Don’t Get Complacent About Social Security. They Still Want to Cut It

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/don-t-get-complacent-about-social-security-they-still-want-cut-it-1377005520

If losing the House wasn’t enough for Democrats, a benefit-cutting “grand bargain” should finish the job. As Derek Thompson noted in April, the president’s budget cuts both Social Security and Medicare far more than the Republicans’ did. In fact, the GOP’s Ryan budget didn’t cut Social Security at all, and its radical dismantling of Medicare wasn’t scheduled to begin until 2023.

“Crazy Republicans,” said some Democratic cheerleaders, “We’ve given them way more than they even asked for!”

Yeah, crazy all right – like a fox. (Or a Fox Network.) This kind of deal would give them something they’ve always wanted, and let them blame it on the Democrats.

But the news isn’t all bad. There are some promising signs on the horizon, too, and they give us even more reason to seize this moment on behalf of Social Security.

Good news
A recent poll by the National Academy for Social Insurance (NASI) reinforced and expanded upon earlier poll findings when it showed that, by large majorities, Americans would rather raise taxes – including on themselves – in order to expand Social Security’s benefits.

That position was supported by Americans all across the political spectrum, including 74 percent of Republicans.

More politicians are signing on to the pro-Social Security team.

Probably as a result, politicians are getting the message. The “Grayson/Takano letter,” by Reps. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and Mark Takano, D-Calif., calls on members of Congress to pledge that they’ll vote against any budget that contains cuts to Social Security. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, unlike House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, has been unequivocal so far in his opposition to cuts.

[newfie11]

1. Anyone voting against SS has lost my vote

It sure would have been nice if Obama would have mentioned this when running for president. Hillary would have been the winner for sure. I feel betrayed.

[dotymed]

2. I really do not understand

why "they" say democrat or republican when referring to these politicians. they should be referred to as corporatists.

Thank God we still have a few Progressive politicians (very few) that want to represent the people.

We must draw the line clearly. Maybe refer to those precious few as "populist politicians" or some moniker that describes them as Progressives.
Ideally we would have a Progressive Party that actually represents us.

Until we stop clinging to the past (when Democrats were the peoples party and the gop was corporate), citizens cannot vote for politicians according to their true leanings.
We know that our mainly corporate congress will not legislate citizens united out of existence, so we need to have a way to determine who represents US.