Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Heads-Up !!! - America Speaks in LA – They Want Economic Recovery, No Social Security Cuts - FDL

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 09:43 AM
Original message
Heads-Up !!! - America Speaks in LA – They Want Economic Recovery, No Social Security Cuts - FDL
Looks like the people ain't buyin what the Peterson Group Is sellin, LOL!!!

America Speaks in LA – They Want Economic Recovery, No Social Security Cuts
By: David Dayen Saturday June 26, 2010 2:23 pm

<snip>

The America Speaks meetings held in 19 cities across the country today, funded to the tune of $1 billion dollars by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, were a study in how subtle messaging and deficit hyping can mold and shape opinions that move the public toward right-wing solutions about slashing social spending. Despite an insistence of neutrality, organizers of this series of town hall meetings allowed their agenda to show through, particularly in their presentation of options for how to deal with the nation’s fiscal future. But attendees in Los Angeles and around the country weren’t totally buying it in the first half of the meeting.

Prior to the event, which attracted about 100 people from the Los Angeles area to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals courthouse in Pasadena, around 40 people protested outside, demanding no cuts to Social Security. You can see a video I shot about that at right.

America Speaks has the support of a number of Washington-based organizations, and they claim to represent a broad spectrum of ideological interests. But the main funder is Pete Peterson, who has waged a decades-long effort to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And this emphasis was certainly reflected in the event today.

Attendees were divided up into discussion tables, and led along by a national simulcast from Philadelphia, one of the 19 cities involved. The very first speaker was David Walker, the former Comptroller General of the US and a longtime member of the hype machine about the federal budget deficit. Recently, on CNBC, Walker talked longingly about debtor’s prisons in the context of “personal responsibility.” Walker was booed by several people at the Los Angeles meeting. In his speech, he talked about the inescapability of structural deficits and being “very concerned for my country and my family’s future.”

The entire event was absolutely designed to create a panic about the deficit among the participants. Slickly produced scare videos talking about the dire straits of the budget were prevalent. Multiple charts and graphs without precise numbers or percentages were handed out. Speakers discussed how “most Americans are concerned about the deficits and debt,” and how we cannot grow our way out of the problem. The current state of the economy, which needs an increase in aggregate demand, mostly in the form of government spending, to avoid a relapse into recession, got a short mention at the beginning of the discussion, an inclusion which seemed forced and tacked-on. Overall, there was about 15 minutes of discussion of the current economic problems, and 5 hours on the deficit. Organizers stressed that their solutions are designed to kick in after the country hits recovery, but the compounded effect of stressing deficits over and over is undeniable. There was no slick video about the need for economic recovery, put it that way.

One of the monitors of the meeting, political scientist Kevin Esterling of UC-Riverside, acknowledged to me the crucial role that the presentation of the facts played in the meeting. Most Americans simply do not have a clear understanding of the federal budget, and so how the facts are presented and emphasized becomes of paramount importance. “The organization went to great lengths to create a considered view of the federal budget, with input of groups from the left and the right,” said Esterling, who is working with America Speaks to evaluate the event. Yet in the first video, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Federal Reserve Chair and former Bush Council of Economic Advisers chair Ben Bernanke were the speakers selected for soundbites. President Obama was also featured in the video, and Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) spoke at the Philadelphia event. But the speakers, and the content, seemed skewed.

Prof. Esterling also said, and this was echoed by the leaders at the meeting, that the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission would be evaluating the event and receiving a report based on its recommendations. Alice Rivlin, a member of the commission, was sitting in the front row at the main Philadelphia conference. So America Speaks hypes the deficit, talks about a “balanced” solution and the need for shared sacrifice for hours and hours, nudging people who have malleable views on these issues (and changing minds was valued by the event) toward a solution with spending cuts foregrounded, and the deficit commission (whose staff is also funded by the Peterson Foundation) can accept the findings as reflective of the American people.

“Everything must be on the table,” said David Walker, and while everything certainly was at the meeting, it was tilted in a particular direction. The meeting was designed to provide an outline of the fiscal challenges of the nation, and offer solutions for how to meet it. But all the solutions were very prescribed and very narrow. An authoritative “Options Workbook” sets out potential budget solutions, on the spending and revenue side. 28 pages cover spending cuts, 15 pages cover revenue solutions. And the very first pages of the workbook talk about cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.


