Community | July 11, 2011 | 95 comments

The Breaking Point | Firedoglake

source: http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/07/the-breaking-point/

Image
figgdimension
by: Jane Hamsher
According to both the Washington Post and the New York Times, Obama is proposing cuts to Social Security in exchange for GOP support for tax hikes. Lori Montgomery in the Post:

At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action. As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.

And Jay Carney’s carefully chosen weasel-words today do not contradict this:

“There is no news here – the President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.”

Nobody ever says they want to “cut” Social Security or Medicare. They want to “save” it. Just ask Pete Peterson, he wants to “save” it. Likewise AARP. They don’t want reduced benefits for senior citizens, they want to “preserve” it for future generations. If they have an enormous customer base they can market private “add-on” accounts and other retirement products to when Social Security goes bye-bye, I guess that’s just a happy coincidence.

Now if you think that this is something the President is doing because it’s the only way to get Republican cooperation you can stop reading here, because we’re going to disagree. From the moment he took the White House, the President has wanted to cut Social Security benefits. David Brooks reported that three administration officials called him to say Obama “is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security as well as health spending” in March of 2009. You can only live in denial for so long and still lay claim to being tethered to reality.

And if you think it’s only the President, and the progressives in Congress will oppose him, we’ll have to disagree about that too. Nancy Pelosi can always come up with the votes she needs to pass whatever the White House wants, and she’ll do it again this time. It’s her only chance to ever be Speaker again. If the Democrats somehow manage to retake control of the House, she needs Obama’s support. She’ll shake her fist and say things like any health care bill “without a strong public option will not pass the House” — and then turn around and force her caucus to walk the plank.

Progressive Democratic “leaders” like Raul Grijalva will fold once again like a house of cards if need be — and they know it. Today, the Huffington Post reports:

Progressives Won’t Criticize Obama For Proposed Social Security Cuts

Grijalva and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a vice chair of the caucus, defended the president for signaling he would be willing to take a look at changes to the programs, arguing there are ways to restructure entitlement spending to save money without hurting beneficiaries.

Translation: They’ll wait for the whip count to see if their votes are needed, and if not, they can let somebody else be the “rotating villain” this time. But just in case, they’re leaving the back door open for themselves.

What we’re watching is the death of the Democratic Party. Or, at least the Democratic Party as most of us have known it. The one that has taken its identity in the modern era from FDR and the New Deal, from Keynesianism and the social safety net. Despite any of its other shortcomings (and they are myriad), the Democratic Party has stood as a symbol for commitment to these principles. As recently as 2006, Democrats retook the House in a surprise wave election because the public feared that George Bush would destroy Social Security, and they trusted the Democrats over Republicans to secure it. Just like George Bush, Obama now wants to “save” Social Security….by giving those who want to burn it to the ground the the very thing they’ve wanted for decades.

Any member of any party who participates in this effort does not deserve, and should not get, the support of anyone who values Social Security and cares about its preservation. The amount of damage that the Democrats under Obama have been able to do has been immeasurable, by virtue of the fact that they are less awful that George Bush. But where George Bush failed, Obama will probably succeed.

Which means we’re watching another casualty here: Democracy. Or at least, the illusion that we live in a democratic society. The public, regardless of party, overwhelmingly opposes cuts to Social Security and Medicare. But elected officials of both parties are hell-bent on conspiring to bring the programs to an end. They seem to have come to grips with a fact that the public has not: their tenure in office depends on carrying out the wishes of oligarchical elites.

There is only one thing you can reasonably conclude as you watch the political theater that is transpiring: what the voting public thinks really isn’t all that important. And to the extent that it does matter, it can easily be channeled by those with sufficient money to pay the tab. Samuel Johnson said that patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels, but in our modern era, that honor goes to tribalism. The list of horrors that people found intolerable when George Bush was in office, but are now blithely accepting because “Sarah Palin would be worse,” grows longer every day.

We’ll fight this, because it’s the right thing to do. We will probably lose. But we will make it as painful as possible for any politician from any party to participate in this wholesale looting of the public sphere, this “shock doctrine” for America. And maybe along the way we’ll get a vision of what comes next. Because what we believe in as Americans, and what we stand for, is not something the Democratic party represents any more.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Culture,   Current Tonight,   17 more
  2. tags:
    Obama,  Medicare,  Social Security,  progressives,  2 more
  3.     
    |

95 comments // The Breaking Point | Firedoglake

  • wtthfkovr
    • +3
      wtthfkovr  

    • I'm sorry that I ever voted, and worked the phone lines for him. He's a republican in sheeps clothing. At least with the other guy you knew what you were up against, and I can tell you where he can stick the change tee shirt I got

    • 11 months ago
  • Saladin
  • harleyblueswoman
  • mitekillem
    • +2
      mitekillem  
    • Image

    • This is a good read on the matter: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/about-the-social-security-trust-fund...

      It poses the question, is Social Security a Trust Fund, or is it a resource not separate from the rest of the budget. Social Security as a Trust Fund pays for itself. Money that goes into it is held as US Bonds, where they're supposed to appreciate, and then distributed as needed. The system should work so long as it's left untouched.
      However, if it has been touched, as Bush claimed that "Social Security was empty".

      The writer states, "The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security." and "What we really have is a looming crisis in the General Fund. Social Security, with its own dedicated tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not. So why are we talking about a Social Security crisis?"

