Good job, Jane!

The a**holes in DC have a lot of nerve extending BushCo’s tax cuts for the rich and then turning around and telling us they have to cut SS and Medicare benefits.

Thank you, Jane! It’s sad that we have to force them to do the right thing. Thanks.

I have voted the Democratic Party line since the mid 1990s and began making contributions to them in 2004.

As of 2008, no more.

They will not get my votes or my money until they get their heads out of their asses.

Bravo Jane. Will pay a visit to Waxman. Shared sacrifice my ass.

Jane, they’ve written off the loss of your support as a cost of doing business. How about supporting primarying Obama? Or at least, tell us why you think it’s a bad idea.

Let’s face it, it hits a nerve with the Obamacrats that merely sitting it out does not.

Thank you so much. I’ve been emailing as much as I can today but am limited in time.

Please be advised that a group of us here in Houston have approved unanimously a new “term” for congress…..legislaturds. PLease feel free to use it. No matter how this issue turns out, they deserve it.

Jeff before anyone could support a primary challenge to the president there would have to be a candidate. I am not even saying viable candidate, but just someone who will run as a Democrat. You see anyone like that?

Just supporting an idea gets us all nowhere.

Was at DeGette’s – writing up a diary now.

I visited my Congressional office today and informed the representive that I will not vote for anyone who approves cuts to the social safety net, including the President. Obama must be primaried. (Joe Sestak are you listening?)

Good job. I was thinking today after listening to a story about the “debt crisis” that this whole thing is STILL the healthcare debate, plain and simple. We are still stuck in the healthcare debate only now its is called another name.

I asked for a formal meet last Thursday and got absolutely no response. So, I visited Garamendi’s local office today, anyway. The place was a ghost town but I was met by a very friendly young staff gentleman. We had a nice talk. They know exactly how I feel about things and I did say I was also repping for Firedog! I know it looks bad people but keep up the effort.

GREAT stuff jane, did you get to talk face to face with any live critters?

Primary him!
Primary the F out of him.

BUT!!!
Do not waste money on it. Ie. spend the minimum amount on that effort since it probably won’t lead anywhere except draw attention to him being a total douche. Which is commendable in its own right.
Put money into local races. That’s where it can be put to the best use. Local officials can then at least slow down the gutting of America.

I don’t quite get that message. Candidates are drafted all the time when public sentiment gets to the point that a change is needed. Put the public sentiment out there and the candidate will follow. Rick Perry is about to jump in because he sees the public sentiment for the other guys and it ain’t happening for them.
Or you could keep throwing cold water on anyone who dares to think about making a change.

Very nice, Jane.

If Obama and the Dems want to drive the economy off a cliff, it doesn’t mean that progressives have to follow them.

Self preservation is more important than party loyalty.

Name a successful national nominee that was drafted. (you can do that) Now name one that was drafted to run against a sitting member of either party. (you’re probably going to have more trouble with that).

Now that we have the easy ones out of the way, name a drafted candidate running against his party’s sitting president. I don’t think you’ll be able to do that.

And as for Perry, that is a completely different situation, you are comparing apples and orangutans. There is a weak field and no incumbent.

Look I’d support a primary challenger, but until and unless one emerges, this it is a waste of time. There isn’t even anyone talking about doing it and time for that kind of bid is running out.

But, hey, if you want to give it a try, don’t let me stop you. I’ll put my efforts in to things that I think have a chance of happening. This is one that I don’t see.

Bless you, Jane Hamsher. This looks like the latest in a series of draconian do-this-or-the-world-ends flourishes from the corporate powers. If the final budget-raising bill includes things that are deal breakers for both left and right, maybe there will be enough votes to block it from both ends.

I didn’t visit, but I did call a number of Senators and Representatives. I also called the DNC. They can only say they support the president… doesn’t matter what he does they will support him. Time to get another candidate. I would rather have a republican, at least a few would oppose what he does. This way, Obama has no opposition from the left. PUMA’s were right after all.

It’s true that there’s never been a successful challenge. However, these are not just any ol’ times either:

Wall Street’s Euthanasia of Industry

By Michael Hudson
July 17, 2011 “Information Clearing House” – Michael Hudson interviewed on Guns N Butter with Bonnie Faulkner Listen here
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28612.htm

You’re asking the right questions.

Where can scarce prog/lib resources do the most good?

Thank you for your efforts, Jane. I didn’t visit my CA Senators’ offices but I did call. Workers were polite and said they would pass my message along.

I would really like to see you and FDL get behind a “financial speculation tax”. I believe this should happen BEFORE any spending cuts and is appropriate because we would be generating revenue from the very people who brought us this disaster. One Rep has proposed a fractional tax on all speculative transactions; I think something like 10 cents per is still extremely reasonable and would raise billions a year. As far as I know, none of my Reps have gotten behind it and I know Obama opposes it (might crimp his Wall St. cash). In my calls, I mentioned that they would also have to support such a tax to get my vote.

Thanks again.

GO JANE!

Your appearance yesterday on CSpan was awesome! I think that everyone watching got the message and hopefully they all called and went today too. Even those republican callers were really pissed about our own government trying to default on Social Security/Medicare. This is one issue finally that crosses all party lines.

Knowing the crop of (putative) Democrats we have right now, somehow I feel they’ll sneak it through without accountability. They are past masters at that tactic! In sharp contrast was CrooksndLiars (Sunday) inclusion of FDR’s 1936 Worcester, MA speech.

thanks, been looking for this:

the solution is going to be that the government is going to sell of its land, whatever is in the public domain.

Most Democrats in Congress would prefer not to cut entitlements but they are between a rock and the repubs. And quite frankly, since i will never see a dime of SS based on my age, i don’t know how attractive a prospect I find it to provide SS for all these old folks knowing all the while that it won’t be there for me.

Rightwing talking points.

That sounds like a republican talking point

nope, I’m a democrat. just a young one

I visited Rep C W “Bill” Young’s office at lunch time. Only person in the office was the receptionist. Gave her my letter stating I’d not support in any way any member of Congress who supported or voted for changes/cuts to SS, Medicare or Medicaid. I told the receptionist that I was a 67yo Viet Nam combat bet, still working but that at some point I’m not going to be able to work any longer and would have to rely on SS, Medicare and the VA. She listened, thanked me for my service (which sounds so hollow coming from some people) and assured me my letter would get to Rep Young. She also said she understood how important these programs were for seniors.

Wore my war suit, sans sign, but I was solo and didn’t ask the nice receptionist to take a pic.

Either would get a repub elected.

And you don’t find it a Democratic value to look out for all of our fellow citizens? You know, we’re all in this together?

Let me ask you, what do you owe your fellow citizens?

Jane,
I think you are on the right track with where to apply pressure to the Democrats. We have to move the progressive caucus and progressives in the Senate to stand their ground and not fall in with rest of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, they are a very passive bunch and they seem to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome to a large extent, so any kindness their captors bestow on them is “ever so” appreciated. Be that as it may, the only people in congress that we have a rats rump to move are the progressives and I fear that unless we inflict true pain on them they will sit in their comfortable little congressional parlor and bemoan all of the unfortunate things that are happening to the American people without having to take responsibility for it. I blame the progressives in congress for just how far we have fallen off the cliff.

the reason you need to fight, even if you believe you “will not see a dime of it” is this;

they are talking about cutting the dividend payouts, they are not talking about cutting the tax that funds the investment

they want to take our money and divert those investments to the wealthy

THAT’S why you need to FIGHT

Well Bill, did you ask Janesomebodyorother that when she said “self preservation is more important than party loyalty” in number 14? no, you didn’t. Why is that?

As I said, which you must have missed, I won’t get a thing from SS but I still owe everyone else?

As I have said to my sons, either find another country that is progressive and move there or stay here and fight like hell to get the country back. Either choice is perfectly fine with me. But don’t sit there and say “social security won’t be there when I need it” because you can’t know the future but you can make the future.

I visited Congressman Lungren’s local office about an hour ago. There were two very pleasant receptionists. I told them I would never vote for anyone who voted to cut social security and medicare in any way. I explained just how important to seniors the programs are and that all too often retired seniors have only social security benefits to live on. Their incomes are so low they no long need to file tax returns. A hollow benefit indeed.

And I’m supposed to be panicked over cuts in “dividends” that I will never have myself? Again, why is that? If they are not going to raise taxes, they cannot afford to keep all those damn baby boomers flush. You are mistaking age warfare with class warfare.

Your country love it or leave it. I see.

Oh, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t a troll but perhaps I shouldn’t have.
WE have all paid into social security and those that have not been lucky enough in life to do so, we don’t mind covering for. Better than seeing them starve. YOU won’t have to pay anything to cover us.

That is absolutely not what I said…but you are a troll and I will not feed you any longer.

I got your meaning the first time, RoyalOak. I don’t care for the my country love it or leave it bit. yeah yeah, i don’t have to pay a thing, Well someone is making a big mistake in the payroll dept in that case.

It’s exactly what you said. Don’t get all touchy just because i pointed it out.

I visited my congressman office today . He is Ralph Hall Tx. R. ,I told a girl at his office that if he voted to cut SS or medicare , I
wouldn’t vote for him. To my surprise, she said he share my believes. I said OK , I be watching his votes.

Bill, your position is riddled with irony. “There isn’t even anyone talking about doing it”? No, various people are talking about it. And while I lack the prestige of those the media fawn over, you ARE stating that I am nobody, as well as the NPA and various other commenters on FDL.

A word on your method: You set a bar that is too high to be met right now, as far as the kind of campaign that would impress you. But by setting it so high, you would also ensure that we would never be able to reach it. My approach is to focus on the more modest steps that actually would develop that capacity.

See: Dump Obama: a Primary Focus for an interim approach that is within our means.

And if I saw you bleeding in the street, I shouldn’t lift a finger unless I knew I was going to be paid for it?

And I’m supposed to be panicked over cuts in “dividends” that I will never have myself? Again, why is that? If they are not going to raise taxes, they cannot afford to keep all those damn baby boomers flush.

You may be young, you are also ignorant.

SS is solvent and a tweak like raising the cap will guarantee its solvency for decades to come.

The problem is that neither the Dems nor the Repubs want to pay back the money they borrowed from the SS Trust Fund to finance wars and tax cuts for the rich.

Their solution is to reduce payouts so that they can default on the money the Treasury owes the Trust Fund.

It doesn’t mean you will be able to stop your contributions to SS; your deductions will continue. What will happen is that your benefits in the future will be reduced.

Instead of fretting about all those “flush” baby boomers getting theirs now, why don’t you fight right now for what should be yours in the future?

You are mistaking age warfare with class warfare.

You are falling for the divide and conquer propaganda that the haves so successfully employ against gullible have-nots.

What is it that you do not understand? That anyone would object to paying into a system from which they will never draw? Is that really that hard to grasp?

I am sure that you have incredible powers to predict the future, but if you don’t mind, your word is simply not enough.

Where are you going to get the money?

Can you get a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states by the filing deadline in each state?

Can you, or anybody else, build a national campaign organization in the next 9-10 months?

Went to Congressman Dan Lungren’s local office and had my say right after atilla’s. It felt good to do something political that didn’t have me hunched over a computer screen scanning posts and comments until I can’t tell the trolls from the scolds.

You are stating your misguided belief/opinion as a certain immutable future fact.

They said Social Security was doomed 30 years ago, and in fact, it has a $2.6Billion surplus right now.

To add to that, should something catastrophic happen to you, TOMORROW, you would be able to get Social Security Disability.

Candidates are talking about it? Who? Sorry if I was unclear I know that there are groups talking about it but without a candidate who is going to put it all on the line, it is just going to end in talk.

I am sure that you have incredible powers to predict the future, but if you don’t mind, your word is simply not enough.

What prediction did I make? And my word about what?

I was going to suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills before replying again and then I realized you have no intention of changing your misguided ideas about SS and the manufactured solvency crisis.

Your comments displays ignorance of what Social Security and how it works, which suggests that you believe Republican e-mail propaganda or won’t ever need SS (or Medicare). Good for you. That’s not the lot of most other Americans.

I don’t agree that they’ve “written off the support” of all the people who will be very upset about cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

I also think the issue is more important than anything else you might want to tie it to. A lot of people are going to be very seriously affected by cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits. So I don’t think it’s appropriate to try and a) throw cold water on people’s efforts to fight that fight in order to appropriate support for your cause, and b) hijack diary threads on behalf of another organization’s efforts that have nothing to do with this particular battle. So while I respect your passion, I ask that you take this crusade someplace else and respect in turn the work of the people currently trying to stop these cuts from being enacted. This is not a way to win support.

Excellent. Thank you so much, siosal.

Awesome war suit! Thanks, SD.

“Most Democrats in Congress would prefer not to cut entitlements but they are between a rock and the repubs. “

No they’re not. McConnell has offered a clean debt ceiling vote with no spending cuts. This is factually inaccurate.

Thanks Jane!

I completely agree that this is an area where a hard line absolutely must be drawn.

They’ve been pumping the heads of young people full of this “it won’t be there for you” shit for years as part of a big PR campaign. Pete Peterson spent $1.5 million advertising his propaganda disinformation documentary I.O.U.S.A. on MTV.

When you hear this mantra the only question should be: is the person pushing this nonsense a pumper or a pumpee.

And I assume your parents and elderly family members are dead or independently wealthy? I and many others like me have paid into Social Security for 47 years, including the increase in 1983 which was supposed to fix the “baby boomer problem”. The economy forced me to stop working full-time about 8 years earlier than I planned (I intended to work until I was 70). Now I am only able to find part-time temporary work, and I’m raiding my retirement savings to afford health insurance ($1,246 each month in my state for HMO coverage). Social security is going to be a lot more important to me than I ever dreamed. Why don’t you want to fight for it yourself? Why give up? Believe me, sh*t happens that you never expect.

They’ve been pumping the heads of young people full of this “it won’t be there for you” shit for years…

Yes, and its been very effective, especially the gin up resentment against current beneficiaries part.

is the person pushing this nonsense a pumper or a pumpee.

LOL! Sounds almost obscene :O

you are supposed to be angry that they are planning on taking your money

this is class warfare and YOU are the victim not the aged, those ready for ss are going to get most of what they paid for, it’s YOU who are going to be paying for free money to the wealthy

Had to work today, and no local rep office is anywhere near there, but I did call both Senators last Friday and told them my family and I would not vote for or support any elected rep who voted to cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid or voted for a chained-CPI COLA or another payroll tax holiday. My Representative is a non-entity Republican who will vote as he is instructed by the party–not worth time to call.

Primarying Obama has it’s merits. However, if one’s concern is more to protect SS and Medicare, and less to build a long term movement, I can think of more effective ways to exert pressure.

I plan to write a diary that will overlap the following, since it will target the PCCC, and hope to strengthen their efforts to preserve SS + Medicare. (Recent diaries of mine targetting the PCCC are here, here and here.) However, for the following, I’m going to assume that the audience is not PCCC, but rather
1) progressive who are both bolder than the PCCC will (probably) ever be, but also don’t mind voting for Democrats when they judge them sufficiently progressives
2) progressives who can’t abide the Democratic Party

For the 1) category, threaten to throw some Democrats (5-10% max, in both the House and the Senate) under the bus in the general election, drawn from the ranks of those who vote for SS + Medicare cuts. Throwing some of them under the bus will mean the following:
1) pledging to vote for a Republican in the general election
2) aggressively recruit independents and non-Demo-bot progressives and moderates to do, likewise
3) solicit the aide of Republicans in carrying out 1) and 2).

For the 2) category, they can pledge to throw all Democrats under the bus in the general election, who vote for SS + Medicare cuts. Now, since they “can’t abide” the Democrats, they may be tempted to vote against every last one of them, even if they don’t vote against SS and Medicare. However, they need to ask themselves if having a massive shift to the Republican Party is what they really want. Probably not… Anyway, I am making suggestions, not telling anybody what to do. If a groups of progressives want to organize voters to throw all Democrats under the bus in the general election, there’s nothing I can do to stop them.

Categories 1), 2) and even PCCC progressives (who consider themselves bold, but usually aren’t very) should be seriously looking at throwing anti-SS and anti-Medicare Republicans under the bus in primaries, by running candidates as Republicans, whose primary job will be to educate and raise the level of awareness of the Republican electorate, so that they will turn against the more extreme, Shock Doctrine obsessed members of their own parties.

Of course, I’m talking about a Full Court Press that targets the Republican Party, as described here

1.75 million progressives, both directly cooperating as well as synergistically not cooperating, might well reach 10′s of millions of non-progressives. If their net efforts result in terminating the political careers of 7.5% of Democratic incumbents, as well as 7.5% of the most extreme Republicans, we would end up with a much more people-oriented Congress, regardless of what becomes of SS and Medicare, in this election cycle.

Hijack? You write:

I was one of the 2700 people who pledged to go to the office of their member of congress and let them know that if they support cuts to Social Security or Medicare, we won’t support them in the next election.

You were talking about what could be done to pressure Congress to oppose safety net cuts. You had one suggestion. I had another in that very same vein, threaten them with a primary challenge against their leader Obama.

As for people, “very seriously affected by cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits,” I am 62, on Social Security, have no healthcare insurance whatsoever, diabetic but can’t afford my pills, and just applied for Food Stamps. Any raising the age for Medicare eligibility could have catastrophic consequences. This is not some fucking game for me.

What prediction did you make? well you said a tweak would guarantee its solvency for decades to come. That’s a prediction.

Um, they already ARE taking my money.

Oh, I’m sure if you are currently collecting money that other people are paying into SS today, that you would not want to give it up. That’s not much of a surprise.

No they’re not. McConnell has offered a clean debt ceiling vote with no spending cuts. This is factually inaccurate.

Yet it’s amazing how little outside of FDL this fact gets mentioned especially the “progressive” media. Theirs is a fable of those mean nasty Repugs trying to go to hack our SS and Medicare and Medicaid while Obama is steadfastly trying to hold them back.

The reality’s not quite exactly the opposite, McConnell isn’t every Repug, but to anyone wanting not to a) gut entitlements and b) not throw the economy into depression it’s by far the best solution offered by any of the “serious people” involved.

-stewartm

Which would be political suicide for the democrats. that’s the ” rock”. And while you don’t have to worry about re-election, they do.

Why doesn’t Grayson primary Obama instead of putzing around with a Congressional seat?

You haven’t answered my questions at #48.

Those aren’t rhetorical questions, they’re real issues that must be resolved before you can even get somebody on a ballot. I was the campaign treasurer for an independent candidate for Congress in 04 and 06 so I know what I’m talking about.

What prediction did you make? well you said a tweak would guarantee its solvency for decades to come. That’s a prediction.

What? The idea of increasing incoming payments to offset increased payouts in the future is a prediction? That is a basic accounting fact my friend.

You are either a very deluded pumpee or a cold-blooded pumper.

That’s just below the level of an insult.

“And while you don’t have to worry about re-election, they do.”; and that’s the problem. Instead of doing what’s best for the people and consistent with ongoing polling, they’re ‘worried about re-election’. And that’s even knowing they will NOT be among those out on the pavement knocking on doors seeking employment.

Jane made the comment earlier: pumper or pumpee.

I’m thinking pumper. Flagging it.

Yeah that’s a prediction. Sort of like the increase in SS witholding in 1983 (mentioned by gesneri above). That too was a prediction it was predicted to fix the baby boomer problem. See how well that prediction worked out in reality. Where most of us have to actually live.

but that’s the problem. You say instead of doing what’s best for the people as though there is only one thing best for all people.

Good to see a picture of you; I’ll try to answer your q’s.
Money = Soros

Primary ballot =don’t know but don’t think Perot was on primary ballots in all states.

Campaign = again, Perot as the example.

But I do concur with jane’s comment @ 54, “I also think the issue is more important than anything else you might want to tie it to.”

Polling shows an over 2/3rds majority of people favor leaving the ‘safety net’ alone and jacking up the taxation of the ‘rich’(monetary rich).

Your problem is that all of your “reasoning” is based on an assumption that you “won’t get social security.” [I assume you belief this because you think it will be insolvent.]

Your assumption is wrong, and thus your conclusions are hollow.

You need to take a fresh look at things. First, do some reading about the “solvency” of the program. Don’t just take the Obama & Republican “hair on fire” talking points as true.

Second, look at some of the many actions that could make the program even more financially sound [Raising the "cap" on who has to pay in is one.]

Third, think about the underlying attitude you display: “I want mine, and fuck everybody else if I can’t have it.” There are other ways to construct a society. Take a look at some of the ones in Europe that provide health care, vacations, parental leave AND retirement security. It can be done. Particularly if you stop listening to those who have a vested interest in keeping us as slaves.

Yeah that’s a prediction. Sort of like the increase in SS witholding in 1983 (mentioned by gesneri above). That too was a prediction it was predicted to fix the baby boomer problem. See how well that prediction worked out in reality. Where most of us have to actually live.

You don’t give up, do you? It seems deluded stupidity (or is it determined trolling?) knows no bounds.

What baby boomer problem? All your amateurish attempts at constructing a false narrative do not change the reality that there is no SS solvency crisis other than the one people like you keep trying to create in order to further hidden agendas.

…reality. Where most of us have to actually live.

You are being too kind to yourself.

Ok, let me take a whack at trying to convince you. With my personal story.

You see, I’m still working, paying into the SS system. And moreover, I started retirement savings at a young age like a good boy, putting in as much as 15 % of m y pre-tax income, meaning now that already I have *three times* the retirement savings the average Joe has at retirement. Compared to most, I’ve done rather well.

If you then conclude that I’d be all-too-happy to allow SS to be gutted, think again.

You see, I’ve crunched the numbers on what my retirement would be worth by retirement age, making estimates of inflation and portfolio growth. The results? As currently calculated, Social Security will *still* provide the biggest chunk of my retirement income. It will be more than my retirement pension, more than the income I get from my 401K and IRA, Yep, that 6.2 % payroll tax I paid, matched by my employers’ contributions, will provide almost *double* the income I will get from my own retirement savings, savings I should quickly add are NOT invested in some bank IRA account paying a paltry interest rate but instead heavily invested (80 %) aggressively in stocks (which have historically yielded the highest returns over the long term). SS will also beat my company pension by a smaller margin.

So: the reason why you should be fighting for SS? Because it’s best possible deal for you obtainable. Simple number-crunching like I did illustrates that. Moreover company pensions are disappearing (or can be raided), you probably can’t afford to save enough on your own to come close to matching what SS provides, and moreover SS is assured, whereas my 401k and IRA could collapse tomorrow. Moreover, SS, unlike pensions and 401ks and IRAs provides disability insurance to boot! SS is a friggin’ great deal, and not just for old people, but for you too.

And it’s not doomed. It’s not even in serious trouble. There is no problem with the system that can’t be rather easily fixed ‘by the numbers’ and some have suggested that SS could be greatly improved and could pay 50 % greater payouts if we simply applied that 6.2 % tax to ALL income not just wage income. (Hello capital gains!!). Not only is SS not doomed, that revenue could make a great deal a super deal!

And now you see why the Pete Petersons spread such lies about it and try to tell you that it’s “in crises” and going broke and that you’ll never see the money. They tell you that because *they’re the “competition”*, they’re trying to sell you retirement products that are, to be blunt, “shitty deals” compared to what you get from SS. They know that their for-profit system can’t compete with SS any more than for-profit medicine can’t compete with a truly national health care plan. That’s why they are so determined to kill it.

-stewartm

Wow, you are definitely the “pumpee”. Don’t know much about economics, insurance (private or public), propaganda, the current solvency of SS, and the difference between a prediction (party R will vote against SS) or a calculation (if the limit is increased, the program remains solvent).

And, you seem to dislike people who’ve worked their entire lives so yours might be a little better. Sometimes I understand why the Repubs want to rob the little snots coming up these days…

What does that have to do with the fact that there is no one thing best for all people. Polling also shows that people don’t want Obama’s version of healthcare reform. Are you willing to go with those polls?

Soros wouldn’t cough up the kind of dust needed. He may fund a think tank or 2 but apparently doesn’t involve himself in campaigns.

If a candidate can’t get on the ballot in all states s/he is going nowhere. Perot went nowhere. Lot of smoke but no fire.

National campaign org needs money, lots of it. We’re back to square one.

the solvency of the program has been an issue for decades. The 1983 reform has already been mentioned and was hailed as the “fix” to the baby boomer problem. Every tweak is the program’s savior.

I can crunch numbers just as well as you can and I’d be far better off if I could keep my SS contributions, even if I was ,going to get SS which I won’t. As I have repeatedly said, there is no one best thing for everyone. try putting yourself in someone under 30′s shoes.

My Representative is a non-entity Republican who will vote as he is instructed by the party–not worth time to call.

Not necessarily so. The goal is to put the fear of doG into these people — that there are constituents out there who pay attention. For all they know, those who’ve previously been their supporters might wake up and make a similar “don’t cut my social security” demand.

Don’t forget, even the lunatic Tea Partiers had “keep your hands off my Medicare” signs.

What baby boomer problem. And there is the crux of the issue. there are actually people who do not even know that we have a problem.

I can crunch numbers just as well as you can and I’d be far better off if I could keep my SS contributions,

No you can’t. See my post.

-stewartm

What baby boomer problem. And there is the crux of the issue. there are actually people who do not even know that we have a problem.

Yes, what baby boomer problem. Explain it using numbers from SS Trust Fund annual reports please. Use real numbers instead of vague generalities about “problems”.

Trolls don’t use real numbers, it fucks with their little minds. You oughta know that. *g*

What Alternate ID says is common knowledge to anyone who has made the slightest attempt to research the issue (as you obviously have not). SS is the most successful social program in US history. That is precisely why the right hates it. It flies in the face of their core belief: as Ronnie Raygun put it, government is the problem, not the solution. The only real problem with SS is that its benefits are paltry right now; but that could be fixed with relatively minor tweaks. The idea that SS is broke is just as much a myth as that teh federal deficit poses a threat to the economy or to anything else.

try putting yourself in someone under 30′s shoes.

I have two kids in their twenties, so I put myself in their shoes a lot.

And due to the fact that one of them continues to be unemployed, I even pay for those shoes.

You are SO blinded by the “it won’t be there for me,” and so willing to consult the list of “reasons” provided by Peterson, Obama and their ilk, that you just can’t think straight.

Google Social Security increase and 1983

It won’t be there for your kids either.

Your “prediction” was to say SS will be solvent for decades. You could only have seen that in a crystal ball, not in the writings of countless economists. snark

What the fuck does that mean? One can find anything to fit one’s agenda by doing that. Oh, I forgot, if it’s on the intertoobz it’s gotta be true.

Which is why I stopped replying to him – he is incapable of opening his mind and using reason. He is suffering from a bad case of Limbaugh.

That’s called “terminal case of dumbass.”

Would these be the same countless economists who said we’d be fine if we just raised ss contributions in 1983? Snark

try putting yourself in someone under 30′s shoes.

If you’re currently under 30 in most companies (mine included) you don’t get a friggin’ pension, all you’ll get instead is a match for your 401k. That makes you even MORE in-need of SS, not less.

The only people I know of who ‘don’t need SS’ are those who were fortunate to retire from major companies in the 1970s and ’80s. Then people retired in their late or even mid-50s and could afford to do so because 1) their pensions were generous enough for them to do live comfortably with maybe just part-time work; and 2) the company also covered their health care so that pension wasn’t eaten up by medical bills. Those days are long gone.

For myself: again, as someone who has started their retirement savings in their 20s, putting up to 15 % of pre-tax income into it, here is the rank of anticipated retirement source:

1) SS
2) company pension
3) retirement saving revenue

That’s with my putting in 15 % of pre-tax income. I can only conclude that one would need to be able to plop 30 % or more of their income into their 401k and IRAs to match what they would get via their SS payout. And that’s just for retirement savings, not general savings, which would require saving more.

Who exactly can afford to save 30, 40, even 50 % of their pre-tax income? Answer: the only people who also might benefit from SS going away, the very rich. The very people who spread the disinformation, IOW.

-stewartm

google social security baby boomers – of which I am one – put that in your pipe and smoke it.

From CNBC

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34941334/Will_Baby_Boomers_Bankrupt_Social_Security

Will Baby Boomers Bankrupt Social Security?

. . . the nearly 80 million Baby Boomers phasing into retirement will set in motion a dynamic that—if not addressed by Congress—could result in the next generation getting fewer benefits.
However, despite fears that Boomers will trigger a collapse of Social Security, experts say the system can and will survive for decades and generations to come.
Congress made significant fixes to Social Security during the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, and there appears to be a slowly gathering political will to make it solvent for the next 75 years.
By 2017, Social Security is expected to start paying out more than it collects in payroll taxes, according to the 2009 Annual Report from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees. There is currently a large surplus, but it will be drained by the year 2037. At that point, Social Security will only be able to pay out 75 percent of its benefits.
A separate report, done by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, concludes much the same thing, but gives the system another 10 years before it begins to fall apart.

The trustees’ annual report “does not depict a program in crisis,” said Kathy Ruffing, of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “Policymakers should act sooner rather than later to put the program on a sound long-run footing, but today’s beneficiaries and workers approaching retirement need not fear that their Social Security benefits are at risk.”
“Alarmists who claim that Social Security won’t be around when today’s young workers retire misunderstand or misrepresent the trustees’ projections,” she added.
Beginning the Boom

Yes. And they were right.

Who is talking about not “needing” social security? It’s not going to be there whether you need it or not. If you’re under 30, you should not be planning on getting SS.

thanks for the propaganda from the “Trustees”.

And we’re back to square one and get to go through it all over again. Nice hijack. Set the troll adrift.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on SS, including the section on the 1983 changes, has been flagged for inaccuracies. It’s entirely possible that other slukegreens are editing the article for their own purposes.

Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

You talk about propaganda. That’s a laugh.

Would these be the same countless economists who said we’d be fine if we just raised ss contributions in 1983?

