wow, the drumbeat of right-wing anti-Social Security talking points is strong tonight.

[Hannah Bell]

nothing could point more clearly to the truth that a major offensive on the program begins Jan 2.

i consider any legislator supporting such an offensive a traitor.

[pacalo]

1. Be sure not to miss spanone's thread below; it's a WaPost article singing praises for the plan.

[somone]

2. Hard to deny there is a concerted effort

and our fearless fighter already gave them all the right signals

[Skittles]

3. couldn't have seen this one coming

nice to know our so-called Dem leadership already buys into the "entitlement reform" bullshit :puke:

[hlthe2b]

4. I know this hits home with Al Franken...

His wife, sister and mother only made it through after the death of her father, due to SS survivor's benefits. I dearly pray there are others like him that will fight this without limit.

[Foo Fighter]

20. If Al Franken is our last hope, we are truly fucked.

I saw him on a show where he not only said the "payroll tax holiday" was great for SS but he felt it didn't go far enough. I can't find a link to the show but essentially, his vision for SS funding would guarantee it's demise and was the EXACT opposite of the why and how FDR had set up the funding the way he did in the first place: so that "no damn politician" could ever scrap it. Here's an FDR quote:

The most important program of 1935, and perhaps the New Deal as a whole, was the Social Security Act, which established a system of universal retirement pensions, unemployment insurance, and welfare benefits for poor families and the handicapped.<49> It established the framework for the U.S. welfare system. Roosevelt insisted that it should be funded by payroll taxes rather than from the general fund; he said, "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program." One of the last New Deal agencies was the United States Housing Authority, created in 1937 with some Republican support to abolish slums.

And the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Either Franken was being disingenuous or he has no clue about the history of SS.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Franken isn't fighting for us. He has bigger masters now.

[Tatiana]

5. Not just tonight. It's been going on for some time now.

I saw the writing on the wall when Alan Simpson wasn't fired from his position as co-chair of the Catfood Commission.

In case everyone forgot:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/08/25

Carson criticized Simpson for repeatedly describing his Social Security opponents as "Pink Panthers," arguing that the description had sexist connotations.

His email is peppered with exclamation points and condescension. At one point he urged Carson to read a certain graph, "which I hope you are able to discern if you are any good at reading graphs."

Simpson concludes by implying that leading a major organization dedicated to the interests of middle-aged and elderly women is not "honest work."

"If you have some better suggestions about how to stabilize Social Security instead of just babbling into the vapors, let me know," he writes. "And yes, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!"

This is how the man Obama appointed to head the Catfood Commission felt about Social Security. His viewpoints were well-known. It's obvious they didn't bother the President or Simpson would have been sacked. Simpson was used to set the tone for the upcoming drumbeat to weaken Social Security.

Any legislator who goes along with reducing SS benefits and/or raising the retirement age has betrayed core Democratic values and does not deserve to be re-elected.

[Hannah Bell]

6. agreed.

[kelly1mm]

7. If the President signs on does he deserve to be re-elected? nt

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tatiana]

10. My comment referenced "legislator[s]."

I am resigned to the fact that, absent additional challengers on the left and right, Obama will represent the lesser of two evils.

As far as Congress is concerned, I think the country would be better off if it could actually see some polarization between right and left... to actually experience what Tea Party Republicans and Progressive Democrats/Independents will do for (or to) them. FDR enjoyed popularity with the people and earned their loyalty because they experienced first-hand (either themselves or someone in their family) what the New Deal (and New Deal II) did for them.

It's going to be very interesting (and instructive) to watch the newcomer Republican governors in states like Florida and Ohio run those states into the ground. People will get a taste of what voting for these types of politicians earns them.

[kelly1mm]

12. I know you mentioned legislators - that is why I asked about the President.

I see your point about the lesser of two evils but isn't that the same argument for each and every legislator? Isn't the D almost always at least the lessor of two evils in that particular district/state?

[Tatiana]

13. No. The jobs of the President and Congress are different.

Even if the President wanted to push measures to weaken Social Security, someone in Congress would have to introduce that legislation and that legislation would have to have support from both sides of the aisle, so to speak.

If one side of the aisle withheld its support for "entitlement reform"/austerity measures, the President's wishes wouldn't matter. That is why I believe our focus must currently turn to Congress. Congress has significant powers in its own right, including the ability to pass legislation over a Presidential veto. I think our priority should be cleaning up that corporate/Wall-Street owned entity first.

I would also argue that we don't need Ds like Zell Miller and Joe Manchin and Blanche Lincoln.

[kelly1mm]

15. Thanks for your thoughts - I understand your position now. Goodnight! nt

[sabrina 1]

21. Yes, Simpson was insulting the elderly and veterans and women

from the beginning. Obama has never said a word about this. Even when he basically told Veterans that they were 'not serving their country' when the collected their benifits. All the pretend 'respect' for the troops from Obama when it's photo op, but not a word of admonition to Simpson for that egregious lie about Veterans, not a word in their defense.

This president is not the man I supported in the election. I would never have supported anyone whose policies are so different from mine. That is why I do not vote for Republicans.

[napi21]

8. Well, their dear Shrub & Co. tried HARD to get their privitizion

pushed through & FAILED! The same people who fought against that are still here & will fight them just as hard on reducing benefits.

[bbgrunt]

11. ..here it comes.......nt

[aquart]

14. Moi, aussi.

[sabrina 1]

16. I noticed that also and in fact, just commented on it somewhere.

And I agree, it is a definite signal that SS is going to be sold out by Democrats, imho.

Has anyone heard from any Democrat strongly denouncing these lies, anywhere? From the WH, maybe?

All of a sudden there is this influx of rightwing anti-SS propaganda after not hearing a thing about it for a long time.

I wonder who writes this stuff, who pays for it? Is it the Heritage Foundation who may feel that they are on the verge of having their longtime wishes come true re SS?

And yes, any legislator who goes along with any of it, IS a traitor to the American people, and even more so if that person is a Democrat.

[leftstreet]

17. I wish this had happened under the Bush Administration

The Political Class R gonna do this thing no matter which party has the majority.

But doing it on a Dem watch means there won't be much happiness around here, and DU will suffer.

La solidaridad is f**ked!

:cry:

[johnaries]

18. And what exactly are the "anti-Social Security" talking points?

There has been a lot of "fear-mongering" that simply is not true.

I consider anyone that twists the Truth or facts a "traitor".

The fact is: NO ONE is trying to "dismantle" or "destroy" Social Security.

Arm yourself with the truth. Don't succumb to Rovian-style fear-mongering.

we're better than that - aren't we?

[eridani]

23. Bullshit. They've already written the legislation

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/134531-warner-chambliss-will-introduce-debt-commission-bill-next-year

Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Monday said they will introduce a bill early next year based on the report from President Obama’s deficit commission.

Warner and Chambliss have been meeting with a group of 18 senators on finding a way to balance the budget, and said they have concluded the debt commission's proposal is the best basis for bipartisan talks.

The debt commission's report received bipartisan support from 11 of the panel's members, ranging from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on the right to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on the left. The recommendations ultimately failed to advance to a vote in Congress because 14 votes were needed for formal commission backing.

Despite the failed vote, Warner and Chambliss want to use the debt commission's work as a starting point for deficit talks in Congress. The senators said they expect their legislation to evolve as they seek supporters from both parties, but they said the final plan will reflect the commission’s goals of balancing the budget by 2035 by bringing spending down to 21 percent of gross domestic product.


And they've already won the first battle--

Social Security Experts Detail Why Payroll Tax “Holiday” is No Gift to Americans
http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/payroll_tax_holiday

Briefing reporters today, National Committee President Barbara Kennelly, Social Security Works Co-Director Nancy Altman and CEPR Co-Director Dean Baker warned that passage of a payroll tax holiday could have devastating effects on Social Security’s long-term financing.

“As we’ve seen in Washington these days, it’s easy to enact tax cuts but virtually impossible to allow them to expire. This payroll tax holiday proposal will be no different. Election year politics in 2012 will doom the repeal of this $120 billion dollar cut and Social Security beneficiaries will then pay the price. The American people understand we’re in an economic crisis yet they don’t want to trade their future security for a short-term benefit. They didn’t ask Congress to cut their Social Security contributions, in fact, poll after poll shows they’d pay more to preserve Social Security. I salute the House for saying we need to give this deal another look because this payroll tax provision is no deal at all.”…Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

[johnaries]

19. Interesting how I prove you wrong in one thread, so you start another

but still don't address the facts -

You just post more meaningless rhetoric. Perhaps you would like to address the questions I posed in the other thread? Or do you not have a good answer?

[Foo Fighter]

22. Well, of course the talking points have been increasing.

They're just ramping up for the upcoming propaganda campaign.

Expect the BS to only get worse. And expect to consider 99.9% of the legislators in DC to be traitors. After all, the SS surplus will be one of the last big money grabs and their big contributors will make it known to them that they don't want to be lleft out.

[blindpig]

24. Can't be traitors if they've never change allegiance.

Just sayin', the joke is on anyone who expected anything else.