ANOTHER goddamned "DEMOCRAT" pushing for unnecessary Soc Security cuts - FASTTRACKING THEM.

[Triana]

Congress Targets Social Security with Fast-Track Commission Plan

March 26, 2015

News Release

Legislation introduced in the House by Rep. John Delaney (D-MD) would create a Social Security Commission designed to fast-track reforms and insulate Members of Congress from the public backlash over harmful benefit cuts that co-sponsor Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) says the commission will consider, including: raising the retirement age, means testing and the Chained CPI.

NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman, expressed the National Committee’s opposition to the legislation in a letter to Rep. John Delaney:

“We are troubled that H.R. 1578 takes several steps to circumvent a deliberative public process, limiting the participation of Social Security stakeholders and advocates. For example, the Committees of jurisdiction over the Social Security program — the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means — would have limited input in the development of the Commission’s recommendations. Under “fast track” procedural rules in your bill, the legislation embodying the Commission’s recommendations would be considered by Congress on an expedited, “take-it-or-leave-it” basis. No amendments to the Commission’s bill could be offered and it could be passed in both the House and Senate by a simple majority vote. Normally, Section 310(g) of the Budget Act and the Senate’s “Byrd rule” require 60 votes in the Senate to approve legislation which changes Social Security.

The National Committee believes limiting the ability of stakeholders to shape the debate would insulate lawmakers from the devastating effect benefit cut proposals would have on retirees, workers with disabilities and survivors.”

THE REST:

http://www.ncpssm.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases/Release/ArticleID/1392/Congress-Targets-Social-Security-with-Fast-Track-Commission-Plan

You can tweet "Democrat" Delaney about this here: https://twitter.com/RepJohnDelaney

[fredamae]

1. So.....

Looks like others are becoming aware of "CorpoDems" who are thinking they want to be more like Paul Ryan, Kochs, et al?

We can no longer "assume" voting a straight Dem Ticket is the solution....we can see all that in our most recent history.
It Is Not an Exercise in Electoral Wisdom as we look in the "rear-view mirror" of last week, last month, last year and certainly...over the last decade.

Too many conservatives have infiltrated the Old Dem Wing of the party, imo.

[L0oniX]

21. They are going to be more emboldened by the money from their oligarchy bankster owners.

They ...and we ...know the only way anyone can get elected is to suck on the oligarchy teat.

[Jackpine Radical]

66. Did you see that Wall St is threatening Dem Congressional funding

if they don't rein in Liz Warren?

I read Harry Reid's nomination of Wall Street Chuckie as his successor as a placating signal back to the Street.

[fredamae]

67. Yes.....Very revealing

isn't it?

Blech....Schumer?

[Jackpine Radical]

69. Boy, things are really shaping up for a fight,

the likes of which the Dems haven't seen since 1932. A fight for the soul of the party.

I commented earlier at a little greater length here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026423384

[fredamae]

73. Couldn't agree more

with Both posts!

[Enthusiast]

108. Me too.

[merrily]

159. The Republicans haven't been as strong in Congress since 1928 either.

They are almost omnipresent at the state and local levels, too, though I don't know how that compares with 1928.

Yet, we still hear about how electable center right Democrats are. Best I can tell based on results, that is horse puckey (pucky?) and Truman was right.

[merrily]

139. Schumer also opposes primaries.

What better way to further the goals of the 99% than avoiding primaries in a tightly rigged two-party system in which even a multibillionaire like Perot who can buy TV ad time up the wazoo doesn't have a prayer of winning the Presidency with a third-party challenge.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7

[kelliekat44]

200. Another reason to vote Chuckie out! nt

[appalachiablue]

198. Infiltrators and QUISLINGS-

[randome]

2. Fast-tracking has its place but not here. This is pure politics instead of pure policy.

And as stated, unnecessary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Cosmic Kitten]

7. WHAT!!!! It's VERY necessary!

Without fast-track, voters
could hold Congress Critters
accountable!!! <sarcasm thingy>

[marmar]

9. Or "there" either.

[stillwaiting]

72. It's a pure attack against those who elected him. nt

[djean111]

3. "Democrat" is starting to mean shit these days.

Waiting for a Third Way type to come along and tell us that cutting Social Security is necessary in order to save it, now.
Because amassing more money for war is much more important.
Who knows, maybe the Congressional Dems have been tasked to carry the water for those who are afraid they will not get elected or lose popularity points (is there a prize?) if they propose this stuff.

[Cosmic Kitten]

16. The "prize" is a 7-figure salary when they are out of office

[Gman]

78. What a shame you think that

The reality is there is no third way and a straight DemocratIc Party ticket is the only real solution.

[djean111]

82. You might want to tell the Third Way that - they get little hit pieces on Liz Warren published in

the WSJ, and say she is getting "out of hand". They have a web site'n'everything!
These days, a straight Dem ticket contains a crapload of DINOs. We are being dragged further and further to the right, and three Dems on that committee want to cut Social Security, not expand it. What did we gain by voting on those Dem tickets?

[frylock]

83. http://www.thirdway.org/

must be a parody site, eh?

[octoberlib]

87. And they even issued a press release about Delaney's cat food commission. They're delighted!

http://thirdway.org/press/press-releases/third-way-statement-on-delaney-cole-bipartisan-bill-to-create-social-security-commission-1

[frylock]

94. shocking!

[Jackpine Radical]

172. There you go again

with your reality-based nonsense.

[cheapdate]

134. Yeah, well, Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat,

as are Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Daniel Akaka, Ed Markey, Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley, Al Franken, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar and many, many, more good people.

[djean111]

162. Yes, she is a Democrat - and the banks are pissed off and threatening because she is acting like

what Democrats USED to be. In fucking PUBLIC. Being what a Democrat USED to be is now sneeringly described as Left Wing Fringe.
The Third Way wrote an op-ed piece in the WSJ excoriating her because she is acting like a Democrat USED to act. "Out of hand". And where was the censure for that, from the Democratic Party? From Obama?

I will suspend judgement on Wyden until I see what he does about Fast Track. The people you name are good people, but IMO, in today's "Democratic" Party, they are likely deemed too Lefty to be president or even a Leader in Congress.
That's what I am talking about, and you know it. Those good people you mentioned are like little bright spots in Congress, and we are exhorted every day to not worry about anyone's policies, that's soooo old-fashioned, just Vote for the D. Keep watching the Democratic Party turn into the Third Way Party.

[Jackpine Radical]

173. The censure, coming from Harry Reid,

consisted of "nominating" Schumer as his successor. I read this as a direct message of mollification aimed at the Street.

[djean111]

174. Yup. Exactly.

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. See, dems and repubs are NOT the same...

Democrats support social
issues that don't cost money.
But, they don't always support
issues that cost donors money.


Republicans oppose BOTH!
There is a difference!

[djean111]

8. Been trying to point that out for a while now - it is studiously ignored.

[Cosmic Kitten]

10. Market Fundamentalists are like that... willfully obtuse

[L0oniX]

27. Wall Street banks threaten to withhold campaign funds from Dems in tantrum against Elizabeth Warren

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/wall-street-banks-threaten-to-withhold-campaign-funds-from-dems-in-tantrum-against-elizabeth-warren/

The masters speak and the Dems obey.

[Cosmic Kitten]

28. Banksters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026422520

[Duval]

50. So the banksters are throwing a tantrum?

Can we show them what a Tantrum really is like? Oh, how I wish Warren would run.

[sabrina 1]

53. That would be great. Get the money out of politics. In fact I think any Dem who publicy

ran on a campaign of refusing to take Wall St money would get huge support from the voters.

Now Dems should respond by telling them to keep their dirty money.

We can dream

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

5. Wife and I and our kids were discussing what we can do , when, as to social security

and medicare as we approach those years.

I said "unless the republicans destroy soc sec and Medicare" etc, and there was little debate from anyone in the conversation, it was a given that was an option.

I wish I could say I would do something rash about it if they steal my future, but I wont, I will whimper and go along like everyone else, unless we do a Katniss "hunger games"

[Oilwellian]

13. Please do pay attention

The article states it's a Democrat making this proposal, NOT a Republican.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

36. I get that, but the few democrats who want this cant get this if dems control everything, dont you

agree?

We arent there yet where a majority of house and senate dems want to kill us when we turn 65, we may be getting close but not yet

[bvar22]

177. The Party Leadership ran the "Austerity FLags" up the pole...

during his first administration when we were told that it was time to "Eat-Our-Peas".
HE was told "No Way, Dude",
but now that the ice has been broken,
and the Democrats put Social Security [on-the-table ,
don't be surprised if this stuff suddenly reappears in one "Bi-Partisan "Comprise" or another.

[heaven05]

38. Please pay attention

it's Democrats AND republicans that are screwing us. The 'article' points to the actions of both parties. That demo-lition expert backing repubthug ideology and destruction is a symptom of a larger problem....corrupt and soulless politicians making life altering/affecting decisions that will hurry the demise of many of us 'takers', which the oligarch(s) wants to get rid of. More money in their pockets. I worry every day about when these crooks and how these crooks will take my money, which I worked for 50 years to get, away. That is a problem.

[Oilwellian]

90. Republican support is a given

We have no control over that, but we do have power over the Democrats who are pushing for this, including President Obama.

[heaven05]

100. when Barack Obama--SIGNS OFF--

on taking money from me, you will be correct in my book, otherwise what you say is true.

[840high]

202. What do you suggest we do?

[magical thyme]

34. this is a DEMOCRAT trying to destroy social security. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

6. From the party that keeps demanding my money so that these things WON'T happen

Sometimes there really IS no difference.

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. not too loudly...shhhhhh

or else the "centrists"
will shout you down about
all the great things we
achieved on social issues.

[L0oniX]

25. "centrists" can go eat oligarchy shit! Oh wait! They already are.

[Cosmic Kitten]

26. Butt kissers?

[L0oniX]

29. Wall Street banks threaten to withhold campaign funds from Dems in tantrum against Elizabeth Warren

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/wall-street-banks-threaten-to-withhold-campaign-funds-from-dems-in-tantrum-against-elizabeth-warren/

The great and wonderful OZ has spoken.

[arcane1]

203. This needs to be an OP every week, because every week we will see someone else blink.

It would be good to remind people that they won't be isolated incidents.

[L0oniX]

204. The lemmings are already stampeding to Hillary.

[OnyxCollie]

63. Lily Ledbetter! Lily Ledbetter! LILY LEDBETTER!!!

LA! LA! LA! NO ONE CAN HEAR YOUR HATE! LA! LA! LA!

[ND-Dem]

140. I hate Lily Ledbetter.

[OnyxCollie]

186. It's the candy sprinkles

on a steaming shit sundae.

[ND-Dem]

189. a minor piece of legislation that extended the time frame for bringing an action under

the 1964 civil rights act, pushed here as though it were the equivalent of the 1964 civil rights act itself.

[Triana]

11. An article we all need to rub in the noses of all Dems, Reps - anyone...

The $17 Trillion Delusion: The Absurdity of Cutting Social Security to Reduce the Debt

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21154-the-17-trillion-delusion-the-absurdity-of-cutting-social-security-to-reduce-the-federal-debt

[Cosmic Kitten]

14. Does anyone think the debt is ever going to be repaid?

Cutting SS is Market Fundamentalism gospel.
It's immoral and divorced from reality.
Congress has lost it's moral compass.

[djean111]

17. No, Congress sold its moral compass. Actually, Washington sold its moral compass, IMO.

[Cosmic Kitten]

22. Wonder how much they sold it for?

I've heard a moral compass
in good working order is
nearly priceless?

Bet the sold it for a song?
...maybe less

[Demeter]

47. Bet it wasn't in anything like "good working order" either.

[bvar22]

179. Naaa.

They gladly give away their Moral Compass at their first Skull & Bones meeting
or "C Street Prayer Breakfast.

[SusanCalvin]

167. It's sure never going to be paid by austerity

The only chance is to expand the economy and the middle class.

[econoclast]

97. Article a bit mistaken

The referenced truth-out article keeps saying that the increasing surpluses intge SSTF RESULT IN increased government debt. That has the cart before the horse.

Congress engages in deficit spending so the Treasury has to sell bills/notes/bonds to finance that deficit spending. That debt is going to get created regardless of the status of the SSTF. The only question is who will Treasury sell that debt to.

The SSTF is required by law to invest in US Treasuries. So Treasury, which has to sell bills/notes/bonds anyway, in effect, gives first dibs to the SSTF. Whatever Treasury still has to finance after SSTF gets their securities, Treasury sells in the market.

But the total debt would exist regardless of whether the SSTF had a surplus or not.

[PoliticAverse]

15. Thomas link for the bill and the 6 cosponsors...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d114:hr1578:

Latest Major Action: 3/24/2015 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Cosponsors:
Rep Brat, Dave [VA-7] - 3/24/2015
Rep Carney, John C., Jr. [DE] - 3/24/2015
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 3/24/2015
Rep Peters, Scott H. [CA-52] - 3/24/2015
Rep Ribble, Reid J. [WI-8] - 3/24/2015
Rep Westerman, Bruce [AR-4] - 3/24/2015

[stuffmatters]

88. Scott Peters, worth over 100 million, my disgusting "New Dem" Rep, cosponsoring, natch

Wake Up San Diego Dem Party. Scott Peters is an ALEc Democrat. He's surely down for fast tracking TPP too.
Scott Peters is a complete and utter disgrace to the San Diego Dems who supported him, voted for him, trusted him to represent the
fundamentals of our party.
Quel jerk.

[L0oniX]

18. This is why we must elect Sanders / Warren.

[Duval]

51. YES! nt

[LiberalEsto]

19. Delaney is a corporatist DINO

and unfortunately, he represents my district.

What a POS.

[L0oniX]

23. When it comes to winning elections they are "mostly" all DINO's.

[G_j]

20. K&R

[hootinholler]

24. Oh fuck no

Ol Tom is gonna be hearing from me.

Not that he gives a flying fuck about what a constituent has to say, but he did tell me he was a progressive when he was campaigning to bump off Roscoe Bartlett.

Thanks for posting this.

[mountain grammy]

30. I'm sure my "business Democratic" Senator

will agree. I'll send him another letter so he can send me the same form letter he sent when he voted for the Keystone XL and also to override the President's veto, because he's so concerned with Colorado's environment that the keystone xl will "protect."
Really, that's how he rationalized his vote..

Be interesting to see how he "justifies" cutting Social Security.

[aspirant]

31. The time has come

when Skinner and DU must define who is a real vs fake Democrat.

[F4lconF16]

117. I don't know about that.

If that happens, I think I'll be leaving.

[fxstc]

32. lets face it, BOTH parties are screwing us equally just for different reasons. NT

[erronis]

40. I agree on the screwing part, but I think it is for the same reason - $$$

As well stated in prior comments on this thread. The critters need lots of moolah (not mulahs) to hold onto their seats and perks. They also need to put a few million aside for the rainy days ahead.

As I said on http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026422070#post47 I think it's time to look at removing the need for $$$ from the electioneering process. Might not help with graft/bribes/sex/etc. however.

[jwirr]

33. There are only two changes that need to be made: first raise the cap and second raise the

benefits.

[TBF]

35. Congressional "pensions" need to be converted to 401Ks

immediately. Then Congress will know what it feels like to be an average person in this country (especially when they completely tank and they lose all their money).

[riversedge]

43. unfortuately -so many are millionaires

[TBF]

54. That's a good point -

Why are we paying them such high salaries? Minimum wage ought to do it.

[AngryDem001]

150. Nah. Make em' work for free.

And NO vacations.

[TBF]

165. Their job IS a vacation -

These calendars show when they actually work (3 day weekends - must be nice!)

https://www.congress.gov/days-in-session

[AngryDem001]

176. God. There are soooo many reasons to LOATHE Congress.....

[ND-Dem]

190. wow. those are the people telling us we don't work hard enough.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Is he one of those Democrats we're suppose to be "loyal" to? However disloyal he may be?

[Liberalynn]

39. Tweeted.

What's the odds of this getting through? Realize no one is clairvoyant but is there a chance it will fail? Or are we already screwed on this one?

[bread_and_roses]

99. A lot of us raised a fearful stink over Simpson-Bowles

... and it went away. They are trying again, but want to keep it secret, since they know the same ferocious racket will be raised if ordinary people know what is happening.

[ND-Dem]

147. +100

[cstanleytech]

41. Means testing doesnt really make much sense unless its for the already wealthy otherwise its shitty

and its especially shitty for the disabled who are on social security and I dont believe they deserve to have even more misery piled on them by these assholes.

[riversedge]

42. 'insulate" lawmakers! whow.

................The National Committee believes limiting the ability of stakeholders to shape the debate would insulate lawmakers from the devastating effect benefit cut proposals would have on retirees, workers with disabilities and survivors.”

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Delaney is the 6th Wealthiest member of Congress, both chambers, and the only former CEO of a

publicly traded company in the 113th Congress. So. There you have it.

[avaistheone1]

138. That explains quite a bit.

[riversedge]

45. ...Social Security does not face a crisis in funding.....

http://www.ncpssm.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases/Release/ArticleID/1392/Congress-Targets-Social-Security-with-Fast-Track-Commission-Plan


...Social Security does not face a crisis in funding. Its trust funds hold $2.76 trillion in assets that, along with its dedicated stream of payroll tax revenue, are sufficient to ensure payment of all benefits due for two decades. However, the average working American continues to suffer from flat wages, growing income inequity and an inability to save for retirement that has led to a national retirement deficit putting even more importance on Social Security benefits.

“The real crisis unmentioned in Congressman Delaney’s legislation is the growing number of working and middle-class Americans who depend on Social Security’s modest $1,284 average monthly benefit for all or most of their income in retirement. To prevent millions of older Americans from falling into poverty, Social Security benefits should be improved rather than cut. That’s why it’s critical that benefit inadequacy must be a part of any Social Security debate and must involve the American people and their elected leaders in Congress not just an appointed commission designed to make it easier to cut already modest Social Security benefits.”...Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

You can see the full letter on our website.

###

The National Committee, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization acts in the interests of its membership through advocacy, education, services, grassroots efforts and the leadership of the Board of Directors and professional staff. The work of the National Committee is directed toward developing better-informed citizens and voters.

[riversedge]

49. Well time to call my congresscritters Yes I WILL

[groundloop]

56. Get rid of the cap on SS contributions

There's no reason whatsoever that wealthy Americans can't pay social security tax on all of their income instead of cutting it off at the current cap.

[riversedge]

59. It really is a simple solution but has not taken off over the years.

[econoclast]

98. It is the logic of the mugger

I want money
That person over there has money.
I'll force them to give me theirs.

[ND-Dem]

144. it's a non-solution.

[Badass Liberal]

46. Delaney is a good Democrat.

This is no big thing. One shouldn't be alarmist.

[Triana]

62. Fast tracking totally unnecessary CUTS to social security is "no big thing"?

How?

NO DEMOCRAT would/should sponsor or sign on to such a bill. And damn sure not a "good" one.

Did you forget this? ---->

[SomethingFishy]

84. Yeah, we should wait till it's too late, and then be "alarmist".

Carlin said it, "they want it all and they are going to get it. You watch, they are coming for your social security next".

[Enthusiast]

110. Delaney is a piece oif shit DINO and this a huge deal. Enjoy your visit.

[stillwaiting]

116. 37 posts in total + Your user name + This post = Fishyasfuck. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

127. the pc response is "enjoy your stay." n/t

[BeanMusical]

137. Been here for less than 2 days and not very subtle. That stay will be short.

[Skittles]

145. you want I should kick some Fishyasfuck ass, stillwaiting?

LEMME AT THEM!!!

[merrily]

153. I don't know what stillwaiting wants in that regard, but I want you should.

Social Security cuts are not a big deal? Either the poster does not understand the need for sarcasm emote or I don't much care whether the stay is enjoyed or not, as long as it's brief.

[stillwaiting]

161. Please proceed to kick some Weakassconservative ass whenever it appears on DU.

[Skittles]

178. it's kind of a hobby for me, ya know?

living in Texas has made me good at it

[stillwaiting]

184. That poster's sig line is also kind of interesting.

Fortuna Audaces Iuvat = "Fortune Favors the Bold"; It references "God Helps Those Who Help Themselves" on its Wiki page. Not very liberal in my book, and it's their sigline.

I'd see how that motto/saying would have tremendous value in big "L" Libertarian politics.

I also imagine it would have tremendous value in NeoCon circles.

Within "BadassLiberal" circles? Not so much.

Fishyasfuck.

[Skittles]

185. Fortune favors sociopaths, that's for sure

[LondonReign2]

181. Bye bye Badfake Liberal

[octoberlib]

48. So now some members of

Congress want to be 'insulated' from Democracy, I guess. I hope he's primaried.

[upaloopa]

52. I don't see why we don't just cut to the chase

and eliminate the House and Senate. We make one of the Kochs the Senate and the other the House. Eliminate all those middle men and women.

[merrily]

129. +1

[groundloop]

55. EVERY time these bastards discuss this their answer is "Raise the Retirement Age"....

If those evil stupid shits had their way I'd never be able to retire. Hell, just because most members of Congress are physically able to sit on their ass a few hours a day at age 67 is no reason to believe that WORKING Americans can continue doing their normal job at that age.

I guess it's time to make my feelings known (again) in no uncertain terms to my elected tea-baggers.

[TheKentuckian]

89. That is the worst part, it is already 67. They are really shooting for 70+

I have no clue why it is like few know and none will admit it is already been raised by Reagan and has been slowly nudging up to that final point.

[MindPilot]

57. And yet we're expected to pull the lever for anyone with a "D" after their name...

because why again? Oh yeah, there is soooo much difference between the two.

[WinkyDink]

61. Give me an example of a Republican's being better. I'll wait. And if you're only to going to say

"Third Party," well, no, that is NOT what this board is about.

[MindPilot]

79. You're going to wait a long time...

because I'm not playing that game.

[Broward]

58. How dare you criticize a Democrat on a Democratic message board.

[WinkyDink]

60. Just in time to coincide with calls for more $$$$$$$$$$$$$ for "defense."

[Autumn]

64. So is GOTV gonna work with asses like this in the party? Or oh noes supreme court!!!!??

I don't think so.

[WillyT]

65. K & R !!!

[Jack Rabbit]

68. Primary the Republican bastard

Corporate bribes? Let's fight corporate bribes with crowd funded candidates.

[cascadiance]

70. The only "fast tracking" we should support is getting bums like these OUT OF OFFICE!

And getting a REAL Democrat in to replace them! No more corporatist party stealth members of our party please!

They are cancerous tumors that need to be removed!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. How many clicked this to see if it was Hillary?

[liberal_at_heart]

93. Oh, we know there are more bad apples out there than just Hillary.

Although I had no idea they would try to begin to use fast track on everything. That is a fresh betrayal.

[awoke_in_2003]

104. Probably no one...

because she would never say this publically before an election. Were she elected then that might change.

[QC]

74. This turd has a net worth of over $150,000,000.

But let's keep pretending that having a government run by the top .01% is not a problem, so long as the plutocrats are wearing blue jerseys.

[Wella]

75. No Democrat in my younger days would have ever betrayed the people this way

It's just mind boggling. I wonder how much this is due to Citizens United.

[octoberlib]

76. I tweeted this to Ed, Chris , Rachel &

Charlie Pierce. Hopefully, one of them will mention it

[Gman]

77. All the more reason to make damn sure

Hillary gets elected.

[TheNutcracker]

133. Me think you better ask Hillary what she thinks about each of these changes to soc.sec....

[pansypoo53219]

80. this is greenspuds fault. ELIMINATE THE CAP + lower the rate.

another reagan poop problem.

[ctsnowman]

81. Ever notice

how when it comes to helping people we have to have 60 votes in the Senate but when it comes to ripping us off well...

[LeftOfWest]

85. Yes.

Great point.

[liberal_at_heart]

95. Damn good point!

[ND-Dem]

141. no one can help but notice. same thing for their war games.

[octoberlib]

86. This says it all.

Third Way Statement on Delaney-Cole Bipartisan Bill to Create Social Security Commission


Third Way issued this statement today on legislation introduced by Reps. John Delaney and Tom Cole creating a Social Security Commission. Jim Kessler, Third Way’s Senior Vice President for Policy said:

"In this period of divided government, it is commendable when policymakers reach across the aisle to find common ground. And when those members not only seek bipartisan compromise, but also seek to solve the nation’s most challenging issues, it is particularly noteworthy.

Experts on the right and left concur that Social Security must be fixed for future generations. There are many separate plans to do so, but only one that will actually get it done: through a bipartisan Social Security commission. By re-introducing legislation establishing a commission today, Representatives John Delaney (D-MD) and Tom Cole (R-OK) have shown that they are serious about solving the most difficult challenges and that they remain committed to working across the aisle in order to fix America’s most important safety net program.

Action on their bill cannot happen soon enough, as the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) trust fund will be insolvent as early as next year. Unless Congress acts, current law will require an immediate benefit cut—projected to be 19%—for all disabled workers, their spouses, and their children at some point in 2016. Social Security’s retired and survivors of American workers will also face insolvency issues and benefits cuts in less than 20 years if no changes are made to the broader program. And every year we wait, Social Security fixes become more expensive.

With the Delaney-Cole legislation, there is now a clear—and most importantly, viable—path forward to fixing one of our most pressing policy issues. A commission offers a transparent, inclusive, and bipartisan path to a solvency plan and a filibuster-proof up-or-down-vote. It allows all ideas to be heard. We urge members of Congress of both parties and the President to support this common-sense path forward."

http://thirdway.org/press/press-releases/third-way-statement-on-delaney-cole-bipartisan-bill-to-create-social-security-commission-1

[bvar22]

183. The best way to "fix" SS is:

What ever happened to that guy?

[stuffmatters]

91. " Fast Tracking" has become the new ALEC strategy... first TPP now this cutting soc security

It's war on the 99% without leaving fingerprints.

[cascadiance]

96. It's a "polite" way of saying "BYPASS democratic processes"

which is more descriptive of what "fast track" efforts are in the different places it is being used.

This is like the terms:
"Right to Work"
"Right to Life"
"Progressive Policy Institute"
"Progressive Coalition for American Jobs"
"Save Our Schools"

Unfortunately, the powerful realize that the masses have little time and awareness of the ways they are being manipulated by such catch phrases. It's up to us to point out when such labels are manipulative and in many cases outright lies of what they are supposed to be describing.

[ND-Dem]

146. +100

[liberal_at_heart]

92. These people are suppose to represent us and they are cutting us out of the process.

This is not democracy.

[FiveGoodMen]

101. You're right. Not democracy. We have been betrayed.

I keep thinking treason, but according to the many experts on this site, it seems that no amount of treachery rises to the level wherein it's against the law.

Total betrayal, as it turns out, is perfectly legal.

[liberal_at_heart]

102. Maybe once some of these so called Democrats start attacking gay rights and abortion rights,

then we'll be allowed to criticize them. It will happen. These Democrats that are willing to sell out the American people will eventually sell out to the religious lobbies as well. It is only a matter of time.

[creeksneakers2]

119. Who said you can't

criticize them?

[ND-Dem]

149. The 1% is ok with those things. They have gay partners they want to share their wealth with.

And as for abortion, it's a pseudo-right in a lot of place already, since there are no providers in a lot of places. and if the 99% kill themselves with back-door abortions, what do the 1% care?

[ND-Dem]

148. +100

[woo me with science]

192. Corporatists are liars.

It is what they do.

Manipulative, lying advertising, versus genuine representation of the people. That is the difference between corporate government and representative government.

[Enthusiast]

103. And they want to increase the defense budget.

[onethatcares]

105. check out his other introduction of HR 4786

he's doing to Social Security the same thing the pukes did to the Post Office. Require solvency 75 years out and beyond.

He's a fucking rat.

[Enthusiast]

106. So John Delaney is a piece of Republican wannabe filth.

[Babel_17]

107. This is a teachable moment ;)

Maybe Rep. Delaney will learn something from this, and maybe the lesson learned won't be lost on other politicians.
Social Security can be improved, but this Commission is a joke. We've seen viable improvements discussed at length. We already know what to do.
We pretty much had this worked out back in 2008 (and earlier), and with a consensus as to it.
After seeing fortune after fortune sent the way of the 1% since then, I see efforts to cut benefits to older Americans as contemptible.
Increase the funding from those who've been doing great (and look at stock market speculators), and then make allowances for the younger generations that will live longer, and maybe can work longer. That's most of it, right there.
These people need to abandon the idea that the nation reaps any kind of benefit from cutting payments to struggling seniors. All their money goes back into the economy.
We need a Commission. A Blue Ribbon Commission of prominent Democrats who could use their bully pulpit to blast Democrats who trash our party's platform, out of some form of cheap expediency, or self aggrandizement.

[onpatrol98]

187. Whoa...

That sounds fine, except clarify what you mean by allowances for younger who'll live and can work longer...the age has already moved for my group. No part of any one's fix should continue messing around with age again, unless you're lowering it for everyone.

I'm still pissed at the last age hike. How was that fair? And, the group that would lose out truly has no representation in congress.

[Babel_17]

191. It hurt me too

"make allowances for the younger generations that will live longer, and maybe can work longer"

People from 20 - 40, with good medical care, and who take care of themselves, can reasonably hope to hit the century mark. If our society doesn't regress, but instead progresses, working conditions should gradually become be more amenable to a higher percentage of those in their 60's.

For young people 0 - 20, and for those not yet born, all bets are off. We can hope that we'll no longer have a society that is encumbered by the scarcity of essentials. One can easily imagine life expectancies that will be revolutionary. Going along with such life expectancies will be the opportunity not just to live longer, but to feel younger.

By that time social security will hopefully be replaced by a more generous and encompassing program.

Long story short, imo we won't need to allow for the very young "breaking the bank" of social security. But we do need to have a plan that we'll fight for that will past muster with accountants and actuaries. We need something that will deal with, roughly speaking, the next 20 - 50 years.

Obviously you need a granular solution when dealing with increased longevity. And we don't need to change our current system any time soon. We just need to acknowledge that sometime in the next decade or so we might need to take into account the increase in life spans and how it relates to our ability to fund SS benefits.

In such a case I'd lean more heavily on tapping into the great wealth of our economy. But not to mince words, yeah, I don't think we can prevent eventual (gradual and modest) increases in the age to collect from being part of any real piece of legislation we're likely to see.

I'm not saying we should favor that part of any bill, or that it's truly inevitable. I just don't see much chance of a scenario where it doesn't come to pass.

[Babel_17]

109. Just providing an opportunity to grandstand?

Is that what this will ultimately be seen as having served?
Will some endorse it so as to look "serious"?
And then those who represent us will have to spend time shooting down these ideas?

[ann---]

111. That is why

I am registered as "no party affiliation." Voting for any candidate from the center is NOT
going to get progressives what they want.

[raven mad]

112. DINO

What a jerk. Tweet delivered: "You, sir, are no Democrat. Leave SS alone."

[bvar22]

113. If ANYTHING can spawn a viable 3rd Liberal Party,

...the Democrats cutting Social Security will.

[Cal Carpenter]

114. I'd say it would more likely be a leftist party

than a liberal one.

This issue highlights the fundamental difference that often seems to be forgotten here. People seem to expect leftist policies from liberal politicians, and that just isn't realistic.

[bvar22]

118. I've never met a "Liberal" yet who favored Cutting Social Security,

and I've been around Liberal Democrats for close to 50 years.


....but I'm not against Liberal/Left Coalitions.


How do you make that distinction between Liberalism and Leftism?

[Cal Carpenter]

121. Economically, liberalism is not anti-capitalist

Leftists would argue that under capitalism, implementing and protecting things like social security is a neverending battle. Leftists would consider things like a comfortable end-of-life standard of living (and universal health care, and maternity leave, and public education, labor rights, civil rights, environmental safety, etc...) a human right. The "common good", if you will.

Liberals may support these concepts and legislation that addresses them, but they seldom challenge the very system that makes these improbable, short-lasting, or even impossible. Liberals tend to address them as social issues rather than fundamental economic ones.

I'd also like to add a couple bits...

- one - if you poll voters about social security, you won't even find many self-identified conservatives who favor cutting social security.

- two - many people who identify as liberal/Democrats, especially on DU actually have a pretty leftist perspective on some things, even economically, so I do want to contrast that with the majority of the actual politicians. Frankly I think our 2-party system, and our elections based on personalities rather than platforms, fucks this all up. One party is always judged in a relative way against the other rather than on objective policies and their outcomes. It's no wonder so many Dem voters have differing expectations and hopes of Dem politicians when you look at how divisive a primary can be, for example, between people who are in teh same party and are supposed to be supporting the same platform.

I'm not really in a good frame of mind to organize my thoughts well, and I have to sign off for a bit without rereading this again, so I hope that makes sense. Basically at the core is the economic system, and the political system follows from that (concentration of wealth and power that is the inevitable result of capitalism). That's the fundamental difference in the theories of leftism vs liberalism, that's the distinction I make.

[bvar22]

122. Most (if not all) of the "Leftists" I have known for over 50 years...

have advocated for strong government regulatory agencies,
public ownership of the necessities,
a strong safety net,
and an opportunity for Workers to share in the profits.

Of course, the term "Leftist" covers alot of ground.

Labels have become muddled and confused.


I have been called a "Fringe Leftist" on DU for posting FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

I see myself as a mainstream, middle of the road, FDR New Deal Democrat.
I...am a "centrist" FDR Democrat.

[merrily]

126. Anti-capitalist is not the issue. Neither is anti-capitalism.

[YOHABLO]

115. Social Security can be made solvent by taxing the wealthy the same as the middle class.

People making hundreds of thousands are only paying FICA on their first $118,500 earnings. Where the middle class are paying on there entire earnings. Yet, the millionaires will not allow this to happen. It's called greed and selfishness. They won't have to rely on SS to make it through their retirement.

[bvar22]

120. Exactly!

...and Candidate Obama in 2008 promised to DO that very same thing.

Unfortunately, that went down the Memory Hole the day he was inaugurated,
and was NEVER mentioned again.

[DeSwiss]

123. Saving url for posting later in the year.

- Thank you.

[merrily]

128. It is solvent and would have been infinitely more solvent if politicians had not misusded OASDI fund

And, yes, exempting higher portions of compensation from OASDI contributions sucks, too. Doesn't make any kind of sense that 100% of salary income of !9 K a year is taxed for contributions, but a salary of over a million a year is not.

[ND-Dem]

143. a salary of over a million a year IS taxed for contributions, up to $118,500.

[merrily]

151. I know. My post certainly could have been worded better,

but I did not say simply that compensation of over a million a year is not taxed at all, just that 100% of it is not taxed.

And, yes, exempting higher portions of compensation from OASDI contributions sucks, too. Doesn't make any kind of sense that 100% of salary income of !9 K a year is taxed for contributions, but a salary of over a million a year is not.

Good clarification of my meaning, though.

[ND-Dem]

152. it does make sense. if the same percent of billionaires' incomes and peons' incomes is

taxed to fund SS, it would mean the billionaires would fund the majority of SS, and thereby "own" it.

When workers fund it, they own it. when it's a handout from the rich, they own it and can take it easily.

[merrily]

154. Disagree totally. Billionaires like Peterson are acting as though they own it anyway

politicians seem to agree with them. Hence effort after effort by politicians of both parties in DC to "reform" OASDI and other "entitlements."

What billionaires get to own, control and/or influence has not depended upon their contributions to the IRS or SSA, any more than it has depended on their numbers as compared with the rest of the population.

[ND-Dem]

155. But they don't own it. Which is why we haven't yet lost it. and since the "underfunding"

of SS is a myth created by the Peterson types anyway, nothing is gained with your plan.

You've already bought the myth that "something must be done", so you're halfway to killing SS already.

[merrily]

156. Disagree with that too. We haven't lost it yet because

politicians still depend on votes. There are still more of us voting than there are billionaires plus politicians voting and, so far, billionaires, politicians and all their respective shills combined have not convinced enough of us that changing OASDI is for our own good.

[ND-Dem]

157. The public doesn't get to vote on it. If the PTB decide to change it, they can. All that holds

it is the fear that the people might rebel.

and as I said, you've already bought the myth, created by the Peterson types, that SS is in danger of going under and needs an infusion of funds from the billionaires. It's FUD they've sold to the public, and once you buy into it, they're halfway to winning their goal.

SS was set up the way it is for a reason, and it's lasted longer than any US social program because it was set up well. It really pisses me off to see people buying into stupid tinkering that has the aim of killing it, though they may not realize it.

[merrily]

158. I proferred no plan and stated no myth that OASDI is going under. To the contrary, I said it is

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 06:29 AM - Edit history (1)

solvent in response to a poster to had posted something like "it would be solvent if......." I replied to that poster that it is solvent and would have been more solvent if politicians had not misused contributions.

I also didn't say that OASDI needs an infusion from billionaires. I simply agreed with another DUer that, IMO, it sucks that someone making a million a year make less of a contribution as a percentage of income than someone making 20K a year. But, very obviously the more money it gets from any source the more solvent it will be.

I never said the public votes on OASDI, either. I said politicians depend on votes. Almost anyone old enough to vote knows that the general public does not vote on OASDI or any federal matter other than elections of various politicians. I certainly know and I doubt you actually thought I was under a wrong impression on that point. However, politicians do worry about re-election and more of us vote on that than do billionaires and politicians combined.

So, I stand by everything I've posted in this subthread so far, though, at this point, I probably should be re-thinking having complimented and thanked you. However, I do think clarification is important.


If you are going to accuse me of something, at least do so on the basis of something I actually posted.

[ND-Dem]

175. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6426394

[merrily]

196. Yes, my Reply 158 accurately described Reply 128, to which your reply 175 links.

YOHABLO had posted this, in Reply 115.

Social Security can be made solvent by taxing the wealthy the same as the middle class.

People making hundreds of thousands are only paying FICA on their first $118,500 earnings. Where the middle class are paying on there entire earnings. Yet, the millionaires will not allow this to happen. It's called greed and selfishness. They won't have to rely on SS to make it through their retirement.

The implication of YOHABLO's post, not mine, was that Social Security was insolvent and YOHABLO, not I, proposed a way to make it solvent.

Yet, your reply was not to YOHABLO, but to me.

My Reply 128 stated, in it its entirety:

It is solvent and would have been infinitely more solvent if politicians had not misusded OASDI fund/

And, yes, exempting higher portions of compensation from OASDI contributions sucks, too. Doesn't make any kind of sense that 100% of salary income of !9 K a year is taxed for contributions, but a salary of over a million a year is not

No claim that Social Security is insolvent, as you claimed, but the opposite, in contradiction of a possible implication of another poster that it was insolvent.

No plan to save Social Security proferrred, as you claimed, just a personal observation about fairness.

Exactly as my reply 158 stated and nothing like your mischaracterizations of my Reply 128 in this subthread.

Odd that you made no reply at all to YOHABLO, whose post did fit the erroneous claims you made about my post.

I have been nothing but courteous to you. However, you seem to take any opportunity to claim me of saying things I have not said and of accusing you of things I never accused you of. That needs to stop.

[Major Hogwash]

131. With this congress??? Not a chance!!

You may as well ask them to raise the minimum wage!!!!!

[ND-Dem]

142. social security is ALREADY solvent. by going along with their narrative you already cede the

game.

[DeSwiss]

124. Well, look now......

...the banksters bought those Congresspeople fair and square on the open market. And now they're gonna use them as intended. That's the free enterprise system for you.

- That. Is. How. It. Works.

K&R




If you want something different, you'll have to start with something different.......

[taught_me_patience]

125. I'm curious as to what their proposal would be

If it is a chained CPI and maybe a .5% employment tax increase and a year or two added to the age, then I'd support it. Something modest and gradual is the best way to go on this.

[YOHABLO]

132. No No No .. CPI. NO two more years of waiting. If anything, we should lower the age of eligibility

open up Medicare for everyone. This is nothing more than appeasement. Sometimes you have to stand up and fight. This is what Dems should be doing in full force.

[liberal_at_heart]

135. First of all, workers pay into SS. It is their money. The government is trying to steal their money.

Secondly, the way to fix what the government has broken is to increase funding, not decreasing it with a CPI or increasing the age at which you can take SS. My father worked hard labor all his life. Both my brothers work hard labor. My father took SS at 62 because his body could no longer work. I have a feeling my brothers will do the same if there is SS there to take when their bodies finally give out. Increase funding. Give back the money the government has stolen. No CPI, and no added increase to the age requirement.

[Major Hogwash]

130. It's DOA.

Because the Senate has to agree.

And then, and only then, will President Obama have to sign it into law.

[LondonReign2]

182. Yet, here we have a Third Way fake Democrat proposing this shit

Isn't that sweet?

[Jamastiene]

136. Things like that explain why I am becoming apathetic about politics.

Voting used to be something I looked forward to. Now, since NC took straight party voting off the ballot and you have to mark each individual politician's name, it feels like I am punching a goddamn time clock...and I'm not that enthused about having only conservadems ever running in my state. So, not only do I have shit choices, but I gotta show ID then mark each one of their right wing fucking names and fill in the bubble. To be honest, I hate voting now. I still do it because I was raised with a sense of duty to dammit vote against the Republicans at every opportunity INCLUDING extra elections for things like bonds for parks for rugrats to play in and votes for liquor by the drink at bars in my county. That happened in the late 1990s. That's how shitty and backasswards this supposedly solid Democratic (Dixiecrats really) county is.

With some Democrats though, I have to honestly ask, am I really voting against the Republicans? The conservadems make damn sure the Republicans get exactly what they want. So, it feels like I gotta not only show ID and mark each individual name now, but I do it begrudgingly. I wish a good solid Democrat would come along and not be a goddamn pro Republican asshole. In my state, that ain't happening. The absolute closest I ever got was Elaine Marshall. I like her. That's it. They rest are Conservadems or are in elections in other cities where I can't vote for them.

I don't even bother to put my I Voted stickers on my guitar cases any more. I used to be so excited to put those on my guitar cases. Now, I'm thinking about all the Goof Off I am going to have to use to get the gummy crap off of the cases, because I've voted for far to many jackasses with a D behind their name. I have quite a lot of stickers on eight guitar cases (well, really 7, because I haven't stickered up the case for my Jackson at all yet) from voting straight party D in every single election since I turned 18 back in 1988, until they changed the law to make it even harder to hold my nose. I might pass out holding my nose that damn long, then there are the supposed "nonpartisan" races for various judges and other wastes of money I have to research only to find they ALL campaigned on how devout anti abortion pro death penalty Christian they are. Now, I have to mark each of these right wing assholes' names and it feels worse each and every time.

The more I think about it, the more I realize I may end up being one of those people who falls by the wayside and says fuck it. I'm not really voting against the Republicans, am I? Conservative Democrats make damn sure the Republicans get EXACTLY what they want. I'm really voting for Democrats who won't just do the right thing and join the damn Republicans they agree with so much. And I despise it. The country has already gone so far off the deep end, to hell in a hand basket, by now, that it cannot be saved from itself. It's fourth world. It's not even good enough to be third world. It's retail hell with all the jobs everywhere else in the world...and we are supposed to smile and tell customers to have a nice day and because it's the stupid fucking Bible Belt, tell them Merry CHRISTmas because they are so goddamn oppressed that they got to vote to make sure I never got rights when I was young enough to still look for Mrs. Right (she'd have to be Left for me, but still, the woman I could talk into spending her life with me, maybe, she'd have to be mighty damn special and have the patience of a saint). But THEY are so goddamn oppressed.

Yes, my breaking point is well on its way. Fuck it. We'll end up with the same damn thing no matter which way we vote. The Democratic Party can't wait to belly up and piss a beta dog submissive puddle of obedient servitude to the worst of the worst right wing moneyed interests. We don't fucking matter. That is the truth. It's all a popularity contest between people who don't even have a clue what it is like in the real world known as this declining America that doesn't even bother to fucking follow the Constitution any more. Cruz should never have been allowed to run. All we have fucking heard for 7 fucking years so far is Kenya Kenya Kenya. Yet, we aren't supposed to complain about Cruz and the Democratic Party leadership will NOT press the issue at all. They will roll over like always looking to get their bellies rubbed by the richest of the rich, trying their best to please those right wing lunatics. I don't get it. I can't pretend I'm ok with that. I can't pretend I believe any of the bullshit nonsense I get told on this site every time I mention the truth. If you lay down with nasty ass Republicans, you are going to wake up in a shitty Vitter diaper in a public restroom covered in elephant shit your own piss. Don't expect the rest of us to pretend it doesn't stink and don't expect me to forgive assholes who hate gay people all day long and inspire others to hate gay people even more, which is what the Democratic Party has done for ages now. Until they licked their fingers and stuck them in the air and saw it was "safe" to say they don't think gay people should be outright tortured, but still shouldn't have real equal rights, then later realized they could say they don't agree with it, but we should have rights, which is still two faced bullshit, the Democratic Party told us to STFU for ages. I'm sick of the whole damn thing. I'm supposed to vote for those two faced fair weather assholes? I might do it, but for how much longer I don't know. I feel like I am voting against myself. And I hate it more every goddamn time.

[bvar22]

180. Righteous Rant!

I reached that point in 2004,
moved to The Woods,
and started growing food.

[eridani]

160. Contact information

1632 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
hours: M-F 9-5:30pm

9801 Washingtonian Boulevard
Suite 330
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
hours: M-F 9-5:30pm

38 South Potomac Street
Suite 205
Hagerstown, MD 21740
phone: [phone]

[eridani]

194. Hey folks--STILL plenty of room on all three answering machines.

As of 2:30am 3/31 PDT.

[eridani]

195. I'm doing a Twitter war with him right now--he sez he's in facor of raising the cap

Still cheering raising retirement age and chained CPI

@RepJohnDelaney

Join in if you use Twitter

[tomp]

163. occupy Washington....

....in the millions, and don't leave until....well, don't leave. it's the only way.

[Buns_of_Fire]

164. "Catfood II" -- NOW, with STEROIDS! nt

[SusanCalvin]

166. How infuriating (as are so many things)

Here's a tweet that came out to the exact number of characters.

@RepJohnDelaney Leave Social Security (and its nearly $3B) ALONE! http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html "Reform" not needed! Expand it! #socialsecurity

[99Forever]

168. Seems any POS can be a "Democrat" these days...

... just by parking a "D" behind their name, and the party "leadership" goes along.

I remember a time when being a Democrat actually meant having principles and standing up for them. Apparently that no longer applies.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

169. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all. Fuck the whole gawdamned lot of them. If there is a hell, I hope they fry

forfuckingever.

[Caretha]

170. And in other news....

Home Depot & Lowes are completely sold out of pitchforks.

TPTB always go to far in the end. The demise of being able to take care of one's family, be it your grandmother or a disabled child or other family member, will affect the majority of the United State's population. Be they D, R or I, or completely politically apathetic - put this on fast track and pass it and the politicians in DC and every single state's governing body will face their worse nightmare.

This move would be the final nail in the coffin, and I guarantee you this will wake up the slumbering beast, better known as the American Public.

[Triana]

171. Tweet....

@DSCC @DCCC-you want donations from Dems? Better SHUT DOWN @RepJohnDelaney & @ThirdWayKessler Cat Food Commission to cut Social Security.

[woo me with science]

188. kick

[blackspade]

193. Another corrupt politician doging accountability.

Typical.

[eridani]

197. Twitter war on Delaney

#socialsecurity @RepJohnDelaney Leave Social Security (and its nearly $3T) ALONE! http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html … Scrap the cap! Expand it!


#socialsecurity @RepJohnDelaney Keep your goddam hands OFF or our Social Security money. WE PAID FOR IT!! http://www.ncpssm.org/PressRoom/NewsReleases/Release/ArticleID/1392/Congress-Targets-Social-Security-with-Fast-Track-Commission-Plan

[woo me with science]

199. kick

[RKP5637]

201. The label of democrat does not mean one is a democrat. Many democratic politicians

often act more like republicans when it some to $$$$$'s. Yep, they are corporate-democrats, not necessarily for "we the people," but often for "we the corporations."