The problem was not in the 1983 projections per se, the problem was, to put it bluntly, fuckin’ Ronald Reagan and his successors and Reaganomics.

The 1983 projections made estimates of real US wage growth. As SS is funded by a tax on US wages (by employees and employers) rising real wages would mean more money into SS. Of course, the opposite is true if real wages fall.

Central to Reaganomics is the policy of actively working to depress US real wages. US real wages have been depressed by a combination of union-busting, “free trade” agreements, allowing the real minimum wage to decline (as this forms the base for all wages), and accommodating chronic un- and under-employment as “normal”. As a result, US real wages fell (covered up a bit by our tweaks to inflation reporting), and a shortfall is introduced in SS which is not inevitable and indeed needn’t be there.

Heck, even though SS isn’t in bad shape now, if Obama had really followed a policy of achieving full employment instead of continuing to grease the banksters hand in 2009, even the 2037 or 38 “insolvency” dates being now touted are would be at the very least pushed back decades.

-stewartm

It’s entirely possible that other slukegreens are editing the article for their own purposes.

Shades of Michelle Bachmann’s supporters, eh?

-stewartm

Who is talking about not “needing” social security? It’s not going to be there whether you need it or not. If you’re under 30, you should not be planning on getting SS.

If you’re under 30, SS is the *only* form of retirement income you might be getting. That damn well means you’d better be fighting to keep it if not strengthen it.

-stewartm

Who is talking about not “needing” social security? It’s not going to be there whether you need it or not. If you’re under 30, you should not be planning on getting SS.

It is clear that you’d rather go after current beneficiaries than fight the politicians trying to take away your benefits.

What a piece of work you are.

take away my benefits. the ones that don’t exist….

Social security is not and was never intended to be anyone’s sole source of retirement funds. If you are planning that it will be you are not paying any attention at all. You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that it will not suffice for anyone’s retirement.

You can’t fight to keep something you do not have.

the problem was entirely 1983 projections. projections are always a problem, by now, this should be pretty obvious. Your comment about Obama only serves to reinforce this.

take away my benefits. the ones that don’t exist….

In the future, you don’t exist either. So what?

I’m still waiting on those numbers from the annual report that indicates there is a problem worthy of cutting benefits.

Oh there’s never a problem, just a series of fixes every few years to fix the non existent problems.

Yup because Obamacare is/was nothing but a sellout to AHIP,pHarma,etc. And as for your comment at 116 -”You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that it will not suffice for anyone’s retirement.”- I am neither deaf nor dumb nor blind and am ‘sufficient in retirement’ because I realized that money can’t buy time.

Oh there’s never a problem, just a series of fixes every few years to fix the non existent problems.

You are pegging the nonsense meter.

Still waiting on those numbers.

You’re right about that. SS can’t buy time either.

Alternate ID you need to find someone else to play that game with. I am not easily bullied. Alternatively you could actually look at the history of ss, with its many alleged fixes, none of which fixed a thing.

What about U.S. Senators?

Tell Al Franken to fillibuster (he campaigned on “protecting Social Security”) let’s see him actually do something for once.

Fillibuster each and every day until they have no choice but to drop out the Social Security cuts.

Dragon, depends on how you approach the primary. Are you talking about someone who will actually deny Obama the nomination? I’m not. If you’re talking about defeating Obama in the primaries, nobody can in the short term, I have no expectations of that happening. I’m talking about a campaign that raises issues, and let’s the Dems know that they cannot dump US without us fighting back.

As for your questions:

(1) Can you get a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states by the filing deadline in each state?

Did you read Dump Obama: a Primary Focus? The ballot access is feasible for a 40+ state campaign. The requirements for a few states are barbaric, but in general, the primary requirements are not unreasonable.

(2) Where are you going to get the money?

You fundraise like every campaign fundraises. You ask for a lot of small contributions from a lot of people.

(3) Can you, or anybody else, build a national campaign organization in the next 9-10 months?

The NPA has a core organization that can build a national campaign. Not as strong a campaign as you might like, but strong enough to deliver the message, and lay the foundation for such primary challenges at every level for 2014 and 2016.

Franken does seem to be a bit under the radar on this. If he’s even made a peep, he’s done so in private.

I read Dump Obama, jeff but will a potential candidate in only 40 states actually be seen as a threat by the Obama campaign? they might brush that off like it was a fly.

Alternate ID you need to find someone else to play that game with. I am not easily bullied. Alternatively you could actually look at the history of ss, with its many alleged fixes, none of which fixed a thing.

If you construe my replies as bullying, then, well yes, you are easily bullied.

So you think that because problems arise that SS should be scrapped? That’s rich. What else in your life do you advocate giving up because problems arise? Next time your car has a problem, drive it off a cliff.

It is apparent that the only history you know are talking points from your propagandist of choice.

Still waiting on those numbers.

the problem was entirely 1983 projections.

No it wasn’t. It was about the *economic policy* (Reaganomics) which was implemented which undercut the validity of those projections.

-stewartm

A valid question. The answer is yes, it would be perceived as a threat, and would in fact be a threat. Consider the hysterical reactions that the very mention of challenging Obama generates on sites like Kos, as well as from some on FDL when I first floated the notion.

Their fear is not based on the possibility of Obama being denied the nomination, but that ripping him on the issues like making cuts to Social Security and Medicare will significantly weaken him for the general elections.

Surely they would mock any primary challenge, as would the media. But I think even the possibility is a matter of Democratic concern. I believe many a Democratic operative goes to bed wondering whether Obama will get through this Debt Debacle un-primaried. Like John Belushi, they’ll say, “Naaaaaaah!” But their sleep may be troubled.

Maybe. OTOH, a presidential primary provides a platform, that could be used by the candidate to help rally seriously aggressive progressives to exert political pressure against Obama’s henchmen (fellow Democrats in Congress who enable his anti-working class actions). Applying pressure against Obama’s Congressional enablers is good, in and of itself. However, doing so will also put pressure on Obama, due to their relationship with him.

While the most potent actions that I can think of, that progressives can apply, can’t be mustered in strength, in just the next few weeks, they still represent acts of electoral punishment and discipline, of the sort that an empowered electorate needs to learn how to dish out. Thus, they can help set the stage for a restoration of SS and Medicare after the next election, even if (as expected) the current battle for SS + Medicare is lost.

Progressives developing real politicial muscle would make for a very different political climate in the US, no?

Social security is not and was never intended to be anyone’s sole source of retirement funds. If you are planning that it will be you are not paying any attention at all. You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that it will not suffice for anyone’s retirement.

Social Security, as I have been trying to demonstrate to you, is a great deal. No, it’s not the only source of retirement income in the US, but it’s a damn sight better deal than any other. Moreover, it’s more reliable: you’re better off trusting SS moreso than you are to trust your company pension (which can be frozen or raided) or your IRA/401K (which can end up worthless).

You seem to be avoiding my case: if a higher-than-median income wage earner as myself can be putting 15 % of his pre-tax income towards retirement savings, into aggressive growth savings at that, and still see those returns pale besides the results I’ve been getting from the 6.2 % I’ve been putting into SS–well, what does that say about the necessity to keep SS hearty? If you’re really wanting the under-30 crowd to be well-off, you’d be *insistent* that we improve SS and not writing it off.

You can’t fight to keep something you do not have.

You do have it. There is no law of the universe that says that Social Security need become insolvent. The numbers all say that whatever shortfall it suffers can be easily fixed by a) fixing the economy and putting people back to work; b) increasing instead of repressing US real wages; and/or c) raising or eliminating the income cap. Any of those things either singly or mixed can make SS completely solvent as far as the eye can see for people younger than 30 and people yet unborn.

AND, as I’ve said, it’s possible to make SS a “super deal” rather than just a great deal. There have been proposals made that could go to upwards of *doubling* your SS income AND keep it solvent.

In short,the numbers don’t support your claim that young people won’t have it and never will see it.

-stewartm

Bless you, Jane, bless you.

They are certainly an attempt to bully. One which won’t be successful.

I don’t defend arguments I haven’t made and I don’t much care how long you wait for something you want. Are we clear?

You have no fact based rebuttals and therefore without a leg to stand on, that’s why you claim to be bullied, when in fact you are being pwnd.

I hear you jeff, i just don’t agree that a candidate who can only run in 40 statea is going to be considered a threat. Mostly because voters won’t toss their primary votes away on a candidate who can’t even run in all states. And the Obama admin is going to know that.

Here’s the thing metamars…. obama knows quite well that progressives have no other place to go in the presidential election. The question, which i think you have exactly correct, is how can progressives develop real political muscle. not just for 2012 but also for what comes after. How do progressives persuade more democratic voters that they have the correct ideas for actual progress?

Social security is indeed a fabulous deal for some people, stewart. Not so much for others. That’s the point. I understand that you want to discuss your particular case in detail but you must realize that that is not going to be compelling to everyone. For eaxmple, it won’t be to anyone not in your particular situation.

I most definitely do not have SS. What people forget is that SS does not give anyone a guarantee. You get exactly what Congress decides you get, and nothing more. You are not, in fact, legally owed a specific amount.

They are certainly an attempt to bully. One which won’t be successful.

If you think this is an attempt to bully then maybe this online stuff isn’t your cup of tea.

I don’t defend arguments I haven’t made and I don’t much care how long you wait for something you want. Are we clear?

You haven’t used real numbers to defend the arguments you have made, which is what I am asking you to do.

BTW, I wasn’t waiting for a real response from you. Proving your assertions with real numbers is something I never expected. Admitting that the numbers don’t support your scare stories is likely more than you can handle.

I did expect you to continue to change the subject, make accusations, play the victim and repeat baseless talking points. How’s that for success at predicting the future?

Still waiting on those numbers.

?? I’m not sure you read my postings carefully.

For a PCCC level of boldness, my assumptions are that they will never vote against Obama in a general election. I’m skeptical that they will vote against a Dem Congressional incumbent (an Obama “henchman”), but I will suggest exactly that (at a 5-10% level), in a forthcoming diary. The backup plan for PCCC would be a non-vote pledge for the ‘lucky’ henchmen, coupled with an active attempt to get others not to vote for these ‘lucky’ few. An even weaker backup plan for PCCC, which might yet exert some influence, is to basically mirror their non-support pledge to Obama (but not aggressively pitch it to others).

Other progressives don’t have the inhibitions of a PCCC. At the extreme end, there are progressives who will never vote for Democrats, regardless. I tried to construct a broad-spectrum approach, running from PCCC up to the maximum level of progressive aggressiveness that is relevant. Progressives who will never vote for a Democrat are not relevant, except in the cases that they sign pledges targeting Democrats, without making it clear that they will not vote for Democrats, anyway.*

The Republican-facing Full Court Press is something that all the above-mentioned progressive factions could pursue, in full cooperation mode.

So, in conclusion, in point of fact there are “other places to go”, including nowhere, and including down Republican street. And taking lots of other voters down those paths, with them. PCCC will self-limit, but other progressives really are bold – and angry enough.

* To keep this fudge factor down, the PCCC wisely asked people about their level of contribution to the previous Obama campaign. Of course, people could simply lie, but there’s only so much you can do to create a credible enterprise.

Of course it was an attempt to bully. Perhaps you’ve just never been called on it.

It might have escaped your notice but I don’t actually have to do anything, whether you’ve asked me to or not. You can look at the history of SS and its numerous fixes or you can pretend that today is day one and nothing that has come before counts.

I’m ok with you waiting for anything you want to wait for.

no there really are not other places to go, that was my point. Progressives are not going to vote for a repub and staying home isn’t going somewhere else. It’s just staying home, a very petulant position that does nothing to convince other dems that you are serious people. Pouting is not a good campaign tactic.

Progressive anger is not a plan, nor is it a tactic as it just alienates a large percentage of the population, including many democrats.

What would benefit progressives is figuring out how to actuallly win an argument.

“Progressives who will never vote for a Democrat are not relevant, except in the cases that they sign pledges targeting Democrats, without making it clear that they will not vote for Democrats, anyway.*”

Actually, this isn’t true. The more extreme progressives could honestly sign a pledge which, e.g., announces that they’ve irrevocably given up on the Democrats, but will punish the Democrats, nevertheless, by spreading knowledge to at least X people (X could be individually specified by each pledger) of Obama’s (and, by extension, the Dem party’s) failings unless SS and Medicare are left alone.

Of course, what could be better than Hugh’s list, for this purpose?

This does sort of beg the question, though, as to why, if progressives are willing to get organized to widely distribute Hugh’s list, as retaliation for any SS + Medicare sellout, they don’t organize to do that, anyway? IMO, the public’s ignorance about Obama’s back-stabbing deal with Tauzin is intolerable. And Hugh’s list is over 200 items!

Of course it was an attempt to bully. Perhaps you’ve just never been called on it.

I’ve been called a lot of things but never a bully until now. Not that I take it seriously. Playing the victim is a card you repeatedly play when your own attempts to bully fall flat.

It might have escaped your notice but I don’t actually have to do anything, whether you’ve asked me to or not. You can look at the history of SS and its numerous fixes or you can pretend that today is day one and nothing that has come before counts.

It didn’t escape my notice that you continuously ignore what I write and instead choose to formulate disingenuous responses that address things I never said.

I’m ok with you waiting for anything you want to wait for.

That’s cool, I’m OK with you waiting for me to wait. Now, how about them numbers to back up your sky is falling theory?

Progressives who are aggressive and organized enough, and can do 2nd grade math, could certainly vote for a Republican (under conditions that I have stipulated, elsewhere), or refuse to vote for a Democrat. You may try to marginalize the latter’s refusal to vote as being “petulant” and “non-serious”, but you are essentially making a lesser-evilism argument, the stupidity of which I have confirmation of from the accomplished political game theorist Bueno de Mesquita.

Sure they could but they won’t vote repub. They could stay home which as I mentioned, is not an argument. Why not focus on appealing to other democrats? It’s a numbers thing, you don’t have enough support to force anything, but you can attempt persuasion.

I haven’t played the victim. i simply warned you that bullying wouldn’t work. You seem distraught about that.

yes I ignore much of what you write. What about it?

I’m not waiting, you are.

Btw, i am not waiting for anything. You are.

I haven’t played the victim. i simply warned you that bullying wouldn’t work. You seem distraught about that.

Oh yes, I’m all choked up.

yes I ignore much of what you write. What about it?

You are definitely queen of the ball when it comes to formulating replies that ignore what people write. No question about it.

well how bout them numbers?

Oh well, so using facts is not of your strong suits. You should work on that if you want to be taken seriously and here is your chance. So, how about the numbers to back up your sky is falling theory?

yes you seem unable to get past it.

I wouldn’t say that I ignore “people” just some people. Say something worth actually reading and perhaps you won’t be ignored.

i’m ok with you waiting for whatever you want to wait for.

Btw, i am not waiting for anything. You are.

Maybe you should look up those numbers while you are spending so much time not waiting.

You may have “mentioned” that staying home is “not an argument”, but you’re mentioning something doesn’t make it true.

Ah, everyone should be interested in what you want, is that it? Reality is tough for you, isn’t it?

No but not being an argument does makes something not an argument. Do you not believe that persuasion is necessary?

Thank you, Jane!

Keep up the fight

Progressives unite!

I am with you, any dem that votes to make cuts in Medicare, Medicaid,
unemployment etc does NOT get my vote!

yes you seem unable to get past it.

Pardon me but your projection is showing.

I wouldn’t say that I ignore “people” just some people. Say something worth actually reading and perhaps you won’t be ignored.

Tsk, tsk, I said you ignore what people write, not people. Your disingenuity knows no bounds. And you sure have a rapid turnaround on replying to everything that I write that is so not worth reading. As to ignoring me, since when did that start?

i’m ok with you waiting for whatever you want to wait for.

Maybe you should look up those numbers while you are being so vigorously OK with not waiting on me waiting for you to wait or whatever it is you seem so keen on proving.

Ah, everyone should be interested in what you want, is that it? Reality is tough for you, isn’t it?

Projection is something you are very good at.

I ignore what some people write sure. I also ignore some people as I said. You don’t actually have to say that for it to be true or for me to say it. Are you feeling ignored? Or just irritated.

Why should I do anything? After all, you’re the one who wants something. But if you want to feel like something should be, that’s fine with me. You appear to have backed yourself into a corner here.

projection? Why I am simply assuring you that your angst is not a problem for me. You seem worried that it ought to be.

You are setting up a false dichotomy, between voting (or not voting) to punish bad Dems, and persuasion.

If you bother reading my diaries and comments, I have not only complained about “blogging to the choir”, but have made quite a few suggestions as to how to go beyond that. The “persuasion” that would entail is directed to one’s fellow citizens.

Trying to “persuade” your Congress critter has it’s place, but coming from a disorganized place of weakness, we have seen not only non-progressives, but also so-called progressives in Congress screw the average American citizen – both by their actions, and also by their inactions.

Do you think the Tea Party made their collective political muscle felt through rational persuasion of Congress critters? The Tea Parties are also deficient in aggressiveness – AFAIK, they have refused to throw any incumbent Republican under the bus, by voting for a Democrat, in their general election. However, they’re not shy about making demands, and injecting themselves into the primary process.

Relying on “persuasion” of Congress critters, OTOH, from a position of disorganized weakness, is a fool’s errand. Rather, citizens should be organizing themselves into voting blocs, and dictating (within reason; the size of your voting bloc and it’s voting bloc coalition allies matters; compromise is a feature, not a bug, of democracy).

My advice regarding strategic voting can also be viewed as a challenge to form proto-voting blocs. Your advice regarding “persuasion” reminds me of the story of King Canute, showing his flatterers to be BS artists.

The citizens’ power of “persuasion”, without organized voting blocs to drive home the point, rivals King Canute’s ability to command the tides to cease. A charming fantasy, but not much more.

Organized, strategic voting would potentiate the verbal, otherwise weak, “persuasion”, of which you seem so fond.

It isn’t Congress you have to persuade, it’s other democrats, independents and even those repubs who are persuadeable. Progressives have to learn to do what the TP did, i.e. engage large numbers of previously non involved people. That is precisely what the TP has been so good at and progressives have totally failed to do.

I ignore what some people write sure. I also ignore some people as I said. You don’t actually have to say that for it to be true or for me to say it. Are you feeling ignored? Or just irritated.

LOL! How can I feel ignored when you constantly leap to the end of your chain to respond to me?

I tell you what I feel, I feel confused. At first I thought you were simply a troll. Now I realize that you are a bubble or two off beam. It’s the only thing that explains the way you contradict yourself even within the same sentence.

Why should I do anything? After all, you’re the one who wants something. But if you want to feel like something should be, that’s fine with me. You appear to have backed yourself into a corner here.

The corner you speak of is as imaginary as your chicken little story about SS. I know you think you are a real clever dood, but you’ve been doing a bang up job of dancing, only to a different tune than you realize.

projection? Why I am simply assuring you that your angst is not a problem for me. You seem worried that it ought to be.

Oh what a relief, I feel so assured now. My angst has all but evaporated.

Now, while you are worrying about my worry, put your time to good use and back up that fear-mongering with some facts.

Too long, I’m sure you’ll forgive me for skipping most of it.

i’m ok with your worry, same as I am ok with your wanting.

Too long, I’m sure you’ll forgive me for skipping most of it. i’m ok with your worry, same as I am ok with your wanting.

Whiplash’ll do that to ya…

Thank you. I hope they can stand strong against the Republican DINO president.

Pulls up hard.
Launches jumper.
Swish.

Nuttin but net.

Game over.

Because they are all bought and sold . . . if they weren’t, they’d never be allowed in the game. He’s fully in the game.

N that’s why primary efforts are a waste of time.

I understand your position and in at least one way I agree.

There is no way that I or anyone else can guarantee you that Social Security will be there for you when you retire. We are averaging a recession every decade so an 18-year-old kid who is just starting in the workplace will endure 5 or so more recessions (and the accompanying serious threats to Social Security) before they reach retirement age and several more after that. So long as Social Security remains within the sphere of politics, it will be endangered every time the economy turns.

Politicians ask you to contribute now so that decades from now – provided they don’t change their mind, which they have the right to do – you will be repaid. And yes, sometimes the government changes its mind regarding its promises (see: 40 acres and a mule). The only way to remove this risk entirely is to either (1) codify it with a Constitutional Amendment or (2) find an alternative to government management of Social Security who would not have the ability to reneg.

That being said, I wouldn’t look at Social Security as a “what’s in it for me?” proposition. It is a sacrifice you are being asked to make for the benefit of people who have planned their lives around it – and who are no longer able to change their retirement strategy. Hopefully it will be there for you, but even if it isn’t, this is a worthwhile sacrifice to make.

Persuade them to do what, exactly? Vote for Obama and Baucus? Say, now, there’s a plan!

Persuade people of the validity of your argument. Is that really something that you do not even consider? that would explain the fact that the repubs have been able to successfully marginalize progressives. Learn from the TP. they have been successful, you haven’t.

You would know.

thanks for the thoughtful response, victor. here’s where I disagree:

No one is asked to contribute to SS. if people were asked, they could refuse, which, of course you cannot do.

You are not required to contribute today so that decades from now you can collect. You are required to contribute
today so that other people can collect today.

Thanks for recognizing that no one is entitled to anything from SS other than what congress decides to give you. You are not entitled to any specific amount, or any payment at all.

Everyone looks at SS as what’s in it for me. that’s why you hear so many people saying “hands off MY SS” when in fact, there is no such thing. No one says “take my money and if congress changes its mind before I retire, and I get nothing, that’ll be just fine”. Unless they are simply being silly and not thinking. I am not looking at what point scoreres are saying because they are not being serious about SS. Now obvioulsy people currently collecting are going to say, don’t look at it as what’s in it for me, but they are collecting. What would you expect them to say? Most people today however are not collecting and many of us know that we likely won’t ever collect.

The word “asked” is a bit overloaded. Workers are ‘asked’ to contribute to Social Security in much the same way that young men in time of war have been ‘asked’ to serve – by draft under pain of imprisonment. And while I agree that your payments today are given to others, the _incentive_ for most people is that someday they will get paid back. That being said, not everyone is looking at SS as what’s in it for them; specifically, I am not because I don’t think it will be around for me when I retire.

My grandfather was drafted into WW2. It wasn’t fair (IMO) that he should be forced to disrupt his life and family, but it’s not always about “fairness”. I’m not currently collecting Social Security and I know of no one my age (early-mid career) who honestly expects it to be around in its same form 20, 30, or 50 years from now. Is it fair that you or I should pay into a system for the benefit of someone we don’t know when we don’t believe it will be around when we retire? Probably not, but again, it’s not about “fairness”.

It’s not about fairness, but it can and should still be discussed honestly. The honest answer is: “We don’t want to see elderly people living in extreme poverty and the Social Security tax is a politically expedient way to limit it… at least for now.”

You would know.

Why sure, you make it obvious.

Now, relieve that pain, put your your time to good use, and back up that fear-mongering with some facts.

only you can make it obvious that you would know. And you do.

I’m ok with you waiting for whatever you want. And you’ll have to be ok with that since you have no other choice.

No, workers are not “asked” to contribute to SS, period. They are required, which is completely different. It is important to be accurate on this as the concepts are not interchangeable.

it is not an incentive when you put out money with no guarantee that you will get anything. Would you buy an insurance policy for which you paid year after year with absolutely no assurance that there would ever be any proceeds? No, of course no one would. But that is exactly what SS does, it requires you to make payments with
every paycheck. And it guarantees you absolutely nothing in return. If you think that’s a great idea, I have an insurance policy I’d like to sell you, it requires monthly payments and I’ll decide what, if anything, it’s worth after you have paid in for about five decades. If I decide it’s worth nothing, you have zero recourse. is it a deal?

I have no idea where you are going with your “fairness” argument as it is nothing I have mentioned.

only you can make it obvious that you would know. And you do.

Sure, it’s a breeze when you make it so obvious.

I’m ok with you waiting for whatever you want. And you’ll have to be ok with that since you have no other choice.

Cut me some slack on the waiting, will you? We all know you can’t back up your imaginary thinking with facts. OTH, I do wait for your next recycled “you are… but I’m OK…” response. I’m sure you’ll pedal furiously to reword and repost it.

Now, relieve that self-doubt and back up that fear-mongering opinion with some facts.

only you can make it obvious that you would know.

i’ve always cut you slack on the waiting. how many times do I have to say that I’m ok with you waiting for anything you want to wait for? Your personal problems really don’t belong here.

There doesn’t seem to be any confusion about the concept I conveyed with the word “asked” at this point so let’s not get distracted by a debate about language.

Your question (“Would you buy an insurance policy for which you paid year after year with absolutely no assurance that there would ever be any proceeds?”) doesn’t accurately describe the entirety of the exchange. Similarly, your offer to sell me insurance fails because of the other, critical things I receive when I pay into Social Security.

Better is:
“Would you buy an insurance policy for which you paid year after year with absolutely no assurance that there would ever be any proceeds [for you personally, but it would keep elderly people from extreme poverty]?” That would depend upon the actual details of the policy.

Best (IMO) is:
“Would you [contribute a share of your income - as part of your price for participation in the American Democracy - to a program] with absolutely no assurance that there would ever be any proceeds [for you personally, but that would keep elderly people from extreme poverty]?” While, again, I would have to see the specifics, it’s certainly something I’d consider.

As to “fairness”, I brought it up because it is a pivotal issue for people on both sides of this topic, there are other people besides you and I who are involved in this conversation, and it is a natural extension for this discussion. If you have no issue with the Social Security tax being unfairly applied to you because it will not be present when you retire, then feel free to ignore it and I can continue that part of the discussion with anyone else who is interested.

only you can make it obvious that you would know.

i’ve always cut you slack on the waiting. how many times do I have to say that I’m ok with you waiting for anything you want to wait for? Your personal problems really don’t belong here.

That was some fast pedaling, grasshopper. Super-strength projection, but fast!

Now, cast off those self-esteem issues and back up that fear-mongering opinion with some facts.

There’s no confusion about the meaning of the the word “asked”. I simply noted that it isn’t accurate in the case of SS.

I’m not surprised you’d prefer to re-word my question but please answer the question I actually asked, Would you make payments for an insurance policy for five decades with no assurance that there will ever be any proceeds? Those are the specifics. You make payments and your insurance company will decide decades later if your policy is worth anything. Would you, in fact, consider that?

Not sure what other people you are directing the fairness point to. there doesn’t seem to be anyone discussing this other than you and I.

Whining is really not attractive. Yours problems are yours alone.

My preference to re-word your question was to make it applicable to the Social Security discussion. Would I make payments for an insurance policy for five decades with no assurance that there will ever be any proceeds?

My answer is, “I would have to see the details of the policy.”

If your question represents the entirety of the policy, then my answer becomes, “I would not buy into a policy so fundamentally unlike Social Security :P”

Specific to your re-worded question though, if participating in SS is part of the “price” for participation in American Democracy, does that mean that people who never contribute to SS are not participating in American Democracy? there are, for example, lots of widows receive SS who never paid in a dime if they never worked outside the home.

In addition, it is interesting that you couch SS as keeping elderly people from extreme poverty. The vast majority of SS “dividends” go to solidly middle class people, not to those in extreme poverty. If the point of SS is just to keep the elderly from extreme poverty, then we can cut it by about 85%. Would that be acceptable to you or do you believe that middle class people must receive SS even though they are not living in extreme poverty?

Whining is really not attractive. Yours problems are yours alone.

You sure are a bundle of contradictions.

You fret about making me wait, but in reality you don’t make me wait at all. And your whining about whining is so precious.

I would say your statement about problems was profound except it’s not.

Now, relieve that neck snap and take a little time to back up that fear-mongering opinion with some facts.

My question was applicable to SS. And I gave you the details, they are the exact same details you currently know about SS. You make payments and there is no guarantee of any proceeds. But at least you’re honest enough to admit that you would never buy such a policy. nor would most people.

Fret about you waiting? nope, not me. I’ve said repeatedly that I’m fine with you waiting. You don’t appear to be though. Sounds like a personal problem.

People pay for their participation in different ways; my grandfather, for example, paid through his participation in WW2. The second part of your post is what the real discussion should be about, IMO:

What do we want (as a society) Social Security to do and how much are we willing to pay for it?

I am not opposed to means-testing, for example, though many others in here are. As with any program, the devil is in the details – not just the details of the program, mind you, but also how it plays out against the backdrop of today’s society.

Then on this point we are at an impasse… you and I don’t think that the other person sufficiently understands what Social Security is/does.

So someone who never paid into SS can still participate in American Democracy. that was my point, you do not have to pay into SS to do that.

And you agree that the vast majority of people receiving SS are not living anywhere near extreme poverty. Ok

No, there’s no impasse. Neither of us would willingly pay for decades into an insurance scheme with no guarantee of any proceeds.

And you’re right about the other person.

Then let me rephrase: I don’t think you understand the issue (or maybe it’s just that you aren’t familiar with logic or debate?) well enough for me to continue discussing it with you.

“You lost today, but that doesn’t mean you have to like it.”

Well, that’s what people say when they’ve had all their arguments debunked, that the other person “doesn’t understand”. I never thought for a second that you would be dumb enough to say that yes you’d be delighted to pay into SS for decades with no guarantee of ever collecting as long as someone else got the money. If you had said that, I’d have offered you my insurance plan again, you pay me for decades (so someone else is getting the money) and I’ll let you know years from now if you’ll get anything in return. My choice, no recourse on your part. Of course, it’s clear that your trust in the federal government is complete, blinded you might say. Not everyone feels the same way.

I was a bit surprised that you attempted the “elderly in extreme poverty” tactic but you gave it up fairly easily after it was pointed out that the vast majority of SS $ go to middle class people.

Then you tried the “fairness” gambit until I pointed out that a bad deal is just that a bad deal. Fairness has zero to do with it. You were all over the place, even dragging in the military draft as though that had anything to do with the subject.

the sad fact is that you cannot make a bad deal good using tired, long ago debunked arguments. Arguments that today are as easily defeated as yours were.