"SS cuts will be voted without hearings or open debate"

President Obama and the leadership in Congress have delegated enormous, unaccountable authority to 18 unrepresentative, inordinately wealthy individuals. The 18 individuals are meeting regularly, in secret, behind closed doors, until safely beyond this year’s mid-term election.

If they reach agreement, their proposal will be voted on in December by a lame duck Congress, without the benefit of open hearings and deliberations in the pertinent committees and without the opportunity for open debate and amendment on the floors of the House and Senate. Despite the speed and lack of accountability, the legislation will affect, in substantial ways, every man, woman, and child in this nation.

Who are these powerful people and what are their views? They are the members of President Obama’s newly-formed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. They lack racial and gender diversity, and more importantly, they lack diversity of opinion. Their mantra is that “everything is on the table,” but their one member who has any expertise with respect to defense spending, for instance, is the CEO of a major defense contractor that devotes millions of dollars each year to lobby Congress for more defense spending.

“Everything is on the table,” they say, but the members appointed by the minority leaders in the House and Senate have made clear that they do not believe that the problems in this country stem from under-taxing, rather from overspending. The one area that they seem to be in agreement on -- and which they are in fact, focusing on like a laser -- involves programs that help the middle class and those Americans who are the most vulnerable...

http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2010/05/28/battle-social-security

I don't think so.

to Alternet, where SW picked it up.

It's not SW's story, writers, or facts.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00456

http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2010/05/28/battle-social-security


also at huff post & elsewhere.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/revolt-of-the-wonks-forme_b_585005.html

:eyes:

their article.

please try reading it before you comment.

Sometimes it's better to keep it to yourself, especially when a personal vendetta is clouding your judgment.

This Commission is big news, if you're paying attention. It's all over the place. When they submit their report in December, it will be on every channel. And its conclusion will be that Social Security must be cut. And that's because the majority of those on it are active anti-Social Security campaigners (like Alan Simpson).

(Never mind, go back to American Idol. Or whatever the big thing is right now.)

on the majority is not going to win them back any prosperity?

They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, all in the name of protecting the sacred cows who fill their campaign coffers.

If they go on with this charade much longer, we'll need that revolution.

The people who receive government benefits spend nearly 100% of their money every month, reducing their benefits will damage the economy at a time when we need the money being spent.

Taxing the wealthy would reduce the deficit far faster without damaging anything since they save far more than they spend.

Especially since my family tends to live healthily and actively into their 90s.

Guess we may be expected to commit suicide once we have no money left and would have to depend on our kids, who might have kids of their own to support.

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

Capitalism must expand markets, must continually grow and increase production, but must also drive down wages. Any capitalists who do not do those things will see their stock value collapse, will lose access to capital and will be driven out of business by those who are willing to do those things.

An interesting thing here, that surfaces in the immigrant rights debates, is that people express the idea that workers are a drain somehow on the economy. People fail to see that every worker is also a consumer.

Putting people out of work, depressing ages, cutting benefits and social programs does not "save us money" if by "us" people mean the 99% of us who are not independently wealthy, who are not making money off of money. It does make the stock prices go up, up, up - what does that tell us?

Putting people out of work, depressing ages, cutting benefits and social programs, privatization and regressive taxes are all ways to accelerate the transfer of all wealth up and into the hands of the few. There is less and less to squeeze out of the people now, so the investors are making up things to exploit us and each other like derivatives and swaps and hat not, and looking under every rock to find more money to steal - bail outs and such.

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

Immigrants - the dole, taking away jobs, sending money out of the country, less productive, using social services...

Why can we not reach consensus on and oppose all forms of divide and conquer used against the working people, and scapegoating and blaming the working class people for the consequences of the actions of the predatory few?

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

"They have destroyed my city??" Whoa.

We can take these items one at a time...

Ready when you are.

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

Austerity measures are like throwing gasoline on a fire and claiming you are putting it out.

If the problem is over spending, then why is there not enough demand in the economy?

What they are really saying is people with money should decided with race to the bottom where to spend. Not a structure for the people elected by the people.

The whole concept is who should decide, or control, people with money from a system, or people elected by people where one vote per person is the rule, not votes based on how much money a person has. I think both could have some arguments for social spending, but money should not be the only method of deciding what social policies are set.

It is money versus society ^ versus V in that argument.

'SS cuts will be voted without hearings or open debate.'

as per usual procedures?

i think you're wrong.

Congressional proponents tried to get fast track authority, but thankfully the measure failed. As it currently stands, the committee's recommendations will have to clear the same hurdles as other bills, including the Senate filibuster.

Assuming an agreement is reached, both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) have committed to holding an up-or-down vote on its recommendations.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/deficit-commission-faces-criticism-meeting/

Neither Reid nor Pelosi has the unilateral authority to circumvent such things. If you don't believe me, please reflect on the process to pass health insurance reform.

There is a chance, however, that they will invoke the reconciliation process to negate a Senate filibuster. This seems unlikely since they have not so far had the resolve to do such a thing.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/26/news/economy/fiscal_commission/index.htm

and the deals have already been cut?

maybe i'm failing to appreciate your point, but i don't see the relevance.

This would have fast tracked the commission's recommendations. The proposal fell by a vote of 53 to 46. Sixty votes were required for passage.

Assuming the Senators would later line up similarly, the commission's recommendations would be passed by an up-or-down vote that would require only 51 votes. But under that same assumption, their reforms would not get by a Senate filibuster that requires 60 votes. This is my point, which was pretty much on display in the article I linked in my last post.

I have said why I am assuming this. I think you believe the legislation could get past a filibuster, meaning 7 more Senators would have to support it. What is your belief based on?

and more deals are cut as you reach september.

and the fact that both sides want to cut -- just without political repercussions.

what is *your* belief based on?

You are welcome to review. Or not.

commission's recs?

More importantly, I'm assuming it's harder to get 60 votes in the Senate than it is to get 51.

in an overreach of their stupid party of NO strategy figuring Obama wouldn't go through with it and they could bash him for not being serious about the deficit.

If you want to count on those Republican Co-Sponsors of the original bill, you can but you'd be one optimistic soul and likely a sorely disappointed one.

I appreciate your post.

It was the original intent (and one the President supported) that recommendations would get an up or down vote not subject to debate or amendment. When the Senate failed to pass that legislation, President Obama created the commission by executive order and the commission's recs are now subject to debate and can be amended.

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

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

I call shenanigans on that claim.

before the public gets organized, that's the game plan.

An d if it DOES come to pass(as so MANY of the socialist workers throes of anguish seem too...:eyes:) then I'll definitely be one of the people handing out pitchforks and torches.

and if you wait until you "see it," it will be too late for pitchforks.

which is the game plan.

being reported in april that pelosi & reid have committed to an up/down vote if the commission's recommendations are unanimous:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8442226&mesg_id=8442356

and NO, it WON'T be "too late for pitchforks". anything that's done, can be un-done, especially if the majority of the populace is angered enough to be moved to action.

and IF what you're saying is true- there's really NOTHING that can effectively be done about it UNTIL it passes and the American people get incensed about it.

in the last two years or the last 20 for that matter..

that would have the same effect on people's social security.

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

"Your attitude is exactly WHY there is so much poverty in this country."

That is it.

refuse to hear what I have to say, and will continue to follow me from thread to thread, flaming me.

They REFUSE to understand that this isn't *my* personal problem. I am sounding an alarm that would be to their detriment to ignore.

There are thousands...millions.... like me, and the anger and rage are building. If the stubbornness continues, the rage will build to an explosion.

That is the way of history, and yet..... if DU is an accurate reading of it, we are doomed to repeat it.

and for your info, as you seem to need educating on the subject so desperately- Social Security isn't just for "poor folk".

Yes, Social Security is just for poor folk. Obviously. Rich folk don't need it.

Your snarky "you seem to need educating on the subject so desperately" comment is laughably inaccurate.

The other poster is talking about compassion, not awareness.

Your "don't worry if it happens people will care comment" is unsupported, and contradicted by events over the last couple of decades many, many times.

But I'm of the opinion that those of the gnashing teeth/rending garments ilk over this issue are wasting their emotional involvement at this juncture- at which point it's nothing more than unfounded and uninformed conjecture. :shrug:

Let's say you are right, and that is what they are doing. So what? What is your horse in this race? Why do you care?

I'm not the one making the claim that something is being done by the men behind the curtain- I'm saying that if that is what's happening- there will be PLENTY of populist political will might to get it reversed.

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

Yes, it will be too late for pitchforks.

:hi:

The reason Conrad/Gregg didn't go through was because some of the Republican Co-Sponsors were being too cute with the party of NO stuff or we'd be awaiting the deliberation.

:shrug:

"What are you doing about it" contributes to the power of the pervasive divide and conquer tactics being used against us. What we are going to do about it is yet to be seen and is what we are discussing.

We go together, or we don't go at all. We need to reject the individualistic approach that your post implies.

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

is that waiting is not an option. If we wait until they do it, it will be over. Only diligent reading and protest before will stop it. Use that torch to light up the back room deals now, and there will be less need for pitchforks.

The bad guys will always try to hide what they are doing. Politicians who work for the bad guys can't stand being caught. If we don't want a commission like this, we have to make it known now, protest it now. Of course when the papers finally begin reporting this, when it shows up on Rachel, when the press conferences are called the political arm of the corporate interests will say that they never intended to do this, that the bad old media and the leftie wackos are out of line. What actually will have happened is that the lefty wackos brought the bad guys back in line.

Don't fall for the corporate meme that all those lefties are hurting things. The leftie wackos are the ones trying to save the country.

and IF this is actual- enough people aren't going to know about it until AFTER the fact, to make any kind of difference, protest-wise.

NAFTA affects some people well, other people poorly- massive Social Security cuts will affect EVERYONE poorly.

Obviously, SS cuts disproportionately affect those more dependent upon SS.

why not try a few books that don't have karl marx on the cover...? :eyes:

How long? How completely? Hell, they took away your rights with bush's surveillance actions and you haven't got them back. That was a right. How fast do you think you'll get a benefit back?

If that's too difficult for you to grasp-

Then you're the one with "nothing".

:shrug:

Were changing tax rates what you had in mind when you made your statement? You equate changing tax rates with attacks on constitutional rights and attacks on social security?

Look. You made a statement that, on the surface, sounded okay. But when called on it, you could not back it up. When I asked for examples, you knew I was referring to loss of rights and entitlements. You knew that your silly little "Oh tax rates change" come back was weak. Instead of digging deeper, just acknowledge a weak position and move on. We can discuss whether you think the SS grab is possible or whether it would be a good thing, but saying that the congress might undo something like this will require more than "Oh tax rates change". Sheesh.

It's how things work in our government.

Learn a little civics, why don'cha...?

"Sheesh" is right. :eyes:

If you gum it up with the amendment process, it'll never get done.

If small tweaks to Social Security (raising the cap, changing from a wage based COLA to a price based one) are required as part of a broader package, that's fine with me. No one is talking about privatizing.

the way it has been done in the past.

but the whole social security "crisis" is basically bullshit.

The cuts are likely to be in cutting benefits. Obama appointed a bunch of neocons and DINOs to that commission. These are people who have been chomping at the bit to REDUCE SS benefits and not just for wealthy people who do not need it but for EVERYONE. They are (and have been for years) intent on using the SS trust fund to balance the budget. If they didn't do that, SS would have enough money.

Other areas of spending and also tax increases will be part of it. I am not opposed to a tweak on Social Security such as changing the COLAs from a wage base to a price base if we also get some tax increases and reductions in defense.

the fine points.

Obama created it by executive order and the recommendations will be subject to debate and amendment.

I don't trust our legislature not to go along with the Cat Food Commission but their recs will be subject to debate and can be amended.

unanimous.

more than one way to skin a cat.

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

so refreshing after the Bush years. :sarcasm:

It appears Obama meant it when he said he didn't worry about being a one term president - I suppose he knows he'll be well rewarded whether he serves 4 or 8 years.

More Republicans despise Obama now than before he was elected and Obama has almost methodically alientated just about every supportive faction that helped bring him to Office. So who will vote for him aside from the small segment of ethnically biased and naive acolytes? He has disappointed and pissed off so many of those who trusted and believed in him that many of those who won't vote against him simply won't vote at all.

Obama won't be voted out of Office, he will be shunned. And there is no doubt in my mind that this inevitable circumstance was an anticipated and accepted part of an arrangement with those sponsors whose interests he obviously serves -- which clearly are not those of We The People.

then Socialist Worker.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00456

President Obama and the leadership in Congress have delegated enormous, unaccountable authority to 18 unrepresentative, inordinately wealthy individuals. The 18 individuals are meeting regularly, in secret, behind closed doors, until safely beyond this year’s mid-term election. If they reach agreement, their proposal will be voted on in December by a lame duck Congress, without the benefit of open hearings and deliberations in the pertinent committees and without the opportunity for open debate and amendment on the floors of the House and Senate. Despite the speed and lack of accountability, the legislation will affect, in substantial ways, every man, woman, and child in this nation.

Make them TRUE public servants instead of shills for the moneyed ruling elites? :evilgrin:

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

and i don't much care what you think about me personally.

Ignorance is bliss around here anymore.

are people really this stupid or is it a deliberate line of bullshit from the DLC propaggandists trying to shut down this story?

I think the latter..

There are people around these parts deliberately trying to hurt the Amerian people ..is what i damn well think!!

Thanks Hannah for always providing the truth...Most intelligent minded American people respect your diligence! And your care for our country and fellow countrymen/women!

fly

This is exactly what those of us in poverty are used to seeing.

Remember the arguments in Dec. FOR the suspension of the COLA?

Now that we who spoke against it have been proven right, where are all those conservative Dems????? Where are their apologies?

When the thousands of suicides from the cuts to SS take effect, where will all THESE people on this thread be?

rather than suspend the Social Security COLA he would have trimmed the military budget or restored the progressive 90% tax rate on the wealthy. Instead he casually and deliberately offended the most powerful voting block of all, the seniors, by taking money from their pockets. And while a segment of Social Security recipents won't miss the eliminated increase in their monthly check, many will be compromised by it.

This isn't only about "seniors", some of whom, as you correctly write, won't miss the extra few dollars.

However, it is also about those on disability, some of whom are barely making it, many of whom already can't afford to find a place to live on the meager monthly allowance.

It also includes people who are developmentally compromised, and the programs that serve them.

Lives are in the balance here, yet it just doesn't seem to matter to most "progressives".

that didn't pass which "forced" Obama to issue an Executive Order (not that he wasn't pushing the original HARD) to create the commission which could not force the up or down vote. So, this commission will make the recommendations that Congress will vote for.

It will of course be a lame duck session but I think it is normal voting rules and to my understanding of the current deal Congress will be permitted to debate.
However, you all understand that leadership dictates what comes to the floor to a large degree.

This is going to be a very anti-Social Security and very conservative group. If you've got any sense folks will look at the names and not count D's because a brief look will tell you the people are pretty short of friends on this deal.

A list below thanks to Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63Q0HB20100427 they also have some little blurbs there.

ERSKINE BOWLES, co-chairman
ALAN SIMPSON, co-chairman

OTHER MEMBERS APPOINTED BY OBAMA

DAVID COTE
ALICE RIVLIN
ANN FUDGE
ANDREW STERN

NAMED BY SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADER HARRY REID

SENATOR RICHARD DURBIN
SENATOR KENT CONRAD
SENATOR MAX BAUCUS

NAMED BY SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL

SENATOR JUDD GREGG
SENATOR TOM COBURN
SENATOR MIKE CRAPO

NAMED BY HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SPRATT
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA
REPRESENTATIVE JAN SCHAKOWSKY

NAMED BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER JOHN BOEHNER

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN
REPRESENTATIVE JEB HENSARLING
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE CAMP

As you can see the recommendations would tend to bone us pretty fucking hard. When we were making fun of the Republiklowns for bailing on their own bill we should have been thanking the twisted fuckers for actually being jackasses in our favor or we'd be infinitely fucked and beyond.

As is, if we don't put unholy pressure on Congress they will still kill us. This is a terrible group, we've got about three people on our side in the bunch. It's pretty much "stakeholders", some of their very bestest friends forever in Congress, and a few true duchebag extraordinaries.

Just because this article is a bit off don't mean this isn't pretty damned serious. That deck is stacked against the interests of the people and you can bet from the folks he appointed that the President will be weighing in heavily in favor of what this committee comes up with.

People should know what is coming down the pipeline but they should get the straight dope not misinformation.
Anybody with more than wax between their ears should see the threat here and understand that the only reason they aren't just ramrodding the uncut deal down our throats is because the pukes over played their "NO" card and we won't likely dodge the bullet next time.

We have a chance but we better get loud and organized because this things going to have a lot of low hanging votes, especially in the Senate.

as did alternet, huffington post, & others.

WTF would be wrong if it WERE from the dreaded SW site?

Good grief.

We have people spouting the most extreme right wing bullshit right here everyday, but somehow because the source of a story is - GASP!!!! Hide the children!!!! = Socialist that is supposed to be sufficient to dismiss it. We have people glued to corporate cable TV 24 hours a day and repeating everything they hear on thread after thread.

WTF is wrong with people?

Newsflash to "liberals" and "progressives" here - Socialism is not a dirty word anymore, and actually polls more favorably than the word Capitalism does now with people under 30.

it's fairly obvious none of these people even attempted to read the article, as the source is noted in the header.

We are awash in right wing propagnda.

bushbots..and pretend to be on we the people's side!

They are not .

The two party system is a grand illusion, meant to keep the people in the dark!..and the people do not get that they are being screwed, until the screwing actually hits them between the eyeballs!

There is no two party system..the powers that be are owned by the same master!

but thank you for being so patient.... I'd have blown a gasket by now.

In my household, we tend to GASP!!!, Hide the children!!! AND cover their ears!! when words like capitalism :scared: and Wall St. :scared: are mentioned!

Socialism's popular under 30? Hell, both SO and I are well past 30!

:thumbsup:

By the way, what's for dinner? LOL

You know, borscht, holubsti, maybe a slice or two of rye bread, vodka...... LOL

Yeah, I know, really bad joke!

But honestly, we have folks that truly believe that the concept of 'socialism' is the same as the former USSR and Nazi Germany. They use the phrase so freely without ever bothering to educate themselves on what the term socialist actually means. Hell, they're already humming the tune of "The Song of the Volga Boatmen" while stockpiling ammunitions for that day when the 'gubmint' comes to take away all of their personal property.

That kind of stuff really boggles the mind.

We here in Ohio are lucky that we have alternatives to registering for party affiliations. And yes, the Socialist Party is one of them (unfortunately, so are the Constitutionalist Party and Libertarian Party, but choice is choice). There is actually a GASP!!! Socialist Party candidate running for the Senate.

But if you are ever in the Cleveland area, please stop by for dinner! Our motto in Ohio is: If you leave hungry, we've failed :( .

Performed there many times. Look forward to getting back.

and I'm WAAAY over 30!

This is a hopeful sign, though: "Newsflash to "liberals" and "progressives" here - Socialism is not a dirty word anymore, and actually polls more favorably than the word Capitalism does now with people under 30."

that I wasn't saying you were conflating the proposals. I know for sure it's not an up and down but debate is a little more hazy. They may have to vote for every proposal, I'd have to look at it closely again.

I hope I'm right for all our sakes because if the story is right then we're getting the key to the city of Shittown almost for certain and like I said we're likely fucked anyway.

They won't lose those pukes the next time, not seven or whatever it was. They need 25 Democrats tops in the Senate, it will take a crazy effort to hold the line here.

if the commission's recommendations are unanimous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8442226&mesg_id=8442356

now i personally don't know exactly what's going to happen. i agree, things are a bit fuzzy, there have been several proposals put out, put away, etc.

i do know, though, that things can be done through back-door means as easily as spelled-out legislated ones.

imo the point of discussing things was to get a better handle on exactly what *is* going on. this article is from a perfectly reputable source, & the majority of posts so far have been from people who didn't bother to read the lead attacking the source.

it kind of ticks me off.

& who knows what else won't be "regular" about the procedure?

all the more reason for people to get a heads-up early on.

Still a dangerous bunch but a little chance of stopping them in the current configuration.

And want to cut or eliminate SS.

Public Meeting & Public Feedback

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will hold a public hearing in the afternoon on June 30th in Washington, D.C., wherein the chairmen and commissioners will hear ideas from members of the public. If you or your organization would like an opportunity to be a part of this public forum, please send an email to commission@fc.eop.gov with the information below, and we will contact you as the date approaches.

1) Name
2) Will you be representing an organization?
3) If so, what organization will you be representing?
4) Email Address
5) Phone Number
6) Zip Code
7) Any additional information

Unfortunately, due to time and space constraints, we are not able to accommodate everyone. However, anyone can submit comments, ideas, and suggestions at anytime via email by contacting commission@fc.eop.gov. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record.

Email comments to commission@fc.eop.gov

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

to do with congressional hearings or vote procedures.

the commission doesn't have to worry about votes or backlash from constituents.

Your premise would have applied if the bill to create the commission had passed. It did not. The recs of the commission Obama created by executive order will be subject to the usual process.

pelosi & reid had agreed to an up/down vote if the recs were unanimous. here's another, march 15 wsj:

In the days following the commission's creation by Mr. Obama, there was serious doubt whether Republicans would agree to participate. They argued it would simply serve as a forum to raise taxes rather than reduce government spending. Other Republicans said that because the panel was created by executive order rather than legislation, there was no guarantee Congress would ever take up its findings.

Mr. Obama repeatedly pledged that all options were on the table. Congressional leaders promised to hold an up-or-down vote on the commission's recommendations. Republicans ultimately agreed to take part.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117952094104276.html

The way it's set up, as I understand it, 14 of the 18 members must agree on the report or it won't be issued. Many believe it will be an uphill battle to get 14 to agree to much and I would think it's unlikely you'll see unanimous agreement.

gonna happen.

People flatout don't give a flying fuck.

if only it was just a joke :(

EVERY possible vote that we can shake loose from this is crucial. They won't loose pukes again in any number.

As few as 19 or 20 supposed Democrats in the Senate go along and we've fucked ourselves and if there are 50/50 votes in the mix, I doubt we can stop virtually any of those with Timmeh, Lardawg, Rahm, and the President pushing.

I am going to be reading everything I can about this "Catfood Commission" and trying to figure out why the hell we have Democrats and Republicans arguing for the same thing to take away from our most vulnerable, just how much.

I probably also ought to find the folks who are more interested in jobs, who aren't afraid to invest in America, 'cause the ones that would waste time putting together a Catfood Commission while we need to be fully engaged replacing 12-15 million private sector jobs I really don't need.

Democratic = Jobs party, right? That's what I read...

:waves:

I keep hearing about this intended railroad. All about "Entitlements" we can't afford.

I guess we need to reappropriate it for Wall St. God knows they need more money.

Wait, wasn't that Bush's idea...?

I just keep hoping the more and more privatization is not happening even as I see it happening.

Really quite appalling to have a social security and medicare reform panel meeting before stern rational consolidated national hearings on war profiteering have been held.

It was not fiscally responsible to steal the social security contributions to start with.

Forever. Guaranteed.

If the money that you and I (well - I don't know if you're middle aged) have put into this system our entire lives so that others may retire without starving is NOT also returned to us in kind?! Well then fuck the Dems too.

The only good would be that maybe then people would get out into the streets.

after the Reagan "fix". So if this entitlement isn't fulfulled it will be a more blatant theft than usual.

Could someone please remember thsoe of us on SS disability?

We are ALREADY going through the cutting process.

Does that matter?

Now, they seek to make it worse. I don't expect recs for lowering current benefits but the draconian standards they use (Federal Poverty Guidelines) are a joke only not funny. Add in how they tie COLA's to the ridiculous CPI and it's criminal.

but poverty is relegated to last place.... continually.

I am always accused of being so "angry", yet "progressives are ignoring the obvious.... there is more and more anger and rage building within the poor folk of this greedy nation, and just like Civil Rights, one day it is going to explode.

So, "progressives" can choose to listen to a few angry voices now and decide to activate themselves, or they can deal with a mass explosion.

And our double payments funded tax cuts for millionaires.

I am attempting to understand the reality here.

Because this is one of the main objectives of the kingmakers who positioned him as President. Obama is a Trojan Horse.

That should pretty much tell the story.

for many of us to admit Obama really is a Trojan Horse. But, it is also hard to come up with a better explanation. And if we look at who he has surrounded himself with. I am very suspicious at this point.

this country throws unnecessary military spending down a rat hole? Look at the navy as an example. There is no comparable navy to war with. Where is it? There is no justification for the military spending. And the two wars? Both are actually counterproductive and a complete waste of money and lives. And here I thought we elected a Democrat for president. What happened? WTF?

If this passes, who the hell does Obama think will vote for him. Perhaps he realized he was going to be a one termer, which is why he said he was OK if that's what went down. He knew his raid on this country would piss off enough people who wouldn't vote for him ever again.

you know it's true.

The whole thing doesn't make a bit of sense unless you stand back, put on a tinfoil hat and ponder that maybe, just maybe this is what was planned all along. Put the Goldman Sachs guys in to head the treasury, put this group of guys together to raid SS, don't run or lose in 2012 and be on your merry way! woo hoo!

Kleptocracy - put in a well spoken, intelligent figurehead in who seems to be a man of the people and in the background raid the hell out of the nation's coffers. I know, I know - it seems to be tin foil hat stuff but it also seems to be happening right in front of our eyes!!

Two years ago, hell, just one year ago, I would have dismissed this kind of stuff as 'tin-foil hat' stuff.

Today? Well, let's just say it doesn't really sound too far-fetched at all...

Just a feeling I have that he's gonna bail (with a golden parachute, of course).

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

in fact many who laughed are now coming to me asking what can we do.

It is no laughing matter!

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

This is what global finance has been doing in the 'Third World' for decades, it is what they are doing to the weaker members of the EU now.

The predominance of finance capitalism is a symptom of the late stage crisis of capitalism, they can't make money off of anything else because of overproduction so they just start making shit up and sell that. Desperation has made them savage, like a rabid beast capitalism needs to be put down, it endangers us all.

Say Hanna, is that from the Harvard Journalism Review? ;>)

k&r

Seriously can someone supply some facts on this issue? This thread has me confused.

n/t

I think we may have a perfect example going here...

I was glad the bill to create the commission was defeated which means the recs of the commission Obama created will be subject to debate and amendment. But you just know the usual suspects and the WH will get behind the recs. The timing of their report is no accident, either. After the midterms when the threat of primarying or running against those who are screwing us is past. The legislators will all have either secured their seat or be pimping their resumes to the private sector.

:thumbsup: & :kick:
:(

I mean do I have to worry that they going to snag the 950ish dollar a month SS payment I'm supposed to get down the line???

the so-called fiscal conservatives are looking at cutting spending (except on the wars, of course). that could mean reductions in entitlements, which could mean lower ss payments.

it's not funny at all.

Was it so difficult to understand that?

they just reprinted it.

so there goes your excuse for not reading it.

You are trying to bait people into a distracting flame war.

Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, around the first of the year, were calling for the creation of a commission to address the deficit. They wanted it to be set up so the recommendations of the commission would get an up or down vote in Congress only-a take it or leave it proposition. There would have been no debate and no amendments or changes could be made. The bill to create the commission failed in the Senate.

President Obama then created the commission by executive order which means it could not be set up where the recs would get only an up or down vote but will be subject to debate on the floor and can be modified or changed. Although the commission's spokespersons have said 'everything' is on the table (SS, Medicare, taxes, and defense spending),the make up of the commission, specifically the co-chairs appointed by President Obama (Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles) is seen as a sign that the commission is likely to lean heavily towards changes to SS and Medicare as Simpson is a well known opponent of these 2 entitlement programs and Bowles is a centrist from the Clinton era who has been open to benefit reductions and some form of privatization in the past. At the very least most expect the commission to recommend the benefit age for SS to be raised. More draconian measures are a distinct possibility.

I thought this already happened as in some people don't get them until 67 or so now?

I was born in 1955 and can not draw full benefits until I'm 66 and 2 months old. I look for them to attempt to raise the age to 70. Of course, I don't think those who are in favor of that are doing any of the heavy lifting jobs. Probably not many in the trades or many nurses on this commission that will decide how long the rest of us should be able to work.

If you mean "Socialist Workers Party", that's an English political party, and Socialist Worker isn't part of the SWP. Why is something coming from a source you disagree with as "propaganda"? Should socialists treat every link at DU as "democratic party propaganda"? Who are you willing to red-bait? Noam Chomsky? Howard Zinn? College professors and journalists from around the world? Because those are the writers at Socialist Worker, the International Socialist Review, and Haymarket Books. And these same people write for the Nation, The Guardian, and the Christian Science Monitor. Why do you accept the same writers and the same articles in those publications, but not when they're reposted at Socialist Worker--word for word.

Socialist Worker mirrored it on a blog. Unbelievable red-baiting. Let's look at who the regularly columnist and writers are:

Anthony Arnove: Co-Wrote "A People Speak" with Howard Zinn.
John Pilger: famous documentarian who broke ground during the Vietnam War
Dahr Jamail: Dahr Jamail's "books include The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq. In addition to his Web site, Dahr Jamail's Mideast Dispatches, his journalism has appeared in Le Monde Diplomatique, the Nation, Al-Jazeera and the Guardian.

Who is it published by? A non-profit CERSC, which also publishes Haymarket Books, who publishes Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky.

how fringe! :eyes:

The bill which would have created the commission and allowed no debate on their recommendations was defeated in the Senate in February, I believe. The commission which was then created by President Obama will make recommendations but their report/recommendations WILL be subject to debate and can be amended. I'm wondering about the date of the Harvard report? Was it before the bill was defeated in the Senate? I watched the debate on this whole thing very carefully and remember well when the Senate defeated the bill and that there was reason to hope, in my mind, because the commission's recs will be subject to debate and amending. Not that encouraging but better than the up or down vote crap they were trying to foist on us.

formation of the commission, one from fox news in april, both stating that the recs would be subject to an up-down vote -- not by the conrad legislation, but, it was implied by agreement of pubs & dems, pelosi & reid.

instead of continuing to post that the accuracy is in question, could you acknowledge there are conflicting narratives?

if they just *agree* to an up/down vote once the recommendations are in, they don't need special legislation.

and the commission is reporting in december: good timing for an end-run while people are focused on the holidays.

Because that's unlikely. It's possible some of the more contentious items will not get the 14 of 18 needed to be included.

I hate this fucking commission but I do think it's likely the up or down vote thing will not happen as I really can't see them reaching unanimity.

on edit: reccing the post as the information is important even if there are some finer points glossed over. The overall damage these people are likely to do is horrible.

the december time frame is also the usual time to slip things under the radar.

thanks for the rec, as my purpose is to keep this stuff on the radar. better over-vigilant than under-vigilant.

These articles are exact reprints from non-socialist affiliated sources.

I hate this commission and I read often on the WSWS. But it is not automatic the commissions recs will get an up or down vote.

Mr. Emmanuel's brother made it clear two of the main agendas for the DLC for this term were: health care reform, and social security reform.

So done with their health care "reform" now they are setting their focus on SS.

I am actually looking forward to the creative spin the DLC reps will come up to justify this one.

We are truly being screwed.

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

If this turns out to be the case, the people better take to the streets. Seriously. This would be government at its worst.

ever seen. Seniors, their children, the disabled and their families and workers who pay into this program all have something to lose. I do not think we will ever get this program reformed because it is needed and people are afraid of reform.

that demographic from raising a stink --

those right near collecting, same deal.

though both groups will in fact likely see lower future benefits, but that won't be spelled out right now.

it's those 55 & down that would probably take the biggest hit. most young people already think SS won't be for them, so they won't turn out to protest. if DU is any indication -- they'll be stupidly supportive.

it will be the middle-aged all by themselves.

that's what i believe the game plan is.

i could be wrong, but now's the time to be alerting people & trying to draw in the young & old as well.

but greed and self interest have been drummed into us for the last 30 years. I am on it already but ALL of my family are lower middle class and are going to need it.

This should not get lost in the holiday weekend. Hope it can stay kicked until Tuesday, when more people can see this. Thanks Hannah Bell.

:grr:

They'll pass some POS bill cutting SS & Medicare while telling us they will go back and "fix" it later (sound familiar?).

Once this really gets rolling, look for the pep squad to appear here chanting the "fix" meme and the other cheers they used during the run up to the health insurer bail out.

Obama did say he wasn't worried about being a one term president and it appears he meant it. Four years or eight years, he knows he'll be well rewarded for his role in destroying the working and middle classes.

Commission Members
Co-Chairmen:
Sen. Alan Simpson. Former Republican Senator from Wyoming.
Erskine Bowles, Chief of Staff to President Clinton

Executive Director:
Bruce Reed, Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Clinton

Commissioners:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA 31)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI 4)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX 5)
Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL 9)
Rep. John Spratt (D-SC 5)
Andrew Stern, President, Service Employees International Union

:puke:

These are not people one can respect...not a wise and true leader up there. No Nelson Mandela types to revere. I doubt Fidel Castro would treat his people this way. Americans are stupid and will get nothing but they continue to pay their damn taxes.

Ax military spending. Give peace a chance.

Time to hit the streets. Bastille Days.
Obama must figure he has four years to get his dirty work done for the corporations before the revolution. Hitting us fast and hard ...

I think they want the money but they also want to vanquish the public sector so that corporate rules with a slavish society obliging.

Off Shore Social Security Benefits in an account perhaps Bermuda or somewhere in the Bahamas so that it can't be touched by Any Secret Fiscal Responsibility Fat Cats. If our government is so worried about fiscal responsibility they should consider the possibility of making off shoring American companies ILLEGAL instead of sucking every last cent out of the American public. Social Security is the last 'free money' and Wall Street can't wait to get its dirty hands on it to play economic whirlwind games. Enough seniors have already seen what happens when the big boys play with other peoples money. They have done a heckofajob, Brownie, in making retirements magically evaporate. Now you see it, now you don't.

Truly amazing that whittling away at benefits for the needy is even on the table, while the bloated war machine can keep right on humming along.

There are people here on DU who are desperately poor. They don't have a roof over their head, and even their disability payments are being slashed. This is such a disgrace. When will we wake up? What will it take to jolt people out of their apathy?

All devotees of the Pete Peterson Consulting Group in Washington. An ultra conservative group of Goldman Sachs Bankers and hit men. http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/042810Ridgeway.shtml

They are going to wait until after the election in November, and then launch their attack on Social Security, IN SECRET, without public discussion. There is going to be many lame duck politicians floating around Washington in late November looking for cushy jobs in Banking..these will be the people who will be recruited for the SS grab.

Mr. Obama has gutted Medicare... his next target is SS.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson