know that I have stated repeatedly that Obama is the better of the two options we are given. In fact, I, along with others here, have outlined repeatedly how this lesser of two evils game helps the one percent push us to the right, over and over again. How DARE you try to misrepresent my position, and how DARE you try to shift this discussion of policy and what we have a right to demand from our elected representatives into an attempt to smear me for positions I have never held.

It is the cheapest, lowest form of political smear and diversion, and I am sick to death of seeing it on DU.

We are in serious trouble in this country. We have allowed corporate interests to buy into both of our parties, so that the choices we are offered now reflect a disturbingly narrow range of policies and goals, that often do not reflect the voters' wishes or interests at all or are even outright destructive to those interests. And on top of that we are seeing a disturbing, pervasive new trend in political discourse, in which voters are exhorted to shut up and absent themselves from any discussion of these policies until after elections...as though the health of our representative government did not depend upon, rely upon as its very lifeblood, the principle of active citizen participation.

This sort of McCarthyistic garbage you just posted is why good Democrats leave DU, and it's why the right wing has a foothold in our party. It is a disgusting tactic, and it should be below you. I invite anyone to read my recs. I rec what I believe is important. Through the decades, the Democratic Party has often been the ONLY thing standing between Americans and the looting and perversion of our country into a corporate machine. The growing abdication of that role is not only important, I believe it is the single greatest threat our country faces right now. We need to save our party from this purchase and infiltration and rightward march, because our party may be the only thing left that can save US.

Come back with whatever you like. Your attempt to make this thread personal is garbage. It is McCarthyism, and it is shameless smearing and misrepresentation of everything I have ever written here.

You should be ashamed.

[mzmolly]

192. Oh.

[DevonRex]

197. No she should not. Transparency is here for a

reason. We have a very clear picture of what your views are. Do you stand by them or not? If you do then what's the problem?

[FSogol]

199. Exactly. n/t

[mzmolly]

232. Thank you DevonRex.

I wondered why I wasn't feeling in the least bit "ashamed."

[tama]

265. Perhaps you don't get it

or get it too well, but what you are doing is how fascism works.

[mzmolly]

283. Actually it's how this board works.

You are the only one who is confused here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[tama]

287. Actually not

You don't speak for this board of for Skinner and your interpretation of the Forum guidelines is not above any other interpretation.

Your interpretation is that you want this forum to work as Fascism does, and your interpretation is in fact supported only by small minority of other authoritarian bullies. Progressives who gather to discuss on this progressive website don't like fascism and don't want fascism.

[mzmolly]

289. Skinner has clarified his position on numerous occasions. I quoted him, specifically in my sig line.

He has CLEARLY stated if you're interested in tearing down the Democratic nominee, post nomination, do it elsewhere. That's not Fascism. That's owning a discussion board which supports a CLEAR !#$%@ political agenda.

Again the transparency system is helpful:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=218147&sub=trans

Interesting that you have virtually the same recs as the OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=218147&sub=recs

A reminder of what eventually happens to those who don't comply with the "Fascist" user rules here.



So, by all means, carry on.

[tama]

291. Don't worry, I will carry on

discussing and investigating the authoritarian mindset that Fascism builds on. And why it is not wise.

What I'm most curious about, what do people really hope to gain by authoritarian behavior, as the end result is in direct opposition to their real interests, or what I imagine those to be. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the subject?

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1489968

[mzmolly]

296. You can toss out laughable analogies about abuse of authority if you wish.

However, this discussion board is not a microcosm of our democracy. Were it, Republicans would be welcome to openly post here.

"What I'm most curious about, what do people really hope to gain by authoritarian behavior, as the end result is in direct opposition to their real interests, or what I imagine those to be. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the subject?"

Constant negativity about our Democratic President, has the potential to depress voter turn out. THIS, is what is in direct opposition to MY interests. Not to mention, the interests of our nation.

I don't give two shits about offending the offenders, who ironically suggest that is is my job to win them over. Bull. You are in Skinners home. And like myself, Skinner is a Democrat. He has rules, and an agenda. I'm merely pointing it out.

