No Democrat Would Use Social Security As A Bargaining Chip With Teabaggers

[sabrina 1]

Nor would a Democrat bargain away Medicare or Medicaid.

The Democratic Party is the Party of the people.

Democrats get elected because we rely on them to protect the American people's interests.

We KNOW that Republicans work for Corporations and don't care about the American people.

IF Social Security ended up 'on the table' it was not put there by a Democrat.

IF a deal was made that includes cuts to any of the Social Safety Net Programs we KNOW it was not a Democrat who was responsible.

Don't we?

And, although we had come to believe it was not possible, we learned that Democrats actually can be rallied to stand united for something they really believe in.

So, we have nothing to worry about, Democrats would never sell out the New Deal.

Would they?

[Poll_Blind]

1. No, no- those who use SS as a bargaining chip are the REAL DEMS, those who protect SS are....

...FRINGE LEFTISTS!

PB

[LaydeeBug]

26. The bend over for the other side and call it "flexible". nt

[joshcryer]

2. I have no doubt that Obama suggested it was on the table being the whole reasonable meet in the...

...middle type that he's trying to portray himself as. Fact is neither Republicans or Democrats are actually willing to go as far as the Teabaggers want, because it's politically suicidal. But Obama wants to appear to be able to look at any ideas that are proposed, that way he can make the Republicans own their own insanity.

[sabrina 1]

7. You know that he has said that Social Security

has contributed to the deficit, don't you? And that that is a false statement, which everyone, even Republicans who don't mind lying about it, knows?

Why not portray himself as a Democrat? Is he ashamed of being a Democrat? Sorry, this idea that he's just acting, is ridiculous. I don't know who started this rumor, but if that's what he's doing, it is simply stupid. He is the President. Not some actor in a play. People's lives are at stake. And not everyone is going to like him, he should accept that.

[joshcryer]

18. Do you have a source for that claim?

He specifically said, "With respect to Social Security, Social Security is not the source of our deficit problems."

[sabrina 1]

19. Yes, he did, but then he contradicted himself at the G20

Conference:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-g-20-press-conference-toronto-canada

Even if -- the financial crisis made it much worse, but even if we had not gone through this financial crisis, we’d still have to be dealing with these long-term deficit problems. They have to do with Medicaid; they have to do with Medicare; they have to do with Social Security. They have to do with a series of structural problems that are not unique to America. Some of it has to do with an aging population. And we’ve got to look at a tax system that is messy and unfair in a whole range of ways.

No, SS does not 'have to do with the deficit problems'. But that is what he said. And no one apparently has asked him why he used that longtime Rightwing falsehood about SS.

So, it's hard to depend on him to protect the people's safety nets. He is very wrapped up in the New World Order theories on economics, which basically boil down to 'austerity and shared sacrifice' for the working class and that will make it possible to have lots of tax breaks for the wealthy. And that is how it's playing out. Extension of Bush's tax cuts when he said in the campaign there was no way he would do that, and next up, cuts to social programs. The people he respects the most hate social programs.

[joshcryer]

20. Social Security isn't in danger if we have long term deficit problems?

That's what he's saying here. The long term deficit problem will affect those other programs, and it's completely true. How does Social Security get paid if the federal government collapses? How does it get paid if the credit rating for the country completely blows up? Social Security is only secure if the federal government is secure.

You are projecting, imho, as I do not read him saying what you're saying there at all.

This does not mean that I don't think he put it on the table, because just the way he is, the bipartisan guy, it's a given (it's one reason I wasn't particularly enamored with him as a candidate, oh DU, how fooled you were!). The fact that Bohner walked out indicates to me that he played them pretty well though. They couldn't call his bluff because it would've been suicidal, since they'd take every bit of the blame. They are corrupt, evil people, who make gesture votes to lie to the population, it's disgusting.

[sabrina 1]

21. Nice spin. But he said what he said. He is not a stupid man

he knows full well that it is necessary to make clear statements about these programs which are and have been the target of Rightwingers for decades. And when he wants to be clear, he is.

Funny how people always have to 'interpret' what he is saying, how people have to spin his words on SS to try to turn them into something he did NOT say.

What he did NOT say was that 'SS is solvent, it is NOT part of the problem. It is a US Govt Creditor, like all of our other creditors, and we are indebted to our creditors. So, we must straighten out the Fed. Govt's economic problems so that it can honor its debts to its creditors'.

Funny how he didn't include China in his list of creditors who will be affected by the Fed. Govt's deficit problems. SS should never be mentioned in the same context as the deficit. The only way that should happen is, as I said above, to illustrate how many creditors the Fed. Govt has and the obligation it has to them.

