Van Hollen refuses to answer direct question on Social Security by Cenk.

[madfloridian]

Run time: 06:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHr3nMG6Y4   Posted on YouTube: August 16, 2010 By YouTube Member: firedoglake Views on YouTube: 312   Posted on DU: August 17, 2010 By DU Member: madfloridian Views on DU: 3841

 
There is a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether Democrats will allow cuts to Social Security. Van Hollen refuses to give it. I hate to say it, but the same messaging Rahm controlled as DCCC chair is going on now. Guess he is still directing messaging as part of his role as Chief of Staff. Rule #1: Never give a direct answer. Rule #2: Blame the Republicans for what your own party is doing.

It is a Democratic president who appointed a majority of privatizer proponents to the deficit commission. Pardon me if I am skeptical.

[Robb]

1. From the video, he says it quite directly, twice.

"The Democratic Caucus was very clear ... the Democrats do not support cuts to social security."

and

"I oppose cutting social security benefits, I want to be very clear about that."

..What exact quote are you looking to hear? Seems quite direct to me. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

2. No, he does NOT answer the question about voting on deficit commission

recommendation. Look up that commission and its members and get back to me.

He did NOT answer how they would vote on the "package".

[Robb]

3. "The Democrats do not support cuts to social security."

What's unclear?

[madfloridian]

4. You must not have listened to the rest of it.

And that is not my problem.

[Robb]

5. I watched the entire thing. I just don't think you're characterizing it accurately.

But fortunately no one has to take either of our words for it. :hi:

[ihavenobias]

7. It's pretty simple.

He said they don't "support" social security cuts (alone), but if the deficit commission comes out with an otherwise good package to reduce the deficit that also includes 'modifications' to social security (raise the retirement age? cuts?) they don't want to rule out supporting the overall package. You know, it's the old political strategy of 'there were some good things in this imperfect bill' but at the end of the day I had to vote in favor of it because the good outweighed the bad.

That was incredibly clear in the segment, especially when he fired back at Cenk because he wanted to take a wait and see approach before committing to be for or against something.

[madfloridian]

8. Well said. The cuts would go through in a "package"...

if recommended by the deficit commission. That would be this debt commission.

[old guy]

9. You are exactly correct.

You saved me a bunch of typing. The exchange around the 4 minute mark and the ending exchange are the keys.

[BEZERKO]

36. Yes, the old and tired "let me refer you to paragraph

3 of my statement in subset b, I clearly stated..." blah, blah, blah

The DCCC is what equivocating looks like

[Robb]

10. "I oppose cutting Social Security benefits, I want to be very clear about that."

He spoke for himself when asked, after speaking for the Democrats ("The Democrats do not support cuts to Social Security.").

You're making an argument of some kind about what he didn't say? Were it me, I'd write down what he actually did say and hold him to that. It's a stronger argument -- plus, if the Democrats cut Social Security, one can point to a specific quote as evidence of villainy.

[ihavenobias]

11. Re-read my post. Why did he refuse to rule out cuts *as part of a larger package*?

He's saying that they don't support a la carte cuts but they WOULD support cuts as part of a deficit slashing combo meal.
That is 100% clear and absolutely undeniable to anyone who watched the entire video and didn't stop watching after that once sentence you quoted.

The End

[Robb]

13. He is on the record, as of this interview. Cenk can be proud of that.

He said "I oppose cutting Social Security benefits, I want to be very clear about that."

Now if he votes for anything that cuts Social Security benefits, in a package form or whatever you're driving at, Cenk can play the tape. I don't see a downside.

[madfloridian]

15. There's a huge downside. Soc. Sec. will have been cut.

and Cenk can replay the tape as much as he likes....but the deed will have been done.

[Enthusiast]

25. "I support the public option." nt

[Capitalocracy]

39. "solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house"

“If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate? I mean if a mandate was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money.”

[Capitalocracy]

41. That's what he came there to say.

Obama is going to sign cuts to social security and we're going to be expected to blame the Republicans. Because it will have been all about the "package". And anyone who says "But then why did you make it so you had to either vote for or against a package without being able to amend it?" they'll say "Oh, you professional lefties don't understand the legislative process."

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. There's absolutely a hypothetical in which cuts might be acceptable.

Let's say that the deficit commission suggested medicare for all as a solution to the solvency of Medicare, and the only way to pay for it would be a 3% benefits cut.

I agree with Robb, given the marching orders given to the catfood commission by Obama, it would have been irresponsible for him to draw a line in the sand.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Here let me translate for you.

when he says 'I would have to consider it if part of a larger bill, with other factors, I cannot rule it out'

what he really said was 'I CAN BE BOUGHT. THROW SOME FUCKING PORK IN THERE AND SOME FREEBIE LIKE AMNESTY AND I AM A CHEAP FUCKING SELLOUT HELL YES'.

Go back and look at what Reagan and co. got with amnesty last time. You think they won't use that as a barganing chip to drive a stake through the heart of Social Security? Hell, they'd get win-win-win, dead social security, cheap labor, and they get to KEEP THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BOOGEYMAN without doing any actual immigration reform.

That's how the game is played. That is how WE get played. We are a buncha fucking CHUMPS and we keep coming back for more.
How can you NOT see what he said there? How can you not hear him SCREAMING at the repukes that he can be BOUGHT that his vote on Social Security benefits cutting, or raising the retirement age or privatizing it, whatever, CAN BE BOUGHT.

[Capitalocracy]

40. I think you're wrong.

I don't think they'll negotiate for anything. They'll just do it to say they're bipartisan and working to balance the budget. Maybe it'll come with a slight tax increase on small businesses or something. Who knows, maybe they'll even stop building one or two unnecessary military weapons or dismantle a nuclear bomb, that's military budget cuts, that'll shut us professional left up. But whatever it will be, it won't come close to being worth the price. And it won't be anything not directly related to money, like amnesty (although amnesty could pull in a lot of revenue).

[truth2power]

19. The old, "there were some good things in this imperfect bill" scam...

You're correct. As I said elsewhere in this thread, just as they did with so-called "health care reform". They don't even bother changing scams anymore.

Heck, it worked so well the first time around. And the people just keep biting. :banghead:

[Enthusiast]

22. You mean like the HCR bill?

The good outweighs the bad like with HCR?

I see it as the same smoke screen we endured during the health care debate.

[Enthusiast]

24. Yes, there is nothing to 'wait and see'

about. You either accept the lies or you don't.

[rucky]

43. My read on it:

They're going to recommend raising the cap - but don't want to discuss it until after the midterms.

[jtown1123]

50. It's probably more likely they will raise the retirement age

just look at everyone on that commission (weaselish Democrats included) and read what they have already said. We're toast unless we made a HUGE stink. Not sure the Democrats listen to us anymore anyways...

[1monster]

12. Sorrry, Robb. He was playing with words. He said the Democratic Caucus did not

support cutting Social Security, but would NOT say that he would vote against the package from the deficit committee if it contained cuts in Social Security.

Remember ALL politicians are politicians and will twist their ways out of solid answers every time.

THE SIDESTEP
From : "The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas"
(Carol Hall)
Charles Durning


Fellow Texans, I am proudly standing here to humbly see.
I assure you, and I mean it- Now, who says I don't speak out as plain as day?
And, fellow Texans, I'm for progress and the flag- long may it fly.
I'm a poor boy, come to greatness. So, it follows that I cannot tell a lie.

Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't-
I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

Now my good friends, it behooves me to be solemn and declare,
I'm for goodness and for profit and for living clean and saying daily prayer.
And now, my good friends, you can sleep nights, I'll continue to stand tall.
You can trust me, for I promise, I shall keep a watchful eye upon ya'll...

Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't-
I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

Now, Miss Mona, I don't know her, though I've heard the name, oh yes.
But, of course I've no close contact, so what she is doing I can only guess.
And now, Miss Mona, she's a blemish on the face of that good town.
I am taking certain steps here, someone somewhere's gonna have to close her down.

Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't-
I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep...

And, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step...

Cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

[florida08]

49. LoL

so true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCDoBvG1HoI

[Capitalocracy]

38. ... But you have to look at the "whole package".

The deficit commission will have the power to force a vote on a package of legislation with no amendments. That way, a coalition of blue dogs, corporate sellouts, Republicans, and the President can sign a bill cutting Social Security and Obama can say he never supported cuts, but there's some good things in this package, so...

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Does nobody see patterns? Does nobody know how this works?

Big K&R for the OP.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

48. I think what we're getting at is WHATEVER "the package" involves, hold SS sacrosanct

The dems need to come out hard and say they won't compromise where social security is involved

[ooglymoogly]

59. What is unclear to some; But transparently clear to many;

This administration will defer to the smokescreen of the catfood commission for it's final decision on whether to cut benefits as part of an overall package. That was the duplicitous bit of Orwellian gobbledygook at the end of the clip, making all the previous grandstand statements just a bunch of self serving crap.

[herbm]

63. Not the same as "we will not vote to cut Social Security",

[truth2power]

17. You're exactly correct, madfl...it's the weasel-words that people can't figure out

for some reason.

He clearly said he opposes cuts to SS. But if a PACKAGE that contains cuts to SS is put before him, he left the door wide open to voting for the PACKAGE. He can then say, "Tsk, tsk, I didn't want SS cuts, but I had to vote the package up or down."

It's the same tactic they pulled on health care deform.

I don't understand why people can't figure out what these worthless bastards (both parties) are saying by now.

[ooglymoogly]

61. You are right; Though we have to stop saying the Pugs and the Dems are the same...

Democrats and Republicans are not the same by a long shot;

Who and What are the same are the Republicans, the Dinos, the DLC'ers and the Bluedogs that all have the same agenda, serving the corporate agenda and to destroy the soul of the Democratic party which once, rightly, decimated them by honest regulation and fair play;

A party that Rahm et al have usurped; Have for all intents and purposes, taken over in the guise of pragmatism, to destroying its integrity and its values to the people of this country; Subjugating it to corporate dominance. So it WILL be thought of as;

"they are all the same".

Do you think that Grayson is the same, or Franken, or Kucinich and a significant number of others whom we all know or must get to know.

We all know who the Dino's are; And they are nothing but pugs with a D after their name; So of course, these fake "Dems" are the same as pugs, giving us all the same foul smell; And that is, by all evidence, Rahms et al's plan;

the plan he, and cronies, calls the third way; And so, openly recruits Pugs and Dino's to run with a D after their name and resolutely tries to shut out progressives.

Having fake Dem's in the party does us no good; As the Pragmatists on this site try to tell us ad nauseam, but is instead deadly.

What it does do and do most certainly, is insure that Dino's control the white house and congress and the democratic party, invariably redounding to the corporatist agenda and their surrogates, the pugs.

What it does most certainly do, is insure corporate sponsored legislation, sails through congress and is signed into law with the proper amount of kabuki to camouflage its danger to the people; And what it does do is insure the watering down to insignificance to nothing, of any legislation that might in the slightest harm them no matter the good it does for the country.

It is a trap we must not fall into, or the Democratic party is gone and we become just an amorphous group without principle; In fact the same as the pugs and no longer a threat to the corporate takeover; A treason that cannot abide regulation and still remain so dangerously powerful.

We have to keep on calling them out.

And that;

Calling them out;

Is what an angry WH and powerful Dinos; What their blowback is all about; Telling us to stfu and stop calling attention to the facts; That their actions are not Democratic, in that they are not for the people or the good of the country, but instead designed in subterfuge for a corporatist agenda.

By sticking to our principles
WE ARE MAKING THEM BLINK! WE HAVE MADE THEM BLINK!

A fake democratic party seeded with dino's that have taken it over, is not a true Democratic party.

A fake democratic party is open to ridicule;

A true democratic party, shunning and denouncing the great big elephants in the room, the corporatist dino plants, and calling them out is not.

A Democratic party that accepts its fake democratic party status under the lame excuse of pragmatism, without pointing out the corporatist "Elephants" in the room, deserves to be ridiculed as;

"they are all the same"

What that statement says is, that the Democratic party no longer exists.

And so it is, that we must find every way possible to make this Dino debacle that is destroying us clear, in every way we can think.

That it is not we Democrats that are all the same as pugs but the corporatist Elephants in the room, Dino's that are indisputably, the same as the pugs.

And that we have principles that will not be bullied or bought or fooled into compliance.

[NorthCarolina]

45. Word games, thet will try to paint raising the retirement age as not cutting SS.

Of course, in the real world it is still a cut. And you are correct, he did not give a straight forward answer to the question "will you oppose raising the retirement age".

[GOTV]

14. He was asked how he will vote if SS cuts were included - he would not say.

[madfloridian]

32. They will vote on the commission's recs...takes the burden off them.

So they can say they are against it all they want, but I think they intend to vote for it in the package.

If they do, they will lose.

[NorthCarolina]

16. Are you hearing what he didn't say, or simply hearing what you want to hear.

It was a very specific and straight forward question, and all I saw him do was sidestep the issue and talk about waiting to see the "whole package". At no time did he say "I do not support raising the retirement age" (which would be a CUT), in response to that direct question posed by Cenk.

[sabrina 1]

27. Weasel language.

'I do not support' and 'I oppose' is not the same as saying 'there is no way in hell any Democrat is going to vote for cuts in SS' and it has NOTHING to do with the Deficit and should not even be a part of discussions about the deficit and I don't know why it is quite frankly'.

Why ISN'T he telling the truth and dispelling the rightwing, Grover Norquiest/Pete Peterson/Alan Simpson/Heritage Foundation myth, in loud, clear language that SS has ZERO to do with the Deficit and should not even be a part of discussions by a Commission that is supposedly meant to deal with the Deficit.

I know this, if they touch SS, if Democrats do not come out strongly against this Commission, who has been advised by no less an anti-SS advocate than Grover Norquist (didn't we throw these people out of office?) they WILL lose in November, and for many, many years to come. This is one of the main jobs we hired Democrats to do and if they cannot do it, people will simply walk away from them believing that it doesn't matter who is in power, the corporate agenda will be taken care of no matter which team is in control.

[CocaNova]

46. +1 n/t

[jtown1123]

54. The thing is, people won't know until after the election

how these members will vote on this deficit package, which is highly troubling. We need to let people know what this is now, what provisions will likely be in that bill, and demand our leaders to say how they would vote if raising the retirement age was snuck into that bill. Truly sickening we even have to have this discussion with a democratic majority. Dems need to get some balls and stick up for Social Security. If they voted against this package, I bet the approval rate would go up.

[sabrina 1]

62. I agree with ev erything you said n/t

[dadzilla]

6. Go Ninja Go!

I'm really starting to like how Cenk holds them feet to the fire. The thing with these 'deals' is we the public keep getting the worst end of them.

[20score]

18. They are clearly setting the stage to screw us over. And unfortunately, some will back them

when they do, saying everyone knew the reform was needed.

Pisses me off to no end.

[vanbean]

20. Why do we have to put up with Boner? He is an idiot. And selfish to boot.

How dare they cut social security?

[Frisbee]

21. Mark my words...

They'll raise the retirement age and try to claim that's not cutting Social Security. (The Hell it's not!) :grr:

[Enthusiast]

23. I detect double speak from Van Hollen.

What did the Indians say years ago when they were being cheated in a treaty? Oh yeah. "White man speak with forked tongue."

No Democrat should be fearful of going on record RIGHT FUCKING NOW that they will vote against any increase in retirement age or cuts in social security. The poll Cenk showed says it all. Just imagine, the American people have nearly as must trust in Republicans to protect social security as they do Democrats.

What has happened to my Democratic Party? They have betrayed the trust of the American people.

[Vilis Veritas]

26. More bullsh*t out of his mouth than a pasture full of cattle...nt

[Weird Liberal Head]

29. Why on Earth Does Anyone Trust the Republicans on Social Security?

They're the ones trying to privatize it!

[xocet]

30. Rep. Van Hollen Dodges the Question...

The simple way to answer Cenk's question is to say that any "package as a whole" which includes cutting Social Security will be "dead on arrival." Most of what Rep. Van Hollen says is simply an attempt to try to cloud his position while putting out some talking points against the Republicans. The problem is that the congressman will not simply say that any package which includes cutting Social Security is unacceptable and such a package will not even be considered.

From time index 3:14 in the video:

Cenk Uygur: I understand that Congressman, but what I notice from President Obama
and from what you just said is that you guys are arguing against privatization. Which I
get it, that makes sense. But you're not saying you won't cut Social Security, and I'm
afraid the reason for that is because that Obama deficit commission is going to come in,
and they're going to say, "Cut Social Security."


C. Van Hollen of Maryland: Well, the Democratic Caucus was very clear. We had a big
gathering on the side of the Capitol...just before...we left to celebrate the 75th anniversary
of Social Security, and it was very clear that the Democrats do not support...cuts to Social
Security. That is the position of the Democratic...Caucus. So, ....

(crosstalk)

Cenk Uygur: Let me get you on the record then. If the deficit commission comes out and
says cut social security or raise the retirement age. ... Will you fight against it and say it's
dead on arrival?

C. Van Hollen of Maryland: ... look, here is the issue with the retire ... the commission, right:
They're going to come up with recommendations across the board - I mean, social security,
Medicare, tax policy.... I certainly would oppose the provisions they were talking about
if they were to cut Social Security. The question is gonna be the package as a whole and
anybody, I think, has to say we'll wait and see what the package as a whole says, but I
oppose cutting Social Security benefits. I want to be very clear about that. And the fact of the
matter is the Republicans not only want to cut Social Security, but they do want to privatize
it. And the privatization component is a very important argument, because they have a very
clear motivation for doing it which is that all the financial interests on Wall Street, the same
guys who clapped when John Boehner said he was going to repeal the Wall Street reform
bill, stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars through Social Security privatization and it is
coupled with their proposal to privatize Medicare -and that's just not a statement they've made.
They actually voted. The Republicans in the House voted last year on a plan to both cut
Medicare by 75% over a certain period of time and turn it into a voucher program. So, you
a senior citizen gets your voucher. It diminishes in value and you gotta go out on the private
insurance market and find a policy - in contrast to today's policies where ... Medicare guarantees
... your treatment.

(crosstalk)

C. Van Hollen of Maryland: ...Medicare and Social Security they want to privatize.

Cenk Uygur: But Congressman, I know exactly where the Republicans stand. But I wasn't clear
on where you ... because you didn't ... I didn't get that pledge out of you. That's...that's what I
noticed - I'll be honest with you. So, we'll see...

(crosstalk)

C. Van Hollen of Maryland: No, you're asking for a pledge on something that goes way beyond.
The vote is not just gonna be on Social Security if there is a vote at all. It's gonna be on a big,
big package, and ... you know ...

(crosstalk)

Cenk Uygur: ... There's no reason to touch Social Security at all. It has a surplus. It has
a surplus.

C. Van Hollen of Maryland: ... And I agree with you.... And I agree with you on that.

(crosstalk)

C. Van Hollen of Maryland: ...say what you're going to do on something you haven't even seen
yet.

Cenk Uygur: Ok. Alright. Let's see what happens. I thought we elected a Democratic president.
Let's see what happens.

[madfloridian]

31. I think both houses of congress plans to hurriedly vote on the report

of the fiscal commission and pass it.

That way they think they will come off scot free of criticism.

[DeSwiss]

33. K&R!!! n/t

[lib2DaBone]

34. Congressman Von Hollen is lying thru his teeth...

..just listen at the 4 min mark as he weasels his way out... they are going to sneak this thing thru in a package at 11:00 p.m. on a Friday night...

[defendandprotect]

35. Let's be clear ... Obama has put in place this threat to Social Security/Medicare which we

thought had ended when W and the Repugs left the White House!!

Shouldn't we have thought that??

[JoeyT]

37. Not only may they consider cutting it.

If they do cut it, they'll call it the "Save Social Security Act of 20XX".

I'm not predicting that's what they'll do. Just saying there's no way we can know if they will or not. Which isn't good.
And of course if it happens the pragmatists that are yelling about how the terrible Republicans want to gut SS will demand we cheer for this awesome stand for the middle class.

[CocaNova]

47. They always come up with cute names aren't they ?

Like Patriot Act.

[Capitalocracy]

42. Formula for Privatizing Social Security

1. Enough bluedogs and Republicans after the 2010 election to achieve a simple majority on the issue.

2. The Democratic establishment becoming convinced (and trying to convince us) that even if Dems only lose one seat in 2010, it will have been because they failed to appeal to conservative independents, regardless of what any numbers, polling, or science indicate. And definitely not because of a despirited, disenfranchised base who fails to work/donate/vote for them. After "licking their wounds" and "soul-searching", they come up with the answer: Head right.

3. A "deficit commission" filled with people who have instructions not to "get rid of the pentagon", because that's what the "professional left" wants.

4. Giving the deficit commission the power to force an up or down vote on any policy they recommend (no chance for filibuster).

5. Rahm Emanuel and Tim Geithner convincing Barack Obama that if this is passed by Congress, he needs to show he's serious about saving the economy, reaching across the aisle, and trimming the deficit, he has to sign whatever legislation comes out of that deficit commission, even if it means privatizing social security. After all, why wouldn't you? What, you don't like private industry? Fox News is going to call you a Communist!

And we will be expected to blame the Republicans when this happens.

We need to take a stand or this could happen in the near future. Amazing how the lunatic fringe of the minority party seems to have more legislative power than the vast majority of the nation. Next up: Formula for amending the 14th Amendment.

[jtown1123]

52. Agreed. I think most of us here and elsehwere like

Fire Dog Lake are pretty baffled as to how we stop this. It's maddening beyond belief that Democrats would flush the one crowning jewel we have (Social Security) down the toilet. We've been swindled big time and it doesn't seem like threatening to vote them out of office does any good... losing hope. I already wrote to Van Hollen (my rep) about my extreme disappointment in this interview.

[Capitalocracy]

58. Threatening to vote who out of office?

What are you going to do, vote Republican?

The fact of the matter is, there are some effective things we can do, but they're long-term and they're a little too extreme for DU (because they may involve occasionally not supporting Democrats). But referring to the point you make - that threatening to vote them out of office doesn't do any good - that's because corporatists have a long-term agenda, and a reward on the way for achieving it in the form of lobbying jobs to bring their families to elite status for generations to come. We have to think about the future too, and think about our children too, and think about our legacy too, and focus on our priorities in the long-term rather than just the upcoming election and the numbers "on our side".

That's not to say we shouldn't think pragmatically and think about numbers, but we have to take the long-term goal into consideration and make that the number one priority. And we have to think about shifting power in our direction by more creative means than "I don't like it, but I'll vote for the blue dog Dem anyway. But doggonit, I'll say I don't like it!"

People just giving up and saying "I'm not going to bother to vote" just takes the best voices out of the system. If you have no candidate and feel disenfranchised, you should express it. I think it's time to seriously consider a voter boycott in Joe Lieberman's next election. That would send a powerful message to the Democratic Party that there IS a limit to what we'll tolerate.

[davidhilton]

44. Yeah, Cenk's a good lawyer - a real good lawyer.

People have the opportunity to witness an on-air investigation, live, and in real time.
Cenk himself, may wish to run for POTUS - I'd vote for him.
Unfortunately, I believe he wasn't born in the US - there goes that idea.

[davidwparker]

53. Get it, Cenk. Hold both sides accountable.

[Tutankhamun]

55. People, it couldn't be more obvious.

Remember HCR? The Dems claimed they wanted real reform, but the Republicans were in the way so they were "forced" to give in to the corporate interests (that BTW pay them ungodly amounts of money).

Here we go again with social security. "We didn't want to cut it. We were forced to by the Republicans."

Come on now! Is this really not clear? Hello!

[senseandsensibility]

56. Saw it live.

What a disappointment, especially since I thought he was one of the good guys. I hope this will be a wake up call.

[ooglymoogly]

57. More proof of just how full of bullshit and blatant propaganda this administration is...

The reality of what is really going on is clear; That if the smokescreen that is the pug catfood commission; Who's "package of crazed recommendations" if accepted, as this administration admits to the probability that it will, in totem; And it recommends unacceptable cuts in SS and Medicare (a probability already written in stone);

A foregone conclusion by even a cursory look at anyone of these far right, millionaire thugs, for whom SS is useless, their history, their angry, adamant and unwavering disdain for SS and Medicare and all the lifeline social programs under its umbrella, preached loudly ad infinitum to anyone who will listen; That of course, excluding the one lonely proponent appearing to be on the side of the people.

Then that is what will go down;

As per smokescreen of the ridiculously transparent admin's plan, propped up by nothing but total crap, the smokescreen of this hokey commission;

Making this clip of this admins positions nothing but duplicitous propagandist bullshit; As if straight from an Orwellian novel. Flim flam of the most blatant hypocrisy.

The plan clearly; To rob SS and all of us, every working man woman and child, from our bought and paid for retirement insurance that is life and death to many.

This most successful insurance plan ever devised to feed cloth and house our elderly, paid for by all of us, never needing or asking financial help or intervention from anyone than ourselves...Trillions and trillions of dollars;

The theft will begin with small moves, raising the age and cutting a few benefits, progressively moving to all out kill.

All proved by the fact that no cuts are needed; No age limit need be advanced.

SS DOES NOT NEED ANY KIND OF INTERVENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BY THIS GOVERNMENT

All indications; Pointing to the probability that; That lifeline, to which the gubmunt contributed not one dime, is about to steal it from us in broad daylight, and at our dear leader's pleasure.

Thanks Cenk for not letting the bullshit fly without nailing it to the shithouse wall.

"We thought we elected a Democrat"!

Putting an end to this kind of bullshit.

[izquierdista]

60. The only place for a "big package"

is in some leather bar.

[ihavenobias]

64. Kick n/t