What's the Current GOP manufactured debt Crisis? Social Security Reform

[M Kitt]

Last edited Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:01 PM - Edit history (2)

OK, so this is Post-Election material, not specific to campaign methods (or failures thereof), just looking at the immediate priorities since the GOP has taken control of both houses.

What are these "Immediate Priorities"? Those of us paying attention have seen legislative action proposed for, among other things, the TransCanadian pipeline (no surprise there) and Social Security Reform measures.

The pipeline seems to be getting enough coverage, generally speaking. But let's take a look at SSI, shall we?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10911083

Thanks!

[Enthusiast]

1. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[M Kitt]

2. Hmm, yes I see, you're really enthused ;-)

But all kidding aside, the current House and Senate GOP members have declared their priorities, they're right up front about "Reforming" Soc. Security along with the rest of our social "Safety Net".

Given their history, should we be surprised?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022798037

Thanks Enthusiast!

[aspirant]

3. The key

is where does Obama and his veto pen stand on this? He's already proposed cutting SS with CPI so how does SSDI fit into the picture?

[M Kitt]

4. Thanks for the comment, I can't defend him putting the "Chained CPI" option on the table, won't try.

Last edited Fri Jan 30, 2015, 09:21 AM - Edit history (2)

If he's at all concerned about his legacy, the veto will be used as necessary, which looks likely to be the case.

NOT doing that would also hobble the Dems. for the 2016 elections, since the resulting blowback could likely reduce public support for the party and whatever candidate prevails, would tarnish public perception of this administration at the very least, more so than his "Drone Strike" policies have.

Even the conservatives must be following this closely, since they're at risk as much as the rest of "We the People". At least that applies to those wingnuts not wealthy enough (or misinformed enough) to ignore the issue entirely.

And I have to agree with your' concern, this president hasn't publicly stated his case either way, seems to be avoiding the issue. Which applies to the TCP as well. Not very reassuring.

What do I recommend? He should be aggressively Grass Roots, of course, in support of Social Security.

Why not use his position, the "Bully Pulpit" in support of our "social safety net"? I can only guess that he's holding out for a bargain, won't put his cards on the table yet, but really should, now seems to be the time, right?

Not that I agree with our "Safety Net" being used as a bargaining chip for political gain, as we're all aware has already been done with the CPI.

So it's best for public perception that he resolves this issue, demonstrates support of Soc. Security soonest.

If not, it wouldn't be the first time Libs/Dems have shot themselves in the foot before an election, even if it's only due to bad timing in this case.

[sabrina 1]

5. We should not be surprised. SS has been the target of the Right for decades. We were able to depend

on Dependents to protect it from privatization, which is the real goal, up to now.

But for the first time, a Dem President put 'SS on the Table' for the Deficit Commission to 'look at'. The lie told in order to do that was that SS had something to do with the Deficit.

It did not.

We need to be more worried than ever now. It is no surprise that Republicans would continue to try to privatize SS but we now have a situation where Dems may be willing to go along with 'reform' when in fact SS doesn't need reform.

What it needs is very little actually.

The cap needs to be lifted first of all.

JOB CREATION and decent, livable wages paid to American workers.

SS depends on people working so everyone can set aside money for their retirement.

They are lying when they say it is in trouble, it isn't.

It needs adjustments, easy adjustments to make, to ensure it continues to be the success it has been for all these decades.

Hopefully they will find out what they always find out when they attempt to tamper with this most successful Fiscal program, across the political spectrum they will be stepping on a 'third rail'.

It is one of the most popular Programs in this country, with Repubs as well as with Dems.

[M Kitt]

6. Thanks Sabrina, for the comment.

You're right that they want to dismantle SS, "privatization" is really just another way to get their hands on the surplus (in the range of 2.5 trillion) in our government account.

Bernie Sanders has followed this issue closely.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/12/bernie-sanders-exposes-republican-plot-cut-social-security-11-million-disabled-people.html

As I've stated elsewhere:

Contrived "Economic Crisis" conditions are a GOP specialty, especially concerning Social Security, which as most of us are aware is actually fully funded.

Denial of funding is their primary goal, of course, their "modus operandi". Applies to proposed stimulus programs and funding for infrastructure as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022798037

Further:

Even if I hadn't contributed to the system across the years and didn't consider that investment to be at risk, why would watching the current GOP proposed "Attrition" policies NOT be disturbing to any sane human being?