[joshcryer]

22. I'm not going out of my way to "interpret" anything, it's clear to me that he was saying...

...that a long term deficit issue will affect all of those important social programs. He did indeed say Social Security was not the issue, and I gave you a direct quote (a month after that conference) to back it up.

If the deficit problem that Bush created is not resolved most grownups know that it is a bad problem for generations to come.

[sabrina 1]

23. And it's clear to me what he is saying. Which means since

two people have two completely opposite views of what he said, that he has succeeded in being unclear. Which there is no reason for him to be. Because this is not something that is hard to understand or to state clearly to make sure no one buys into the lie the Republicans tell, and he did not do that.

we’d still have to be dealing with these long-term deficit problems. They have to do with Medicaid; they have to do with Medicare; they have to do with Social Security. They have to do with a series of structural problems that are not unique to America. Some of it has to do with an aging population.

The 'aging population' is fully covered by SS up to 2075 even if nothing done to the program right now.

You didn't explain why he did not call it what it is, a creditor like all of our creditors, that needs to be paid.

We'll see soon enough whether or not there are cuts proposed. And NO cuts are acceptable, not in the future, not now, not one cent. In fact, SS benefits should be raised right now, which would stimulate the economy.

And what will you have to say if there are cuts? There is no spinning that. And any Democrat who goes along with it will pay a political price.

[Enthusiast]

28. Obama is being obtuse on the issue for a reason.

What is the reason? He is all over the map. He could be enjoying huge popularity by taking the correct stance on this issue. We have to ask ourselves why is Obama doing this. I don't think it has anything to do with chess.

[sabrina 1]

45. I don't know for sure what the reason is, Enthusias, but

DUer, suffragette pointed out to me that a lot of what was said, not just be Obama but by Tony Blair et al, at the G20 conference, was very clearly in line with the Global Austerity policies of the IMF and the World Bank. We are, I believe, as Naomi Klein pointed out, being subjected to those policies right now. And he appears to be completely on board. After they leave office, they get to help run the world now, like Blair, as a reward.

I watched a documentary on what happened to Argentina recently. It was tragic, just like what's happening ine Europe and here right now. They've been doing this in other parts of the world for a long time. What I don't understand is why the leaders of these countries go along with them.

[Enthusiast]

64. Blair should be in prison beside Bush and Cheney.

It must be international fascism. Naomi is a treasure.

[Babel_17]

33. Yes, it's called conflation

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Conflation

And it's frequently used when people want to bash Social Security.

[joshcryer]

35. Welcome to politics.

If there are cuts it will fall in line with precisely what I said, that Obama would put anything on the table because he wants to be seen as bipartisan. I wasn't particularly enamored with him as a candidate, and certainly not as a President, but I'll defend him until we (if we) have an alternative that isn't descended straight from pure evil.

edit: and I completely encourage pressure put on him, but I'm not particularly happy with distortions of his position. His "uber bipartisan" position is a far cry from being one of "them." If any of the Republican candidates were in office, or if McCain had won, we'd very likely have had a worldwide depression, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid would've been ended, the list goes on.

My position is a particularly lesser of two evils position.

[sabrina 1]

38. If there are cuts, he is no Democrat, period.

There was not a chance of those programs ending, not even in their dreams. But if he caved on cuts, he opened the door to Republicans finally getting their wish of getting their hands on that huge fund and investing it in Wall St.

There was never any threat of this country going under. All they have to do is:

1)End the wars
2)End the Bush Tax cuts
3)Raise taxes on the wealthy
4)Raise the cap on SS
5)Cut the Pentagon Budget in half, it would still be far too high and end the disgraceful waste in that program
6)CREATE JOBS

And lots more. This country is and was in no danger of failing economically. It has far too many assets. What you are pushing is the rightwing fearmongering re SS and it's a shame to see it here and to see a Dem President attempt to convince people of the lie that they have been telling since the beginning of SS.

We will have billions to spend on the war when the next request for a supplemental comes up. We just did that a few weeks ago. We are being lied to. But fortunately most people here have done their homework and are not easily fooled.

[indepat]

52. It really isn't rocket science is it? The reason numbers 1 through 6 are not on the table and the

big three is, are so simple that even a blind man could see, a deaf man could hear, and a fool could understand: fascists, that is Fascists with a capital F, have gained control of our government and a truism so obvious ain't rocket science either. :patriot:

[bvar22]

49. That is absurd.

He does NOT have to Put SS/Medicare "on the table" so that he can look good to the TeaBaggers.

He could instead STAND clearly & unambiguously as the Protector of SS/Medicare,
and become a HERO to 80% of America.

By equivocating on these Cornerstones of the Democratic Party,
he has endangered the position of the entire Democratic party.
Do you realize that Boehner can NOW truthfully claim to have "saved" Social Security by rejecting Obama's offer during their "negotiations"?
I actually heard THIS very CLAIM from a Hard Right Conservative over the weekend.

The very act of Putting them on the Table and declaring a "Payroll Tax Holiday" has marginalized these programs by turning them into Bargaining Chips.

[sabrina 1]

60. Well said bvar22

Funny how these programs have received so much attention, but the actual causes of the deficit are rarely mentioned. And still people are trying to defend this, people on the left. Bush would have been pilloried if he had even tried to turn these programs into bargaining chips.

[Divernan]

36. Sabrina, you rock! Keep up the great posting you do here.

[sabrina 1]

40. So do you, Divernan!

:hi:

[Shandris]

68. Seriously?

You can't read the context that SS, Medicare, Medicaid, an aging population, and a messy tax system are the causes of the deficit? There's no ambiguity there! He isn't saying 'our problems are protecting this first three, caused by the last two' without putting a single word between the seperating commas! By your reading, he would be defending a messy tax system and promoting an aging population.

[Scuba]

27. Then he's an amateur negotiator. n/t

[txlibdem]

58. +1

I call him "The Capitulator-in-Chief" - have since he unilaterally took Single Payer off the table weeks before the first meeting on Health Care legislation had begun.

[bhikkhu]

61. Looking at the debt deal, its hard to say anyone could do better

I think he did a good job. Talk is easy - results count.

[Dragonfli]

3. False flag operation, it has been from the start

Certain leading Democrats are flying one flag while holding allegiance to the other. It is a tactic to not only achieve one's goals, but also pin the crime on one's opponent - harming them on more than one level, and it is working.

It is time for those with blinders on to realize that just because someone claims to be a Democrat they may well be a Republican or Libertarian. It is a dirty but effective trick being played on us by Republicans in Democratic clothing.

By their works you will know them, not the cloths they wear.

[sabrina 1]

5. 'By their works you shall know them'

I hope we get the names of everyone who signed on to any deal that jeopardized these programs, if that is what has happened.

It was quite a show they put on.

[Dragonfli]

6. The Kock brothers got their moneys worth with that DLC organization of their's

It is I believe their long term false flag operation finally coming to fruition.

The third way is part of a two pronged attack from both sides.
I fear they have already won and those of us that survive austerity will be living in the new gilded age on steroids.
I hate the truth but it finally all makes sense and I can no longer deny it.

[sabrina 1]

9. 'The third way is part of a two pronged attack from both sides'

It does explain why we can never win, even when we have both houses of Congress and the WH.

Here's their website if you haven't seen it already http://www.thirdway.org/programs

What I want to know is, when did these 'think tanks' become part of our system? None of these people are elected, yet they appear to have more power over our elected officials than we do. And who gave them permission to speak for us? This 'Third Way' group in no way speaks for me or anyone I know.

[Dragonfli]

14. Many people don't read what they write, most of it is boilerplate Reaganomics

They are not Democrats Ideologically speaking, but call themselves such to infiltrate the party and attack us from our own camp shooting us in the back.
There are many I am sure that have no wish to infiltrate but rather lost the ability to enter the Republican party because they are considered too moderate by the extremes of the party that has taken it over, those I would have sympathy with were it not for the fact that they are ruining our party, more honest men would fight for entrance in their own party, or form a new party to replace the now lost Republican party (now taken over by fascists) it is this lack of honesty and courage that prevents such sympathy from me.

I do not know why the think tanks have so much power, but can only assume that much of it has to do with money.

[readmoreoften]

16. This deserves its own OP. These 3rd way Dems are as low as Republicans.

The only difference being that they're infiltrators and liars.

[Enthusiast]

29. They have done more harm than Republicans.

No question.

[Skink]

4. Obama offering.

he's like please take this.

[Waiting For Everyman]

8. That pic quote is why the uber rich need to be taxed out of Olympus.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Alas parties change

and this party is now an establishment, right wing. pro business party...

Parties change...

If you do not believe me... go research the history of the Democratic-Republicans the party of Jefferson. Make sure you stop by the time of Jackson... when they became DEMOCRATS and adopted the jack ass as a party symbol... then stop by the civil war...