[tama]

297. My question is more general

about the authoritarian, partisan, tribal us-against-them behavior, which in terms of representative system in general leads actual policies going all the time towards right wing and totalitarian policies. Which is the opposite of liberals and progressives and generally majority of people say and believe that they want. That self-defeating aspect of the whole process is certainly worth wondering and questioning, don't you think?

Of course you can refuse the larger frame and repeat thinking and acting only in the very limited frame of winning the battle of one election and ending up losing the whole war.

[mzmolly]

303. Politics is "us against them."

So, color me unmoved by your questioning that notion.

[tama]

305. I'm sorry you see it that way.

I believe real meaning of politics is cooperation for common good.

[mzmolly]

329. When we vote on Novemeber 6th, it's for Obama or Romney.

not "cooperation for common good."

Republicans don't cooperate.

[tama]

331. In that sense

political parties are problematic. To quote George Washington:

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

To me politics means much more than partisan politics, all social relations.

[mzmolly]

332. I suggest finding a discussion board that isn't so

political.

Here, we have a goal. It is to re-elect President Obama. Anything less, is dangerous. Unless you want more of the Bush years? War with Iran, a more conservative SCOTUS, and gutting our social safety nets?

[Cherchez la Femme]

211. I love you woo, but

you're gonna

I mean already are

on the BBI/etc. & prospective Manny et. al. list.

Please be careful. Truth to Power;
ANY power, Republican, Democratic, or other is way too important to lose to any purity.

[woo me with science]

217. Expecting, and voicing the expectation, that Democrats will not attack Social Security benefits

is not a demand for unreasonable purity. The fact that anyone would even conceive of it as such merely shows how far to the right our party has been dragged, and how pervasive the corporate rhetoric of the one percent has become.

Every Democrat here should read the post above by jtuck004 and think about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594#post148

Social Security was never meant to be a bargaining chip or even to be tied to the general fund in any way. For decades, it was considered unfathomable that anyone would touch it, and we could depend on Democrats to defend it if someone decided to attempt something so outrageous.

Democrats have purposely advertised themselves throughout this campaign as the defenders of ordinary Americans and the less fortunate, protectors of the 99 percent. Yet here we are, fighting not even over a demand that they *increase* the already insufficient benefits relied upon by millions of Americans to avoid destitution and despair in old age, ....but merely that they promise not to ATTACK them.

It is not too much to expect Democrats to promise not to attack Social Security benefits. It really and truly isn't.

This is not a minor deal. We are talking about the betrayal of a fundamental compact and promise of our society, and we are talking about the betrayal of it with the help of Democrats.

We are supposed to have a representative political process. It is time to say no, loudly and clearly, to the theft of Social Security.

[Cherchez la Femme]

219. Oh, I completely agree

but seems to be more & more immaterial here.
Why I rarely post anymore.

Not many, if any, are listening
anyhow.
Eternal vigilance is so outmoded when a D, any type of D at all, is in power.

[mzmolly]

233. Define purity in terms of electoral outcome.

Thanks in advance.

[Cherchez la Femme]

236. Ah, the Electoral Outcome triteness...

The meaning, especially here, is quite well understood

So while I do appreciate your politeness in advance,
sorry, no,
not gonna waste my time; especially on mobile, since I hate texting anyhow.

[mzmolly]

285. Romney winning is trite?

Thanks for clarifying your position.

[KoKo]

317. "...list?" What is this "list?" "Please be careful" you warn and then mention "purity."

Your intentions might be sincere (can't say since I don't know you) but...your reading of history of US...seems to have some gaps. Such talk was made famous by Senator Joseph McCarthy who tarred people with the Communist brush and mentioned "purity" and caused a decade of people whose careers were ruined because of his hate speech.

Perhaps you are sincere in your warning and have information about "the list" and think you are doing some good. But, there should not be a "list" for people in good standing here who speak their mind about issues we are facing in this country that need to be discussed and debated.

Peace.

[NoGOPZone]

216. It's a great feature

although in many cases true feelings are so obvious it isn't even necessary

[mzmolly]

218. Tis

true.

[Oilwellian]

221. This is one of the most disgusting things...

I've read on DU in the 11 years I've been here. Absolutely downright hideous.

[mzmolly]

230. A high complement, considering the source.

[quinnox]

225. Damn, you really let your authoritarian flag fly

You can be designated the "official recommendations inspector"

[mzmolly]

228. Ha ha ha ha ha.

I prefer



thank you.

[tama]

266. Thanks for the opportunity

for poetic license to call out bridge paTROLLer conTROLLer.

[mzmolly]

282. Whatever the F

that means ... you're welcome.

[MannyGoldstein]

244. Wow! That was very enlightning!

What did I learn? That Woo is an FDR Democrat?

[mzmolly]

286. FDR is dead.

Though, perhaps you can start a new discussion board for those 'Democrats' who have supported a single Democratic President?

[diabeticman]

206. I personally do not like that statement. I want to know IF I have to work until I'm 70 or 80.

And before everyone jumps down my throat that it is congress that decides. Obama can state right now that he will VETO any bill that extends the retirement age.

[bluestate10]

234. I wouldn't want Obama to veto any bill that extends retirement age.

Some classes of workers can and often want to work longer. Other workers, like factory workers or workers that do a large amount of physical labor need to retire earlier. A working plan will keep the 62 year retirement age for partial benefits and the 65 year age for full benefits for workers in a class of work that require physical labor and/or lots of standing or walking each work day. Jobs that don't require physical labor should have the age for partial benefits raised to 64 years and full benefits to 67 years. Disability before retirement should follow current rules, if a person is unable t work, that person gets disability benefits.

The republican plan is bad, that party wants to get rid of SS and Medicare. But people that insist that no reform happen to SS and Medicare are equally blind. I trust President Obama to work out a system that is beneficial to workers, I don't remotely have that trust in Romney.

[eridani]

260. And how bloody convenient it is that people get jobs right out of school and stay

--at their first job for the rest of their working lives. So terribly helpful in determining if one has done enough physical labor to avoid being impoverished or killed when you get to be over 60.

[ann---]

207. This should explain it all....don't worry!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/obama-social-security-debate_n_1945124.html

[Le Taz Hot]

210. K & R

'Cause I can and because there's just something so delightfully pleasurable in getting the Party Faithful's panties in a wad.

[Skidmore]

212. So how about you join in giving him a House and Senate

he can work with instead of all this hyperventilating?

[porphyrian]

214. I know their plan.

Everyone 30 and above, and upon their 30th birthday thereafter, goes to Carousel for renewal!



Renew! Renew!


Come to think of it, maybe this is Ryan's plan...

[KG]

215. remember woo: 'In times like these people have to watch what they say and watch what they do'.

[dionysus]

347. more like, "don't be a douchebag and campaign against dems at the end of a presidential campaign"

Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2012, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

there's no gestapo coming to get someone for being a clown. it's just bad form.

the melodrama is priceless....

[and-justice-for-all]

226. The plans are exactly what they have always been..

to make sure that SS is solvent and to keep make it untouchable, meaning, under lock and key. He is not going to do anything to SS that is harmful and I will not believe otherwise.

[rudycantfail]

246. "...and I will not believe otherwise."

- sums up the lack of critical thinking that now plagues DU and my party.

[MadHound]

231. A chained CPI and hike in the retirement age, minimum.

Probably rammed through during the end of year session.

[MannyGoldstein]

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

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

It's amazing that well-informed people would still deny that Obama is itching to cut Social Security. If appointing Simpson and Bowles, the two most outspoken warriors against Social Security in their respective parties, to a "debt" commission wasn't enough, there's his offering/demanding cuts during last year's fully fake debt ceiling crisis, his allowing Timmy Geithner to cook the books to make Social Security look like it has a fiscal problem (it doesn't), his false claims that Social Security was not originally intended for retirees, the ridiculous "cut vs. slash" parsing, and so forth.

There's no doubt that Romney would be far worse than Obama and we need to get out there and vote for Obama, and urge everyone we know to do the same. But it would be folly to believe that, come the day after the election, the bipartisan race to cut Social Security will begin. Obama's commission voted for big, big cuts: an eventual 22% cut in the average recipient's benefits. As Ben Franklin said, we FDR Democrats must hang together here or we will most assuredly hang separately.

[shanti]

240. here's the thing

obama MAY cut SS, but it's for damn sure that rmoney WOULD cut it....AND MUCH MUCH MORE! sorry, i don't even want to go there. rmoney scares the shit out of me.

i plan to leave it alone now and hammer obama after he gets elected.

[MannyGoldstein]

242. For 20 years we've been accepting Democrats behaving very badly

because it's better than the alternative.

I don't think it's worked out very well.

Something needs to change.

[hay rick]

256. Fourth way? nt

[rudycantfail]

247. "i plan to leave it alone now and hammer obama after he gets elected"

Do what you want to but this is not about one guy, Obama, and how we plan to hammer him. This is about a very important policy decision that will badly hurt millions of Americans.

[tokenlib]

259. Glad there are still some of us FDR/New Deal democrats who aren't just going to "go along" with cuts

Thanks for standing up with those of us who support the President ,and also support opposing the "third way" erosion of the New Deal social contract.

[ProSense]

271. That looks

familiar: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1049357

How long are you going to keep making this unsubstantiated claim: http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=443883

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

Why is he trying to destroy SS?

[MannyGoldstein]

288. Is it less true today then before? nt

[Skittles]

252. I HEAR YOU WOO ME

disconcerting how many DUers have their fingers planted firmly in their ears

[woo me with science]

343. :)

[Hoyt]

254. Good thread. I think SS needs to he debated. Rather have debate with Obama

I think some MINOR changes should be made, at least honestly debated.

Again, damn sure rather have debate with Obama Prez.

[eridani]

261. Could you (and everyone on this thread who does so) quit using bullshit terminology like

--"minor," "adjustments" and "tweaks." This is nothing but content-free obfuscation.

Chained CPI for COLA: Yes or no.
Raising retirement age: Yes or no.
Raising FICA cap: Yes or no
Adjusting initial benefits calculations to further favor the lower income retirees: Yes or no.

"Yes" is acceptable for the last two, and "no" is acceptable for the first two. Agreed?

[tokenlib]

262. As an eventual "tweakee", your presentation is absolutely where we should stand..

No Simpson-Bowle-shit!!

[Hoyt]

270. As a current tweakee, I'd like the discussion. I also like increased FICA cap and increased benefits

for those at lower end that were in Simpson/Bowles. Do you consider that bull shit?

[Hoyt]

269. Unfortunately "simpleton" approaches and trying to put everything into simple boxes/questions

will get us nowhere.

Since I am SS age, and spent years supplementing my mother's $800 a month SS, I'll tell you what I think.

First, yes I support the last two in your list -- Increase FICA cap, and better initial benefits for low income retirees. If you took the time to read it, so does Simpson/Bowles.

I support discussing what an increase in age might mean -- for example if the initial retirement age of 62 remains, but full-benefits for certain people don't kick in until a little latter, I'd discuss that.

I'd discuss what is a better approach to annual Cola adjustments. Not sure Chained CPI is it though.

The biggest damn thing I'd discuss is how we are going to change our economy so that young folks have a better chance at a decent future. If we don't make some major changes in our economy (which will likely never return to the good ole days) -- including taxing those better off at higher rates, cutting back military spending, etc. -- we are all screwed and will need more than minor tweaks to keep any of the valuable social programs we have or want.

Anybody can try to reduce things to simple little questions or boxes, lines in the sand, or play a righteous asshole. But, that simpleton approach is not going to improve anything for current retirees, now or in the future. Nor is it going to improve our situation for everyone. I think SS and every other aspect of our economy needs to be discussed at length.

[eridani]

280. So, how do you decide who "certain people" are?

Do you think that everyone finishes school, gets a job, and stays in it the rest of their lives? That would make it easy to decide who has and who has not done enough physical labor to deserve earlier retirement. Otherwise, it isn't really possible.

There is in fact a better alternative to COLA calculations, known as CPI-E (elderly) which takes into account the very different spending habits of older people. Chained CPI is compound interest in reverse--you get poorer over longer time periods instead of richer.

Yes, our economy is fucked, but you don't need to put proposals for impoverishing and killing the elderly in order to deal with that.

Simpson-Bowles also discusses defense cuts, but some acceptable proposals are no reason to validate an entire package whose sole purpose is to enrich the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

[Hoyt]

300. I am elderly, but I'm willing to discuss ways of improving

things for everyone.

[eridani]

310. Chained CPI dosn't improve jackshit for anyone

And raising the retirement age = poverty and death for many. Care to explain how keeping more old people in the labor force opens up employment for younger people.

[Hoyt]

311. I really don't care to waste my time trying to explain it to you. You won't get it.

[eridani]

312. I get that you think getting slowly poorer with each advancing year is wonderful for old folks

Most normal people understand that keeping older people at work longer seriously limits job opportunities for younger people.

[Hoyt]

313. I don't think I'll get slowly "poorer" from chained-cpi. I do think we'll get poorer if we don't

get economy in a better position, and that is going to require a lot of changes.

Would I care if my benefits go up a little less each year if a comprehensive change led to more affordable health care, affordable housing alternatives, better public transportation, jobs for youth, and the like? Nope, I would not. But, I think you would.

I'm a "normal" person, but I don't believe simpleton approaches to things will get us anywhere except closer to the need for real austerity like Spain and Greece. I'd prefer to avoid that pain for everyone.

[eridani]

340. Helping the 1% fuck over the 99% doesn't bring any kind of change I want

If you are privleged enough to not depend on SocSec for most or even all of your retirement income, well bully for you-- it's that much easier for you to blow off the declining real income entailed by chained CPI. Letting seniors become more impoverished does not us you better jobs for youth or better public transportation.

The whole austerity trip is utter bullshit anyway. Countries in Europe that were in surplus instead of debt are being fucked over every bit as much as the profligates--ask the Irish about that.

[Hoyt]

342. I will be depending on SS for damn near all my retirement income, but that means I'm dependent on

the economy and those who continue to work and pay taxes. There is no lockbox. At one time, there might have been, but it's gone and you can't make it comeback without hurting everyone.

I'm fine with taxing the rich 100%. Heck, put the point at which the rates go to 100% at say $1 above what you make. After a year or so, that "windfall" will all be gone and we'll still have to make some major changes in a hurry. I prefer it to be an orderly transition rather than sitting around with my head in the sand, or elsewhere, while things keep getting worse.

[eridani]

346. There is a SocSec Trust Fund in surplus to the tune of a couple of trillion, invested in T-bills

If you are a baby boomer, you PREPAIE YOUR OWN RETIREMENT with the FICA tax increase in 1983--that's what if was for. After the last boomer bites the dust, pay as you go will resume as the fund goes to zero balance again, but that is NOT what is happening now. Of course we will have to start building another surplus for the Gen Y demographic lump after that.

[KoKo]

318. Great Points...! Hope folks will read as this thread is getting longer...

[TexasBushwhacker]

257. Raise the damn cap!

This is an idea that's been suggested by smarter people than me. Currently the cap is $110K. Bypass income between $110K and $250K. All income over $250K would also contribute to Social Security. It would affect only about 1% of taxpayers, but would bring trillions into SS and keep it solvent for decades. The 1% generally gets some if not most of their income from investments and they already get a break on that with the capital gains rate.

[awake]

268. I agree with this proposal but if we bring it up now

Romoney will twist it into a lie that "Obama wants to change SS & raise your taxes" Mitt lies about ObamaCare raising taxes. My concern is that the low info. voter in the swing state will buy their Bull Sh*t. I trust that Obama knows what he is doing and that he will not F*ck up SS once we reelect him. Now from what I read here some people do not share that same trust, and need Obama to bring this subject up right now or they may not know who to vote for. Some here were upset after the debate that Obama did not mention the 47%, well as it turns out Mitt was ready with a comeback and wanted to be asked so bad that when it did not come up he went on Fox to spew his BS response on the 47% to an audience of 7 mil not 70 mil he would of had at the debate. So I think there is a good reason the Obama does not want to bring up changes to SS at this time. I feel those reasons are to get reelected and not because he is planing to screw us, but if some here need to fight over this issue go at it, I for one can not see how this will help to reelect Obama.

[mfcorey1]

267. Rmoney's campaign refuses to tell voters that he will get rid of the home

interest deduction.

[ProSense]

277. How President Obama and Mitt Romney compare on preserving Social Security for America’s seniors

How President Obama and Mitt Romney compare on preserving Social Security for America’s seniors
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488868

Spread it around.

[hedgehog]

278. Obama loved and respected his grandparents and his mother -

I trust him regarding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and eventually Single payer.

He can't improve things on his own, but he won't let them go down the drain.

[Autumn]

279. His Mother had to battle insurance companies as she was dying from cancer.

That was sad and the main reason I trusted him on health care reform.

[Beacool]

314. She did have health insurance.

It wasn't as simple as he made it out to be. She had health insurance, it was with the disability insurance that she had problems.

[stillcool]

281. If enough Dems get elected..

the 'discussion' won't be necessary. I've often heard Obama state that there is no problem with Social Security, and that the problem is with medicare, and the rising cost of healthcare. I don't watch those reality tv shows, so I don't get all riled up about what David Axelrod, or anyone else says on them.

[Beacool]

304. Never liked Axeltod, nor Plouffe for that matter.

Screw them both. Arrogant creeps.

It's all a game to these politicians and their minions. The hell with them too.

[dionysus]

322. WHOAAAA.. now.. where have YOU been young lady? carousing, i assume...

well, it's been a long time but i think i have socked something away for the next time i saw you. let's see if i can find it.... oh, here it is...

banky!
?v=12473

hope all is well!

[Beacool]

328. Banky!!!!

It's worth showing up once in a while just to receive one of your bankies.

[dionysus]

344. you know i wouldn't miss out on your appearances, however rare...

how's it goin?

[Beacool]

345. It's going OK.

Compared to what people are going through I'm just fine.

How about you?

[KoKo]

341. Well...they are good at what they do as Political Operatives...BUT..are they good for the Rest of Us

It's about Markets, Capitalism and what's gone DOWN with American Worker.

That's the question. There are many arguments both "Pro and Con" about what we are dealing with in the American Economy going forward...along with the European Economy.

There are so many QUESTIONS... So Many.

[dionysus]

319. then take your bullshit to the old elm tree where it belongs. nt.

[MannyGoldstein]

351. What a thoughtful response!

Did you have any facts to share? Or just personal insults?

[progree]

352. +1 n/t

[patrice]

326. He needs a Democratic Senate. This is one way to say "make it so, or bad things CAN happen", a.k.a..

the truth.

[patrice]

330. The more you make what happens all about the top/king/daddy/power/authority & NOT about us the more

it IS about THEM (the 1% and their MORE fully OWNED territory) and not us, the more you depend upon a president to give us our human rights, instead of taking charge of whatever we CAN get our hands on now (DOWN-ticket), instead of accepting responsibilities for what is LESS fully OWNED by the 1% and moving from that position in whatever direction possible toward our own goals.

The President is not the Legislative branch, what Social Security needs is up to the legislative branch, the people asserting themselves as a whole to make the Senate and the House of Representatives their own, as much as that is possible, and then to move from that position toward things like fully abating or raising the income cap on Social Security taxes, is what needs to happen. The distractions of anti-authoritarianism are REACTIONARY, that is, they are authoritarian by being DEFINED by authority.

Suggestions like demonstrating "our" effect upon the top/the presidency and ignoring where very real closer ground lies is a prescription for suffering and loss that very likely will negate any gains assumed from political showboating against a president.

I continue to be surprised that the VERY real possibility of that increase in suffering and loss means nothing to those proposing it and they don't appear to be interested in asking those of whom they demand that suffering and loss what their choice is in the matter.

Is OP-&-cohort employed? Does OP-&-cohort have "health" "care"? We should factor those answers into the distractions created OP's continued attacks exclusively upon this President.

[Javaman]

348. Meh...

according to mitten's Obama cut 716 billion from Medicare, which in fact was a lie. It was cost cutting savings that cut out waste. Which he then applied to Obamacare to help pay for it.

I suspect something along the lines with his plan for SS.

I, being a semi-rational person, choose to wait to see what he has to say, rather than taking the word of a third way dog whistle.