Elizabeth Warren's response to Third Way Criticisms: 'Oh Please'
Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 11:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Warren On Third Way Criticisms: 'Oh Please'"We could make modest adjustments and make the system financially stable for a century, and we could make somewhat larger adjustments and make the system pay more for seniors who rely on it," she told the Huffington Post. "The conversation for too long has been about whether to cut Social Security benefits a little bit or a lot. And that is flatly the wrong debate to have in mind."
An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday by Third Way leaders that criticized Warren's beliefs about programs like Social Security caused liberals to issue condemning responses to the progressive Wall Street-backed group. Warren wrote to major banks challenging them to disclose their donations to think tanks. And the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has urged multiple Democrats to cut ties to Third Way.
Third Way responded by agreeing that banks should disclose their donations, but co-founder of the group, Matt Bennett, said that the group still considers Warren's stance on Social Security "magical thinking." He added that JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon's Social Security benefits would increase under a Warren-backed plan.
Warren scoffed at this in the interview with the Huffington Post.
"Oh please. I'm out there working for Jamie Dimon the same way Dick Cheney is out there trying to save the environment," Warren said.
If you haven't read the article written by the two Third Way founders, you can find it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=2771
Warren is correct about Social Security. A few adjustments will make it good for a century.
The backlash was so great to that article that they tried to explain it, claiming they were not attacking Elizabeth Warren. She had stated that she agreed with Sen. Harkin that SS should be expanded and benefits increased. People liked her and Harkin's suggestions a whole lot better than the Third Way's. . So, here is their response to all the negative reaction they got:
Third Way Co-Founder Explains Op-Ed Criticizing Warren
"That Social Security plan was the final moment for us," he said in an interview on Sirius XM with Ari Rabin-Havt, as recorded by the Huffington Post. "That Social Security plan had been out there but really languishing -- because Senator Warren has such a powerful compelling voice, she started talking about it, and it suddenly it became much more talked about and viable alternative."
Kessler said that the op-ed was not meant as a personal attack on Warren, but that she gave a popular voice to a plan that concerns Third way.
"She is a very compelling elected official and national figure," he said. "Her involvement in that particular bill, we just looked at it and said 'okay, this seems to be starting to get out of hand.'"
And the response they received to their 'explanation' was even more negative backlash with liberal organizations like PCCC starting a campaign to ask Democratic members of Congress to 'cut ties with the Third Way'.
Just WHO do these people think they are?
Who elected them and what gives them the right to feel politicians not agreeing with their DISASTROUS policies are 'getting out of hand'???
Warren is an elected Senator. She has a RIGHT given to her by the people to represent them, and the people WANT SS expanded.
I DARE them to run on cutting SS and privatizing it. On a Dem ticket!!
It's an outrage that these people are playing the role of overseers of our elected Senators!!
They ARE a small group compared to all of us. If people continue to wake up as they appear to be doing we could take care of this problem in no time.
Elizabeth Warren didn't just tear apart the Third Way lies about Social Security, but she also wrote to Wall St Banks asking them to reveal their donations to Think Tanks.
The political world is teeming with these organizations, Think Tanks, Lobbyists, Security Contractors bidding on contracts to smear people, journalists, bloggers, politicians who speak out on corruption in our large institutions. Seemingly having more influence over Congress than the people who hired them.
This whole mess needs to be exposed and cleaned up so politics is free of these deceptions and shadow operations out to destroy anyone who tells the truth about Big Banks and their corrupt influence on our government.
Iow 'Bad girl, Elizabeth! You will have to be reined in!'
Are they for REAL??
Sorry, I'm still almost speechless at what we are learning regarding who has been running things in our party!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(151,967 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
easychoice
(1,043 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The more popular she becomes, the more rabid THEY are going to be.
I know they won't give up without a fight. She is gaining in popularity so they will do all they can to try to discredit her.
I'm assuming this guy is an actual Right Winger. Note the language he uses to describe her 'bitter' etc.
I think we should make fun of these morons. Keep a list of all of them who write these kinds of articles and mock them on social media etc.
Because they deserve to be made fun of.
tblue
(16,350 posts) 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)twitter account. We could link to these articles and use Warren's short response 'Oh Please'! Make it a hashtag for people like this. After a while, people would recognize it as a signal 'this guy is a jerk'. Something like that.
Or so they get the message. Link to the article with comment 'You got to see this garbage! As Warren would 'Oh Please'! Lol!
tblue
(16,350 posts)Let's do it!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I love that #OhPlease ...
Let me look for his twitter account, if he has one. I'll post it if I find it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)easychoice
(1,043 posts)This guys wording is right out of a Republican hit piece on Fidel Castro.
I wonder who paid him to smear Liz?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)editor of The Atlantic.
Reading through his tweets it's hard to tell if he's a rabid right winger or just extremely right on economics. He wrote a book about Capitalism apparently which was in praise of the 'Invisible Hand'.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster
I don't know if you can access his account if you don't have one, but I think you can.
He has posted links to some more of Warren's quotes, but hasn't criticized them there, just posted them.