While you are at it, stop in the Gilded Age... and take a good look at the Granger party. Make sure to read their platform. Any similarities to a LATTER party platform are NOT your imagination.

I think I made my point.

Parties change... and this one started to change when MODERATE ROCKEFELLER Republicans were pushed off and found a new home. It's been a long, oh thirty year or so process. Albeit it started earlier than that.

[sabrina 1]

11. Yes, they do.

I suppose when it happened before, people were, like us, puzzled by what was going on.

I am not familiar with the Granger party. Do you have a link I could read?

I wonder, what will happen now. What should we do next ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Here

http://dig.lib.niu.edu/gildedage/populism.html

Some of the things they advocated for was graduated taxation and the women's right to vote. Don't get me wrong, some things would fit today with the tea party... populist parties are always fun.... really and fit in the green back movement too.

But social security, first took form with them.

And what we should do... take a page from the tea party (which is functionally a party, even if they run as republicans)

We must agitate, take to the streets, form a parallel organization and be prepared to run for all levels of office under the D banner... aka we need to infiltrate the party. That is what the Grangers ended up doing. On and there are a few granger halls still left in fly over country... perhaps it be a good idea to revive them. THey tend to run as Dems these days... as they have for the last oh 120 years... but for a little while they controlled one third of congress.

[sabrina 1]

15. Thank you, I will read it.

Just want to say, I think you are right about a lot of things. I also think we wanted to believe in the Democratic Party. But things were not making sense. Maybe we had to go through the whole process, like getting the majority even though people were uneasy about eg, Democrats voting for Bush's war, the Patriot Act etc. It take time to finally face the facts.

we need to infiltrate the party

That made me smile. We have to infiltrate our own party!

Off to read your link, and thank you for the interesting information. Knowledge is power! :-)

[hootinholler]

39. The irony

That people with positions that are traditionally (at least in the current moment) those of the Democratic party need to 'infiltrate' the party to move those positions back to the forefront is astounding to me.

There's a Grange hall near me, perhaps I should have a look.

-Hoot

[sabrina 1]

56. I know, that was what struck me, but then the reaility of it

can no longer be denied. That would make this truly 'the Underground'. The problem is, clearly they were planning this for a long time, and put lots of money and effort into it. While we were unaware but wondering 'wtf is going on'? The good thing is, that even with all the effort they made, we still made it hard for them. :-)

[Hippo_Tron]

17. It also changed when working class white people started voting Republican

Civil Rights, hatred of gays, wanting to control women's bodies, whatever the reason du jour is. That mass exodus began in 1968, 12 years before Raygun and the purge of the moderate Republicans.

[Raine]

12. Oh no, that would never happen

:sarcasm:

[B Calm]

24. I'm now proud to say that Obama was my third choice, but I did vote for him.

Run Bernie Run!

[Kahuna]

25. If so-called Democrats would not have wasted their votes on NADER...

none of this would be happening. It has been a vicious plan of the repukes all along to drain the treasury so that it could no longer afford entitlements.

I recall the glee those so-called Democrats had in voting against THEIR BEST INTEREST when they voted for NADER. Ha! We'll show them they said! Some are still saying that and refuse to take responsibility for their actions and what hot us here in the first place.

[Enthusiast]

31. How many times do you need to be told?

Gore won! Gore won and Kerry won. Nader had nothing to do with the multiple theft of a presidential election.

[myrna minx]

32. Ah - so the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, the butterfly ballot and voter caging had

nothing to do with it - just the hippies - it's always the dirty fucking hippies' fault. It's never the corrupt system or politicians, it's the hippies. :eyes:

[Forkboy]

34. Nader is the Dems Clenis.

[cantbeserious]

37. False Proposition - GORE WON! - Go Read The History!

eom

[treestar]

42. And they still don't get that it did not work

And insanely continue to do the same thing and expect different results.

[Kahuna]

55. Exactly. They're still talking the same dumb strategy now. nt

[sabrina 1]

43. Gore won the 2000 election.

What has what happened after that got to do with Nader? An act of treason was committed and you're complaining about someone exercising a constitutional right to run for office in this country?

We had control of the Senate, Congress and the WH for two years, control of the Senate and WH now, and Democrat continued to cave to Republicans every chance they got, like now.

You're going back in HISTORY for crying out loud. Since then we had complete power and still catered to Republicans. Because something is going on that we need to address NOW and all it proves is that NADER WAS RIGHT.

[Dragonfli]

51. You are right we should not vote against our best interests, hence I will not vote for an enabler

of the destruction of my class nor can I vote for a man endorsing a plan that puts Seniors in jeopardy, because I will no longer vote against my best interest I can not vote for a Democrat that has Republican beliefs and allies with them to harm the poor elderly and working class. In short I can not vote again for Obama

[JoeyT]

59. Yes, it's people that voted for Nader's fault that Obama is doing exactly what they said Gore would.

They should be ashamed, ASHAMED, that they're being proven uh...exactly correct.
How dare they?!

[sabrina 1]

62. And as time goes by, more people are learning that Nader was right.

Too bad more people didn't vote for him back then. But fear of Republicans winning prevented that and then they stole it anyhow.

[myrna minx]

30. The American People have NO firewall against the thieves.

:-( It's just the *one* money party.

[treestar]

41. You mean the entire program is going to be abolished?

that is what is "on the table?"

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RetroLounge]

46. Well I hope we electy a Democrtat next time

:puke:

RL

[Blasphemer]

47. There is absolutely no excuse for it

The GOP, come hell or highwater, sticks to their (misguided) principles when it comes to cutting taxes. Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be lines in the sands for Democrats. Without those lines, what the hell are they? We progress on social issues because of shifting demographics - time marches on. When it comes to basic economics and the social safety net, the Democrats have lost their way.

[sabrina 1]

50. But we saw Democrats stick together this week without one of

them voting with Republicans as they alsways do. So it can be done, the leadership can get them to do what they want. Just like Republicans can. So, why have we never seen them do this on other super important issues?

And you're right regarding Republicans not compromising. We keep hearing how that won't work for us so we must compromise. Well, we just saw it work for them.

[Kolesar]

48. File this one under: "fucked premise"

where are the SS cuts?

[txlibdem]

53. No Democrat has done any such thing... just those who claim to be Dems but are Tea Party zombies

I'm voting against any pol/official who voted for or made public statements supporting cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. I'm talking at the Federal, State, County, City, etc level, at ANY level... they're out come election time.

[sabrina 1]

54. I think a lot of people will be doing the same thing. I hope

we are wrong, but the signs are not good so far.

[txlibdem]

57. I'm not going to let anyone I know forget this betrayal - hope everyone on DU spreads the word

We could reach hundreds of people that way ;-)

[sabrina 1]

63. And those hundreds can reach hundreds more and they can reach

even more. :-)

Anyhow, it looks like the whole thing is now in the hands of another Commission. I'll wait to see which Democrats are on that Commission before deciding what chance there is of saving the Social Safety net programs. I hope it's not like the Deficit Commission which had only one real progressive on it and she came up with the best plan for reducing the deficit. But this president didn't even consider it.

[txlibdem]

67. I'm not letting the congress or the Prez off the hook on this one... they all allowed the mistake...

I'm not letting the congress or the Prez off the hook on this one... they all allowed the mistake of putting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to be put on the table in the first place. No Democrat would ever do that, ergo, these are not Democrats. The only person I hear vocally objecting to these things is Bernie Sanders (an Independent who has in the past called himself a Socialist). Mr. Sanders is going to be the only person receiving my donation for his re-election. The rest of them I'll picket outside their campaign headquarters, their local offices and outside Congress -- any damn where.

I repeat: NO Democrat would allow the social safety net to be put on the chopping block. These are no Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

69. That's how I feel.

I love the claim that it was just 'bluffing'! :eyes:

[txlibdem]

71. When the Prez made a speech which included putting SS, Medicare on the table

"Oh, we were just bluffing..." Gag! :-)

[sabrina 1]

73. I know, they do come up with the lamest excuses for why, even

when Dems are in the majority, they still cave to Republicans, but that had to be the most ridiculous one yet! I don't know how they said it without cringing themselves.

[txlibdem]

72. When the Prez made a speech which included putting SS, Medicare on the table

Just bluffing? :patriot:

[divvy]

65. Anyone who does not recognize that is a complete dolt.

Our party is not led by democrats any more. We have been infiltrated and conquored.

[boppers]

66. No True Scotsman. Google it. eom

[blkmusclmachine]

70. Phoney "bi-partisan" "New Democrats" do.

n/t

[lib2DaBone]

74. Obama is no mistake.. he is a cruel plant by the Koch Bros.

The Koch Bros had enough money to get Obama into the electoral process and fool America.

Obama is to the RIGHT of Reagan or many Republicans.

When I think back.. I should have seen the warning signs:

1) What do we really know about Barack Obama?

2) Where did he come from and why is it a mystery?

We've been had folks.