For the Ideologue Left, Social Security Concern Trolling is a Racket

[madamesilverspurs]

(that's the title of the article, by the way)
...
The President's proposal would create a minimum baseline for Social Security benefits so that no one who works their whole life has to live in poverty in retirement. The minimum benefit would be above the poverty line, for the first time fulfilling the promise of Social Security to end elderly poverty and actually boosting benefits for the lowest wage workers, which the protectors of the Entitlement Status Quo are effectively against. The president's proposal would also boost benefits at age 85, making sure the people most at risk of running out of their savings are taken care of. Let me say that again: for those in the greatest need, the president's proposal would increase benefits. (emphasis added)

When it comes to Medicare savings, the President is focusing on savings from providers and drug companies, as well as on having wealthy seniors pay a higher premium. There is nothing controversial about that - at least there shouldn't be any controversy about that on the Left. Not unless while I wasn't looking, the Left suddenly moved into the tent of lining the pockets big pharma and giving "relief" to the wealthy.

read the whole thing at
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/04/for-ideologue-left-social-security.html

[Andy823]

1. I agree

However there seems be many here who can't, or won't, understand this. For many it's the "end of the world", and they simply want to think the president "caved" on the SS issue.

I actually think republicans will simply vote NO on this just like any other idea the president has, even if some of those ideas might have been republican ideas in the past.

Thanks for the post.

[elleng]

4. Right. Thanks.

[newthinking]

154. The President got the message... So damage control is now in operation...

[upaloopa]

14. Are you part of a tag team? Talk about Racket!

[Zoeisright]

27. Ditto!

to you.

[upaloopa]

39. You mean ditto head?

[Cha]

110. backatcha.

[Andy823]

54. Nope, are you?

I have just seen time after time people jumping the gun and accusing the president of something that might just simple be the right wing media spewing the right wing BS. If the plan comes out with out a safety net for the poorest, and oldest people on SS, then I too would be angry. But if it is, as stated by the OP, and others have posted the same things, that there is a safety net in place, and it's the rich who will be paying more in premiums, and get less in benefits, and there are other things that also help those in need included in his plan, I will be OK with it, even though I know republicans will never accept it.

[upaloopa]

65. Look there is nothing to be done!

Why is that so hard to get through your head?
Again:
Social Security is not an entitlement it is an earned benefit.

Social Security is self funding.

It has nothing to do with the deficit.

It has nothing to do with the debt.

Social Security has a surplus. It is not going bankrupt.

To strengthen Social Security all that needs to be done is to raise the cap on earnings.


Nothing needs to be done so Obama is playing right wing ideology with our money.

[Cha]

107. You have nothing so start sputtering about "tag teams". FAIL. n-m

[hollysmom]

19. I must be one of them

I see this as the beginnings of people robbing from SSI - SSI has nothing to do with the debt crisis except that people don't want them to cash in their treasury bonds.
Only a democrat would be dumb enough to go after SSI - Republicans would be dead in the water. I don't think they are that dumb.
People are not living that much longer when they calculate the life span - those calculations include Children and children live much longer.
The bulge of people in SS now is because of the baby boomers - the birth rate fell after that generation. There is not a continuous larger number of people to collect each year.
The real reason why the amounts were necessary to be added to SS is because the purpose of the fund has been expanded to include survivor benefits ( that Paul Ryan collected as a teen) and disability payments.

Medicare is in trouble, but that could be changed and reduced with national health care.

[Andy823]

48. Only a democrat would go after SSI?

For years the republicans have been trying to end any program that helps those in need, SSI, medicare, medicare, etc. Bush wanted to "privatize" SS, do you not remember that? Republicans don't want any "fix" they simply want to end it period. I find it odd you said this.

Actually the government has been raiding the SSI fund for years, and even when republicans were in office. What I see is president Obama trying to cut expenses, but not by going after those in need. As the OP posted he has a plan that actually will put a safety net into play for the poorest people, and those very old people who are living on SSI. The OP also pointed out that it's the rich who are SSI who will be paying more and getting less benefits.

Way to many times I have seen people attack the president simply because they listen to the right wing media spewing right wing talking points. I think people should wait and actually read the presidents proposals before jumping the gun and making accusations that may not be true. Just my opinion.

[hollysmom]

64. only a democrat could get away with it.

every one knows the repubs would like it gone, just don't want to be the ones to introduce it. It is like only a republican could go to China like Nixon, if a democrat tried,they would have been branded a communist.

[upaloopa]

2. What is wealthy? If there is no amount the the statement is

meaningless. Also you need to live before you reach 85. If the payment was right there would be no need to raise it at 85. Just use the real CPI instead of these smoke and mirrors.
There is no need to screw with Social Security. It does not add to the debt, it does not add to the deficit it is not in danger of going bankrupt. If anything needs to be done, raise the limit and put the money in a lock box.
This OP is BS
On edit: why are you investing in this propaganda? I am getting social security now. The amount I get currently will increase with the CPI as now calculated. Anything else will reduce what I get. Also my wife will be working when I am fully retired because she is 17 years younger than me. We most likely will be the "wealthy" because of her income. There is nothing here to improve my life just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Again there is no need for any of this so the very idea is a lie and you should know better than to tell us "lefties" what we should think about it!
The only thing this is, is a cave to conservative ideology.