I'm going to respond to him and attach the hashtag lol!
He doesn't speak for America! Btw, he was born in Britain, emigrated to Canada in the '70s and is now here in DC.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)obviously, these guys are towing the far right wing memes - down to how they characterize women - from bitter to "shrill".
thank you for bringing more truth and exposure to the third way. gag.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)bothers them.
I am not on FB but if you want to use it there it would be great. I am on twitter and am going to use it there. The more people are aware of them, the better. Maybe we can even beat their candidates with some real Democrats this time.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)K,R and saving this read!
demwing
(16,916 posts)In an article purporting to be about Warren, there are 2 photos of the Senator, and three photos of Hillary.
The shills are busy shilling, but they're not even trying to mask the game anymore.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I'm keeping that handy. It works for almost everything.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)the American people might have a chance of crawling back from 3rd World Status...which status I suspect is the goal of "3rd Way".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)What is amazing is they way they spoke about a US Senator. Like they have a right to dictate policy OVER the right of someone who was chosen by the PEOPLE to represent them. THAT was more revealing than anything.
'This is getting out of hand' they said, so they had to DO something to reign it in. That something was to write an OP Ed in the WSJ to start the ball rolling in the campaign to try to silence her so that THEIR policies would move forward.
It's astounding, really. A Think Tank dictating policy to US Senators. Good thing it was Warren. Apparently they are used to doing this. SHE dismissed them, and that appears to be something they are not used to.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)their subordinates don't recognize and respect their "betters".
How dare that woman not know her place!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Third Way = Third World.
Sabrina, this is your best OP, ever. I love the idea of poking at that nest of vipers. Maybe I could do a video and introduce them.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... an unwillingness to tax the people who have all the money.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)And it leads to a lot of corollary problems:
2. waste and fraud in government procurements and programs
3. bribery and corruption
4. money buying elections
5. corporate free-rides
6. total trashing of the rule of law
7. economic warfare on other people and other nations at the behest of Corporations
and more, but I can't bear to think further on this
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and threatening anyone who calls them out for that action to the point that almost everyone is either living in institutionalized ignorance or a state of denial.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)After all, how many gods are considered criminal?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)seen this from other Dems? I sure hope she gets backing from her colleagues, they need to push back hard now that she has provided the momentum and has so much support from the people.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)in their crosshairs.
djean111
(14,255 posts)"He added that JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon's Social Security benefits would increase under a Warren-backed plan."
Here's the important thing to remember - everybody else's benefits would increase, too. And - if doing something like this would increase ONLY Jamie Dimon's benefits, to the detriment of everybody else - the Third Way Congress would push that bill through in a fucking flash. They do it now. They just did it. The bottom line - Jamie Dimon does not want to contribute fuck all to the fund. That's the bottom line, folks.
I think one of the ways that the Third Way and 1% easily win is that it is so easy to divide the 99%. Talk about raising the minimum wage, there will be those who complain that it took a few years for them to reach that wage.
Talk about ACTUALLY writing off bad mortgage debt, student debt, medical debt, old credit card debt - people start yelling hey! I worked hard and paid mine off, why should someone else get a "free ride"? Even though that free ride, in the form of having something to spend, would make the economy roar back and benefit the whole.
The rich guys and corporations pull together - after all, they stand to benefit, eventually, from all the Wall Street ass-kissing legislation that slides greasily into law. GE purportedly pays little or no taxes? Hey, they can learn and do that too. Hedge fund managers pay no taxes? Hey, maybe they can grease a few palms and get the same sweet deal. They see that their rising tide lifts ALL of their boats. Sometimes the 99% gets lost, arguing about who deserves or worked harder for the prettiest boats. And then they are all left stranded.
Bail out the banks - muttering and complaining, but it happened. Bail out your next door neighbor - why should HE get bailed out.
Not sure what the answer is, but this is something I have noticed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)leaving only welfare for needy seniors.
djean111
(14,255 posts)insurance should be unfunded because of all of the fraud the posters "Know about" or even have "seen in their own family and friends".
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)
The two programs are funded differently, have different eligibility criteria, etc. I think it is usually good to separate them for purposes of analysis.
ETA: As the parenthetical warning in the subject line says, the above post is wrong. For correct info, please see ND-Dem's Replies 91, 92 and 104. And please accept my apologies for my confusion and any confusion I may have caused those who read my posts before I edited.
djean111
(14,255 posts)is absolutely dwarfed by doctors and corporations and hospitals and insurance companies taking advantage of the welfare programs. Just look at Rick Scott. Largest Medicaid/Medicare fraud ever found and settled. How many hospitals and insurance companies milk Medicaid for all they can bill for?
(I know SSDI is a welfare program - my son has PTSD and we were barely surviving until he was approved, and now we at least do not choose between venlafaxine hcl er and food. Anyone who thinks he is a fraud is welcome to live in a house with him, unmedicated or medicated. Please.)
There would not be fraud by people who cannot afford health care if we had single payer. It is the collusion between Pharma, hospitals, and private insurance that is the real fraud, not someone getting health care.
merrily
(45,251 posts)government by richer people, not to mention corporate "welfare" that violates no laws at all.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Rick Scott really got away with his fraud. He made more than the penalty. But people voted for him, while bitching about some poor kids who got vaccinations or a broken bone set. You would think that actual people "defrauding" Medicaid were having face lifts and such, the way people complain. That's what death panels are, IMO - the people who believe the poor (or anyone) should not scrabble to get health care for themselves and their families if they cannot afford it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the Cold War to foreign aid to propaganda, programs like OASDI, to the Korean "Police Action,"the Vietnam "Era," etc. an asset protection program for the wealthy?
I'm pretty sure my parents weren't lying awake nights worrying that they and the Rockefellers might all end up in the same economic boat.
djean111
(14,255 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)The rich and our government have gotten better and better at it, though. And the rest of us have gotten more and more resigned to it. So, the rate of increasing inequality has accelerated, causing many, even book authors, to speak as thought it's something that started recently.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)easychoice
(1,043 posts)Rick Scott Bill Frist(us senator) and assorted cronies.And Frist was a Senator!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_Corporation_of_America
Also,
Check out Ken Lay and Jeb Bush robbing the employees of the state of Florida for about $350 million in pension funds.
Those who bitch the loudest steal the most.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And if a poor person lies to get HC, that is the fault of our system which allowed 44,000 Americans to die each year rather than provide them with the HC they needed.
It's shameful. And now the Third Way wants to privatize SS and gamble it away in their Wall St Casino.
Any Dem who goes along with this will be exposing themselves as an imposter.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/topics/ssdi-social-security-disability-overview
"Only workers who have worked and paid Social Security taxes for many years are insured by the SSDI program"
SSI (Supplemental Security Income) Overview
http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/topics/ssi-supplemental-security-income-overview
SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income, a federal program that pays a small benefit to low-income individuals who are disabled, blind, or over the age of 65. This program is for those who haven't worked for enough years to qualify for SSDI. Some folks mistakenly refer to SSI as the Social Security Income program, which is a misnomer since the funds for SSI don't come from the Social Security Trust Fund or Social Security taxes.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)you have to have paid into social security to get ssdi, and it's funded out of the SS trust fund.
unlike ssi, which is funded from the general budget, and has no stipulation about having made *any* payments to social security.
http://www.ssa.gov/disability/
merrily
(45,251 posts)Your link does say that the SSA administers both programs. It does not say that both programs require that you have paid into the Social Security fund for a certain number of quarters in order to be eligible to collect. The latter applies to OASDI only--which stands for Old Age and Disability Insurance. SSI programs, both SSI and SSDI, are based on financial need, age and/or disablility alone. If you meet those requirements, you can collect, even if you never worked "on the books" in your life.
From your link:
Social Security Disability Insurance pays benefits to you and certain members of your family if you are "insured," meaning that you worked long enough and paid Social Security taxes.
Supplemental Security Income pays benefits based on financial need.
*The quoted material is indeed from ND-Dem's link. Other than that, this post is wrong. For correct info, pllease see ND-Dem's Replies 91, 92 and 104. And please accept my apologies for my confusion and any confusion I may have caused those who read my posts before I edited.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)system to get ssdi. It's not the same thing as ssi, they have two different names. Both are 'administered' by the social security department but only ssdi is funded from social security taxes. ssi is funded from general taxes.
here, i'll copy it again for you:
SSDI (Social Security Disability) Overview
SSDI refers to the Social Security Disability Insurance program. It is tied to the Social Security retirement program, but is for workers who become disabled before retirement age. Only workers who have worked and paid Social Security taxes for many years are insured by the SSDI program.
http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/topics/ssdi-social-security-disability-overview
SSI (Supplemental Security Income) Overview
SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income, a federal program that pays a small benefit to low-income individuals who are disabled, blind, or over the age of 65. This program is for those who haven't worked for enough years to qualify for SSDI. Some folks mistakenly refer to SSI as the Social Security Income program, which is a misnomer since the funds for SSI don't come from the Social Security Trust Fund or Social Security taxes.
http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/topics/ssi-supplemental-security-income-overview
merrily
(45,251 posts)two names for the same thing, namely,the disability component of OASDI.
I am going to note that in my prior posts, so I don't confuse anyone else, but will edit in such a way as makes evident you made this clear.
*ETA: As the parenthetical warning in the subject line says, the above post is wrong. For correct info, please see ND-Dem's Replies 91, 92 and 104. And please accept my apologies for my confusion and any confusion I may have caused those who read my posts before I edited.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Social Security is the umbrella name for all the programs funded by social security taxes. It's sometimes used loosely to refer to all safety net programs generally, but that's not strictly correct.
OASDI = OASDI stands for old age, survivor and disability insurance, which is more commonly referred to as Social Security.
SSI (Supplemental security income) isn't funded by social security taxes, though it's administered by the social security administration. It's for people who haven't worked long enough (or recently enough) when they become disabled to qualify for SSDI.
Here's a chart:
Comparison of the SSDI and SSI Disability Programs
http://www.ssa.gov/redbook/eng/overview-disability.htm#a0=3
merrily
(45,251 posts)Thank you for your patience and persistence.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)was done on purpose to confuse people and to give social security a bad name (since ssi can be given to people who've never worked, & was once given to those disabled because of drug addiction or alcoholism. always great anti-ss talking points for the right.)
merrily
(45,251 posts)On another board, I once even had a poster chide me strongly for advocating for all recipients of OASDI. Her anger was that I supposedly was excluding seniors! Meanwhile, what I had done was simply try to point out that seniors were not the only beneficiaries of Social Security!
What I was reacting to, obviously, is the conflation of OASDI and SSI, also a common mistake. Equally obviously, I was not even aware that SSDI is a program different from both OASDI and SSI.
Mea culpa. Listening from a place of "I am right" is not really listening, is it, but thanks for giving me credit. Again, I apologize, both for my original mistake and for the stubborn resistance to the correct info.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)DISABILITY insurance"
merrily
(45,251 posts)was a separate program? The thing that really boggled my mind was that the poster who lit into me didn't realize that "Social Security," aka OASDI, covered anyone but seniors and also did not realize that OASDI and Social Security were one and the same.
Today it is widely recognized that the acronym "OASDI" refers to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program of the Social Security Administration (SSA). However, the program that began in 1935 originally did not contain provisions for disability insurance. In fact, the "D" in OASDI was implemented more than 20 years later, on August 1, 1956. This is the date that President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the 1956 Amendments to the Social Security Act establishing the Social Security Disability Insurance program.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n3/v66n3p1.html
merrily
(45,251 posts)As long as it has been called OASDI, OASDI has included the disabled. AFAIK, SSDI is the newer term (newer than than the abbreviation OASDI).
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)"1956 Amendments to the Social Security Act establishing the Social Security Disability Insurance program."
Social security disability insurance program = SSDI, part of OASDI. The "D" was added to OASDI when Ike signed the SSDI act.
PS: SSI, on the other hand, was a Nixon program.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled.[1]
Although administered by the Social Security Administration,[2] SSI is funded from the U.S. Treasury general funds,[1] not the Social Security trust fund.
SSI was created in 1974 to replace federal-state adult assistance programs that served the same purpose. The restructuring of these programs was intended to standardize the eligibility requirements and level of benefits.[3]
The new federal program was incorporated into Title XVI (Title 16) of the Social Security Act.[4] Today the program provides benefits to approximately eight million Americans.
The legislation creating the program was a result of President Richard Nixon's effort to reform the nation's welfare programs. At that time, each state had similar programs under the Aid to the Blind, Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled, and Aid to the Elderly. The Nixon Administration thought these programs should be federalized and run by the Social Security Administration. Thus, SSI was created to eliminate the differences between the states including different disability standards and income and resources requirements, which many perceived as irrational or unfair.
President Nixon signed the Social Security Amendments of 1972 on October 30, 1972 which created the SSI Program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Security_Income
merrily
(45,251 posts)I think I got clear by my reply 101, but then went astray.
This is my current understanding:
Apart from history, "Social Security" is a name commonly used today for the program also known as OASDI. Conversely, "OASDI" is a somewhat less common term for the program known as as also as Social Security.
As constituted today, they are both one and the same program; and OASDI is different from the SSI program.
All that I have long known. The bit I learned today was that SSDI is becoming a common way to refer to the disability component of OASDI/Social Security, which is what I was trying to say in my reply 101. And, again, I thank you for setting me straight on that part because, as my posts made obvious, I thought SSDI was a reference to the disability component of the SSI program, not of the OASDI/Social Security program.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Today it is widely recognized that the acronym "OASDI" refers to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program of the Social Security Administration (SSA). However, the program that began in 1935 originally did not contain provisions for disability insurance. In fact, the "D" in OASDI was implemented more than 20 years later, on August 1, 1956. This is the date that President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the 1956 Amendments to the Social Security Act establishing the Social Security Disability Insurance program.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n3/v66n3p1.html
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as one Dem in Congress said the other day 'it makes you wonder if they are Republicans'. Or from some Think Tank.
merrily
(45,251 posts)So, you are quite right to say "wonder." And not only about DUers, but about people in general. Some are shills, some are mistakenly, but sincerely, stirred up by the propaganda. And that's what makes DU continue to be valuable. I am one of those who might have been easily swayed by the argument that the rich should not get Social Security--if it had not been for things I had read on DU explaining the vile endgame of that argument.
Get it all down to welfare, then it will be part of the system that decades and trillions have already been spent to discredit.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)be voluntary though. But then I learned what that would mean, here and elsewhere and I understood why we cannot allow them to do that.
He threw in that Jamie Dimon lie because HE understand it also and is despicable enough to do that hoping some people will buy in to it.
They have no shame.
merrily
(45,251 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)these faux 'democrats' have on our party.
Whoever pays into the SS fund, must receive the benefits they paid for. To deny the wealthy, and I'm sure a lot of them would go along with it, would absolutely turn it into a 'needs' program, or that is what they would claim.
It's disgusting that any Democrat would even talk to these pretend Dems. But at least now we see where the root of the problem in the Dem Party is and with Warren willing to take them on, maybe their days are numbered.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that.
There have been suggestions that the wealthy be denied SS because 'they don't it'. That is a trap. Because if they did that, it would change SS from an earned and paid for Retirement Insurance Policy into, what they like to call it 'an entitlement program'. Using the word entitlement creates the impression that it is Welfare for people who didn't earn it.
So the Third Way throws that out there deliberately hoping that the public will be angered at Warren for wanting to give more money to the most wealthy. It is a despicable trick.
Her response to that was:
"Oh please. I'm out there working for Jamie Dimon the same way Dick Cheney is out there trying to save the environment," Warren said.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)they depend mostly on salaries, while the most wealthy have heavy doses of investment and capital gains income. (not subject to social security taxes)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wants to give more money to the wealthy by mentioning Jamie Dimon in that context.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)"In 2014, if you retire at age 66, the maximum amount you will receive is $2,642."
$31K. I'm sure dimon can't wait to claim his benefit.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)then this kind-hearted soul would have a few extra bucks to donate to a charity for the needy. It's a win-win.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)"Are they for REAL??"
Yes, and many good folks who could see thru the veil of BS have been telling us about this for years. But "party loyal dems" would have none of it and quickly besmirched the credibility of those asking us to see the whole picture.
"Sorry, I'm still almost speechless at what we are learning regarding who has been running things in our party!
Dig deeper, there is more to be speechless about. And it isn't easy to accept the truth-I know, I've been "there", many times.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)their policies, deregulation of Wall St, the Media etc. I remember in 2008 before the election people began talking about them. I followed a link to their website and saw a photo of Obama captioned 'rising star in the Dem party'. Apparently this caused some outrage among Dems who knew about them. The photo was removed.
To be honest I didn't think they had as much influence as they have at that time, so dismissed it.
But when Dems won and we started to hear excuse after excuse as to why they couldn't get progressive policies passed, I remembered them. Because the excuses made no sense.
And yes, we have 'loyalists' though I don't believe they are Dem Party loyalists anymore, no Dem would support the right wing policies being pushed in our party, are all over the place defending them, attacking liberals with their 'talking points such as 'purists' and 'ponies' etc. NOW we know where all that came from.
I'm sure that what we know is only the tip of the iceberg, but it's encouraging to see how scared they are becoming as they are exposed to more and more people.
Rahm 'your ideas are retarded'! That was what got me really looking into to all this.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)
Rahm's infamous "E'fn retarded" comment was the thing that kind of put me over the top, for a couple reasons: A) He had Just left the WH and as Obama's chief of staff had a Lot of "advice" for Obama and B) He Is a Dem (or I thought he was)!
Rahm used to head the DCCC..........now Wasserman-Schultz does and she's a member of "The New Democrat Coalition"
I now understand there are "dems" (those in leadership) and Democrats (a majority of the base and a very small handful of state leaders/pols/congresscritters).
And then Schumer, last spring, comparing progressives/libs to the "tea Party"...Third Way coming out Against Soc Security and other social services our tax dollars are Supposed to cover.
Then I learned who is associated with a group called "Fix the Debt" a "bi-partisan" group well, see for yourself the names listed here:
http://www.fixthedebt.org/ed-rendell
http://www.fixthedebt.org/statechapters
There are so many conservative "dem" groups......
New Dem Coalition:
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/membership
and their "Dem of the Week" list
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/new-dem-of-the-week
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)when Moveon was intimidated by the 'leadership' to take down a great ad re Petraeus, again attacking the 'left' because we are not supposed to hurt the 'feelings' of the Right.
They caved. Once they gained access, which I believe they given, they were vulnerable to control by the 'dems'.
Going to read your links ...
fredamae
(4,458 posts)These are Democrats? Noooooo, not really, imo
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/12/1357226/-The-15-Democratic-Senators-poised-to-decide-the-fate-of-the-country
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)were in the majority. The MINORITY was all powerful up to this month. I expect that theory will play out for US now, no?
But it won't. Because as so many people have said 'the game is rigged'.
Just read your Rendel Link. Amazing how bi-partisan Dems are:
A Republican, a Third Wayer and a Republican/Democrat/Independent (Bloomberg) doing whatever it takes to get their agenda across.
What a mess. No wonder we have been so frustrated. The people never had a chance.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)I have been all over the place - emotionally - learning more about "my" party.
Bewildered, violated, suckered, angry, disappointed....name it...and I've called to share my feelings, ideas, suggestions etc to: individual lawmakers, DCCC, DSCC, DLC, New Dem Coalition and Guess what? They don't want to hear about it at all-most of the time they just hang up on me.....
I've been dedicated to "my" Dem Party since 1959...so, yep-I'm a bit bewildered and embarrassed because I bought their bullshit for decades, made excuses for them, invested my trust in them, voted for them, justified their bad votes-all of it-for decades.
I was part of the problem because I never took the time to "really get to Know them".