They're scavengers of the worst sort who consider conditions of current economic instability to be an opportunity, not only to further enrich themselves at our expense but to politically smother and devastate all potential middle class opposition to their policies.

Accomplished thru theft and decimation of our legacy "Safety Net" holdings, by controlling legislation (and attendant positions of power) that could otherwise have prevented that theft.

Which is in keeping with their complete disregard for the environment, actually. They apparently could care less about generations to come, they're only interested in short term profit at the expense of the rest of us.

Again, thanks.

[sabrina 1]

7. Excellent comment, thank you. Bernie Sanders sees right through the privatizers' scam.

Not only that, but sadly, he is one of the few who has the guts to contradict the lies about SS told by the neo-liberals and Republicans.

What I don't get is why this is not a HUGE debate, pushed by Dems and all over the media, explaining to the public about the surplus, they lie about that, and assuring them that it WILL be there for them even if no one does a thing, for the next 30 years or so.

And that with a few adjustments it can be made secure for a century, ask Bernie to explain.

And that is what makes me nervous. This is such a winning issue for Democrats and yet they do not come out strongly against the lies, some of them even willing to go along with them.

That is why people like Warren are becoming so popular with Democrats. She speaks plainly about the issues and doesn't send confusing messages on issues like this.

We need to do something about this party, focus on Congress rather than the WH because if Congress is made up of one whole party owned by Wall St, and half the other one, it won't matter who is in the WH, Wall St wins anyhow.

[M Kitt]

8. Why the White House matters?

Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:17 AM - Edit history (2)

You're generally correct, BUT, the White House will ABSOLUTELY become important over the next several years regarding upcoming selection of national Supreme Court justices. That links directly, will be the key to overturning "Citizens United" and related legislative errors.

Regardless, staying with the current thread, I'll address the reply you've just posted.

You have several legitimate concerns, the concept of "Austerity" really is an excuse to remove what Conservatives/Teapublicans consider to be unnecessary programs, those that have defined our "Safety Net" legacy since FDR.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022866586

Here's an excerpt from the above link:

The Social Safety Net doesn't serve Corporate Interests, who've apparently spent huge campaign money trying to convince former Republican "Independents" and other unaffiliated voters that the current system simply isn't worth investing in.

Conservative Political Investors (IE Koch Brothers Et Al) want Social Security and related programs removed Entirely, which can only be accomplished if they first destroy Public confidence in our current system.

They'd like to implement THAT by offering "We the Public Entity" a false choice, and Super Pac funding provides the means of delivery. What's the "false choice" being delivered by Conservative Media?

Trading Economic Recovery for Social Programs, GOP Treachery

Ideally, Conservatives would like to convince the rest of us that measured spending on "Social Programs" is the cause of our Economic Problems, that Wall Street and Investment Banking Bailouts were completely justified, that preceding Deregulation (IE Unregulated Derivatives) combined with uncontrolled Iraq/Afghanistan war spending are NOT larger contributors to our current economic deficit.

AND we're being led to believe that the "Bush Tax Cuts" had nothing to do with current funding deficits, that increased Tax Revenue isn't the solution to that problem, that the 2008 Market Meltdown didn't devalue our entire Investment and Banking System functionally destroying our Real Estate and 401k savings literally overnight.

That essay also points to the Koch Brothers and other Teapublican sources of Corporate money as the cause of several current contrived financial "Debt" issues, especially the "Debt Ceiling" government shutdowns.

It becomes apparent that today, in post-election 2015, our new recently appointed GOP house and Senate leaders are really just carrying out the same agenda. What they were "hired" to accomplish using campaign money from those same sources.

The above article was originally written prior to the 2012 mid-term elections, but we're now looking at the same issues 2 plus years later, particularly regarding SSDI.

Current Election Process:

By the way, it's kind of surprising to me that we're still using the term "Elected Office" under conditions of Citizens United, which has changed the process considerably. Our SCOTUS majority of 5 Conservatives have imposed their partisan doctrine on the rest of us.

The current election process seems to be a lot more like buying real estate than running a campaign, with the highest bidder (largest funding coffers) "Winning" based on dollar value rather than public approval.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1091850

Thanks again.