      I believe the answer is simple. Republican ideology dictates that you shouldn't rely on the government, but rather yourself. Republicans are attacking our institutions not for power or political gain, but rather to have things their way. It's GREED over NEED.

      So when a Redski tells you "Social Security is putting a drain on the deficit", politely ask him to explain how, since Social Security is it's own separate tax, and not a part of the budget or the growing deficit of the general budget. -Then sit back and enjoy the fireworks as his face turns red and his ignorance resorts him to blasting loud obscenities at you. :D

    • 11 months ago
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  
    • mitekillem:

      I think that is the issue. Social security is not a trust fund, it is a ponzi scheme. It started collecting at the same time it started paying. It assumes that the working population will always be greater than those receiving benifits, which obviously is not the case anymore.

      I'm not saying that it should be done away with, since I like the idea. Most people are too stupid to save a portion of their earnings, so they would be left with nothing if SS were to go away.

      I do think that the system needs to change from a "black box ponzi scheme" to a trust fund system. If they are going to raise the age of retirement or some other crap, I want my money back. In my documented family history, no man has lived past the age of 65. Granted a portion of social security goes to pay for your spouse and/or kids, but what if they are too old/young to collect more than a few thousand dollars?

    • 11 months ago
  • corderodedios
    • +1
      corderodedios  
    • good_stuff:

      Whatever it is called, Social Security helps make America strong by providing survival resources to those who have worked and retired. You're correct in the main, but most people who actually need the paltry sum Social Security provides have not saved for retirement because they were stupid, they have nothing saved because they lived hand-to-mouth all their lives. That's most people. The well-to-do have no concept of this, and worse, well-to-do Republicans could care less whether those people suffer and die early. After all, once a janitor retires, he's no longer a servant and can be dispensed with.

      The big problem with Social Security right now is the income cutoff for contributions is far too low. The greedy will not sympathize with this perspective, or even be capable of understanding it, and will reflexively lie to defend their woodenheaded bias that greed instills in them. Ensuring a comfortable, if minimal, retirement after a lifetime of service is not in the lexicon of these anti-Christian, anti-humanitarian zombies. But it is that simple: "me" instead of "we," ignorant evil v. an enlightened humanity.

    • 11 months ago
  • Warren_Merrill
    • -2
      Warren_Merrill  

    • When I started working Social Security was a 6% tax. The employee paid 3%. The employer paid 3%. Now it's 15%. The self employed has the privilege of paying the entire amount himself. Over my career the Social Security tax has increased 250%. If it increases another 250% it will be a 37% tax. Can the employee afford this? We know what the employer will do. A tax that high will affect employment decisions. There will be layoffs or less hires.

      Naw! Social Security is on a great track. Leave it alone!

    • 11 months ago
  • Saladin
    • +1
      Saladin  
    • Warren_Merrill:

      Do you really believe the shit that you post? This is so loaded with fallacies I don't even know where to start.

      First off, the rate increases are not a bad thing, seeing as how the cost of living has gone up and SS by itself is never enough to fund a retirement.

      Second, it's 15%, yes, half payed by the employer and half payed by the employee. But that's the TOTAL tax, which you compared to the INDIVIDUAL tax from before, which is totally irresponsible and a blatant lie. If you were going to do that, you should have said 6% versus 7.65%, which, as you'll notice, is NOT a 250% increase.

      If you were referring to being self-employed and the rate increasing to 15%, the last time it was 6% was fucking 55 years ago.

      And of course the self-employed has to pay the entire amount themselves, who the fuck else is going to pay for it? That's the definition of being self-employed, there is no employer by which to pay the other half.

      As for your extrapolation that it will double and a half again, this is a ridiculous assertion not based on anything. And even if it was, it will be fucking 2066 before that would ever happen. I'm guessing someone would notice by then.

      And, no, the employer is not mandated to let people go if they lose revenue. If they were responsible fucking employers, they could just take a hit in profits, or raise prices or *gasp* lower their own or their employee's wages or otherwise do anything competent besides letting people go.

      And, as we've seen, companies really don't need an excuse to let people go, they'll do it just for fun for a temporary boost in that quarter's profits, even though that fucks up their company and the economy at large. So we really shouldn't be designing policy around appeasing sociopaths and morons.

      Fuck, it takes twice as much time to debunk idiocy as it does to spout it.

      Also, a link to the actual SS rates for anyone who's interested.

      http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

    • 11 months ago
  • Warren_Merrill
    • -2
      Warren_Merrill  
    • Saladin:

      Fallacies? You may need to do some checking of history and then learn math. It WAS 6% when I started working. It IS 15% now. That IS a 250% increase. I stated it's half employee, half employer unless a person is self employed.. When the rate increases on the employee side another 250%, 18.5% will financially crush many individuals along with paying state and federal taxes. The extra 18.5% will kill employment opportunities. Businesses will hire less people. What most people on this site don't seem to understand is 80% of businesses are not major corporations. But they have to pay the same SS taxes. Taxes crush small business.

      "And, no, the employer is not mandated to let people go if they lose revenue. If they were responsible fucking employers, they could just take a hit in profits, or raise prices or *gasp* lower their own or their employee's wages or otherwise do anything competent besides letting people go."

      It is not a social responsibility of business to employ people, When it comes to losing money people will either not be hired or people in the company will be let go. Taxes stifle growth at the small business level.

      I'm going to borrow something from your profile ...

      "To put it simply, I believe in results, not labels"

      You're a college student. When you've produced some results come back and tell me all about it. Let's say running a team in corporate world or starting your own business hiring over fifty people. Most of what your college professors are telling you is bullshit that will cause you to fail in the real world if you follow their lead.

      You must be a reasonably smart kid to get accepted to a UC school. I'm glad I got through the undergrad program before the UC schools became pathetically PC.

    • 11 months ago
  • dinm76
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Warren_Merrill:

      "Fallacies? You may need to do some checking of history and then learn math."

      Love how you say that and then commit one.

      "If you were referring to being self-employed and the rate increasing to 15%, the last time it was 6% was fucking 55 years ago."

      Right there guy, learn to read. Your first paragraph is useless.

      "When the rate increases on the employee side another 250%, "

      There is no evidence, at all, that this is going to happen. And even if it did, like I said, following past trends that would not happen until 2066.

      So enough with the fucking doom and gloom predictions. That's not happening, arguing about it is pointless.

      'It is not a social responsibility of business to employ people, When it comes to losing money people will either not be hired or people in the company will be let go. Taxes stifle growth at the small business level."

      Actually, it is. It's what keeps Capitalism functioning. If we could, feasibly, replace the entire workforce with robots or computers, Capitalism would literally collapse overnight since the circulation of money would stop.

      And when it comes to losing money, you can do a dozen different things besides firing people, as I mentioned earlier and you apparently completely ignored.

      Most employers consider layoffs a last resort, especially if they're operating at full capacity and can't afford to lose people. Which IS a real problem for small businesses, who you vaguely pretend to care about in this post.

      "You're a college student. When you've produced some results come back and tell me all about it."

      More ad hominem.

      "I'm glad I got through the undergrad program before the UC schools became pathetically PC."

      No guy, no one told me to think the way that I do. In fact, when I took my economics classes, I fought the professors tooth and nail because fucking REALITY constantly contradicts classical economic dogma, which is mostly a misguided attempt to apply deductive laws to natural systems and ignore the contradictions that show up when those laws don't work.

      I find it incredibly annoying that, anytime someone is wrong, they feel the need to bring their personal experience to validate themselves, as if someone that changes the fact that you didn't prove what you set out to prove.

      Even if you did start several successful businesses using exactly the principles you were trying to prove in this previous paragraph (which I have no way of verifying, at all), that has nothing to do with what we're arguing about.

    • 11 months ago
  • Warren_Merrill
    • 0
      Warren_Merrill  
    • Saladin:

      " find it incredibly annoying that, anytime someone is wrong, they feel the need to bring their personal experience to validate themselves,...."

      LOL! Let's take our resumes to a bank and see who gets the business loan. The econ major or the experienced, successful businessman. By the way, I was an econ major too. Most of it means squat when you hit the real world. Most of what you're getting in undergrad is proving you have the ability to think and problem solve at the basic level. I also have an MBA in marketing.

    • 11 months ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Warren_Merrill:

      I'm not an econ major, and we're not trying to get a loan or run a business. We're talking about political policy and basic facts, and you are demonstrably wrong. Thus, your personal experience (which I can't verify) is of no consequence to the conversation.

      Feel free to uselessly flail it around like it means something though, because it certainly isn't convincing anyone else of the veracity of your position.

    • 11 months ago
  • hurleyburly
    • +2
      hurleyburly  

    • Social Security..Medicare/Medicaid should not even be on the table. 81% of Americans don't want cuts to Social Security. If Obama and the democrats make cuts and continue to put the elderly and poor under the bus wheel..then they are clearing the hill of the illusion that the Dems are for the people.

    • 11 months ago
  • Saladin
    • +4
      Saladin  

    • If he cuts medicare or SS, that's the last straw for me.

      I will never vote for a Democrat again if they pull that shit, and I won't care if that means Republicans take power again.

      I'm so tired of putting up with these fucking spineless cowards. It is transparently clear to me that they simply pander to a progressive base for votes, but they're all just Diet Republicans, they believe in the same shit.

    • 11 months ago
  • squarethecircle
    • +1
      squarethecircle  
    • Saladin:

      Absolutely...Obama has proven anything is on the table as long as we can keep these systems from faltering. Let them falter, no more bailouts, throw away nationalism, money and religion, let our bonds be broken and let's start fresh together without the BS

    • 11 months ago
  • wtthfkovr
  • harleyblueswoman
  • harleyblueswoman
  • JohnA
    • +1
      JohnA  

    • I knew when they took Social Security out of my first paycheck when I was fourteen that I would never see a dime of it back. 20 years later I am even more sure of it than I was then. I've never expected to see a dime of it, but still they keep taking it from me. I want out. They want to cut it? Fine. But give me the option of having it stop coming out of my paycheck if you do.

    • 11 months ago
  • Warren_Merrill
    • -1
      Warren_Merrill  
    • JohnA:

      There would be riots at government buildings if everyone received their gross paycheck and had to personally write three tax checks (state, federal, SSI) twice a month.Even the lefties would wake up and riot.

    • 11 months ago
  • squarethecircle
    • 0
      squarethecircle  

    • It is not something our Democracy represents any more. There is only one line in the sand, do you care about humanity and Earth or not. I agree with much that you have said but not the finger pointing...there is no choice towards a better future in our current bonds.

    • 11 months ago
  • corderodedios
    • +2
      corderodedios  
    • Image

    • CNN is handling the Bush/Obama budget crisis by trumpeting Obama's call to Democrats to betray their principals and roll over for the Neocons, while framing Boehner's propaganda as righteous patriotism.

      http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/11/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

      Neither the Republicans, nor Obama, have been willing to go where the money is - the wealthy few who have been stealing the nation blind for decades - to mend the budget crisis, and, they're going to cut social programs, which pump money into the economy and tend to make it healthier. Obama traded tax cuts for the wealthy for extended unemployment benefits last year, but now the unemployment benefits are running out but the wealthy are, surprise, even more wealthy. Now he's willing to help the Neocons destroy our government of the people by giving them (1) reduced social program spending, AND (2) tax cuts for the wealthy, perhaps nominally smaller.

      The Republicans and mainstream Democrats have merged into a chimerical monster. The path to the perfect economic storm is clear, and we're on it. They've gone nuts. Completely nuts.

    • 11 months ago
  • Leen61
  • SoCalFramer
    • +1
      SoCalFramer  

    • I blame the non voting public. What do you expect when you don't vote. These people in office represent the rich, get over it; unles you are out registering voters. How many of you actually volunteer to drive people to polls on election day? Most of the people in here cry loud but don't actually participate in democracy. Listening to Thom Hartman might be great but it does not effect change. Democracy is not a spectator sport, don't bitch about it unless you participate in it, showing up to vote is not enough anymore. Get off your asses and do something and then you will see how hard it is or you can type into this site how you expect a revolution and how you will participate when someone else does something first.

    • 11 months ago
  • JohnA
    • +3
      JohnA  
    • SoCalFramer:

      I wouldn't blame them. When the two party monopoly keeps giving you two evils to pick the lessor of every election, it gets pretty hard to see what difference voting will make after a while.

    • 11 months ago
  • squarethecircle
    • +3
      squarethecircle  
    • SoCalFramer:

      I expect nothing any more when I vote for it is clear there is no Democracy here. Will I wait for another election with false hope? There isn't time for us to wait and determine who will be our next puppet prez...Obama? Palin? Bachmann? At least one isn't completely insane, but do you really think any of them could or would show us the "change we need"? Clearly NO!

    • 11 months ago
  • Simone_Castillo
    • 0
      Simone_Castillo  
    • SoCalFramer:

      I totally agree with you about the non voters. If we just sit around and not vote thinking that "one vote does not count" and we have millions of people doing that we have done ourselves a disservice. See what sitting around on the ass gets us...a house filled with crazy ass republicans that are hell bent on taking care of their rich ass friends.

    • 11 months ago
  • SoCalFramer
  • SoCalFramer
  • SoCalFramer
  • squarethecircle
  • corderodedios
    • +1
      corderodedios  
    • SoCalFramer:

      Good stuff. Bravo.

      Let me make a suggestion about where to get to after the people here decide to do what you propose: getting up. I joined my local Legislative District Democratic organization ($20/year) and got wired in to the system. I go to the meetings, vote on issues, and say my piece. And, can work for the candidates of my choice - who are unfortunately rare these days. Or I can suggest candidates.

      The last time I know of a total grassroots effort paying off was George McGovern's candidacy. Unfortunately he got hammered by Richard Nixon (who resigned in disgrace a short time later, though the Republican lie machine got him re-elected against McGovern), but he was nominated on the strength of folks just like us who organized, joined local organizations, and got involved.

    • 11 months ago
  • squarethecircle
  • squarethecircle
  • mybologna
    • +3
      mybologna  

    • Here's the point nobody in the media, or democrats are making. The cutting of SS would be the largest and boldest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. Back when Reagan was president, his first order of bussiness was to cut taxes on the wealthier Americans. In the meantime, while government revenues go down as a result, Reagan also increases military spending and the national debt. Knowing that raising the national deficit looked bad for a republican president, he did the same thing many presidents have done before him: borrow the money from the Social Security trust fund. He and the congress at that time turned Social Security funds into government bonds (IOU's) so the government could use these funds for to make up for the shortfall in revenue.
      Now it is time to pay back that money. Bonds have matured and the baby boomers are retiring. Should we raise the taxes on the wealthy to pay back the wealthy taxes from the 80's. It would just be a lot more convenient for the wealthy elite to cut benefits so the government doesn't raise taxes on the rich to pay back those IOU's. They have effectively stolen from the poor and middle class to give to the rich.
      Why isn't anybody making this point?

    • 11 months ago
  • corderodedios
    • +3
      corderodedios  
    • mybologna:

      Right on.

      People are making the point. The mainstream media belongs to the Neocons now, so you have to look towards The Nation or Mother Jones for cogent analysis.

      The wealthy are addicted to the pursuit of yet more wealth, and Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs are a fat source of wealth for them. They want it all and they are demented in their struggle to get it all. They don't care who they hurt or kill - isn't this obvious from the way the Bush/Obama Neocons have acted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Libya? Do you think they care that people suffer and die as a result of diminished programs such as Medicaid? They do not care. They want the money. They want it all. If you or your kid dies, tough. Screw 'em all. It's social Darwinism, Ayn Rand crap.

      So, they're killing people in their filthy scrum for infinite wealth. Same as it ever was. In our names, too. But so what? What is to be done?

    • 11 months ago
  • Toughth
    • +2
      Toughth  

    • What is this consesis? Just those at the top looking down and losing sight of those at the bottom. Turn a blind eye to 70 percent of the people of this nation to please the upper 1 percent, and the rest are left in limbo.

    • 11 months ago
  • Leen61
  • Leen61
  • wolfess
    • +2
      wolfess  
    • Leen61:

      Outstanding! This was a great article -- just what we ALL need amid the crap that's constantly coming out of DC these days -- thank you.

      Power to the Peons NOW!

    • 11 months ago
  • Leen61
    • +2
      Leen61  
    • wolfess:

      You're welcome, wolfess. I've been getting that little newsletter by Jim Hightower in the mail now for awhile. It's worth it. It doesn't even cost that much. Hightower is great!

    • 11 months ago
  • Leen61
  • wolfess
    • +2
      wolfess  
    • Leen61:

      "If this president consents to' ... "an act of political triangulation, he will be marked in my book for all time as a failure, a betrayer, and a disgrace." "... perhaps they believe they will earn the votes of enough independents to offset the damage."

      I am an independent, precisely because I vote for the MAN and the ISSUES -- this man and his issues have forever lost MY VOTE! And I know many of you will chide me for that, but the truth is at this moment all any of us have to go on is what we have seen and I haven't seen anything in his 3 years as prez that convince me that he's worthy of my vote again.
      Leen, thank you for this article -- one more nail in the coffin.

      Power to the Peons NOW!

    • 11 months ago
  • Leen61
  • Leen61
    • +5
      Leen61  

    • Great post, figg. I'm a fan of Jane Hamsher. I knew this would happen. We are screwed. Now, if anyone is still drinking the kool-aide re: Obama, they need to stop....now! This man is not for the working class, the elderly, the poor, etc. He's the manchurian candidate. He really knew how to pull one over on the American people. This country does not have 2 parties...it's a one party system. I saw an interview recently with Larry Wilkerson. He said right out that his grandchildren will not be living in a Democracy. They won't be. This country will be a cross between a Plutocracy and a Theocracy....throw in Idiocracy. I just read my current issue of "The Hightower Lowdown" by Jim Hightower. He even says he has never seen such a strange and scary scene here in this country before. This country is over as we knew it. It doesn't matter who is in the White House. All of the things FDR stood for and the New Deal are officially gone. The Democratic party is dead. Both parties are corrupt and owned by the banks and corporations. Obama was a plant. Think back to 2008....it seemed he came out of nowhere. That was strange in itself. Remember when he said it doesn't matter if he's a one term president? Why should it? His mission is accomplished. He's made the rich richer and expanded the MIC and finished what Bush started. The signs were there but I think we all just wanted to believe. Well, nobody should have blinders on anymore. Wailt until they see their Social Security and Medicare are gone....all done by a "Democratic" president. Shame, shame, shame. Nobody should be an apologist for Obama anymore.

    • 11 months ago
  • wynnmeg61
    • -5
      wynnmeg61  

    • It looks as though the Presidents strategy to put SS and Medicare on the table has been pretty effective at this point. He never said he was going to gut these programs but he put them up as bait to make the GOP show just how far they are willing to go to crash the economy even further. The GOP has done exactly that and it is getting much harder for them to defend their ideology on revenue. It is really to bad that the far left has decided to start throwing firebombs.

      Before you all start calling me a sell out to the status quo, let me tell you that I am in fact in the bottom 5%. I live on 667 SS and 300 FS with no healthcare what so ever and I am a Cancer survivor plus I have to support a 9-year-old daughter. Beleive me I know what the bottom of society is going through. I also know that the far left plays right into the hands of GOP when the idealogues on the left start this kind of thing.

      Maddow used to have Hamsher on alot, but you don't see much of Jane in that venue anymore. Why? Because she doesn't advance any practical solutions, but rather stands fast to her ideology. Apparently anachy is the best solution to the far left. Ms. Hamsher is not suffering in any meaningful way in this economic downturn.

    • 11 months ago
  • Saladin
    • +3
      Saladin  
    • wynnmeg61:

      I am so tired of hearing this talking point that this is all part of Obama's secret "scheme" to "make the Republicans look bad."

      Was it part of his scheme to fuck up the healthcare bill too then? And to not pass substantial finance reform? How about those tax cuts for the rich he extended? What did he get out of that?

      Face it, this president is a fucking joke, a right-leaning centrist who doesn't give a shit about real left-wing principles or the crisis in the economy.

    • 11 months ago
  • amo42
    • +1
      amo42  

    • As long as the Democrats continue to follow the Obama economic advisors this nonsense will continue. Both parties are supporting the the financial cartels' ability to continue to amass wealth at what ever costs. Neither party has any plan or idea about how to develop living wage jobs or how to reduce income stagnation. Until there are real economic reforms the downward spiral will continue.

    • 11 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • -1
      Incredulous  

    • You know, there are changes that should be implemented with Social Security. My ex-father-in-law, who receives a pension from both the military and Lockheed Martin, is also still eligible for Social Security. I don't think he should be collecting Social Security, and if the changes Obama wants to implement begin with removing people like him from the roles, I say go ahead. There should be an income cap on eligibility, but the fact that he was forced to contribute to this program all his life doesn't make it right either. These greedy government bastards have had their eye on Social Security for a long time, because they continue to spend too much money on wars and bailing out banks. The American people need to revolt and get rid of all of them.

      But as most things go in Washington, it will be the little old lady in her rocking chair, who won't sell off the 10 acres of land she still owns because it's the only place she's ever lived her entire life, that will be cut from the roles. You might think I made that old lady up, but I didn't. They wouldn't even give her a reasonable amount of food stamps to survive on because she wouldn't sell off her home, which was nothing more than a shack without indoor plumbing or anything more than a few scrappy acres of land surrounding it. This was a woman who used to carry her crippled daughter, on her back to the school bus, because that was the only way she could get her daughter down the dirt road to the bus. She refused to sell her shack and move into God knows where, so they gave her something like $10/week in food stamps. I'm pretty sure she's dead now, haven't been back to that town for years, but Fuck this piece of shit government and Fuck their unbridled greed. May they all burn in the hell they believe in....and soon.

    • 11 months ago
  • wolfess
  • mybologna
    • +2
      mybologna  
    • Incredulous:

      If you believe that there should be an income cut off for social security you are playing to the republicans who want SS to dissapear. The reason the SS program has wide appeal and support is because evryone can get it. The moment you require a cap on income to receive benefits the program will lose its wide support and will dissapear the way of welfare payments.

    • 11 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • +1
      Incredulous  
    • mybologna:

      My ex father-in-law is a millionaire, and also a Republican. He doesn't need it, and SS has never had widespread appeal, no working stiff was ever given a choice as to whether or not they were going to contribute, if you have ever collected a paycheck in this country, you HAVE contributed. It's not like it has wide support, it has mandated support, and yet, the people who have paid into it have no say about how it is being overhauled.

      The reason the SS program has trillions of dollars in its accounts is because working people put that money there. People who inherit their fortunes or make their money without a paycheck DO NOT contribute to SS, so the only appeal it holds for them is a potential pool of money to steal from.

    • 11 months ago
  • Warren_Merrill
    • -1
      Warren_Merrill  
    • Incredulous:

      "You know, there are changes that should be implemented with Social Security. My ex-father-in-law, who receives a pension from both the military and Lockheed Martin, is also still eligible for Social Security. I don't think he should be collecting Social Security, and if the changes Obama wants to implement begin with removing people like him from the roles, I say go ahead."

      In Massachusetts a person can work for the government, retire, collect their pension, win elected office and collect full politician's pay from the state while collecting their pension from the state. I'll bet it's not the only state.

    • 11 months ago
  • corderodedios
    • +1
      corderodedios  
    • Warren_Merrill:

      So what? Is your point that in a perfect communist state, retirees would be restricted from earning more than exactly what? What's wrong with people managing their careers to retire comfortably? Or are you also in favor of legislating income caps for investors or corporate executives? After all, people who get Social Security - benefits they paid for - are taxed on them if they make over a (very paltry) certain amount.

      Or is it that the people you are talking about are blue collar folks, not members of the elite, and should cough up any dough past a bare means of survival so the wealthy elite can have a shot at it?

      And bragging that you would like to see your father-in-law screwed isn't quite kicking your grandmother aside if she got in your way, but it's close enough to catch the stench of Neocon dogma.

    • 11 months ago
  • Warren_Merrill
  • dinm76
  • JanforGore
  • wolfess
  • nikonwilly
    • +3
      nikonwilly  

    • Something as important to our elderly as this and these people who will never have to depend upon it are making the decision of cutting it to less!
      Make no mistake...our elderly , some who live a meagre existence solely on SS benefits will soon need to decide what to go without, what they no longer can afford in this supposed civilized Country , medication, food maybe heating fuel or a telephone or cab fare to a doctors visit.
      If this is done it will be one of the most disgusting acts in an already rigged system of taking from the poor to feed the rich.
      When you fully understand the fraud in the monetary system , Central banks, the FED, interest payments, the printing of fiat paper and the whole basis behind a debt society than you will realize it for what it really is ...economic slavery and murder for those too old to participate any longer.
      Rape of the less fortunate goes on daily, now,we want to finish off the most vulnerably we have...the easiest prey .
      Parents and Grandparents who worked their whole lives to support the rich are now being squeezed for their last cent. and they have absolutely nothing but a useless "Vote" to fight back with..and please don't go there about the vote meaning something ...this corrupt system is completely corrupt ...we have enough proof of what a vote gets....just open your eyes!
      How the fuck can anyone go along with hurting the elderly ? When a few dollars means the difference between life and death ...how the fuck do we choose death instead of life?
      I'll tell you how....because they can no longer pay the bank...they are now useless human chaff who no longer feeds that interest payment... too old for labor they now go from human asset to useless dependent. The productivity chart shows these people to be ...non-productive ...their importance to this system is now over...make way for those inductees who have a lifetime to pay.
      They just grab billions with the bailouts...now they want actual BLOOD!
      If we allow this Government to be forced by the banking elite to this decision( or pick your own reasoning behind it ) than we are the real cowards here.

    • 11 months ago
  • nobsartist
    • +2
      nobsartist  

    • The first clue came when they ALL supported chimpy and his wars. Then came the 12 times they increased the debt limit. Dont forget all of the dems that supported the "patriot act". Dont forget the dems that sided with the cons on health care.

      I suspected something when a 1 term senator was elected pesident. The typical republiCON scam except this republiCON lied about what he was going to do instead of not saying anything like snyder, walker and the other scum bags did.

      Justantotherbushofadifferentcolor.

    • 11 months ago
  • nobsartist
  • nobsartist
  • nobsartist
    • +4
      nobsartist  

    • The dems do not have any pincipals. They are all millionaires and need to go. obama signed the tax breaks for millionaires because..........he's a FUCKING MILLIONAIRE. Obma put SS on the table because.......HES A FUCKING MILLIONAIRE AND WILL NEVER HAVE TO RELY ON SS.

      The dems and obama are committing political suicide. They are doing this because they are all the same party. They should be forced to create ONE party called "the MILLIONAIRES Party".

      I am looking forward to hearing another lecture on the "great" things that obama and the dems have done for Amerika.

      As Stevie Wonder said in his song to Nixon..."You havent done nothin'"

      That tune could have been written for the dems today in 2011. Too bad it has to apply to obama and his gang of do littles.

    • 11 months ago
  • SIBob
    • +6
      SIBob  
    • Image

    • Let’s just combine the two parties into one, like the Soviet Union used to do. Why even pretend anymore? The whole system is a joke and the laugh is on us. Incidentally, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the “powers-that-be” have completely deserted any pretense of promoting the “better way of life” in the United States. They don’t have to compete on the world stage anymore, they own it, and us. While East Germany was pumping steroids into their women’s swimming team, we were doing the same thing to our corporations. The monster we have created is now devouring us. It’s time to call out the troops to shoot at Godzilla.
      The upcoming abandonment of our sick and our old should be a rallying cry to all of us. If you are not in one of those groups, some day you will be, and you will be treated the same way. We will not be “saving” Social Security by destroying it, and we will not pave the way for our children’s financial security by killing their grandparents. Reject the hype and fight back. Both parties are corrupt. http://sibob.org/wordpress/

    • 11 months ago
  • nobsartist
    • +1
      nobsartist  
    • SIBob:

      excellent. well said. both parties are the same and thats why Amerika has made NO advancements in the last 50 years. we are a 3rd world country because of the greed of our "leaders". the parallels to the soviet union are very close. their leaders ruined their country by starting a war in afghanastan. We laughed and ridiculed them in 1988, today they are laghing and ridiculing us. These assholes that we vote to lead us are far from the "best and the brightest". Instead, it turns out that they are the scum of the earth.

      The biggest difference between us and the soviets is that we are all armed. Black Friday will be coming soon and when it does, no army will be big enough to protect the scum bags from we Americans.

    • 11 months ago
  • Leen61
  • SIBob
  • Leen61
  • noxidereus
    • +6
      noxidereus  

    • I completely agree with everything Jane Hampsher is saying. My conclusion is that it is not worth it to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Fear of the worser party is not motivation enough for me. Now I fear the perceived less worser party as well. Partisan politics is now an illusion. There is one party, perceptually split in 2 in order to divide we the people against each other, but this machine serves only its true master -- money, and those who collectively have it all.

    • 11 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  
    • noxidereus:

      And look how many people enable it ( because it is more convenient to do so than actually getting up to really change things) by intimating that anyone who wishes to exercise their right to freedom of expression in the voting booth is a virtual traitor to their country if they dare move one inch from supporting it without even realizing how much they enable it by doing so. How ironic.

    • 11 months ago
  • noxidereus
    • +2
      noxidereus  
    • JanforGore:

      Well said. I admire you very much for your part in trying to help change things for the better. I have learned a lot by reading your posts/comments here on current. Thank you very much!

    • 11 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • DudleyDooleft
    • +2
      DudleyDooleft  

    • During the healthcare debate or so called debate, we had to endure weak leadership in congress and it has never gotten any better. Jane Hamsher is absolutely correct about these people. Nancy Pelosi talks a tough game, then folds to the republicans and tells us that she and dems did all they could do. And Harry Reid is weak from start to finish.

      The people have no representation in Washington D.C. all we have are differing degrees of bullshit politicians that have their interest at heart, not ours. I hold Pelosi, Reid and President Obama responsible for squandering democratic majorities in the House and Senate with a democrat in the White House and not getting the important work done and at our expense. All they have done is fed us bs and passed legislation that the rethugs don't give hoot about anyway. They have failed, they have failed the American people and not a damn one of them deserves re-election.

      Vote this comment down if you will, but you cannot deny it's truth in actual tangible gains for the people. People like to talk about our founding fathers and their intent pertaining to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill Of Rights. I say, they didn't intend for the American people to sit on their asses and let these corporate shill's, both lobbyists and elected representatives, do what they are doing to this country. At some point, and probably soon, we are going to have to stand up and do something about it, people need to get used to that idea.

    • 11 months ago
  • nobsartist
  • Debra_
    • -6
      Debra_  

    • The President knows a good deal when he sees one. Certainty nobody gets what they want all the time.Like most people, I voted for change and I knew that part of that included tough changes like on Social security. Social security may be the sacrificial lamb but President Obama is doing it for a greater bargain.

    • 11 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • dinm76
    • +4
      dinm76  

    • FOR CHRIST SAKE! Is there no democrat with the balls to run against the biggest back stabbing president this country has ever seen?!
      Get ready to have your elderly parents move in with you along with your children who will never be able to move out!
      And...for full disclosure...I sent money and voted for this jerk. What a fool I was!