I'm So grateful others are "seeing" thru the façade now.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)our Dem Rep about a bill that was coming up for a vote a few years ago. There was a request online to call them to ask them to vote for it.
I got an assistant, asked her if Bishop was there, she said 'no', I can take a message'. So I asked if she knew how he was voting on the bill and if he had gone to vote. She had no idea what I was talking about. 'I'll pass your message along' I told her it would be too late. He did not vote for the bill and I never heard from his office of course. I know they were getting a lot of calls that day, but unless you have a big bag of money, they are not interested in you.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
djean111
(14,255 posts)or foment bad associations with words like Populist, Progressive, Liberal, Left. That is in their playbook.
Even here at DU, "Liberal Lefty" is actually using in a sneering way, as a dismissive put down. By "Democrats"........
merrily
(45,251 posts)different people.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Labels mean little - focus on ideas.
riqster
(13,986 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)It would also be nice if our President as well as the Senate and House Minority leaders, all of whom supposedly don't want to cut Social Security at all would say the same thing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Maybe she will instill some courage in some of those who have been afraid up to now.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Nope. They'll sidle up next to her when it's time to campaign and they want votes/money/support from liberals, but when it comes time to actually govern and vote for legislation or cuts or whatever, they'll prove craven and spineless as always.
randys1
(16,286 posts)How does that one item change the funding long term?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I don't know why there ever was a cap.
Creating jobs is the best way to keep the fund going.
But even in the worst period of unemployment, during the economic collapse and after, the SS Fund still showed a surplus. It did show a deficit in the employment tax, but the fund has other sources of income. Eg the interest on the Treasury Bonds.
Third wayers AND Republicans will argue that the Government is not going to keep paying that interest, iow, the US Govt will default on its debt.
That is ridiculous of course and hasn't happened despite all the dire predictions.
IF that were to happen, we would have a lot more to worry about than SS.
They will say anything, do anything to try to get that fund privatized.
Warren exposed their lies so they are angry about that. And STILL pretending to be Democrats.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)which actually tells you more about how skewed the income distribution is between capital and labor than anything else, since the US produces more in $$ value per person than ever in history.
But capital isn't taxed for social security, just labor.
Personally, I don't believe much in their projections, either. Because the assumptions they're based on aren't neutral.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
thesquanderer
(12,333 posts)
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)antiquie
(4,299 posts)
rurallib
(63,166 posts)supercats
(429 posts)They are a disgrace to the democratic party and frankly a disgrace to America!!! Stand up third way and be who you really are....Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan clones.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)
yep.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Is means testing. One of the examples they mention in the site below is someone like Derrick Jeter would not receive benefits from Social Security. This would leave more funds for the lower income people. Since 1935 the life expectancy has risen, the first folks full retirement was 65 and the life expectancy was about this age. After WW II there was lots of babies born, we are retirement age and they realized some years ago there needed to be reform, guess what I have survived the reforms.
Take some time to read, you will probably be surprized:
http://perspectives.thirdway.org/?p=934
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)welfare program, or to create that impression. That is a TRAP which has been discussed at length, rejected because it would change the entire premise FDR had in mind.
Everyone who pays into it, just like any other Insurance program, rich or poor, has to be paid.
It is a Retirement Ins. Fund. FDR was ADAMANT that everyone who paid into it, be paid. And his reason was he did not want it to be viewed as welfare, which it most certainly is not. He anticipated that some would be demanding means testing.
This is not that kind of program and the Third Way's attempt to turn it into such a program is very transparent.
Warren knows the numbers that is why she isn't fooled by their deceptions. The deliberately made that cynical remark about Jaimie Dimon because THEY KNOW that people who don't understand the program will fall for it.
Anyone who voluntarily wants to donate what they earned to the fund, can do so. But no way should there be any means testing with SS. If you paid into it, you earned it, period.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)you think it is a welfare program, this is what the GOP thinks, entitlements as they say, do you agree with the GOP now. Yes I know Warren understands the numbers and if she thinks this is going to go on and on I would doubt her ability as an economists.
As far as everyone has to be paid, if you do not sign up to receive benefits then they do not start. There has been individuals in the past who had means and they have also suggested there be means testing because they did not need the funds. You are kinda playing both ways, huh.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Insurance fund.
When people pay into an Insurance fund, they EARNED any benefits they receive at a later date.
Everyone who pays into it, earns the benefits.
Should the rich not be compensated by their auto Insurance if they are in an accident because they could afford to pay for it themselves? No, they SHOULD receive the benefits of the policy they paid into just like everyone else. That is what insurance policies are for. No one would SUGGEST that the Rich not be compensated if a means test were to show they are very wealthy.
Same thing with SS. Whoever pays into it, earns the benefits, rich or poor. Otherwise you would be forcing people to pay for others who are not as wealthy. That would mean it is no longer an Insurance program.
Why would anyone say that if someone pays into an Insurance Policy they don't deserve to get the benefits? They don't actually, except when it comes to SS. Why? Because the Right wants people to think that SS is a Welfare Program. I they think that, they will be against it, the Right believes.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Duck!
Omaha Steve
(103,330 posts)Anybody?
K&R!
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And most people knowledgeable about the SS fund has already explained this.
How, iyo, are the weasel words?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)trusting supposedly 'knowledgeable' people during the Reagan admin, when democrats and republicans got together to 'save' social security, creating massive and useless surpluses and destroying the principle of pay as you go. we paid then, and we'll pay again --double payment. and none of it will do anymore good than it did the first time.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)cost this country 2 trillion dollars over ten years and where are all those jobs they were supposed to create? Employment was down for several years, yet SS still paid out 100% of its obligations and had a surplus.
Re visit the problem of the Govt borrowing from the SS Fund, if there is a surplus, increase benefits. It was never supposed to be a bank to borrow from to cover the cost of war and tax breaks for Big Corps who take their jobs out of the country.
If there is a surplus, raise benefits. That money will go back into the economy without costing the Federal Fund anything, a sort of stimulus package.
Raise the cap on SS.
End the wars which together with the tax breaks for the wealthy, helped create the deficit.
So keep Americans working, raise the cap and end tax breaks for the wealthy
And btw, SS had nothing to do with the deficit.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)those who can afford to pay a bit more into SS, do pay a bit more. No biggie.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)For 2014, the maximum amount of taxable earnings was $117,000. In 2015, the maximum amount of taxable earnings is $118,500.
www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.htm
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I'm talking about raising it enough to adjust for and close any expected future 'shortfalls'
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)keep 90% of workers paying. That ended under Reagan.
•Between 1983 and 2008, the share of total wages covered by Social Security and subject to tax has declined from almost 90 percent to about 83.5 percent because earnings have grown rapidly near the top of the earnings distribution.
http://www.urban.org/retirement_policy/sstaxableminimum.cfm
Even if you taxed all earning, according to those who make such projections, the shortfall wouldn't be covered. It seems America needs a raise. Or else the forecasters have problems, like the Reagan era forecaster who told us that we just needed to raise rates a couple of percentage points to cover the boomers (who were also paying for their parents).
that lasted just until the boomers began to retire. now they're going to pull the same scam again.
http://www.urban.org/retirement_policy/sstaxableminimum.cfm
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Social Security’s actuaries project that eliminating the cap would reduce the system's deficit at the end of the 75-year horizon by 86 percent if workers with earnings above the current cap were not credited for any of the additional taxes they paid. Social Security's deficit would decline by nearly 70 percent after 75 years if it increased benefits for high earners (figure 1).
Above text is from same page as graph you posted: http://www.urban.org/retirement_policy/sstaxableminimum.cfm
~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ * ~~~ *
I'm not sure what you refer to as a "scam", but Bernie Sanders is convinced that lifting the cap completely resolves any perceived SS deficit for the next 75 years. and I believe him, and support his bills to do that.
Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill To Lift The Payroll Tax Cap, Ensuring Full Social Security Funding For Nearly 75 Years
BY ZAID JILANI POSTED ON AUGUST 25, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/25/304387/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-to-lift-the-payroll-tax-cap-ensuring-full-social-security-funding-for-nearly-75-years/
And Bernie's not the only one:
Time to raise - or scrap - the Social Security payroll tax cap
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/15/us-column-miller-idUSBREA3E1HC20140415
Scrapping the Social Security payroll tax cap
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/204996-scrapping-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap
Raising payroll tax cap is the best fix for Social Security
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/12/1201361/-Raising-payroll-tax-cap-is-the-best-fix-for-Social-Security#
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)created by a vast and increasing misdistribution of wealth, from workers to capital. all that will be achieved is making workers pay more for fewer benefits, while capital laughs up their sleeves.
not to mention that the 'forecasts' are fixed.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)And so do I.
Today, Sanders announced that he will introduce legislation that would strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits to any of its beneficiaries. Sanders’ legislation would eliminate the income cap that currently exists in the payroll tax that does not tax income above $106,800:
*****To keep Social Security strong for another 75 years, Sanders’ legislation would apply the same payroll tax already paid by more than nine out of 10 Americans to those with incomes over $250,000 a year. <...> Under Sanders’ legislation, Social Security benefits would be untouched. The system would be fully funded by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with incomes up to $106,800 a year.
Sanders points out that President Obama himself endorsed this idea on the campaign trail in 2008. “What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority…pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair,” said Obama during the campaign.
The Social Security system is currently fully funded until 2037. Lifting the payroll tax cap would virtually eliminate funding shortfalls the program would experience over the next 75 years.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/25/304387/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-to-lift-the-payroll-tax-cap-ensuring-full-social-security-funding-for-nearly-75-years/
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)removing the cap wouldn't completely close the gap.
Which is why Sanders' PR says "VIRTUALLY eliminate funding shortfalls" (i.e. almost, nearly...)
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+virtually
because it doesn't.
Reagan's 2% rise in rates was supposed to save SS for the boomers too. Only IT DIDN'T. It just created huge and useless surpluses to be borrowed into the general budget (funding tax cuts for billionaires) and reduced peoples' take-home pay, while not doing anything to prepare for boomers' retirement (and if you don't understand why that's the case, then you have no business discussing social security funding.)
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Obviously as I posted from the link you provided:
"Social Security’s actuaries project that eliminating the cap would reduce the system's deficit at the end of the 75-year horizon by 86 percent if workers with earnings above the current cap were not credited for any of the additional taxes they paid".
I think we already have agreed about this.
So what if removing cap "only" resolves 86%? That's a hell of a lot of fixing in my book.
Do you support eliminating the cap entirely, as proposed by Sen Sanders, so we can get on with fixing SS?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)It's kind of like the post office prefunding scam.
I don't support any of their bullshit. the goal is to destroy social security, bit by bit. and they've made a lot of progress already, in fact.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I think this conversation is finished.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)i.e. the opposite of informative.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)imminent failure of the system are wrong.
rather the opposite -- they're always ramping up the fear-mongering. one thing the right and left wings of our political masters are united on, and have been for some time.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)it happens sometimes.
no harm, no foul, no problemo.
Thanks for playing.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)thanks for playing yourself, but that *was* a foul.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)You may be correct, but so far I've not heard much about your proposal for saving (or expanding, as Sen. Sanders would do) our Social Security system, so that seniors aren't left to eat cat food.
I'm all about hearing your plan.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)broke" hype from the ruling class.
therefore I don't feel any urgency about adopting one of their 'plans'.
under Reagan, democrats and republicans joined together to jack up social security taxes on the working class -- supposedly to save the baby boomers' retirements.
now, just as the boomers start to retire, we have to do it all over again. lol.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)except you seem to think Bernie Sanders is part of the problem (i.e. he's buying onto the hype so as to provide a seeming "fix" at workers expense), rather than part of the solution (i.e. his various proposals to strengthen SS, such as raising the cap). Do I have this right or wrong?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Cap SS benefits to the wealthiest recipients.
SS is a social safety net.
It's anti-poverty insurance.
If people have assets or funds above a
defined limit they become ineligible for SS payments.
Millionaires shouldn't be a burden on the social safety net.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I've been trying to but have gotten nowhere.
starting here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=3089
Oh, and good luck. you'll need it.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)but ND-Dem acknowledges that;
If the forecasts are fixed doesn't that mean all discussion
about solvency or fixes become baseless... if forecasts are "fixed".
Seems these types of discussions are characterized by
dubious numbers and specious arguments?
Not necessarily through intent, but by the nature
of how programs such as SS are managed and calculated.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)you mean fixed as in phony made-up out of nowhere, ?
or fixed as in "the problem is already fixed" as in non-existent ?
or fixed as in repaired ?
It's not at all clear what is meant by that, although I have a hunch
I will probably agree with it, I'd like knowing exactly what I'm
agreeing with or not agreeing with.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)It's politics so I cynically assumed...
"fixed as in phony made-up out of nowhere, ? "
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)which it sounds like you want too, to raise cap.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)She also said: "and we could make somewhat larger adjustments and make the system pay more for seniors who rely on it". The others are talking about cuts and she's the weasel? You obviously have a problem with her and it have nothing to do with semantic.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)You said that those were weasel words so what courageous measures are you proposing?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)adjustments.
So please, expound.
Modest adjustments doesn't say anything specific. That's why it's weasely. Nothing to hold someone to. That's why it's weasely.
You could call chained cpi a 'modest' change after the fact, and some people are.
I like to get policy specifics from politicians, so I can call them out if they lie.
ymmv.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)to accuse another of using weasel words and not once presenting your solutions for adjustments.
What are your "policy specifics" to ensure SS is solid for years to come?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)phony "solutions".
But you do, and you're in favor of 'solutions' and nasty to people who disagree with you.
So please, tell me about the solutions. Specifics, please.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)You don't get away with that with me.
You called adjustments weasel words(NASTY), now present your factual adjustments or apologize
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)I meant by 'weasely'. Calling for 'modest change' without explaining what it is is weasely.
I don't have to present 'adjustments' for a 'problem' I believe is being misrepresented now and has been misrepresented in the past, at least as far back as Reagan.
they were wrong then and they're still wrong today.
you're the one who things adjustments are needed, you can explain them and justify them.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)I don't have to explain anything.
I'm calling you out on your use of NASTY WEASEL words.
"Explain them and justify them" is what a normal person would say, but you chose WEASEL WORDS
So you believe SS has been "misrepresented" and is sound for the next 100 years?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)aspirant!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Face it, pensions are becoming a myth and 401ks have become a puchline for a joke about getting screwed.
How many times have we heard the tired talking point, "Social Security was never meant to be your sole means of retirement"?
Guess what?
YES IT WAS.
It was supposed to let you hang up the "Gone Fishin'" sign forever.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)the largest source of income for about 90%.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)snot
(10,681 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)More than anything the American people wants someone who will stand up to the criminal banks. We cannot be ruled by criminals that would further relax the rules.
If you have not done it yet, I would encourage you to slap down your Representative if they voted to damage Dodd—Frank. There must be consequences for voting against the American people like a fucking Republican. They deserve to lose their seat.