2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCan we get honest here ...
for just a moment? Those decrying the this Chain CPI thing are self-interested folks, hiding behind the elderly, the poor, the disabled and/or veterans.
This "concern" for the poor and elderly and disabled and veterans is a cannard, because those that will be affected WILL NOT be the elderly or the poor or veterans or the disabled; but those (non-poor, non-disabled, non-elderly, non-veterans) folks like me ... with (or planning on) some form of retirement income that is less than what we would like to have to live on.
But I understand the reason for the cannard ... it plays a lot better than "I want my SS with as much in COLAs as their willing to offer because I paid into it ... it's mine."
The fact is, from the beginning, every suggestion of instituting a CCPI has included statement indicating that these most vulnerable groups will be exempted from the change.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Not enough heated rhetoric or accusations of hating seniors.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Really ??? ... I have heard MANY times about Chained CPI without hearing any references to 'the most vulnerable groups will be exempted' .... Many many times, no such 'canard' was offered .....
You live as an individual ... a being who inhabits the space between your own eyes ... YOU see with those eyes ... NOBODY ELSE sees what you see, automatically .... While your personal experience could indicate what others might experience as well (if they looked at the same things), there is no guarantee that everyone has heard or understands that 'canard' ...
Even your post here leaves that 'canard' to the very last sentence .... It is deeply embedded in your phrases and clauses and sentences ... It is NOT 'obvious' ....
Even so .... Social Security is NOT really a problem, and there are other solutions other than reducing the amount of SSI recipients will receive in so called Cost Of Living increases .... That is another line of objection that has nothing to do with that 'canard' ...
It is fair to criticize it on that basis alone ....
EDIT: You have DU's premier Right Wing Economist on your side ..... THAT's the company you are keeping ?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You have heard MANY times about Chained CPI without hearing any references to 'the most vulnerable groups will be exempted' ?
From whom? Was it the Administration or pundits? The Administration has been pretty consistent on this ... and so has the media. The Administration keeps talking about the exemted classes and the media keeps neglecting to mention it.
I agree ... SS is not a problem and there are other adjustments that could be made to shore it up. But I also recognize that there is more at play here ... namely, the 2014 elections. The vast majority of the electorate poll as the gop being unwilling to compromise. Here, going into the 2014 cycle, is another insistence of President Obama "appearing" to be willing to bend against his base and the gop saying "No."
Because of the gerrymandering following 2010, the only way to pick up seats is to get indppendent voters to mexpress their disgust and vote Democrat, or get gop voters to stay home. President Obama and Democrats can't accomplish the latter, but can affect the former by being the "reasonable" (read; willing to compromise) folks in the room.
If we can do this it is bound to translate into Democratic seats (more progressive seats) in 2014 ... assuming, of course, the progressives don't wish to ignore 2010 and "teach the party a lesson" by sitting home.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)If prices go up on things people need why shouldn't they get COLAs?
As for "the most vulnerable groups will be exempted from the change", got proof?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)effect the debt ... other than it being the gop talking point that brought SS to the table.
Yes ... and it will even under CCPI ... just at a reduced rate; a rate that economist indicate more closely relates to actual household spending.
Yes ... google. Look up Carney's CCPI statement during the debt ceiling negotiations ... google any administration statement regarding CCPI.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)these claims you have made .
"Yes ... and it will even under CCPI ... just at a reduced rate; a rate that economist indicate more closely relates to actual household spending.
Yes ... google. Look up Carney's CCPI statement during the debt ceiling negotiations ... google any administration statement regarding CCPI."
I have seen no proof that either of those are true
Found it
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-chained-cpi-is-a-bad-deal-for-kids-and-low-income-working-age-adults-too
And once again, I will say it is a disgrace that a "Democratic" President offers SS up in a phony debt crisis.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No one knows what the CCPI formula will look like. The currect formula does not include exempting the vulnerable groups ... The Administration has indicated that any CCPI will include these exemptions ... so any analysis that doesn't include that is one off.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as well. And he has done nothing to disappoint me.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,307 posts)"The currect formula does not include exempting the vulnerable groups ... The Administration has indicated that any CCPI will include these exemptions"
So, there's the problem. They give some vague "don't worry, we'll do something" assurance, without giving anyone the faintest idea what. That's a crap way to put forward a budget proposal. This means they can't put a cost on it, or tell people at what point the cuts start. It reduces their proposal to "we insist some people's Social Security has to lag behind the inflation they experience". As principles go, that's a pretty bad one.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what you do when negotiating.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)THAT is where there is real inflation, and health care is not something you can swap out of your basket of goods for a generic brand, like bread in a supermarket.
The real question is do we really want to hurt the middle class in this country even further than it has already been hurt? You cannot have a democracy without a middle class and vice versa, as has been pointed out by many political scientists.
You are advocating a form of austerity that is currently devastating some countries in Europe. It doesn't work for the betterment of our democratic society. On that ground alone, it should be opposed in any form.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)That said, I applaud you for swimming against the mob here. There's a lynch mob on the loose, for sure. In one of the more comical instances of ideological blindness, one of the leaders of this lynch mob represented anyone who would oppose her as the "cool kids." As if jumping on the outrage train is less cool on DU today that flogging it for all it's worth. Some people can't see or hear themselves - it is the hallmark of mob behavior.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a CCPI stinks ... It'll cost me money, sometime in the future.
And I agree, it drives me nuts that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives seem to mirror the worst that we laugh about conservatives' responses.
We're supposed to be the thoughtful ones.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Sone of us are in that category, but I don't think we have to be in order to care. I won't ever need to live off Soc Security alone. But I still have profound concern for those who will. What I want, and you can call this self-interest if you like, is for the Big 3, the cornerstones of the Democratic Party's most significant contributions to the social safety net not be weakened or even verbally threatened in any way by anyone. That is non-negotiable for me. Maybe not for you, but it is for me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)since we really don't know what the CCPI exemptions will look like, other than that it will protect the poor, the elderly, the disabled and veterans, would you be OK if the CCPI applied to those with incomes of (picking an arbitrary number) $250,000 and above, exempting those receiving less?
It could be argued that this would "weaken" SS, if you happened to make more than that number; but it would still be true to SS's foundinjg premise.
rucky
(35,211 posts)If that exemption threshold is high enough, it sort of has a similar effect to raising the cap - or at least adds a progressive layer to it.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)To offer protections for the "most vulnerable" without offering details is hardly proof of anything - and that's what those statements you allude to do. Yes, they use the phrase - but you're the one claiming that those "most vulnerable" will be the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and veterans (by the way, that covers just about everyone who receives benefits of this nature).
The devil is in the details - and the President's proposal doesn't provide those. Just that catchy "Superlative CPI with protections for vulnerable". http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan
Unless you're privy to the details of the President's budget proposal, you're posting your very own canard.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the Devil is in the details and no, I am not privy to any more details than have been released.
Exactly ... and, judging from the gop response, I am lead to believe that this is exactly what is in the deal.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)got it. Your OP was just your opinion, based on nothing more than a belief founded on the GOP reaction.
That's fair - though maybe not the criticism of other opinions since your own doesn't bear close scrutiny.
I hope you're right. Really, I am - but I lack the faith gene.
corrected word - shouldn't try to talk and type at the same time . . .
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is based on opinion, since no one knows what the CCI formula will look like.
My criticism is based in people saying, "Oh how the poor, the elderly, the disabled, veterans will suffer", while ignoring that the Administration has said that these groups will be protected.
I invite scrutiny of my opinion ... the gop reaction is just another something that informs it.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)The Administration did not say that the poor, elderly, disabled, veterans" would be protected. They said: "vulnerable" - without details.
You are supplying the details. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it is an assumption. It is not accurate to say "the Administration has said" when the Administration has not said . . . if the Administration has actually said it (that would be those details you just told me you are not privy to), please point me in the direction of the statement, because I'm not finding it anywhere.
What you are doing is no different from the folks you are criticizing - it's just coming from a different direction.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)aren't you also making an assumption? We are both making an assumption based on our interpretations of the term "vulnerable."
My assumption is based on President Obama's rhetoric of "protecting the middleclass" and his consistently drawing that line at $250,000. Your assumption is based on ...? Other than a distrust of President Obama?
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)although I haven't actually made an "I think" statement about it one way or another - you are assuming my position because I am asking for proof of your assertions.
That aside; two wrongs don't make a right.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2013, 07:12 PM - Edit history (2)
Some of what you might be true and some might not. The idea of reducing or touching S.S.
as a solution to deficit reduction is absolutely bullshit!!! Everything else does’t matter..
Hey people...They are trying to equate cutting s.s. to you as cutting loopholes for millionaires..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)would applying CCPI to those making (again, an arbitrary number) $250,000 in exchange for closing loophole to be applied to the debt/deficit, reduce the debt/deficit?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that it does have EVERYTHING to do with the deficit DEBATE. Just because we (liberals/Democrats) don't wish to acknowledge that this is a gop negotiation point, doesn't mean we can take it off the table or that it doesn't matter.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)That is because they are facts. That is the answer very time anyone tries to introduce lies into any debate.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and a friend were trying to decide where to go to dinner and you said, "I want a good burger" and your friend said, "I want fish; but I want to go to a movie first ... In fact, we're not going to dinner without me seeing a movie first."
Does the movie have anything to do with the dinner debate?
Of course the movie has nothing to do with WHAT you eat; but it has EVERYTHING to do with WHETHER you eat (with your friend).
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)You said I only eat vegetation, and you friend said Veal is Vegetarian, let's eat Veal.
Does the lie that Veal is Vegetarian have anything to do with the "Debate"?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This is exactly where we are ...
In ANY negotiation ... ANY term that ANY side wishes to raise IS a part of the negotiation; whether the other side wants it or not ... regardless of the veracity of their reasoning for wanting it on the table.
That is the way life works ... and moreso, when the parties can't just walk away from each other.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)They have already walked away and there is no "debate" to be had.
How exactly do you propose to deal with reality denying parties?
You seem to be assuming that we can some how find "Common Ground"
with irrational people.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)why there are on-going debates and very little governing?
with irrational people.
No, that's not what I am saying at all. What I have said is this "on-going debate" is merely President Obama putting the gop in the position to kept saying "No." A position that the American is getting feed up with.
I think the goal is to have them say "No" deep into the 2014 election cycle with the hope to flip gop seats.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)we are allowing the "Debate" to drift ever further to the right.
The policies that allow the country to be governed by and for the Rich are advanced in major and minor ways every day.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2013, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)
All I know that the only good answer to your question is having a strong middle class walking around with money in their pockets... Revenue is the answer, not cutting benefits!!!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)wouldn't exempting incomes of less than $250,000 accomplish that ... even as it is a "cut" to benefits?
Bake
(21,977 posts)And by God I want what I've paid into. AND I VOTE and I have a long memory.
How's that?
Bake
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)A moment of honesty ... and I ain't mad at you.
Now about that:
How's that?
Bake
(21,977 posts)But they'd best not take my vote for granted while they give away Social Security, pissing on my leg while asking "where else ya gonna go?"
Fool me once ...
Bake
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the answer is not to condemn Democrats, but work to elect the Progressives that you seek. Absent their presence in general elections, we must go for the candidate that will do the least harm ... and reality has it that the lesser evil will always be the Bluest of Blue Dog DEMOCRAT, when faced with even the most moderate member of the gop.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I agree. We need progressive candidates (hell, we need LIBERAL candidates!).
Liberal is NOT a dirty word, and we need to take that word back!
Bake
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)we do need to elect progressive candidates; but failing that ...
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)and I wont' be getting any of it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and, likely (Universe willing that you live into your 80s or beyond), more than you paid in.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The exemptions would exempt those of extremely low income, poverty level. They would not exempt entire classes of people as you claim. It would apply to most of the elderly, the disabled and Vets. Exemptions for those at poverty level.
When you say 'those that will be affected WILL NOT be the elderly or the poor or veterans or the disabled' that is completely false, untrue, incorrect and dishonest. Those populations will be strongly affected. But they are not the only ones.
Here is a piece about the impact of this proposal on low income children and families.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-chained-cpi-is-a-bad-deal-for-kids-and-low-income-working-age-adults-too
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you wish to argue that the current formulation for CCPI will apply to any change, despite the fact that the Administration has indicated that it will be different. I can't argue against an argument that chooses to accept only the facts that support the argument and disregard those facts that don't.
What we have is an offer of a CCPI with exemptions for specified groups. We do not have any definition or detail regarding the exemptions, just that they will be protected. Any analysis of a CCPI, sans details of the exemptions has to be incomplete.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Your claim that all of the elderly, disabled and Vets will be exempted is not only illogical on it's face but unsupported by anything said by anyone in the administration. You are simply making it up.
Your statement that we have an offer of exemptions of specific groups remains unsupported by any evidence. I am not the only poster to ask you to support your assertions.
You are simply incorrect. If you care to counter with evidence rather than rhetoric, do so.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Which is probably why you have such a hard time listening.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Hopefully you will take time to consider my points ... I doubt it though because cock-sure is cock-sure, even when wrong.
and BTW, your "gloating" in claiming "victory" (read: being an asshole) is most unbecoming.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)content. As usual, your screeds have no supporting facts and revolve around attacks on other people because of that lack of factual content. So you say 'asshole' and 'cocksure' to those who have information you can not deal with.
This is my second round with your tactics, I recall the threads in which you wailed that it was wrong to compare Stonewall to Selma with similar content free and prejudicial tactics. Days later, Obama used the line 'From Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall'. Which you'd claimed was incorrect when others used it. When the facts were brought to you, you held to your strange notions. Had you listened to facts, you'd not be on record as opposing Obama's language in that speech, but sadly you are.
You did all of that as part of your CPI promotion as well. Everyone on DU should review your work in that thread in light of that which has transpired since then, and to show how long you have been advocating cuts to programs for the elderly and disabled and for Veterans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084689
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Say for example a person who gets $1200/month and that's all their income?
Are you saying that person would not see a COLA cut?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I am not ... the CCPI formula hasn't been announced.
But if I were to hazard a guess ... based on other things the Administration has enacted, i.e., ObamaCare's requirement that states extend medicaid to 130% of the poverty line and moves to increase the minimum wage to surpass that number ... Yes, I am confident that a family of 1 with an income of $14,000 will be exempted.
But that's just an educated guess.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"those that will be affected WILL NOT be the elderly or the poor or veterans or the disabled; but those (non-poor, non-disabled, non-elderly, non-veterans) folks like me ."
Now it's 'anyone who has more than 14K income'. Goalposts have left the arena.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)to be honest would require getting more specific information on supplements for poor.
Also you would have to differentiate the difference between a position taken that is likely to get by the Senate and a position which is intended to make the Speaker make a move, two entirely different things.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think I agree.
We do not have the specifics on the exemptions (supplements) ... which I believe is by design. Inclusive/expansive exemptions might explain the gop resistance.
I don't believe that President Obama is taking a position intended to get Boenher to move; but rather a position that makes Boehner say "no."
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)It might or might not interest someone who doesn't quite "get it" yet. Worth a look-see at least.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and the 15,000 others. Thanks.
Marr
(20,317 posts)And anyone who does is just hiding behind the poor to cover their irrational hatred of your hero.
This is some seriously delusional shit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
elleng
(130,865 posts)'these most vulnerable groups will be exempted from the change.'
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)feel that way. For years and years I paid into programs for the previous generations. I never got upset about it because we should take care of our elderly because lets face it many people before these programs came to fruition fell and died through the cracks. Many families can't afford to take care of their immediate families and then their parents on top of it especially if they get ill. I feel it is a duty. But I also know I will never get the full benefits of my social security and that the rest will go to the generations behind me. I think that would be fine by me. I want the generations behind me to have what we have. I don't know people in my generation now that don't say screw the generations behind us. We fight for you also. I tell my son and his wife to fight for social security and any of the government safety nets. Lets face it if we didn't have the safety net we would have been screwed with wall street. I told my son if they give you a choice keep it with social security.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)"But I also know I will never get the full benefits of my social security..."
I'm happy that you are so generous and accepting you're gonna have to excuse those of us not so eager to be screwed over. Pretty bizarre that you're advocating for others to just give up and give in as you have. Especially when there is really no justification for doing so at all.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Really? Sanders and Grayson are "hiding behind the poor"?
Every real Dem I know is 100% against any cuts - including Krugman, Sanders, Sherrod Brown, MoveOn, Grayson, and so on. It is not only a despicable thing to do on a humanitarian level, it is also a political suicide pact for himself and every Dem in government. For himself because the Repukes now know he has absolutely no morals and no principles, and will give him nothing for the next 3 years. For the party because they'll be blamed for cutting off indigent seniors. This is beyond a train wreck.
As for your lie up thread about liberals causing the 2010 debacle - it's time to stop that bullshit. the people who didn't show up in 2010 were the indy's and undecideds who voted for Obama in 2008 thinking that things would be different than when Bush was president. Then we got insurance mandates, tax cut extensions, Gitmo stayed open, torture and war continued, and they knew they'd been lied to, so they went back to not caring.
Your thread title is misleading. You say, "Let's be honest", then the OP and every one of your posts in the thread is either a lie, a DLC talking point, or supposition.
I'd give more credibility to Sanders and Robert Riech over an anonymous poster anyday. People concerned about chained CPI aren't hiding behind the poor. They're worried about being poor or never being able to retire. The original OP is some truly twisted thinking.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Seriously , is there anything that Obama could do that you would oppose? How about skinning babies on the White house lawn and making hats out of them? Would you find a way to justify that too?
The true believers really amaze me, they're just like the fundie bible thumpers.....evidence means nothing, they have faith!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there is plenty that resident Obama has done that I oppose ... and much more that he could do that I would object to ... this strategy (and that's what I believe this to be) just is not one of them.
What "evidence?" daybranch
(1,309 posts)Just because we already have social security, just because we may receive veterans Benefits, does not mean we do not care about you. We do and we want a sytstem which works well to benefit future generations too.
Chained CPI should not be used to cut any benefits. If it is fair to protect us, it is fair to protect you. We older people must stand up for our selves and for those younger than ourselves. I support you and I will fight this with you.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)And brought on solely due to the Republican house. People who don't blame the Republicans for it are as you said, self interested, or dishonest, or dumb, or trolls.
Marr
(20,317 posts)What a sickening fucking post.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I resent the implication.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Cha
(297,154 posts)
Hekate
(90,645 posts)DU is having quite the weekend bender, isn't it?
Thanks, 1StrongBlackMan.
Hekate
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm a paid, twisted, delusional poster because I dare think I see something different. DU has fallen a long way ... Well at least the administrators haven't TS'd me, like that other site would have.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)As far as I can tell I am a vicious cold-hearted plutocrat with no empathy who laughs at the plight of the poor who are reduced to eating cat food.
>sigh< And you know what really hurts? They didn't even ask me for my recipe for kitty fritters.
Hekate
StrongBad
(2,100 posts)This whole episode reeks of being a giant political Rorschah test. Everyone is just projecting their unconscious assumptions onto the president (you and I included).
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)How about raising the CAP, raising taxes on the wealthy, etc?
treestar
(82,383 posts)day care.
So if people don't want it to be CPI it would have to be something else. Or not have a budget, have the government stop and all that.
Everyone objecting to the CPI thing needs to offer something else. What would they give up to appease Boner? Or are they willing to have no budget and a government stand still or whatever are the consequences of no deal at all? That is the real question.
patrice
(47,992 posts)wondering if we shouldn't just have the Squester, but that'd be no good unless we take both houses in 2014.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)its french for duck
the op disgusts me in its intention
shame on you
cali
(114,904 posts)The most vulnerable groups will be very badly hurt by this. Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and many others explain exactly why.
Look it the fuck up.
But of course, we should believe YOU and your op that provides ZERO fucking evidence for your spurious claims.
Er, not thanks.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)do you understand that the CCPI that Krugman, Reich and the many others you refer to rightfully condemn, is NOT a only CCPI formula that does what the administration has promised ... one that protects the vulnerable groups?
Do you understand that the CCPI formula can be whatever Congress designs it to be?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)defend the poor because that would be hiding behind the poor?
Sounds like Freeper logic. The level of BS here is amazing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)read it again.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)"Those decrying the this Chain CPI thing are self-interested folks, hiding behind the elderly, the poor, the disabled and/or veterans. "
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)hint: It's the part immediately following the "because".
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)If it turns out there are protections in place for the poorest beneficiaries...
I can assure you that the goalposts will be moved.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)But I won't name names unless tortured. Then I'll spill everything.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)don't like the policy but let's not lose our heads over this. President Obama put it out there as a proposal, which is all it is at this time- telling Republicans what he'd be WILLING to offer in exchange for higher taxes on the wealthy. He has NOT cut Social Security by executive fiat. It is NOT law. It is not even likely to become law. Whether you think that he should've proposed it or "put it on the table" or not is debatable but lots of stuff gets put on the table for negotiations that never ends up becoming law, so why should anybody assume that that's what will happen here? Lots of people are acting as though it's being immediately adopted (without concessions from the Republicans no less). People are spending a lot more time wringing hands over a relatively modest proposal to readjust cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security but losing sight of the fact that, if given the opportunity, the Republicans will adopt policies much more harmful and damaging to the future of Social Security, Medicare, etc.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And as I have said, there is absolutely no thought being given to how strategic even making that offer is ... I have tried to explain (from my exerience and having been in such negotiations) but no one is listening, or even listening to consider. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022639384
Oh well ... DU is a very different place than 4.5 years ago. I wonder what's different? Oh yeah ...
appacom
(296 posts)Keep posting. I'm a fan.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)SS was instituted to prevent senior poverty, and does a fine job precisely commensurate with its funding. Less well known is that it is also an investment in the buying power of retirees. If we invest less, we see a smaller return and a less-healthy economy.
Like unemployment benefits, SS payments are good for everyone.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)people use this kind of argument to decry civil rights and those who proposed them.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and didn't hear anything close. Maybe we ran in different circles.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)black people were just out for all they could get and that they already had all the protection under the law that was needed? You didn't hear the suited bigots who tried to justify their hate by telling folk to just calm down and wait to see how things work out?
We did run in different circles.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and yes, we did.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)sheltered, very liberal, very supportive little community. In Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia where I did my work, bigots hid behind these lies all the time.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I think what I think based on the evidence I observe.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I have no trouble saying that I oppose this harebrained idea both because it's bad policy and from self-interest. Honestly, anyone who doesn't have an eye on their interests when it comes to politics is an idiot. You're busy attacking people for defending their interests rather than being noble sacrifices to a crisis that doesn't exist. I honestly hope you've never bitched about poor and middle class people who vote Republican otherwise you're the very hypocrite you're attacking.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Re-read this thread ... I'm "busy attacking people" for not acknowledging that they are protecting their own interests and casting their concern as a concern for the vulnerable.
I have no problem with people looking out for their own interests ... that is only rational.
I frequently bitch about poor and middleclass people who vote republican ... I also stated:
I acknowledge my interest.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Yeah, I think I owe you an apology. I reread the OP and I misread it the first time. Sorry about that.
I'd like it if people defending Social Security focused more on its benefit to the middle class because it's good politics. It's straight self-interest combined with the fact that we all pay for it, so it's ours. Again, sorry about the bad reading comprehension.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)wake up and understand how important these programs are.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)it's a false lose-lose situation. Why play that game?
