If the Democrats do not fight for Social Security, I am leaving the Party

[kentuck]

I see no reason to stay with them any longer. Simple as that. And I'm quite certain, I will not be the only one. If they do not fight for this, Bush will win. It is a battle and they have to get up every morning ready to fight. They cannot sit back and see which way the debate is going.

I know there are people here everyday that say they are joining the "Greens" or some other Party, but for me, this is the issue that will define whether our Party is deserving of our support. If they cannot find the backbone to fight this battle, I cannot find a reason to defend them or to stay with the Party any longer. I don't know how much clearer it needs to be said.

[BurtWorm]

1. There should be absolutely NO compromise on this issue

from a single Democrat. We should even pressure Breaux not to collaborate with the Bushists, as he is probably very tempted to do.

[greenohio]

39. Does that mean no changes to SS?

Or no compromise on private accounts?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Kentuck let me tell you we are so fed up that...

we took over the party in San Diego... I am not kidding. I have never seen so many Republican Lites so nervous in my life.

And if they do that, I will also leave the party, for infiltration is not going to lead to anything

[txaslftist]

28. I don't understand...you took the party over just to leave it?

:wtf:

Now that you've got it, use it. Sheesh.

[Leilani]

3. Most people have a bottom line that can;t be crossed

That is, if they have principles.

Some people continue to vote party even when the party isn't representing them, or living up to it's standards.

IMO Social Security is one of those bottom line issues.

[Erika]

4. agreed to some extent

but you must remember many states are purple. It's up to us to let them know how we feel and demand their action.

[nankerphelge]

5. If?

You probably should have said "When Democrats do not fight ..."

[Old Mouse]

6. Where would you go?

Do you believe one of the existing third parties has a chance of unseating the current administration?

Your vote is not an abstract statement of principle, it is a real commodity to be used to the greatest possible advantage to achieve a desired result. How would you use it to maximum effect?

Do you so want to strike at those who defend you, however ineffectively, as to NOT strike against someone who is actively seeking to do you harm?

[kentuck]

9. No, I will not go third Party.... I will withhold my support...

Not meaning to rant, but if the Democrats in the House and Senate cannot find the strength to fight this battle, they have surrendered. And that is worse than fighting and losing. To simply give up without a fight is a coward. I have no use for cowards. It's time to lay down the markers. Either they are with us or they are against us. It is as simple as that.

[Old Mouse]

11. We're all angry and upset

but NOT supporting the Democratic party at this point in time only hurts ourselves.

Aggressive participation to force the party to reevaluate its priorities might be better than withholding support. It was citizen pressure that forced the election certification protest. Less than two months of pressure made Congressmen move.

Don't get me wrong... you have every right to be upset. I'm probably more angry than you, to tell the truth. But I feel the only real fight left is an attempt to impeach the president. Tort reform, tax reduction for the wealthy, destruction of social security,the republican control guarantees we cannot win on any of these issues, no matter what united front our senators muster.

We must absolutely and without fail defend our incumbent Democratic congressmen in the 2006 election. We must fight to get the Democratic party as many republican house seats as possible in the 2006.

[kentuck]

12. We don't need to support them as much as....

stick a fire under their asses, in my opinion. I have reached my breaking point with "some" so-called Democrats. I don't give a damn where they live. It doesn't matter. If they can't fight this fight, then they are not deserving of any more support , in my humble opinion.

[eg101]

16. greens can keep 'crats out of power

The Green Party does have a possible role to play--the same role Nader played: the spoiler that keeps the 'crats out of power. The longer they are out of power, the more leftist they will have to go on economic issues, such as taxing the rich, stop the exporting of our jobs and the importing of cheap labor, and a plan for universal healthcare. If we keep the 'crats out of power long enough, they may get desperate enough to put together a plan (and publicize the plan) to give us some of the kind of good leftist governmental programs they get in Denmark, Sweden, France, etc.

So, one strategy for us might be to support the Green Party--build it and make it stronger so that they are able to take some votes away from the 'crats.

Another strategy might be to also work from the other end: where there are no Green party candidates available to vote for, simply vote in GOP primaries for the worst, most socially conservative Republican available. When the social-liberals get fed up and scared enough, they might be pushed to accept leftwing, populist-economic 'crat candidates.

These ideas MIGHT be a way to reform the Democratic party. Others will go on supporting these rightwing democrats like Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Dean, etc. But that is the same old trap.....

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. Or

we get rid of the spoiler issue by getting ranked voting instituted. Here in Maine we are once again considering the pros and cons of Instant Runoff Voting. I really hope we can get it passed this time.

If Greens and Socialists start winning races, great. If they don't but make a very strong showing, it'll give the Maine dems a clearer idea of how much support there is for leaning left.

----------------------------------------------------------
Save our country one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why

[eg101]

32. How about a little creative destruction applied to the party, instead?

do you REALLY see any voting reforms like that coming down? Get real. Seriously...

Power is the only thing that a powerful and corrupt institution like the Democratic Party understands. Take away their power, and they will do what we want them to do.
Nader did it to them in 2000. He took away a lot of their power. I say let's hit them again. And again and again and again.