    • 11 months ago
  • Conniepae
  • gypsysailor
    • +6
      gypsysailor  

    • This is bullshit. What happened to the democrat we thought we elected President? Why don't you just declare yourself republican and let us go find a real democrat on the order of one of the Clintons? You gave away health care. You gave away tax hikes on the rich. And now you want to take away what little most of us have or have paid into. I got an idea. How about Congress pay back all the money it 'borrowed' from Social Security to fund their pet projects for the rich. The government is not the problem. Republicans and spineless democrats are the problem.

    • 11 months ago
  • DudleyDooleft
  • harleyblueswoman
    • 0
      harleyblueswoman  

    • I think he has an agenda that he hasnt disclosed to the public.....if he can get them to agree on the tax cuts and the debt ceiling.......he has led them to believe they were getting their way more than once only to actually have a plan that really didnt go their way!!! I think the big babies are scared of that......that and the fact that they don't want to give up their tax cuts to their wealthy cronies!!!!!!!!!!

    • 11 months ago
  • SandyBerman
    • SandyBerman  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • sharin
    • 0
      sharin  
    • SandyBerman:

      thank you Sandy! - articles like this are so disgusting - it's the liberal media buying into breitbarted information, similar to the Shirley Sherrod story. WaPo, or Fox on 15th, broke this story - NYT quickly jumped on the band wagon so as to not be scooped. More lies and mis-information to screw the Democrats and specifically to smear Obama

    • 11 months ago
  • mitekillem
    • +1
      mitekillem  

    • I think Social Security is a red-herring. Think of it this way, if we close some loop holes, and get some more revenue in, we can afford to close some of the deficit.
      Let's say that companies are supposed to be taxed at 32%, but over half of them find loop holes, and pay zero. It means collectively they pay about 15%.
      Now, if we close those loop holes, they have to pay up. Which means more revenue.

      Who's to say that the next congress/president/etc won't reverse or even IMPROVE social security so that nobody can touch it.

      Let's look at the big picture. The gap between the rich and the poor is huge.
      And half of this country is helping the rich get richer, by supporting the people who support corporations.

    • 11 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • +1
      Incredulous  
    • mitekillem:

      if we weren't giving the DOD a $649 billion dollar budget to kill brown people and terrorize nations with oil, we wouldn't have a deficit.

      Social Security comes out of every working American's paycheck, it has nothing to do with companies being taxed or loopholes for corporations. Corporations have not funded Social Security, working Americans have.

    • 11 months ago
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • +5
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  

    • Well, is it time to surround the Whitehouse and the Capitol building with crowds so vast that it sends the traitors running? Any cuts to our benefits which we pay for, before closing about 700 of the foreign bases around the world and cutting off the heroin money drip line to the filthy rich and the military industrial complex, is outright fraud against the citizens of the United States.

    • 11 months ago
  • grammabet
    • +3
      grammabet  

    • He's already done it,two years straight without with NO cost of living increase ,which is a small amount,but every penny counts when you're on a fixed income and everything around you is increasing.Utilities,taxes,food,meds,etc.

    • 11 months ago
  • sharin
    • -1
      sharin  
    • grammabet:

      Obama has nothing to do with the lack of COLA (cost of living adjustment) - the COLA is based on economic facts. (Bloomberg News, Oct 2009): "The price index used to calculate the adjustment was down 2.1 percent in the third quarter compared with the same time last year, according to Labor Department figures issued today in Washington. By law, the government cannot cut the benefit, so the average monthly payment will remain the same in 2010, the Social Security Administration confirmed today in a statement " Part of the stimulous bill as for a one time $250 payment to SS recepients to replace this lack of COLA. Obama pushed through an extension of the stimulous funding for a second year of $250 check sent to SS recepients, but for 2011?:
      Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted down a bill to provide another $250 payment to Social Security recipients and disabled veterans. The payment is meant to replace a lost cost-of-living increase for 2011.
      “I find it unconscionable that Republicans are blocking a little bit of help – $250 – for seniors and for men and women who risked their lives for our country, and at the same time Republicans are demanding a $700 billion tax break for the wealthy, millionaires and billionaires,” said Congressman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan after the vote.

    • 11 months ago
  • tverdell
  • tverdell
    • +3
      tverdell  

    • Progressives Won’t Criticize Obama For Proposed Social Security Cuts

      Grijalva and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a vice chair of the caucus, defended the president for signaling he would be willing to take a look at changes to the programs, arguing there are ways to restructure entitlement spending to save money without hurting beneficiaries.

      Statements like this makes me believe in conspiracy theories.

    • 11 months ago
  • wayseeker
    • +2
      wayseeker  

    • This is what I thought might be happening but chose to stay in denial. How can I stay in denial when people keep bringing up reality. This news makes me sick to my stomach.

    • 11 months ago
  • letsliveinpeace
  • wolfess
    • +3
      wolfess  

    • Oh great! It's 11:30 p/m where I live and I just HAD to read one more story ... how am I going to sleep after reading THIS one last story :-)???

      Ok, so she stated that this last thur nite was when this was supposed to happen? Does that mean that since Boehner gave up on friday that this isn't going to happen, or does it just mean it's going to take a little more effort on the part of Obama and the dems to MAKE this happen?

      And now I must do whatever I can to help firedoglake keep talking and writing about this so that maybe the din is just loud enuf that they all decide to put this away until AFTER next years' election :-).

      And I'd say it's definitely time to get out my poppets and start sticking pins in them!

      Power to the Peons NOW!

    • 11 months ago
  • letsliveinpeace
more from Community:
from the community

top videos