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. Yep!

Cheers!

[Eleanors38]

133. I agree! We need a second political party, too.

[PinkFloyd]

135. You're right.

[lame54]

3. It will be tougher to reach that 85 mark

[Skittles]

115. isn't that the point?

[cali]

6. It's sad that some democrats don't understand why the chained CPI is so bad.

Here's Robert Reich on it. Of course he wouldn't have any insight compared to the author of the piece you posted:

The White House and prominent Democrats are talking about reducing future Social Security payments by using a formula for adjusting for inflation that's stingier than the current one. It'scalled the "Chained CPI." I did this video so you can understand it -- and understand why it's so wrongheaded.

Even Social Security's current inflation adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on the elderly. That's because they spend 20 to 40 percent of their incomes on health care, and health-care costs have been rising faster than inflation. So why adopt a new inflation adjustment that's even stingier than the current one?

Even Social Security's current inflation adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on the elderly. That's because they spend 20 to 40 percent of their incomes on health care, and health-care costs have been rising faster than inflation. So why adopt a new inflation adjustment that's even stingier than the current one?

Social Security benefits are already meager for most recipients. The median income of Americans over 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of them depend on Social Security for more than half of this. The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/chained-cpi_b_3016471.html

And what would a Nobel Prize winning economist know about it?

<snip>

Switching from the regular CPI to the chained CPI doesn’t affect benefits immediately after retirement, which are based on your past earnings.What it does mean is that after retirement your payments grow more slowly, about 0.3 percent each year. So if you retire at 65, your income at 75 would be 3 percent less under this proposal than under current law; at 85 it would be 6 percent less; there’s supposedly a bump-up in benefits for people who make it that far.

This is not good; there’s no good policy reason to be doing this, because the savings won’t have any significant impact on the underlying budget issues. And for many older people it would hurt. Also, the symbolism of a Democratic president cutting Social Security is pretty awful.

snip

More:

http://www.thestand.org/2013/01/what-they-mean-when-they-say-entitlement-reform/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/the-deal-dilemma/

[AnotherMcIntosh]

47. You're right.

But I think that he is going to follow Reagan's approach, a trick, for immediately reducing Social Security benefits.

Prior to Reagan taking office, the Federal government provided Social Security benefits and did not take any of them back.

Ronald Reagan, the Great Prevaricator who some believe did not raise taxes, began the practice of taking back of portion of the Social Security payments by subjecting 50% of the SS payments to taxation after a certain threshhold of income had been met.

Bill I-support-shipping-American-manufacturing-jobs-to-foreign-countries-and-I-feel-your-paid Clinton raised it to 85%.

When everyone is looking at "new shiny objects," Obama can take back even more of the Social Security payments by raising the amount subject to taxation to 100%. Lot's of people won't even notice.

[MotherPetrie]

57. Oh, they'd understand all right if BUSH had proposed it.

[Art_from_Ark]

152. It's like booing the umpire if he makes a bad call in favor of the other team

but cheering the same bad call if it's in favor of the home team.

[Skittles]

116. the Groupies would be howling like BANSHEES if repukes had proposed it

[cantbeserious]

123. Right You Are Cali!

eom

[forestpath]

7. The article is as much a crock of shit as the title is.

[marmar]

8. Not nearly as big a racket as spin-control centrism.

nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

61. This crap blog *humbly* accepts all major credit cards and Paypal.

Priceless.

[Marr]

92. You can say that again.

I've got to say, the excuse crew has really disgusted me over the last few days. Between claiming that liberals are just feigning concern for the poor to attack the president (no kidding-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=297857), and crap like this OP, they've thoroughly proven they haven't got a single principle beyond defending the Leader.

[PinkFloyd]

136. When I first ran into that the other day I couldn't believe it.

Someone who's calling themselves a liberal saying we need to get behind Obama on this. At first I thought they were joking. I view it as the difference between supporting progressive principles or supporting a politician.

[Fumesucker]

9. "Ideologue Left" Is that a bad thing now at DU?

Or has it been a bad thing since Jan 20, 2009?

[uriel1972]

72. It's a way to derail legitimate criticism...

by calling it "Ideological". Same as some call protesters "Professional Activists".

[GreenPartyVoter]

128. I recall it always being a bad thing, but the percentage of people here who believe it just keeps

going up and up as we leftists leave DU and more centrists move in.

[dsc]

10. you can only cut providers so much

if you need to see why look at the elderly who now can't get cancer drugs except at hospitals. Now if, and only if, we start taxing the rich at least as much as a middle class person pays now in ss and income taxes on all of their income, then I might be open to a chained cpi if the budget is still not balanced.

[neverforget]

11. If SSI had something to do with the deficit or debt, I'd agree. But it doesn't.

However, it does give Pete Petersen, Erskin Bowles, Alan Simpsons, Republicans and the 1% who are raping this country blind tingles in their spines.

[L0oniX]

23. That ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Rex]

32. You will be ignored by the RAH RAH crowd.

Facts are way out of their league.

[neverforget]

60. Amazing that their principles are compromised so easily.

[Rex]

62. Or the fact that such obvious truth is ignored as they

push RWing talking points on a progressive website.

[xchrom]

12. I didn't think centrists could get any lower.

[KG]

16. i did. and i am never disappointed.

[sabrina 1]

29. I did, and I wish we had of the Idealogue Left in Congress btw.

[KoKo]

33. Absolutely... the Article Title was so Absurd I Didn't even go there

to give them a hit. Link sounded like one of those RW Repug Sites that always talk about "People/Family Values" and their Think Tanks and Website Offerings often use those "populist sounding" Site Names to sucker folks in. And, our since our Dems are now split between the FDR Values/Legislation Wing and the "Circle "d" Logo Branding faction.....it's interesting that Dems in power might take on using RW Tactics to support DLC/THIRDWAY/NEO LIB actions through similar web actions as the RW has had.

[sabrina 1]

37. Once I realized who they are I was not at all surprised by the tone of the article. They are a

bunch of disgruntled, disrupters mostly banned from Liberal sites for their sheer nastiness. Some people did think they were right wingers sent to create divisiveness on Liberal blogs. A nasty bunch of people who seem to hate anything based on Democratic principles.

[KoKo]

56. Thanks...didn't know

that background. But, I guess it's not surprising. There's been nasty stuff here so long that I figured it was just between us and Free Republic. I didn't venture much out of here.

[Doctor_J]

45. Centrists?

Sorry. Anyone who is in favor of cutting SS benefits is a rightist. not a centrist

[JHB]

125. Remember it's not a description, it's a PR term, a self-imposed brand name

Calling yourself "centrist" (and getting everyone else to use that term for you) implies that you're the reasonable one, unlike the ideologues to the left and right. You're practical & pragmatic, just seeking the best solutions. What sort of people have a problem with that?

Yet somehow it's always the "reasonable and pragmatic" to continually turn the screws on everyone but those at the very top.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

49. What's a "Centrist"? It must mean someone who doesn't want to be a traditional FDR Democrat.

[Skittles]

151. how are they centrists?

they'd be howling like hyenas if there wasn't a (D) attached to this president

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Oh boy

[OldDem2012]

15. Look out! The knee-jerking will be intense on this one! nt.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

17. Jesus, not another idiotic Circle D blog. LOL

"They would rather steal from every disadvantaged child in America the opportunity to get an early start."

Yes, and we eat babies, too.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Caught that one, too

It is wrong to portray your opponents as hoping for human suffering.

[Recursion]

118. Bwah

It is wrong to portray your opponents as hoping for human suffering.

Umm... we're on DU, and talking about entitlements. Somebody is guaranteed to be accused of hoping for human suffering.

[alcibiades_mystery]

134. That does seem to be the trend, doesn't it

[patrice]

104. k, so, Universal Pre-K vs. No Chained CPI - which would you give up in order to get the other? nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

143. NEITHER. And you wouldn't need to ask me that question if...

1) we had a President who knew how to go to the mat and negotiate for Democratic principles; or 2) as suggested repeatedly, wasn't a Republican in Democrats' clothing. (And by "suggested repeatedly," I mean Obama's own words.)

Eight destructive years of the BFEE and just over four of Obama, and we're fighting for scraps. Fuck that game of pitting seniors against children... I *ain't* playing it.

Who are you willing to screw over?

[patrice]

144. He CAN'T go to the mat, when significant demographics are CONSTANTLY abandoning

him.

It's ALL about numbers of persons and the opposition KNOWS when the demographic tides are receding and they know that all they have to do is wait, no mat even necessary, while we do their work for them.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

145. "significant demographics are CONSTANTLY abandoning him"

Oh, please, do tell...

[bobduca]

147. all those demographics that never really loved him!!111

[WorseBeforeBetter]

148. Crap Blog Code for "whiny libruls who sat out 2010."

Interestingly, moderates and independents loved him in 2008, but 2010? Not so much.

....

The voters who showed up in 2010 were far different from those who showed up in 2008 or even in the last congressional midterm election in 2006. They were much older, whiter, and more conservative.

....

Moderates supported Democrats but by a 55 percent to 42 percent margin, significantly less than Democratic margins among this group in 2008 (61 percent to 37 percent) and 2006 (60 percent to 38 percent). Yet the 2010 margin among moderates is very similar to that attained by congressional Democrats in elections prior to 2006 going back into the 1990s.

....

Independents. There was a sharp swing among independents toward the Republicans in 2010. The GOP carried this group by 19 points, 56 percent to 37 percent. That compares to an 8-point Democratic win among independents in 2008 and an 18-point advantage in 2006. This is by far the GOP’s best performance among this group since 1994, when they carried them by 14 points. Of course, it is possible that a substantial part of 2010’s shift is due to a higher turnout of conservative independents relative to moderate and liberal independents, but we lack data at this point to evaluate this possibility.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/general/report/2010/11/04/8648/election-results-fueled-by-jobs-crisis-and-voter-apathy-among-progressives/

Why? Jobs, the economy, and fears of Granny being offed by Death Panels. This *ain't* rocket science.

[bobduca]

150. That dynamic is easily cribbed

Quoth the middle-of-the-road voter, who votes against their his/her own interest: "why vote for a fake republican, when i can vote for the real thing?"

[olddots]

18. I'm not familiar with " thepeoplesview .net "

or the writer of the article .

[WorseBeforeBetter]

20. You *ain't* missing much. And if you're searching for enlightenment...

don't miss this one:

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/

[marmar]

21. I just took a trip over there.......

....... Seems they spend a great deal of time attacking progressives.

[KoKo]

31. Certainly the Title of the Article was a "Tip Off!" N/T

[sabrina 1]

38. I am. It was started by bunch of nasty disrupters who were mostly banned from Liberal sites, for

obvious reasons if you read some of the garbage they have on that blog. Deaniac, someone I remember from another large liberal blog did nothing but cause problems there until he was finally banned. I am not in the least surprised to see the disdain for real Democrats emanating from that place. Par for the course for them.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

75. Spandan Chakrabarti - LinkedIn

http://www.linkedin.com/in/spandanchakrabarti

THIS is the guy that has the BOGers wrapped around his little finger?

The People's View is primarily a political blog, published by Spandan Chakrabarti (that would be me). I have been participating in online and offline liberal activism since 2003, when Gov. Howard Dean ran for president. I am a proud liberal and proud American who believes in pragmatic solutions.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/p/about-peoples-view.html

He's driving this? They all use the same language -- from where is it originating? Besides 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., that is.

[sabrina 1]

79. That's a good question, 'from where is it originating. They sure stand out on other boards, mostly

in a bad way. If someone IS paying them, it's hard to know what for. All they have done is to turn people completely off the Third Way. One of them is called 'Deaniac', one of the most devisive posters ever on other liberal blogs. They all claim to be Dean supporters. I sure hope not, for Dean's sake. They seem to hate everyone, other than their own small circle of disrupters. I guess they had to start their own since no one else wanted them.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

82. Deaniac83 is Spandan.

A quick Google turned that up.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/12/video-deaniac83spandan-on-radio.html

He even has a visible match.com profile, but I won't post that here. And there's a very public spat between Spandan and some dude named "Scott Huminski" who is rabidly anti-Dean. Oh, the drama!

And now I know where "the only adult in the room" meme, repeated ad nauseam on DU, originates:

http://blackwaterdog.wordpress.com/

Unless, again, it isn't coming from offices at Farragut North.

Jesus. Do they have an original thought in their heads? It is a rather incestuous circle, very disruptive, and with very little discussion beyond a select few. (I realize I'm late to the party with this, but I tune out most of the blog noise...and with good reason.)

[sabrina 1]

84. So there are even fewer of them than I thought. Lol, I thought they were two different people with

the same nasty attitude and hatred for Progressives. Thanks I didn't bother to read past the first paragraph once I saw what blog it was. As for the phrases and words they use, yes, Deaniac was infamous for tossing out what he apparently thought, were brilliant characterizations of progressives, such as 'martyrs', 'not in the reality based community' 'concern troll' etc. They thought this was so brilliant they repeated them over and over and over and over again. Unfortunately every once in a while I've seen a few of these packaged and extremely stupid phrases used here.

It is a small circle. Even people who are not overly fond of the Progressive wing of the party and might share some of their views, find the nastiness and negativity of that place depressing.

Blackwaterdog was another one. Very devisive, used to post on Daily Kos also, I believe s/he too was eventually banned. They made a name for themselves, but not a good one. Good thing they are all confined to one place now where they can wallow in their hatred for Progressive Democrats.

Thanks for the info, makes sense that they are the same person. Maybe they are all the same person, lol, they sure all sound the same!

[sabrina 1]

85. Meant to add that the little circle of malcontents on that blog consists of not only those banned

from other sites, but some of them came from Baloon Juice, a rightwing blog whose owner I believe left the Republican Party but not all of them left behind their Republican roots.

Words like 'poutrage' etc emanated from people like this, and they hate, hate with a passion just about every liberal blogger and media person. They have the same hatred right wingers have for Michael Moore, Keith Oblermann and a whole host of liberals.

I have not seen the kind of hatred for Liberals that they express on a regular basis coming even from right wingers. Like I said though, it's good to see them all together in that desolate corner of the internet. For someone who claims to be in 'communications', lol, I don't think I ever met a worse communicator than 'deaniac'.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

86. Yeah, I popped on over to Balloon Juice tonight, too...

but didn't stay long enough to figure out who's who (just recognized some of the names). I have NO idea why people put so much stock in some of these blogs. Politically naive? Or just lazy reinforcement of their belief system, like Republicans and FUX "News."

Well, they can hate all they want, they're not getting much traction on this site. Try as they might.

[Marr]

22. Notice how we're entering the Rationalization phase?

We've seen this progression many times now. Deny, deny, deny, rationalize, rationalize, rationalize, cheer, cheer, cheer.

Just wait. If Obama gets his cuts, the same people who insisted he would never, ever, ever offer to cut Social Security will be praising him for doing so, and hailing him as the 'savior of Social Security'.

[Mnemosyne]

68. That's it, Marr, in a nutshell. nt

[cantbeserious]

124. Quite Predictable Isn't It

eom

[boilerbabe]

24. aaah, another anonymous "blog" source with familiar writing style and word usage!

I am sure somebody will be along to tell me this is a well thought of "liberal" blog frequently sourced here at DU. *snicker* very interesting blog.

[KG]

26. long time, no see.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. A conspiracy?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

53. Just as credible as sites like Alternet or Commondreams that's cited here ad nauseam. nt

[patrice]

103. +1

[treestar]

25. And this is outrage # 56,786

It starts to look a bit suspicious. Starts to go along with the hopeless oh stay home and don't vote for the Democrats.

[Arcanetrance]

28. Progressive Democrats being attacked on a democratic forum

This is getting old

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. Not all "Democrats" claim to be "progressive". Have you the same empathy for others when....

they're called "Third Way Turds"? "Centrist Apologists"? This is & has always been a big 'ol tent. The last poll I saw on the subject, showed that only about 20% of the voting public called themselves liberal or progressive. That means they're a minority, no matter how you slice it. And FWIW, not everyone calling him/herself a "progressive" online is telling the truth. You Better Believe It!

[Arcanetrance]

43. I am a firm believer in respect for other members and the need for respect between members even when

reaching a disagreement. That being said I've always been under the impression the democratic party was the party of progressives. I also know online not every person who claims to be a progressive is

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. The Democratic Party includes "progressives", but if they less than a quarter of the country,

then I have to believe there are many more moderates. DU, however, is probably comprised of 90%+ of people who consider themselves progressive, but they aren't necessarily Democrats. Lots of Green/Libertarian/Justice/Socialist Party folk here, not to mention the ones who aren't really progressive, but play one on the internet.

[Doctor_J]

44. Yep. The 3rd Wayers have actually turned into Limbeciles

that was easy to see coming.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

51. Democratic President being attacked on a Democratic forum.

Beyond old.

[Arcanetrance]

58. I personally have yet to attack him

I've openly disagreed with him on this policy. Yes there have been a few pieces that went beyond disagreement. But respectful disagreement isn't a bad thing

[neverforget]

63. His policies are being attacked not him, at least by me.

People are pissed because SSI has NOTHING to do with the deficit or debt, yet SSI is being offered up for some "Grand Bargain" with Republicans who want nothing more than to destroy the safety net. It makes no sense to piss off your base, give your enemies a campaign issue for something that will do nothing for the deficit or debt.

[patrice]

106. So you believe everyone around here is precisely what they claim to be - AND - that they share the

exact same order of issue priorities with all of the same weights on all of the DIFFERENT issues?

wow.

May I recommend adult supervision?

[Arcanetrance]

119. First I don't appreciate your disrespectful tone

Second I know not everyone is who they claim to be online. But I have seen enough hatred towards progressives basically telling us to sit down shut up. So yes I think this article is less about pointing out there are some trolls and more about calling progressives trolls.

[Rex]

30. I see someone is concern trolling.

[sabrina 1]

34. Ah, that is Deaniac's blog. A bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned from liberal sites, Third Wayers

Don't think I ever saw those morons say a single good word about Progressive Democrats. Watch for the give-away phrases and words designed specifically for Progressive Democrats such as 'martyrs, concern trolls, whiners' etc. This was how they responded to anyone who stood up for Democratic principles.

Shame to see their garbage here. They are not welcome and some have been banned airc, from most Liberal sites. All they do is whine, to use one of their own words, about real Democrats.

People should remember the name of that blog so they know who they are. My impression of them whenever I encountered them on blogs was that they were there to derail and distract and create bad feelings among Democrats.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

40. I noticed that last night... was it Deaniac83 or something?

Wasn't there some sort of dust-up here at DU?

[Art_from_Ark]

88. Do they also talk about "wanting a pony" and crap like that?

I really hate that kind of language.

[sabrina 1]

89. Yes, they do. They were celebrating eg, the 'coining of the word poutrage' attributed to a member

of Balloon Juice, which was a Republican blog btw, now supposedly a converted. 'Poutrage' according to them was 'brlliant' as a description of Progressives. The stupidity at that place is almost at the level of FR.

'Concern Troll' is definitely one of their favorite phrases. That's what made me look to see who they were, and I just laughed, 'deaniac' strikes again! So stupid really. You have to wonder why they think this stuff is so brilliant they have to repeat it over and over again. I wonder why they can't just express themselves without having to be given stupid, packaged language like that?

And we've all seen some of it seep on to this blog. It probably isn't entirely fair, but whenever anyone uses those words and phrases against progressive democrats, I seriously question who they are.

[JVS]

41. Forgive me for doubting that the left is the big beneficiary of eroding the social safety net.

[patrice]

108. Forgive me for doubting that what calls itself "the Left" IS the Left; ask them what OTHER issue

they are willing to throw under the bus in order to win on Chained CPI.

You will receive NO answers, because what's behind all of this screaming about CPI is a bunch of people who agree on no other issue priorities, except to destroy the President and beat the Democratic party into staying home in 2014, so by means of coercion and extortion they can claim to be political powers to contend with & FUCK WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY NEED, as long as what calls itself "the Left" aggrandizes itself by any means possible.

[dawg]

126. Why should we have to throw anybody under the bus?

Your argument makes no sense.

We oppose Chained CPI because:

1. It reduces future Social Security benefits for some, probably most, people.
2. It is based on a lie - the notion that price levels aren't really rising if you are able to substitute hamburger for steak.

It other words, it's intellectually dishonest and it hurts ordinary people.

Now, just because President Obama brought it up, lots of DU'ers are on the bandwagon.

Where were all the posts advocating for a chained CPI before the President put it in his budget? On FR probably.

I don't have any reason to reflexively oppose this President. I voted for him twice. But this is horrible policy.

I think it's bad politics, too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. REC!!!! You can be sure that "the movement" is always gonna be in a completely different place.....

than the Democratic Party at any given time. We had a chance to get real gun legislation, but "the racket" couldn't wait to change the subject to "Drones" to get the gun debate out of the headlines. Out of sight, out of mind until the next tragedy, and the left will be all over the POTUS because he didn't talk enough about it. And if anyone thinks it's an accident, please think again. This paid "trolling racket" can divert attention from issues that the left claimed to be passionate about, but having the attention span of a fruit fly, they swarm from shit pile to shit pile, creating diversions as they go.

Now the subject has changed to CPI, which doesn't have a gnat's chance in hell of passing, because Boehner can't accept any deal from this president, and the president knows it, but it's great for diversion from issues like gun control, immigration, etc. If I were the Koch Bros., I'd certainly invest in a couple of the leftwing "rackets", that way, all the bases are covered.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

50. Excellent article. The fringe of our party are a group of low-information reactonaries...

With their fingers firmly stuck in their ears.

[Union Scribe]

59. I agree, the right-wing fringe of the Democratic Party

is a group of very low-information reactionaries who have systematically destroyed a once proud history of fighting for the little guy.

[noiretextatique]

66. excellent

this "third-way" divide and conquer crap is the bullshit. as if we don't recognize the pig because of the lipstick.

[octoberlib]

70. +1

[Marr]

94. +1

[sabrina 1]

80. That gang on that blog are the fringe of our party. They eventually got kicked off every democratic

forum they were on so had to start their own rag to rail against Progressives. If you like them so much, they sure need friends. They don't have many and their reputation in Democratic circles precedes them.

[MotherPetrie]

55. Bull-fucking-shit

[woo me with science]

67. The chocolate ration has been increased!

We are deep, deep in Orwell territory now.

[Number23]

69. You are brave, BRAVE woman for posting this at the height of the froth and hysteria

[WorseBeforeBetter]

73. Posting a blue link and a couple of paragraphs is brave? LOL

Too bad madame didn't stick around to participate in the discussion. Tsk.

[Number23]

76. Yes, you're right. A green link would have been the epitome of courage.

[Marr]

95. Her "bravery" was required elsewhere.

TO THE BULLSHITMOBILE!

[Union Scribe]

97. !!

[bobduca]

71. Trollling Centrist Blog posts trolling article about trolling

Hey I heard you liked trolls in your trolls so i trolled a troll in your troll.

[carolinayellowdog]

129. projection abounds in that crowd, re "ideological" and "out of touch with reality"

amen to your comment

[WinkyDink]

74. "Boost benefits at age 85"?! Why not just round it up to 90, FGS?!

[ZombieHorde]

77. Then to whom does the chained cpi apply to? nt

[Scootaloo]

78. "The republican right and the whiny left"

Telling that only one side is labeled pejoratively there, I think

[sabrina 1]

81. The blog is populated by well known trolls on liberal blogs. They have been around

disrupting liberal blogs for a while. As far as I know, many of them were banned so they started their own blog where they can rant and rave about Progressive Dems. Probably right wingers trying to disrupt, and they did, liberal blogs. I'm surprised they still exist. Looks like the same old crowd though using the same old language and anti-progressive garbage. Too bad to see it dragged over there. Most people just ignore them.

[duffyduff]

83. It's a blog post from a blogger, so why should I believe it?

Obama is hellbent on destroying Social Security though benefit cuts.

That's what the CPI IS.

[Starry Messenger]

87. Robert Reich, concern troll.

Your man the blogger not much of a deep thinker, methinks.

[boilerbabe]

90. Earlg, concern troll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017110752

[WorseBeforeBetter]

96. AARP, concern troll.

AARP Warns Against Use of Chained CPI
http://www.rollcall.com/news/aarp_warns_against_use_of_chained_cpi-223610-1.html?pos=olobh

[WorseBeforeBetter]

98. Bernie Sanders, concern troll.

Bernie Sanders Will Do 'Everything In His Power' To Block Obama Budget's Social Security Cuts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/bernie-sanders-obama-budget-social-security_n_3023799.html

[cthulu2016]

91. Why would you post this hateful, poisonous, divisive right-wing garbage here?

[Skittles]

114. because they are desperately trying to defend the indefensible

they're lock-stepping again

[LWolf]

137. My question, too. nt

[bobduca]

142. To sew hatred, to poison discourse and to drive a wedge between "centrist" and "liberals"

[whatchamacallit]

93. Wow what a shit blog

Pure fucking nonsense.

[JDPriestly]

99. I'm all for raising the Social Security benefits, but for everyone.

Right now, people who do not get enough Social Security to put them above the poverty line (about $11,490 per year) get things like food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid, etc. to put them over that line.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#guidelines

The money to fund those extras comes from the general fund. That is fair because those who receive those supplements (which they desperately need) did not pay enough into the Social Security system to be eligible for the benefits they need.

Obama's plan is to take the money to bring people who did not pay enough into the system to receive benefits above the poverty level FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS.

That is wrong. Why? Because while raising the Social Security benefits of seniors under the poverty level is a wonderful idea, to do it, Obama has to LOWER the benefits of everyone else, LOWER the benefits of the people who paid in enough during their working lives to be eligible for higher benefits.

Think of it. If I were not right, then the chained CPI plan would not cut the debt or deficit of the general fund at all.

We all know that Social Security has nothing to do with the debt or the deficit. The debt or deficit is in the general fund.

Obama's transferring, moving, unloading the cost or burden of providing for people not eligible foro Social Security benefits that meet or exceed the poverty level from the general fund to Social Security means that MIDDLE CLASS SENIORS (lower middle class seniors) who are receiving the average Social Security benefit of $1,261 per month have to receive less per month.

The maximum Social Security benefit now is $2,533/mo. That would, I assume be the benefit of someone who earned at least the maximum amount that is taxable for Social Security for enough years to qualify for the maximum benefit. Right now, the maximum income subject to the Social Security tax is around $110,000 per year.

So the plan is to take from the "rich" who are getting from $11,490 per year up to $2,533 per month ($30,396 per year, an amount that we usually do not consider to be the income of someone who is "rich&quot to pay for higher benefits for the poor and to take the money out of the Social Security fund rather than out of the general fund. Not many Social Security recipients receive $30,396 per year. And those who do probably also have other income and pay taxes like everybody else.

I am opposed to Obama's plan. I am opposed to chained CPI.

People who are getting $2,533 from Social Security are not suffering from poverty, but that is, in itself, not enough to make them rich. And most of the people who will lose in this scheme are the many, many people who paid into Social Security for many years if not their entire working lives only to receive just enough to keep them above the poverty level.

It is a very bad idea. Everybody is wondering why the chained CPI can help solve the debt or deficit problem since the Social Security fund is completely separate from the regular budget. In addition to the fact that the chained CPI will also save the general fund money awarded to veterans, etc., my theory is what I have explained here.

Obama is pulling an accounting trick that will hurt lots of people who worked hard all their lives, paid by the rules and trusted the government to take care of Social Security.

Shame on Obama.

This is a big, big deal. It is a betrayal of millions of Americans.

This scheme stinks of Pete Peterson and his desire to sour Americans on Social Security.

If it is so important to have a strong private sector in America, then why do wealthy people invest so much in the private sector of a Communist country like China?

It makes no sense. There is a lot of hypocrisy among the rich in America. And this meme that Obama is going to increase the Social Security benefits of poor seniors is also very sneaky. Obama should be better than this.

[dkf]

105. That seems opposite of what people are saying this will do.

If so that shows why the populace is so clueless.

It looks like we can't take things at face value and must look closer ourselves as the media is useless.

[JDPriestly]

109. It took me a while to understand it and figure out how it has to work.

This is the only explanation I can get. I know that my mother's friends who have low Social Security benefits (or none) get a lot of subsidized benefits that come from the general fund.

So then you have to ask, if Obama is going to raise their benefits and still cut the debt/deficit, where is the money going to come from to raise their benefits (to above the poverty level so they don't have to get the subsidized benefits that come from the general fund at this time like food stamps, etc.)?

And the only plausible answer is that the money to replace the benefits for impoverished seniors has to be coming from the Social Security funds. It is the only explanation.

This is a sleight of hand. It is an abomination, an accounting trick. Very clever, except that it will hurt people who really are not at all wealthy.

The fair thing to do is to raise the taxes of the people who benefited most from the Bush tax cuts -- the earners in upper brackets. That's where the money has to come from to supplement the deficit in the general fund. It is extremely wrong to take it from Social Security.

[HiPointDem]

100. I don't understand why it upsets you so much. If you're right & there's nothing to worry about,

and this is just strategy, Obama will remain popular, his legacy will be protected, and you can all have a nice laugh at our expense.

Obama *told us* to hold his feet to the fire. We are.

So what's your problem?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. Yay! Embrace the Cat Food! Father Knows Best!

[Hekate]

102. "the President is focusing on savings from providers and drug companies" I KEEP SAYING THAT!!!!!!!11

Thank you so much for this post, Madame. May your spurs never lose their luster.

[Cha]

111. Now you've done it, madamesilverspurs! thanks for your link..

[patrice]

112. Ask them what OTHER issue group they are willing to throw under the bus, madamesilverspurs, in order

to win against Chained CPI.

We'll see just how Left/Liberal/Progressive they are.

[Skittles]

113. I'll believe the "Ideologue Left" ANY DAY over the groupies

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. "Ideologue Left". I remember when they used to call us Reds, Commies, Pinkos or Hippies.

Same sell out moderates but the same song.

[eridani]

120. Please stop insulting our intelligence. Census Bureau "poverty" has FUCKALL to do with real poverty

More money for the lowest income people (1st quintile) will be helpful, but it will nowhere near lifting them out of real poverty. In return for this, he wants to force SocSec beneficiaries in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quintiles INTO real poverty.

No fucking way in hell does adjusting the initial benefit calculation to be even more favorable at the low end--which is a good idea that I support--require cutting benefits for everyone else. And the extra money at age 85 is useless to someone who died of poverty before that, not to mention which it does not make up for the chained CPI cuts.

[sendero]

121. Utter drivel...

..... Obama is up to the same CRAP he pulled on health care - make a law so fucking complicated that no one can tell who it benefits and who it doesn't.

These claims of boosting this and capping that - the devil is in the details. Without a complete and detailed proposal they are empty words and not only that, when you offer up CUTS like the chained CPI (everyone that knows jack shit about the CPI knows it already understates inflation) there is no guarantee that the other details of your proposal will be adopted.

I haven't seen anyone complaining about Medicare cuts so that is a red herring altogether.

They should change the name of their site to thestupidpeoplesview.

Oh and by the way - if by some hook or crook this bullshit actually happens, the Democratic party will get a fresh reminder of the meaning of "third rail".

Old people vote and they pay attention to one of the most important issues in their life. They will not be sold a package of Rube-Goldberg tweaks that say "oh here we are cutting your benefits but look over there if you meet criteria X Y and Z and mail in this form in triplicate in the witching hour you will get cut less! SEE! It's all good!!!!"

horseshit.

[midnight]

122. AARP disagrees with this and says it targets the poorest and those who live the longest get less...

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/econ_sec/2012/chained-cpi-targets-oldest-poorest-americans-AARP-ppi-econ-sec.pdf

[liberal N proud]

127. ONCE AGAIN - SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT!

I repeat Social Security is NOT and entitlement!!!!

We pay into Social Security as we work and grow older, to call in an entitlement is incorrect. It is a program set up to force people to put money aside for retirement.

These fucks have twisted everyone into believing that it is something that the government is handing out to people and that it is causing the deficit! All WRONG!

[dawg]

131. Social Security is an entitlement, and entitlements are not bad.

You are entitled to benefits because you paid into the system for years. That's why they call it that.

Welfare is not an entitlement. Food Stamps are not an entitlement. Medicaid is not an entitlement.

Social Security and Medicare *are* entitlements.

It isn't a bad word. People just take it that way.

[Recursion]

139. Actually SNAP is an entitlement

So are farm subsidies. TANF isn't, but AFDC was.

[Armstead]

130. The original article lost me at the first sentence

"Once again, both the Republican right and the inconsolable whiny Left have found common ground over just how much they hate President Obama."

Great way to convince people.

Anything that asshole says after has no credibility.

[Kolesar]

132. SS benefits are now taxable on 80% of SS if one has income > ~$45000/yr

That makes a way bigger difference than the cut in the cost of living adjustment.

They have been taxable for two decades. Is anybody else aware of this? Or is the purpose at DU to just insult each other and each other's reference material?

[Recursion]

138. The practical difference between "taxing", "cutting", and "means testing" is nil

But liberals love one, centrists another, and conservatives another.

[Kolesar]

141. ^not very clear ... eom

[TheKentuckian]

140. More Turd Way senseless drivel

Lash out the liberals as your phony masks completely come off.

[DirkGently]

146. That's a lot of empty name-calling in one piece. Trolls, Ideologues, "racket?"

A sure sign of an utter lack of substance.

[Safetykitten]

149. Not that I have doubts about science but..."boost benefits at age 85". Really?

[grantcart]

153. Interesting

If you read links on several articles he has written on this he makes the following claims


1) He would prefer that the cap was taken off as a simple solution

2) That without a change the SSI will face mandatory reductions (20 years)

3) That there would be a significant increase in SSI payments for those near the poverty line (and older than 85)

4) It would increase revenue for SSI.

Is there any objective analysis of his points 3 and 4?

I just don't have the time to go through the details.