You ever hear of "creative destruction"?

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. Coming down? No. Going up? You bet. I live in Maine

where we have voluntary clean elections. Next up? Instant Runoff Voting. *crossing fingers*

[Zinfandel]

7. They don't give a fuck if you leave...They say fuck you, where will you

go? HaHaha! The Greens? Get real, they say, don't make me laugh...They know when it's election time and it's going to be close (in 2006) in your state for Senator...You'll be right there with your bucks trying to get a Democrat elected over a fascist republican...And make sure you send more money than you did last time...or we may have to bitch slap you!!!

[Lexingtonian]

8. Dude, hold your horses!

I'm not sure I fully understand everything you're saying. Say Democrats won and didn't have to mount some Charge Of The Light Brigade- would that be good enough for you?

Just wondering.

[eg101]

13. not good enough for me

Why does it matter if the 'crats win, but their economic agenda is just millimeters to the left of the GOP economic agenda?

The Green Party does have a possible role to play--the same role Nader played: the spoiler that keeps the 'crats out of power. The longer they are out of power, the more leftist they will have to go on economics.

[Lexingtonian]

18. demonstrably not true

Any of those assertions, that is. Not one.

[paulk]

21. but tomorrow he'll be back

posting them all over again!

[John_H]

37. The greens are incapable of spoiling anything except their soy milk.

[eg101]

38. well, we seem to have differing opinions

you know what they say about opinions--everyone has one.

Now you know mine.

[Guaranteed]

10. That's a very reasonable position.

SS is one of those things that there shouldn't be much argument over.

[hfojvt]

14. I still think you are looking at this wrong

If Daschle, Mondale, Carnahan, Cleland, and Jones had won in their Senate races, this would not be an issue. If a dozen house races had gone the other way, this would not be an issue. There is no amount of spinelessness that would make me think that electing more Republicans is going to make things better.

[Old Mouse]

17. Exactly! n/t

[bobweaver]

15. Ditto. Oh! Sorry, scratch that. Agreed.

[ClarkUSA]

19. They are fighting and they damn well need backup from us

Stop whining and help the Democrats fight the good fight!!! Gawd knows they
aren't perfect, but we can kick their asses so they know what we want. How
about each of us have written a letter to the editor to our biggest local and state papers telling them how we feel about Bush's SS plans? For all the time many spend threatening political harikari here, we could be going public!!!

Bush Paints Grim Outlook to Sell Social Security Plan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush warned younger workers on Tuesday of a grim future for their Social Security benefits but critics accused him of exaggerating the retirement system's problems to try and sell his plan to change it.

Bush used the word "bankrupt" five times at a White House forum to raise alarms about the financial state of Social Security decades into the future.

Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee said Bush was just trying to scare Americans into supporting his plan to let workers shift part of their Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts.

Bush offered no new details on how he would pay for the estimated $1 trillion to $2 trillion transition costs for establishing private accounts. Nor did he address concerns that the White House may favor curbing future benefit increases by changing the formula used to calculate them.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said a leaked White House memo suggesting this showed Bush intends to break the "promise" to workers.

Some Republicans are worried Bush's drive to overhaul Social Security risks arousing voter anger and that may hurt them in the 2006 congressional elections. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Bush offered to "provide the political cover" to Republicans who support his plan.

Still, several influential groups have already come out against it. The AARP, a powerful senior citizens lobby, is spending millions to highlight its opposition to Bush's plan.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=5&u=/nm/20050112/pl_nm/retirement_bush_dc

[kentuck]

20. Some are fighting. All of them are not....

And those are the ones that need the boot up their butts.

[mngreen]

22. Help the party to fight the battle

From what I know, the Democratic party is starting a battle over the issue of social security. But how are we going to fight it? What message should we send to convince the public that the majority of the American people needs social security maintained?

[txaslftist]

29. If you want to hear the best message fighting SS reform...

post something like "I don't see what the big problem is with privatizing a part of social security...I mean, doesn't the market outperform SS each year?"

Amidst the flames you will immediately receive you will undoubtedly get some of the best reasons you can forward to our reps why SS deform is a BAD IDEA.

I did pretty much the same thing, and got flamed damn near off the board. I also learned a lot and discovered that upon consideration, the arguments AGAINST ss deform are stronger and clearer than the arguments in its favor.

[Andromeda]

23. This is even a hot potato for the Republicans.

They have the majority and those seniors in their respective states will make it clear that they have no intention of sitting back and letting this successfully funded government program that provides benefits to millions of retired and disabled persons be destroyed, which is the ultimate goal of the neo-cons.

Count on these Republicans getting veeeery nervous about this so-called crisis that isn't. When they start getting heat from their constituents they'll be less inclined to want to touch this with a ten-foot pole especially at election time.

There will be lots of words but it's not going to move.

There is going to be so much opposition to tampering with Social Security that we really won't need to count on just the Democrats, and I have no idea what they will do and I don't want to think about it, because retired and near-retired people of BOTH political parties will be madder than hornets if somebody messes with their benefits.

If any changes are made at all I predict they will end up raising the retirement age again.

[txaslftist]

30. This is a good flagship issue for dems...

They really should be jumping on the anti-social security-deform bandwagon.

This is one of those things I really don't think the republicans can push through, and if they do, it will kill them later on.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

24. There will be a crowd headed for the door.

I am astonished by the level of apathy by the Democratic Party “leadership,” it is already too late. Where was the Democratic Party’s outrage over the lies and illusions propagated by the idiot yesterday? Either standup for working class Americans or the Democratic Party as a viable national voice is completely shattered; I have zero tolerance on this one. I don’t give a damn who the DNC is going to be when the party is completely impotent as a decisive national political organization representing the interests of our working class base on such an overwhelmingly significant issue.

[tngledwebb]

25. Right you are kentuck,

The jig would really be up for our so-called two party system. But I said the same when the Dem leaders voted for the Iraq war, for the Patriot Act, for Bush's tax cuts, and when no Senator questioned the 2000 election results, and when they voted for Clinton's welfare 'reform' and when... hey, how stupid am I anyway?

[txaslftist]

27. Please Don't...

Look, Kentuck. A lot of democrats in congress ARE fighting against Bush's deform of social security. Some may not fight "hard enough", whatever that means. On the other hand Zellout Miller will probably vote with the Republicans. Will that be the sign you are waiting for to leave? Probably some Republicans will vote against social security deform. Does that mean they get it and we don't?

There is a lot of disinformation out there suggesting that our party leaders are Republican Lites. I don't think that's true. What I do think is that many of them are insulated in the Beltway and don't see how the party is changing, thanks in no small part to our work on DU. Thanks in large part to the efforts of Howard Dean.

I also think that the party leaders are just plain scared. They are five senate losses away from having absolutely NO say in how the country is run. They are more afraid of losing those five seats than they are willing to stand and fight. They aren't holding onto those seats out of some sort of idea of personal security (at least I don't honestly THINK they are). They are holding on for us.

Is the democratic leadership too timid? IMO yes. Is the leadership misguided about what the rank and file of the party wants from them? IMO yes. But I believe they are still democrats.

The announcement from Chris Heinz yesterday underscores one of the problems we have. That is the idea that the insiders should be able to anoint a leader and we will swallow it hook line and sinker. That is no longer true. These insiders are failing to listen to us, and that has lead to a great many failings.

But consider the fact that Chris came onto DU and posted. What does that tell you? It tells you that they are BEGINNING to listen to us. I think the vast majority of DUers support Howard Dean for chairman. Does that mean some are going to abandon the democratic party if he's not selected? Sure. That's the deal breaker for some.

Social Security is the deal breaker for you. Electoral reform is the deal breaker for others. Taking certain positions regarding Iraq is the deal breaker for others. Taking certain positions regarding the appointment of cabinet members/supreme court justices is the deal breaker for others.

I keep seeing these deal breaker posts, and you know they drive me nuts.

This is Texas Leftist, and I promise that I am NOT leaving the democratic party. I made a deal with my kids that I would fight for their freedom from...let's see: The draft; a bankrupt government; an economic collapse; a prison state; a destruction of their chance to go to college; a class-based society; the uber-rich raiding their savings for tax breaks. These are all things the Neocons are pushing for, whether intended or not.

The only opposition with a CHANCE of opposing them successfully is the Democratic Party. That's why I won't go Green, I won't go libertarian, I won't go Reform.

I won't work to divide or weaken the party that has the only chance of securing my children's future. You shouldn't either, Kentuck.

See. I didn't just flame you like usual. I'm trying to be more reasonable.

[spanone]

31. Democrats / Fight = oxymoron

[tokenlib]

33. When I called Sen. Carl Levin's office.....

When I called Levin's office to express my belief that Social Security must be defended at all costs--his staffer proceeded to royally piss me off. He started the blah, blah about the baby boomers, and about how something needed to be done--sounded like boosting the "iceburg dead ahead" repuke talking points. I tried to point out that if the fund is sound until 2042--we have time to wait until the republican dictatorship is over... And that the only answer we hear from the republicans results in benefit cuts--as if there are no other solutions.


Instead of empathy for the plight of all of us who live paycheck to paycheck, and who have never had to amount of surplus income to put away what the "advisors and gurus" tell us we need to save....this clown left me to wonder if the democrats will have a spine. And this was Carl Levin's office! Levin's "boilerplate" letter on Social Security did not exactly reassure me either--it said some of the right stuff--but still had that wiggly quality to it.

We must light a fire under all our democrats in Congress!! Pressure must be brought to bear and they must know we mean business.

[slor]

34. I understand your setiment, however...

may I suggest changing it from within before discarding.

[kentuck]

35. What pisses me off more than anything.....

is the fact that there is such a tepid response. The Bush plan will only add more debt, increase taxes in the long run, and decrease benefits for future retirees, and perhaps, destroy the Social Security system as we know it. If you believe the marketplace is more secure than US Treasury notes, then perhaps, you might be a Republican?

There are problems in the future of Social Security but it is not a "crisis". George W Bush is lying his ass off again. There, I said it for all the Congressmen and Senators that don't have the balls.

[StephanieMarie]

36. I'm with you 100%.

If they roll over on Social Security, it's over.