The DLC attack on Social Security -

In the first State of the Union address I got chills when President Obama stated that we need to "have a conversation" about Social Security:

"To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans."

Read the entire text of the speech here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-P... /

Now in his big "compromise" with the Republicans we are told they will call for a 2-percentage-point cut in employees' Social Security payroll taxes that would add $120 billion to the deficit. I guess they won't be needing higher payroll taxes if they are cutting the program. (cite: http://beta.courierpostonline.com/article/20101207/NEWS05/101207022/1006/NEWS01)

This is not something he came up with yesterday - they've been planning it. This has wall street all over it - who do you think will be making fees off these "universal savings accounts"? Of course this is not new, the DLC has been trying to push this through for quite some time: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=165&contentid=695 (read the entire article - with emphasis on this statement "Maybe the proposal will help both the Left and the Right "get" one of the fundamental tenets of the Third Way: progressive goals can best be achieved through market means.")

Bottom line: Obama has been able to accomplish for the DLC what Clinton was unable to do - they have purged the party of progressive ideas. We are now a party of free market worshipers, supporting union-busting and other free market approaches.

We have no left. The hard left was purged in the 1950's and the progressives are now purged. Congratulations DLC: million accomplished.

Reagan must be smiling in his grave.

Summers was an early devotee of Reaganomics and Laffer's nonsensical bilge

It now is obvious that no one is farther right on fiscal matters than Obama.

Maybe he's trying to make Tea Partiers to like him. Maybe he's wooing the Koch Brothers. Let's hope not.

It is also obvious that Obama is the president of a fascist country. Do you think that if he pushed for a progressive agenda that he could remain in the WH? As an example of this hypothesis I just stated as fact, excuse me.... Even though this country showed at the ballot box that WE wanted Obama for president. His administration is clinton retreads. Best buds with the bushes. Don't think that Obama would choose people around him who despised him. Notice that since Rahm and Summers are gone, we don't have awful remarks about progressives coming out from high up WH unnamed sources?

the whole narrative of "just get them elected and then we can 'move them left'". I got sucked into this for awhile too, so I wasn't immune, but it's blisteringly obvious to me now that the DLC are a coalition that is based on right wing ideology. "Moving left" would void their entire reason to be. And now they are totally setting the agenda.

I guess I was ill-informed. Now that I've done some reading it is all coming together. He is DLC through and through, and he is very effective.

I guess the corporate tag of "New!"© was the ad rollout. There are articles on their website from the Hoover Institute and fellows, pretty telling. The messaging since the Bush years has been that if D's could capture the majority in the legislature and get the White House too, there would be action. They were careful to leave what kind of action to our imaginations.

He had been put up on a DLC site (can't rmember which) as a member and he asked to be removed. Many here at DU thought he was sending a anti-DLC/pro-liberal message with that move.

Perhap the real message he was sending was, "Shit, can't let that cat outta
the bag before the election!"

I know for a fact that many DUers voted for him because he was NOT aligned with the DLC like Hillary was.

If it had been known he was DLC, he would never have been elected.

popped up with the "New Dem" label --

Wouldn't have voted for him had I known, either way, either label!!

Sooooo ... now ...... who do we trust for 2012????

Any ideas?

I say DRAFT Sen. Bernie Sanders -- he can run on a Dem ticket --

and take on Grayson as VP --

or even Michael Moore who could run on a Dem label --

allegedly when he realized that there wasn't enough of unions left to finance his

campaign -- and he wanted to turn to corporate money!!

DLC also co-founded by Al Gore -- and many others --

And Obama, of course, eloped into the White House with DLC/Rahm -- !!!

Presumably because Obama had no idea what the DLC was all about -- !!! :eyes:

Hillary is also part of DLC leadership still --

And did we really expect corporate/elite sto fight fairly?

Just wondering, in case Obama decides to walk out of more than just a Friday afternoon press conference...

The R's have been spreading the meme for decades that Social Security is going bankrupt and "won't be there when you retire".
How many people do we all know...of all ages...who repeat that phrase? They did it for a reason...so people wouldn't be too upset when it gets gutted.
This is a prime example of how the R's work.
People need to write, call, fax and/or email every member of congress letting them know that we will not allow social security to be touched. We need to let them know that WE know that Social Security didn't cause the deficit and using it to try and fix the deficit is simply unacceptable!

as a technique on this one (like so many other things they do)... I would imagine for folks 55 and up, you are probably safe at current levels. The rest of us will be retiring at 70 (if we're lucky) with drastically reduced benefits - no matter how much we may have paid in from the 80's to the present. Personally I am mid-40's, started working part-time (summers, sometimes during the school year since age 12), fully employed from 1988-2006 (many of those years - especially in the 90's - paying in at the max amount). I will never see a decent return (if any) on that.

No matter who is talking about the subject, it is NEVER mentioned that Ron Ray-Gun doubled our SS taxes and raised the retirement age in 1983. So that the Baby Boomer's were the first ones forced to pay for their parents AND their own retirements. The other point that makes me wrench is that NO ONE ever states that if your rich you get a tax cut on how much you pay into SS. Anyone making above $109,000 per year never pays one dime of SS taxes on anything above the first $109,000 in effect giving them a tax cut for being rich, while we poor slobs making $18-$50 thousand (which is most of America) pay SS taxes on 100% of what we make.
Why don't they ever talk about these FACTS ??? When they talk about "Entitlement Programs" they fail to mention that you ARE entitled to these funds because you have been taxed all of your working life in order to pay them out to you at your retirement. It is the same as saying that If you paid a mortgage on your house for 30 years that when you make the last payment you are NOT entitled to receive the title deed and own your house. What lunatic would believe that???

another way rich folks get a break.

:wtf:

Also, American workers are earning less in inflation adjusted dollars than in the 1970s and 1980s. Few jobs now come with pension plans, compared to those in the past.

Excellent points

for politicians --

and purposefully to move the burden of FICA payments onto the shoulders of

the poor and Middle Class --

You're right -- and Democrats would be "luncatics" to believe any of this!!

:)

it was a pay-as-you-go system --

SURPLUSSES were quickly turned into slush funds -- !!

sorry about that, should have proof-read more carefully.

In the pain there is clarity, we can clearly see that the entire political establishment is on board with grinding down the working class.
The sooner people realize that we are on our own the sooner we'll do something about it. Then we will have a left.
k&r

Payroll tax holiday? The beginning of the end for SS.

"borrowed" and spent - and we sure can't count on this president to care about that.

but unless they want to collapse the government, the funds will be repaid!!

That DLC article makes me :puke:

Hedge Fund Freaks

A year from now, the Democrats will attempt to restore the 2%, but will be branded as "tax raisers" by the Republicans and the media. Social Security will be made insolvent...

When it is due to expire the Rethugs will scream that we can't raise it back "in this economy". And no one will be willing to do it. So we will have a long term SS deficit built in that will have to be paid for with new cuts in benefits.

-Laelth

is the one that pisses me off the most.

No business person in his/her right mind will borrow money when they have no customers to pay for what they are selling or producing.

Small Business owners need PAYING CUSTOMERS not loans from bankers who are already getting sweetheart deals from the American taxpayers.

Great Post, TBF.

REC.

will create more jobs with tax cuts. It doesn't work that way - businesses hire people when they have the production to warrant hiring.

OK, so maybe the rich folk will do more investing with their tax cuts, which provide fees for investment bankers. Who are already rich ... Well, that's about all I come up with.

Remember we were taught that capitalism is about competition --

But capitalism really is about killing the competition -- !!

that the socsec tax cut has a progressive effect on overall distribution, so many on the left are cheering it on--completely oblivious to the long term agenda (as if he didn't form the cat food commission and stack its membership).

I heard that too, in fact it was the one thing I remembered about his speech. I got a chillyOMG What Have We Done? feeling. But that was soon replaced by staggered disbelief and then hot rage at his endless chicanery in pursuit of Republican style health care "reform".

And then a few quasi-professional bloggers started talking up Obama. I hope a lot of people learned lessons from that.

Obama parroted Edwards' stances and took the credit.

I know. Edwards had a mistress.

But he had a better political viewpoint. And Edwards unlike the other candidates had a history as a strong negotiator. He worked for a hedge fund but saw way before other politicians what was going on in our economy -- and warned about it before the others.

But, we got Obama. And I supported him with all the strength I had. I will not make that mistake again.

At least we didn't get Hillary in the White House. That would have been even worse because she would have been mostly about protecting Bill's legacy and, of course, war, war, war.

Both Hillary and Obama are sold out to Wall Street.

Howard Dean is just one of a number of people.

Clearly, Obama did not have the experience, the leadership qualities or the personal relationships with members of Congress to handle the job. Above all, he does not have a clue about economics. A president needs to have a sense about how money works. Obama does not seem to have that.

that you seem to have that this is accidental ....

After all, he did chose his advisers -- generally those who were involved in

creating the problem -- and profiting from it -- and now refusing to appropriately

address and remedy it --

When the economists told him that the stimulus was only 25% of what was needed

he ignored them --

but he is now relying on other economists to make these new decisions re economic

deal with GOP! And what do we really think of all these back room deals cutting

out Congress?


Meanwhile, there is some discussion of Obama's mother having worked for

CIA front company, as well as Obama --

his biological father -- and his step-father --

Don't really think it's far-fetched --

We'll see ...

:)

Also share your "chills" any time I heard Obama speak --

I really didn't pay any attention to Obama -- had I known he was "New Dem" I would

NOT have voted for him.

Liberals are a HUGE voting block and obviously we need to be discussing our options!!

Did anyone expect the right wing to fight fair?

To not infiltrate the Dem Party?

And who should have been warning us of all this -- other than Ralph Nader who

has been warning us now for 30 years on what was going on?

It's time to reverse the counter revolution to the New Deal.

but have a $1,500 deductible with my new insurance, so flat ginger ale it is.

Nothing Obama negotiated behind closed doors and that Congress & Senate passed would have helped us, we're worse off rather than better. And the changes re: pre-existing conditions re: adults don't start until 2014. No cost controls on premiums, either.

Public option was the only thing which would have put pressure on the Health insurance buzzards.

Which is what we should be hearing from Captain Bipartisanship, but that ship sailed long ago. Yes, we are indeed "worse off rather than better"...

~WBB