Emerging meme alert: "Not cutting Social Security puts national security at risk."

[nashville_brook]

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Two separate narratives emerged today regarding sequestration and the upcoming CR. One is being pushed by right-leaning/centrist dems, and the other by establishment GOPers.

Here's the first: Steny Hoyer says NO CR with military sequestration cuts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014662486

And the second is:
New GOP Plan Would Save Military From Sequestration By Cutting Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024125632

Taken together you see how the two sides who're both beholden to investment bankers want us to see how there's "bipartisan agreement" that military cuts are so scary and so unthinkable that it's our sovereign patriotic duty to each and every one give up our Social Security benefits for the good of the country.

I have to go make dinner, so instead of a reasoned response, I'm just going leave you with this:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Indeed. FUCK YOU...and not in a good way!

[Autumn]

2. I agree

FUCKKKKKKKKK YOUUUUUUU running uphill. Backwards. And FUCKKKKKKKKK YOUUUUUUU Again, to any asshole that wants to touch Social Security.

[nashville_brook]

44. love the imagery of running uphill backwards :)

[TDale313]

3. I second that "Fuck You"

And add a full-throated "Oh, Hell No!!!"

[geek tragedy]

4. Sorry to burst your outrage bubble, but the GOP plan to cut SS for defense cuts is DOA.

Probably won't even get a vote in the House. More of a "F.U." to the President than anything else.

Also, you're distorting what Hoyer said--he said he wanted the entire sequestration addressed. He didn't single out military cuts as the driver for a CR being unacceptable.

[nashville_brook]

7. oh really? you don't think that this isn't playing out in the media right now?

clearly you do, or else you wouldn't be trying to protect Hoyer from crit.

[geek tragedy]

11. No, not really. No one is talking about sequestration

right now. Moreover, Senate has made it clear SS cuts are way, way off the table.

[nashville_brook]

45. got a link?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. Tell us how you really feel.

[nashville_brook]

9. i was having low blood sugar in addition to hearing a day's worth of news about

canceling pensions for Detroit, then Illinois said they'd try to follow suit with cities that could use the economic boost. it's like the hits just keeping coming today.

It accrues to the benefit of billionaires who want to privatize SS, that we no longer believe in the possibility that the social contract can hold. It's really bigger than sequestration, pensions and SS. It's a bigger picture… that government is incapable of functioning, and that no money exists except the money you're paid in full in your pocket. it's fucking uncivil.

blood sugar better - blood pressure rising again.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

12. It's been a lousy day for the 99%.

[nashville_brook]

50. today, at least, has been better with Obama supporting living wage.

[WillyT]

6. HUGE K & R !!!

[socialist_n_TN]

8. Why are they worried about it? Social security doesn't have anything....

to do with the budget. it's a totally separate system from revenue stream to payouts. If the military can waste $8 TRILLION they need to look somewhere else to find the dollars, like maybe cutting waste in the military. Or maybe raising taxes on the ruling class. Why go after a system that's not even part of the problem?

There's your counter-meme.

[RC]

14. That worked really well for 9/11

Why go after a system that's not even part of the problem?

That solution didn't have anything to do with the problem either.

[socialist_n_TN]

19. That's true. Maybe once bitten, twice shy will work this time...

There was a lot of free floating anger in '01 that was needing a target, a Middle Eastern target and of course, the Bushies provided the target. I'm hoping and thinking that with the popularity of the SS system, this counter-meme will be more effective than the anti-war one.

[nashville_brook]

47. +1

[OnionPatch]

20. Because our overlords want to privatize it.

They'll use whatever excuse they can gin up.

[nashville_brook]

49. they've been on a months-long campaign to gin up support

Pete Peterson and his flying "Fix the Debt" monkeys have been all over the news (locally and nationally) putting out their lies unchallenged. where's the leadership on this?

[nashville_brook]

42. We can't balance the budget on seniors --> and they know it

there's not a mechanism to do so. the two pots of money don't mix.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. Because when lots of old people can't afford food or housing

that really makes us stronger. Our enemies look at us and they think, "Wow, those people are really mean! We'd better not mess with them."

[nashville_brook]

43. never thought of it like that -- kind of like making woad from granny blood

[DavidDvorkin]

53. True

Also, our military could wear necklaces made from the bones of seniors who have starved to death. How frightening would that be?

[Coyotl]

13. "Not cutting the military puts National and Social Security at risk."

Too much US military is the greatest future danger the USA faces, and, thanks to Bush, it is already at the root of the debt crisis.

[nashville_brook]

38. ^^THIS!

thank you -- eggsactly!

[Delmette]

15. It's not your money!

That's what I'm telling every GOPer I can email. It's called the Social Security TRUST for a reason. The American worker is required in most cases to contribute to the Trust Fund with the promise that the money would be there when we retire. Congress took some of those Trust Monies and bought U S Treasury bonds, another kind of trust. Now, Congress thinks it can break that trust and fund a Military that wastes billions of dollars! I don't think so.

[nashville_brook]

40. here's a link that explains exactly what i think is happening...

http://nhlabornews.com/2013/12/today-public-employee-retirements-tomorrow-the-rest-of-america/


Today, public employee retirements; Tomorrow, the rest of America

Yesterday was NOT a good day for public sector workers who think they can rely on long-promised pension benefits.

Detroit: Yesterday, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled that even the state constitution did not protect workers’ retirement benefits.
Illinois: Yesterday, the state Legislature passed a law reducing pension benefits and prohibiting collective bargaining on pensions.
Both of these violations of workers’ rights are being justified on the theory that the retirement systems are in such “dire” shape. The rhetorical focus is on the “funding ratio”: comparing what the system has now, in assets, with the total benefits it will have to pay out in the future.

In household budget terms, this is like comparing your current bank balance with the total amount of the mortgage or rent payments you are expected to make over the next 20 years. (Try doing that math, and you’ll understand how the “pension reform” disciples come up with their doomsday scenarios. They’re doing it with Social Security, too; so what is happening to public employees now will probably happen to the rest of America very, very soon.)

Ok, so… maybe the retirement systems’ current funding ratio is “dire”. Whose fault is that?

During the 2007-2008 Wall Street meltdown, public pension systems across America lost more than a trillion dollars in value. (Yes, that’s “trillion” – with a “T”.) Most public pension systems had already lost millions or billions in the 2001 recession.

But now that public pensions are a trillion dollars underfunded, they’re being attacked as “unaffordable” – and somehow, it’s all the fault of public workers.

Detroit: both retirement systems were fully funded, back before the second Bush recession.
Illinois: In FY2000, back before the first Bush recession, the State Employees’ Retirement System was more than 80% funded, and the Teachers’ Retirement System was almost 70% funded.
But… instead of going after all those Wall Street folks who lost all that public pension fund money… our politicians are going after rank-and-file public employees. (By the way: Wall Street bonuses are gong up by 5% to 15%, this year.)

Think this isn’t your fight? because it’s all the way out in Detroit? or because it’s “just” public employee unions?
Think again.

The same folks who have been busy “reforming” public sector retirement benefits are also out to “reform” Social Security.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. I suppose a big tax cut for the rich needs to be tossed in to the mix too.

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Never. They got theirs. And they want ours, too.

[nashville_brook]

39. +1000000

[nashville_brook]

28. you KNOW that's being discussed in the Senate Finance Committee

Baucus.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. Makes ya wanna drag em by the tie into the real world.

[nashville_brook]

41. love that image -- might be something to work with!

[Matariki]

17. More like cutting Social Security to benefit corporate Military Industry

why we can't have nice things

[DeSwiss]

18. I should have known you'd be on the same page as me.

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)

- FU is too Fing kind.

K&R



Also a Nashvillian but I don't make a thing out of it......

[nashville_brook]

26. :)

the narratives emerging today between Detroit, SS and the sequester have me in fits.




i miss nashvegas, but florida is more fun politically.

[OnionPatch]

21. Not raising taxes on the wealthy puts national security at risk!!!

nt

[nashville_brook]

27. hell yes -- it's their turn to pay their fair share!

we've already paid with losing our houses, our jobs and our retirements.

[ReRe]

22. Remember this:

When they come out with shite like this, all you have to do is turn it around, like this:

Not cutting the MIC puts Social Security at risk.

[nashville_brook]

25. precisely. these "wars" we inherited from bush jr need to end

not one penny from our seniors.

[blkmusclmachine]

23. What's Obama got to say bout it? Oh, wait. Never mind...

[Doctor_J]

35. I found a sneak preview! Check reply 34!

[JDPriestly]

30. This is why we need Elizabeth Warren and/or Bernie Sanders to run for the presidency

and bring a lot of pro-Social-Security senators and representatives with them in the next presidential election.

This attack on Social Security cannot stand. It won't save any money. The average benefit from Social Security is just over the poverty level already -- just a little over $1200. Thus, if not given their full Social Security benefit, many more Americans would qualify for and need other federal assistance and from the general fund. Social Security has nothing whatsoever to do with the deficit in the general fund. That is because Social Security has a trust fund to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers, and Social Security taxes are intended to replenish that fund.

Raise wages, and you raise the revenue into both Social Security and the General Fund. Specifically, raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and paying the benefits to Social Security recipients is no problem.

[nashville_brook]

37. that Bernie Sanders is talking about running gives me hope

we have to throw open the Overton Window and demand more security for seniors rather than less. we won't get that debate if there's a monolithic Hillary primary season.

[Scuba]

31. If we can't afford to educate our children, to heal our sick or care for our elderly ...

... just what is it the defense budget is defending?

[Enthusiast]

33. One would think that point would be heard in the media.

The only one I have heard saying it is Bernie Sanders.

[nashville_brook]

46. now i have a sad.

i was just angry before. seriously good question. there's barely anyone left even to consume the crap imported by the patrons of the Chamber of Commerce (who one might argue are the real beneficiaries of defense spending) -- what's left, really?

[Enthusiast]

32. I love emerging memes.

NOT!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-usa-pentagon-waste-specialreport-idUSBRE9AH0LQ20131118

[nashville_brook]

48. i really really hope that the pentagon waste report gets traction

they should use the sequester cuts as an opportunity to clean up this waste and abuse and quit their whining.

[Enthusiast]

52. I'm with you.........nt

[Doctor_J]

34. The president will slap this down tomorrow

"If the Pentagon needs more money, they should recover the trillions they lost over the last decade. Right now our seniors and needy cannot take any more cuts, and any bill that comes to my desk conaining such cuts will be vetoed, period".

[nashville_brook]

36. credit where due, he did come out this morning supporting income equality measures...

but i totally feel you. we need more leadership on this, and the silence leaves us thinking that there's horse-trading going on behind the scenes with our old age provisions.

mea culpa -- i grew up with grandparents on Social Security. it was our only income for many years -- we lived in soul-crushing poverty. and this was during the 70s when the program was more generous.

the SO and i, even though we're both professionals with more than 20 years under our belts, have no means for retirement. there's those shitty little 401k accounts that about to get raped again when the market falls. we can't make that money liquid to get out before the crash b/c of the tax burden. so, we're stuck. we can only watch it crash and hope our health holds up so we can work through our senior years (which is not likely in my case).

[notadmblnd]

51. So now the military needs old peoples'money?

I think if Detroit can file bankruptcy, then so can the Pentagon.

[happyfunball]

54. Revolution

Silly me, and I thought national security was enhanced by a happy population not looking for torches, pitchforks, and guillotines.

It is uncanny how the powerful never learn from history and just assume that the 99% will just willingly starve to death if it serves the interests of the 1%.

[nashville_brook]

55. it's amazing, isn't it. what's the saying… pigs eat hogs are slaughtered?

something like that.

welcome to DU!

[DirkGently]

56. Those dots connect in a bad way.

So conserva-Dems are pushing the "Save Defense from the Sequester," knowing the end of that sentence is "by slashing Social Security."

Nice moves, there.