While the workbook has pages and pages describing the health care system, the final menu of solutions simply list amounts of percentage cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, without mentioning how to achieve those cuts. The options to “achieve savings” in the program include means-testing, raising deductibles and co-pays, increasing the Medicare eligibility age, limiting Medicaid eligibility and voucher-izing Medicare. There are no progressive solutions nor is there anything close to the potential savings achieved in the Affordable Care Act, things like health IT and bundled payments and increased efficiency.

On Social Security, a more precise menu of options is offered, but so is a drastic description of the solvency of the program, without one mention of the trillions of dollars of surplus in the Social Security trust fund. The options in the workbook include raising the retirement age, cutting benefits through indexing or straight cuts, raising the payroll tax, raising the “limit of taxable earnings” (but not just eliminating the limit) and “creating personal savings accounts within the system,” the language of which has been taken completely from Republican Paul Ryan’s “roadmap” budget.

When the workbook finally gets around to tax increases, the language in the text constantly goes back to how taxing wealthier Americans would “reduce incentives for work and savings.” At one point it says that “Tax increases on upper-income Americans will discourage work and penalize success.”
It talks about raising the corporate tax rate but not the effective tax rate, as in reality many corporations pay nothing in taxes. And writing about deductions, little in the workbook talks about the vast amount of subsidies for corporations and, for example, Big Agriculture. Only two specific corporate deductions, for depreciation for equipment and for producing goods in the US, get a mention. That a financial transactions tax makes it into the document (literally as the last option) is surprising, but predictably, the workbook says it could “move stock transactions to other markets.” Growing the economy and the effect of job creation on revenue appears nowhere in the document.

While the cumulative effect of all this tends towards social safety net cuts rather than tax fairness, the crowd in Los Angeles, at least, wasn’t biting at first. In surveying the discussion groups, most people seemed more concerned about the desperate need for more stimulus spending to move the economic recovery forward. They feared a double dip recession without job creation, and fretted about the lack of unemployment insurance extensions to help the less fortunate. “No one is talking about the long-term unemployed,” said one participant. In a nationwide poll, taken by participants through electronic devices at all 19 America Speaks sites, 61% said the government needed to do more to strengthen the recovery, with only 25% opposed. Even with a push poll question asking if participants supported government programs to increase growth “if it increases the deficit,” got a majority, 51%, of the group.


During the discussions about the long-term budget challenges, there was a greater tendency from the participants to place a greater burden for deficit reduction on those with the ability and capacity to do so. Among the anti-corporate sentiment, someone mentioned that Exxon paid $0 in federal taxes last year. During the scare film about the budget, a few people screamed “Wrong!” when it was suggested that defense makes up 20% of the total budget (that doesn’t include spending on wars). Lastly, people thought that the wealthy weren’t paying their fair share for the commons. Someone mentioned the carried interest loophole, allowing money managers to treat their income as capital gains instead of income, drastically lowering their tax rate. One of those money managers is Pete Peterson, the funder of America Speaks.

UPDATE: The propaganda may have wound up being too subtle.
Via the America Speaks twitter feed, the top three options at the meetings selected by the participants were: raising the limit on taxable earnings in Social Security, a 5% tax increase on people making over $1 million dollars a year, a carbon tax, and a tax on financial transactions. Whoops!

<snip>

Link (w/Video): http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/06/26/america-speaks-in-la-they-want-economic-recovery-no-social-security-cuts/

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you Willy T and FDL
for this encouraging report that the people (at least some of them) get it. This report on yesterday's efforts to manipulate and the report of the apparent collapse of the Teabaggers get-together in Vegas has made my Sunday morning much brighter. The whole house is asleep and I'm up early to assess the day on line. The sound of crows and jays greet the morning sun.

These folks need to be constantly exposed and analyzed in such a way that their subterfuge is exposed. Americans are so vulnerable to persuasion, I would like to think it is attributable to their kind and gentle nature but unfortunately I know better.

Have to keep exposing these fakers every time. Otherwise we will lose our public education, our Social Security, and everything else that has made this country as strong and as free as it has been able to be under the yolk of the business class.


"May the light in the land of plenty shine on the truth one day."
Leonard Cohen



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. You Are Quite Welcome !!!
:hi:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. LOL... Apparently We Have A Couple Of Pro-Deficit-Hawk Unreccers Here...
:rofl:

:evilgrin:

:wtf:

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Imagine that.
Maybe they're just new Democrats of a more pragmatic breed. You know the ones I mean. :spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
30. Yes, but they are waaaay outnumbered
not only by progressives, but on this issue, let's see how far they get when the people find out what is being planned for their parents, their grand-parents and their own futures.

This is great news. I would love to see this grow to the point where they don't dare mention any cuts in SS. In Feb. when Obama set up a Summit and left out progressives, there was enough uproar that the whole thing collapsed. But then he set up this Commission so they will not give up, but neither must we and there are, as I said, far more of us than there are of them. This more than any other issue, will determine the future of any politician who is involved, and they better be on the correct side of this or face losing their jobs. This isn't a partisan issue either, it effects everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Yes... AND...
... This more than any other issue, will determine the future of the Democratic Party!

:evilfrown:

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Thanks xchrom !!! - We Need To Expose These Guys BEFORE...
they start meeting after the mid-terms.

They have their thumbs, er... fists on the scales right now, and we need to start the counter-balance right away!

Peace...

:hi:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
6. carbon tax -- i love that this is finally being talked about seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Our group voted for it (with reservations). We recognized that this is
potentially a "hit" on poorer people who travel long distances to get to work. But we recognized that we have an energy crisis and we can't just put it off any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I Wonder... Do You Think It Might Be Possible To Do A Gas Stamps Program ???
Sort of like we do with Food Stamps???

If the poor are gonna take a disproportionate hit with the Carbon Tax, couldn't we supplement them with some sort of gas/mass transit coupons to make it more fair.

I think my mom still has a booklet around here with gas rationing stamps from WWII. A different program I realize...

Hell... I'm seeing more and more big trash items (beds, desks, refrigerators) dumped by the side of the road all the time. I imagine that people who've lost everything (job, income, apartment), really don't have the money to take these things to the dump.

Maybe if they also had some Trash Stamps that were redeemable at the dump, and didn't cost them anything, we'd have less hazardous materials being left along the side of the road.

:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Gas stamps! I like it. As long as it was means tested and was only for
the working poor and struggling families, I'm for it...

trash stamps would be good, too. We have Big Trash pickup once a month or so here in New Haven. You just call and they give you the date of the pick up. You only have to get it to the curb...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. yes, it's a difficult issue, but the carbon tax is really better than the cap 'n trade
i agree with WillyT -- there should be ways to mitigate the impact on little guys, and target the tax to the largest users, polluters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. These America Speaks meetings
serve to illustrate just how organized and massive the effort is to dismantle the meager U.S. social safety net. This is BIG!

I guess these organizers will have to get belligerent Teabaggers into the meetings to shout down any opposition like they did with health care town hall meetings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. good news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. Your last paragraph was exactly my experience yesterday!
"...the top three options at the meetings selected by the participants were: raising the limit on taxable earnings in Social Security, a 5% tax increase on people making over $1 million dollars a year, a carbon tax, and a tax on financial transactions."

We also approved of deep cuts in the Defense budget.

Glad to hear that we here in liberal New Haven aren't the only ones that refused to hurt the people down the income ladder...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Great News !!!
Are they gonna have anymore meetings, or was this a one time only deal?

:shrug:

They need to see how strong the opposition to their plans is.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I think they're gonna be sorry they opened this can of worms.
Obviously, the word got out. We had no demonstrators but ours was a community discussion, not one of the bigger meetings in larger cities. We dispensed with a lot of the Web feed (technical issues plus no one was interested in speechifying)to get down to business.

I hope their final report doesn't discount what these folks and we here were saying...we'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. their initial report presents the overall results so that the first two points hit workers.
Raise the limit on taxable earnings so it covers 90% of total earnings.

Reduce spending on health care and non-defense discretionary spending by at least 5%.

Raise tax rates on corporate income and those earning more than $1 million.

Raise the age for receiving full Social Security benefits to 69.

Reduce defense spending by 10% – 15%.

Create a carbon and securities-transaction tax.




were those two the #1 suggestions at the town halls? i don't know, but they're listed first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. No, these were among the top suggestions out of all suggestions.
All of the suggestions they made were grouped according to the areas covered in the workbook. But they were listed in each of their categories with a dollar amount attached to each one. It was really a tally sheet. At the end we simply added up the total amount of $$$ saved as against what we needed to reach. Our group exceeding what we needed by over $100 billion.

What you saw listed were from different categories. I can only report on my group, not the entire group. We were put in smaller subgroups for discussion and decisions. Our discussion facilitator was familiar enough with the material to help us find the corresponding info in the workbook. We discussed and did a show of hands. We had a "scorekeeper" keeping the tally as we went along.

My point here is that it WAS possible to give a progressive response that saved money in the federal budget. We had a fairly high number of poorer folks at my meeting, which was held at a library in an inner city neighborhood and facilitated by Yale (our vote tallier was a grad student from France who was EXCELLENT at explaining the progressive/regressive points to us!).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. That is the order the suggestions were presented on the website, presumably to be read by people who
weren't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. I can't speak for the website. Just what was presented to my group in person while there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. Why was the Coffee Party promoting this event on Facebook?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'd Imagine They Wanted To Get Informed People To Show Up And Discuss The Issues...
Why... does the Coffee Party have a different agenda?

I honestly don't know.

I thought they were supposed to be a counter to the TeaBaggers.

:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Maybe they really did change the intended outcome?
:shrug:

I'm just so used to one-sided conversations, maybe I'm suspicious?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. LOL... I Share Your Suspicions, But...
it seems that Peter Peterson :puke: didn't get the result that he and the commission were hoping for!

:woohoo:

:evilgrin:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Three results are.
Raise the limit on taxable earnings so it covers 90% of total earnings. (lift the cap)
Reduce spending on health care and non-defense discretionary spending by at least 5%. (reduce non-defense spending 5%)
Raise the age for receiving full Social Security benefits to 69.

Three aren't:

Raise tax rates on corporate income and those earning more than $1 million.
Reduce defense spending by 10% – 15%.
Create a carbon and securities-transaction tax.

http://usabudgetdiscussion.org/preliminary-national-town-meeting-results-are-in/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. We liked lifting the cap to include more income that would be included.
We also thought that since it is a fact that people are living much longer lives, we should consider raising the age for full benefits to kick in, as long as some income could be tapped at earlier ages (as it is now).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Lifting the cap to cover the historically precedented 90% of wages is fine.
Edited on Sun Jun-27-10 03:14 PM by Hannah Bell
Raising the age to collect full benefits is a cruel joke, and not justified even by the minimal average gains in life-expectancy over 65.

and for the bottom half of the income distribution, it's a crime.

Shorter Lives - Inequality at Work?

(Elizabeth Gudrais, Harvard Magazine, July/Aug 2008)

Each generation lives longer than the last, doesn't it? Well, yes, that's true for most people in most places. But it hasn't been true lately in large areas of the United States - the poorest areas, basically.

Between 1983 and 1999, life expectancy declined among women in more than a quarter of all U.S. counties (and among men in about 3 percent of all counties).

That fact could be linked to growing economic inequality, Elizabeth Gudrais suggests. "Disparities in health tend to fall along income lines everywhere: the poor generally get sicker and die sooner than the rich," she explains. "But in the United States, the gap between the rich and the poor is far wider than in most other developed democracies, and it is getting wider."

http://www.demos.org/inequality/news.cfm#77134D9E-3FF4-6C82-5BA0B3844B27C926


Not a progressive result at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. But people are living longer than they were when SS was started.
And it wasn't presented as having NO benefits start earlier, just full benefits. I think we are already at 67 now aren't we for some of the younger workers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. the increase to 67 already covers the expected increase in life-expectancy OVER 65 for
Edited on Sun Jun-27-10 03:21 PM by Hannah Bell
the boomer generation.

the rest is purely hypothetical -- projected, hasn't happened.

and as the quote i posted shows, life-expectancy is DECLINING in lower income tiers. most of the gains in life expectancy, like income, have accrued to the rich, not the poor.

the discussion about life expectancy is also dishonest, as so much of it blurs the distinction between gains in life expectancy in infancy & young adulthood & gains in life expectancy OVER 65.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Health care for the poor is indeed a problem that cries out for remedy.
What we covered could only address the issue thru the Medicaid funding portion of the report.My group refused to cut any Medicaid funding.

Our overall facilitator addressed the health care issue in our opening plenary, as she was anticipating people asking why we couldn't vote for a "redo" of the health care bill to include the public option. She said that this report was dealing with the reality today, not what might become a reality down the line.

I'm not defending the people who put this whole thing together, by any means. It's just what we were presented with and what we did with it. In fact, I and others made the point in our discussions that the health care reform just passed was seriously deficient in just this regard. We felt that our citizenry would be better served by a single payer system but, failing that, at least a public option...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. nothing to do with health care. health care has a minimal effect on life expectancy.
Edited on Sun Jun-27-10 04:20 PM by Hannah Bell
raising the age to collect full benefits to 69 is a CRIME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. It is an issue if poorer people cannot even LIVE to age 69, much less work.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say to me. These were answers from people who are deeply affected by cuts in SS and Medicare/Medicaid. I was involved in a conversation with them. We were honestly trying to wrestle with the issue of the federal deficit...so...:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. i'm not criticizing you. i'm criticizing the principle of raising retirement to 69.
& i'm telling you the results of multiple studies. health care has a minimal effect on life expectancy. it's about inequality, not the presence or absence of health care. the poorest groups actually have more access than the working poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I would be VERY interested in hearing more from you about this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. about which point in particular?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #44
51. About the health of the poor suffering not because of lack of health care.
I'd be interested in reading more about what you have asserted. Do you have a link to some reports or articles discussing this issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. We had people at my meeting that were "informed" by life experience.
Seniors, African Americans, people out of work, younger people looking for a job. I don't think many of them were touting Masters Degrees in poli sci or econ. They were brilliant! They have this thing figured out. They're getting jerked around on Food Stamps and have to depend on SS and Medicare and I can tell you, they're mad as hell. It's good to see them having some voice but heartbreaking to hear their stories...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. That's Great To Hear... And Thank You For Being There And Giving Us A Report !!!
:toast:

:yourock:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Thanks. I wish more people from DU had had this experience, but I can tell
you there are MANY pissed off citizens out there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
29. Rec'd. People are awake! N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
37. America Speaks=Pete Peterson's voice of money?
Pete Peterson shapes the voice of the many through the dollars of the elite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
45. Great article on Firedog Lake. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
46. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
47. Top THREE?
I count the SS tax, rich-people tax, carbon tax and financial-transactions tax as four tax hikes.

There are four others we should try, though: institute a national usury rate of 25 percent for credit card transactions, cut the prime rate to somewhere between 2 and 2.5 percent, increase personal income tax rates by five percent and increase corporate tax rates by five percent for anything up to $20 million and 10 percent for anything above that. We will then use the increased revenue for stimulus spending, not for reducing the deficit. Right now we need more spending, not deficit reduction. The jobs and spending that will be initiated by the stimulus spending and prime rate reductions can be used to pay down the deficit.

Yes, I am a tax and spend liberal--because it's the only thing that works. The only thing Poppy Bush was ever right about was that Reaganomics was voodoo--and as soon as Reagan raised taxes, cut the prime rate and spent money, the economy did what all the tax-cut acolytes said was supposed to happen when tax rates went down. Remember, kids, the top tax rate between 1945 and 1965 was 92 percent and America had its longest sustained period of economic success. Anyone who tells you high tax rates discourage productivity and penalize success is a damn liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanpalmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
48. They're just feeling people out
seeing what works and what doesn't, so they can refine their message. They don't want a public reaction like the one in Greece, if they can avoid it. Although Greece taught them that even in the worst case scenario, people would demonstrate, but not revolt. That's why at the G-20, everyone was a deficit cutter. They're feeling confident they can slash pensions and social programs. And it looks like townhall meetings will be part of the strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 03:08 AM
Response to Original message
49. So "America Speaks" was an attempt at liberal astroturfing,
or at least centrist astroturfing. Unfortunately for the sponsors, liberals can't be conned as easily as con-servatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Same thing happened in Portland
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-28-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. And in Philly
Philly Activists Tell Deficit Commission: 'Hands Off Social Security'
>http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/06/28/philly-activists-tell-deficit-commission-hands-off-social-security
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC