Grayson: Stop the Plot Against Seniors

[deminks]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/stop-the-plot-against-sen_b_682295.html

My father's middle name was Franklin. He was named after Franklin Roosevelt. And today, we celebrate the anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt's greatest accomplishment -- Social Security.

We call it Social Security. In other countries, they call it a public pension. But Roosevelt chose the term Social Security because the word "security" went right to the heart of what he was trying to accomplish for Middle Class America. It was one of Roosevelt's famous Four Freedoms: "Freedom From Want."

Without Social Security, seniors would be forced to work into their seventies, eighties and nineties. When they would become too sick or frail to work, they would have to beg. And then they would die.

That's the way it was in America when my father was growing up. Before Franklin Roosevelt's Social Security. No wonder my grandparents named him Franklin.

Today marks the 75th anniversary of Social Security. Without it, many of our seniors would be so poor that they'd have to eat cat food just to survive.

That's why many are calling the Deficit Commission, run by extremist right-winger Alan Simpson, the "Catfood Commission." It's the culmination of decades of plotting by right-wingers to destroy Social Security.

(end snip)

Rep. Grayson has a petition to tell Congress and the President "Don't Steal My Social Security"
at the link and here:

http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=51

[sandnsea]

1. Why doesn't he tell Alan Simpson and Republicans

They're the ones who are lying about the tax structure of social security.

Scaring seniors was a bad idea when Republicans did it with "death panels", and it's a bad idea to do it with this assinine "catfood commission" shit.

Nobody is going to steal anybody's social security.

[LWolf]

2. I believe that is exactly what he IS doing:

That's why I've started a petition telling Congress and the President, "Don't Steal My Social Security." It tells every Federal official with a say on this that if they vote to cut Social Security, then they're going to have to find another line of work. You know that extension in unemployment benefits that we just passed? That will be for them.

Sign the petition now, and pass it along to your friends.

[sandnsea]

5. "Congress and the President"

No Anybody who hears that is going to think Democrats. And that's who will get the blame, and every comment about social security will get torn apart and twisted into unregonizable sputum. And the Republicans will walk free. Again.

Ranting about "death panels" made Sarah Palin and Republicans look stupid. Ranting about "a plot against seniors" makes Grayson and the left look stupid.

[LWolf]

7. "And every federal official with a say." nt

[sandnsea]

8. And the word "Republican", nowhere in sight n/t

[LWolf]

73. Why would it be? "Federal Officials" include officials from any party. nt

[Edweird]

9. Who created this commission? Who appointed Simpson? It wasn't 'republicans'.

[sandnsea]

11. The commission Republicans wouldn't pass?

You're on the side of Republicans against a deficit commission??

[Edweird]

12. I am against cuts to social security and every other social program - like food stamps.

It isn't 'republicans' doing this. Who created the commission? Who appointed Simpson (and Bowles)? Not republicans. If this is hung on Dems necks it will be rightly so.

[sandnsea]

13. Do you know how long we've tried for a deficit commission?

They were trying to get a deficit commission back in the 90s. The only one who turned it into a social security commission is Jane Hamsher.

And the food stamps crap is another lie. Food stamps were increased last year in the stimulus. Did Jane Hamsher tell you that? I bet not. There's no cut. They will go back to their regular rate in 2014, provided we are out of this recession. They are not being "cut". The same thing happened with the $25 unemployment increase. Unemployment benefits weren't cut, they went back to their regular rate. That's all that non-stimulus.

[Edweird]

14. Obama created the commission and appointed known opponents of social security as chairs.

No amount of distraction on your part will change that. The 'republicans' aren't going to be held accountable for cutting social security because they aren't the ones doing it. That's all there is to it.

[sandnsea]

16. Republicans aren't cutting social security?

You mean that, exactly as stated??

Yes, Obama created a Deficit Commission. To find ways to cut the DEFICIT. Do you think we should try to cut the Deficit??

[Edweird]

18. Ok, let's try this again. Who created the commission? Obama. Is he a republican? No.

Who appointed Simpson and Bowles as chairs? Obama. Is he a republican? No. What party controls the White House? Is it republicans? No. What party controls the Senate? Is it republicans? No. What party controls the Senate? Is it republicans? No.

Is any part of that unclear?

[sandnsea]

20. But Republicans are the ones who want to cut social security

Not Obama and Democrats. So I don't know where that leaves you except on an extended holiday at paranoiaville.

Obama created a DEFICIT commission.

[Edweird]

21. Yep he created it - that's a good first step. I'm proud of you.

He also appointed known opponents of social security as chairs. I have no doubt that after it's all said and done you'll be here claiming that the cuts to social security aren't really cuts at all.....

[sandnsea]

22. Alan Simpson. Republican.

He'd like to slash it to ribbons and drown it in the bath tub with his friend Newt Gingrich.

What will happen is social security will be "strenghtened", along the lines of the legislation introduced by DeFazio and Bernie Sanders. Increases in FICA and probably increase the current incentive to 72 instead of 70, something along those lines.

Maybe you could tell me why social security needs to be "strengthened" if there's nothing wrong with it.

[Edweird]

24. Alan Simpson: appointed by Obama to head a commssion created by Obama.

Dems own this and nothing you say will change that.

I've made no claims about social security other than it should not be cut.

[sandnsea]

25. Well I guess when it doesn't cut social security

You'll give credit to Obama too.

Do you think you just stop fighting Republicans when a Democrat gets elected?? They just disappear to their spider holes and you don't have to look at them ever again?

[Edweird]

27. A Dem Whitehouse and Congress passing republican legislation is a sure way to lose control.

If the people wanted republicans they would have voted for them.

[sandnsea]

28. Sanders/DeFazio Strengthen Social Security bill

How about we pass that? And how about Grayson help?

[Edweird]

29. Grayson to help what? Fight against a Dem president that wants to cut social security?

Like I said, you'll be here explaining how the cuts aren't really cuts at all....

[sandnsea]

30. Bernie Sanders & Pete DeFazio want to cut social security?

Is that what you're saying now? Do you know who they are??

[Edweird]

31. Hey, maybe you should let Grayson know who they are since they are some kind of 'proof' to you.

Obama created the commission and he stacked the deck. You are going 'round and 'round trying to make the truth into a lie. A truth, it seems, that is obvious to just just about everyone but you and a few others. This is truly beginning to bore me.

[sandnsea]

32. The truth is even Sanders & DeFazio know ss needs "strengthening"

That's a truth YOU are running round and round to get away from.

Republicans have been chomping at the bit to destroy social security for 75 years. I don't know why you'd rather blame Democrats. Very strange indeed. Did you not hear the President's remarks about protecting social security today?

[Edweird]

33. So you believe that Simpson will 'strengthen' social security? Is that right?

A republican that has been 'chomping at the bit' to destroy it?

[sandnsea]

34. I said Sanders and DeFazio have legislation to strengthen social security

And I said Simpson and any of his Republican cronies want to completely destroy it.

Very clearly.

Why can't you admit you've been duped by the firebaggers?

[Edweird]

35. Duped? How so? Obama created the commission and appointed Simpson and Bowles.

Do you deny that?

[sandnsea]

36. There's no catfood commission

except in the delusions of Alan Simpson and Jane Hamsher.

Every time Alan Simpson pops off with his crazy social security math, he gets blasted.

The food stamp "cut" was a bullshit lie. The "catfood" commission is a bullshit lie.

Jane Hamsher is consumed with hatred for Obama.

[Edweird]

37. I see. So why did Obama appoint him? What about him made him the best man for the job?

If it isn't his hatred for social security and the fact that he is a republican, then what is it?
From where I sit it looks perfectly clear to me exactly what is going on.

[sandnsea]

38. You prefer a dictatorship? Why'd he appoint Andy Stern? n/t

[Edweird]

39. You don't need a commission to see that two occupations are draining us dry

and that taxes are too low for the wealthy. If Obama isn't sure why there is such a deficit or what could/should be done about it, maybe he's in over his head. Or maybe he's attacking social security in a way that he believes will provide him some political cover.

[sandnsea]

42. So you do want a dictator

I elected someone to make this country a participatory democracy again, where everyone participates and is heard. I'm sure he could very easily slash here and raise taxes there, but that's not the way our government works. It still has to go through Congress. You do still support votes and representative government, right?

[Edweird]

44. FDR was a dictator? LBJ? Good luck with your 'dictator' strawman nonsense.

I want a Dem to act like a Dem, not a republican. That has nothing to do with 'dictatorship'.

[sandnsea]

46. Let's talk about FDR & SS

It passed August of 1935. When did he take office? When did the first social security check go out? Who was covered in the first social security program?

[Edweird]

48. It's one 'red herring' after another with you. Try to stay focused.

[sandnsea]

49. You brought up FDR

You don't know anything about it do you. You don't know anything except freebagger rants. Useless to try to talk to you.

[Edweird]

51. The feeling is mutual.

[laughingliberal]

54. I heard his remarks and was glad he opposed privatization. I'd have been happier if he also said

he opposed cutting benefits. 'Strengthening' sounds great as long as it doesn't mean raising the benefit age or cutting the benefit amount.

[sandnsea]

56. Do you know why it needs to be "strenghtened"?

And yes, I'd have been happier if he had said more than just opposing privatization too. Although I believe he knows there are very real reasons social security has to be "strengthened", in the words of Sanders, DeFazio, Moveon, the Unions, etc.

[laughingliberal]

58. I do know but it's not the BS propaganda about SS being 'broke' that Obama'a appointee, Alan Simpson

spews.

And Sanders voted against creating this commission.

[sandnsea]

63. So why does it need to be strengthened n/t

[laughingliberal]

68. We need to shore it up for the time (2037) when money coming in will be enough to pay only 78%

of the benefits it is estimated will be going out at that time. There is no imminent danger and SS is not 'broke.'

[sandnsea]

74. So social security does need to be fixed

Of course Simpson's tax rants about the federal budget going to social security and medicare is bullshit. So why don't people admit there is a true problem, which people like Erskine Bowles are trying to fix -- instead of lumping them into the same pile as Alan Simpson?

[laughingliberal]

76. I don't know anyone who is unaware we need to plan for the 2037 situation.

You seem to think you scored some sort of gotcha with that.

#1 SS is 100% solvent and able to pay out 100% of the promised benefits until 2037. This is NOT an emergency.

#2 I don't expect Erskine Bowles plan to differ much from Simpson's.

As I said before, there are only 2 people on that commission who have ever offered up any facsimile of a real defense of Social Security. Neither Bowles nor Simpson have ever been fans of the program and I can not for the life of me see why President Obama would have chosen these two to chair the commission. There are some Democrats and moderate Republicans out there who would have been much better choices. The decision on Simpson and Bowles makes no sense unless President Obama agrees with their approach.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

80. I know we need to do something about the shortfall of revenue we will have in 2037 sometime

before 2037. I know the simplest and fairest answer is to raise the cap on FICA taxes and I have heard the President say that. I know this commission was the brainchild of Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad who are both of the same mindset as Alan Simpson. What I don't know is why a President who cleary sees raising the cap is the solution would go along with this idea of 2 people who would not favor that approach at all and appoint 2 people who are not of that mindset to head it.

I don't see how I had anything to do with the President creating this monster and would have to say that in doing so, he set himself up.

I'm still focused on hoping we don't lose the House or the Senate in 2010 and will have to worry about 2012 when it gets closer. This thing hanging out there is causing much anxiety among people and I don't think it's helping our chances. The President has 2 years before he faces the electorate again. The entire House is up this year and 1/3 of the Senate. That's where my energy is directed right now.

Your personal insults do not change the fact that this commission headed by 2 haters of SS is the President's doing. He didn't have to create the commission and he didn't have to appoint the senior hating, vile mouthed Alan Simpson or the New Deal skeptic Erskine Bowles to head it.

I fail to see how the people on the left who opposed this whole idea are responsible for any political fallout the President or the party may experience as the result of it.

[sandnsea]

78. So you're setting the President up

You know there has to be reform, so anything that comes out of that commission is going to be branded "a plot against seniors".

And my previous comments stand. You also win the award for fastest delete of a post in the history of DU.

[laughingliberal]

82. Well, that's a stretch.

"Anything that comes out of the commission is a plot against seniors." I don't see where I said that.

The answer to the shortfall (coming in 27 years) is to raise the cap. If that's what is done, it will be a good thing. I don't really see anyone on the commission who would favor that but I suppose anything is possible.

Raising the benefit age or cutting the benefit amounts will be very bad for seniors. Actually, not seniors as no one is talking about changing anything for people over 58. Who will be screwed by a plan like that will be the people in their late 40's and 50's who have, as a group, lost a lot of their retirement savings in this recession and have little time left to regroup. A hit to their anticipated SS benefits will be devastating at this point. People younger than that still have some time to rework their plans.

As for setting the President up, I opposed the idea of this commission. If he throws in with the SS haters, I don't see how I, somehow, become responsible for that.

I'm assuming you have access to the rules governing the board, just as I do and it looks as if your desire to spout hostility towards those who disagree with you outweighs any attempts to stay within those rules. I do not engage in name calling and personal attacks and do not appreciate those who do.

edited typo 17 changed to 27

[sandnsea]

83. What is the OP of this thread? n/t

[laughingliberal]

84. Representative Grayson seems to think there is a plot against seniors.

He does seem to have some basis for his belief.

I feel the benefits for those in their 50's are under assault. We will know when the commission's report is issued and we see how much of a screwing is proposed and who lines up to support them how far reaching it is. One of the problems of a commission that is meeting in secret and not due to issue their report until after the election is it makes it hard to know where to target our efforts. We know who some of our enemies in this fight are but we won't know who all of them are until the election is over. At that point, there is a very small window in which to petition our lawmakers as they are planning to vote before the new Congress takes over.

For now, all we can do is try to turn the heat up on our elecAs much as I've enjoyed this exchange of ideas, ed officials about this and hope they feel some trepidation about screwing us.

I am glad Grayson is trying to shine the light on this issue as there are many who are unaware of the danger this commission could present to SS and Medicare benefits. Many are unaware even of the existence of the commission. I've spoken to several people in our local party the past week who did not know the commission existed. After the Senate defeated it, they did not hear about the President setting it up. People who are working long hours and raising families are not always as informed as they'd like to be and anything that brings a little sunlight in to let people know what is going on is welcome.

As much as I've enjoyed this exchange of ideas, I doubt either of us has any new ground to cover or any propensity for changing our position so, I'll be bidding adieu to this thread now.


Peace

[laughingliberal]

85. Corrections to post # 84. Too late to edit.

84. Representative Grayson seems to think there is a plot against seniors.

He does seem to have some basis for his belief.

I feel the benefits for those in their 50's are under assault. We will know when the commission's report is issued and we see how much of a screwing is proposed and who lines up to support them how far reaching it is. One of the problems of a commission that is meeting in secret and not due to issue their report until after the election is it makes it hard to know where to target our efforts. We know who some of our enemies in this fight are but we won't know who all of them are until the election is over. At that point, there is a very small window in which to petition our lawmakers as they are planning to vote before the new Congress takes over.

For now, all we can do is try to turn the heat up on our elected officials.

I am glad Grayson is trying to shine the light on this issue as there are many who are unaware of the danger this commission could present to SS and Medicare benefits. Many are unaware even of the existence of the commission. I've spoken to several people in our local party the past week who did not know the commission existed. After the Senate defeated it, they did not hear about the President setting it up. People who are working long hours and raising families are not always as informed as they'd like to be and anything that brings a little sunlight in to let people know what is going on is welcome.

As much as I've enjoyed this exchange of ideas, I doubt either of us has any new ground to cover or any propensity for changing our position so, I'll be bidding adieu to this thread now.


Peace

Edit: keyboard is shot so typing on a virtual keyboard where I have to copy and paste my writing here. Then I screw up the pasting.

[laughingliberal]

40. Yes, I would. Whatever the Commission does is 100% on President Obama.

If they do right by the people, President Obama will get due credit from me. If they don't, it's on him. He created this commission and it would not exist without him so it's his baby.

[sandnsea]

43. The Commission won't be doing anything

It has no authority. Congress has to decide if the commission has anything worthwhile to recommend. Congress has to pass the laws. You need to get behind the people in Congress who are already working on these issues, instead of wasting time pissing on Obama. It's demented.

[Edweird]

45. So, according to you, Grayson is 'demented'?

[sandnsea]

47. Talking about a "plot against seniors"?? God god yes. Demented. n/t

[laughingliberal]

52. Well, I'll just bookmark this and we can take another look in December when the commission's report.

comes out and see if it's 'demented' to believe they are coming after our benefits.

[sandnsea]

55. I'm sure Alan Simpson will try

It would be a good thing to get behind a plan to strengthen social security, like Bernie Sanders' plan. Don't you think?

[laughingliberal]

62. I do think so, yes. And Sanders voted against the commission.

I highly doubt Simpson will be alone in his attempt to raise the age and cut the benefit. Bowles will probably join him. AFAICS, there are only 2 sitting on that commission who have ever been strong defenders of SS.

[laughingliberal]

50. I am behind the people working to make sure no benefits are cut

and I have been. Nevertheless, I wouldn't have to be worried about this commission at all if President Obama had not created it. The Senate defeated legislation to create it and the President did it by executive order and, AFAIC, it's on him. We didn't have to have this. He's also the one who appointed the hateful and obnoxious Alan Simpson.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

57. LOL. 22 Demorcrats and Bernie Sanders voted against it.

Conrad's amendment failed on a bipartisan 53-46 vote. 36 Democrats, 16 Republicans and Joe Lieberman voted for creating the deficit reduction commission, while 22 Democrats, 23 Republicans and Bernie Sanders voted no (roll call here). Bloomberg News reported, <snip>

http://mydd.com/2010/1/27/senate-votes-down-deficit-cutting-commission

Looks like one of the more bipartisan votes we've seen in a while.


There it is. I was wondering how long it would take you to get around to comparing those who disagree with you to 'freebaggers.'

I'll save you the trouble of your next smear. I'm not a Green and have been a registered Democrat for 37 years.

[sandnsea]

60. Baucus, Akaka, Dodd,

Only a few progressive Dems in that vote. Most progressive Dems supported this commission.

I don't care if someone disagrees with me, as long as they base it on fact and not maniacal ranting. Nothing that has come out of Jane Hamsher and her firebagger mouth has had a shred of logic to it.

I also don't consider "Green" a smear. I just consider it a different philosophy and wish that people with that philosophy would go to that party and organize there. I've been begging people to get ready for this exact moment in time, when Republicans were crumbling and we could move Dems & Greens into the two party system. Greens can't do it. All they seem to be able to do is sit in the middle of the Democratic Party and detroy it, much like the teabaggers are doing to the Republicans. I would just like to see that stop, that's all.

[laughingliberal]

64. Yeah, and the Yea's included Bayh, Conrad, Landrieu, Johnson, both Nelsons, Lincoln.

And the no's included Brown, Harkin, Rockerfeller, Sanders, Whitehouse. It was pretty evenly split. And the whole miserable idea was the love child of Judd Gregg :puke: and Kent Conrad, neither one a friend of Social Security.

I was opposed to this commission when Gregg and Conrad were pushing for it. I was relieved when the Senate defeated Conrad's amendment to create the commission and shocked when the President then turned around and did it by executive order.

I did not need Jane Hamsher to tell me I'm not in favor of a commission meeting in secret to determine something this important with the expectation that their report will get an up or down vote with no opportunity for the people we elected to represent us to amend.

I didn't even know who Jane Hamsher was before people started posting her work here during the health care debate.

My research is done by me and my opinions are formed by the principles I have believed in since before Jane Hamsher was born, I imagine.

Whether you consider 'Green' a smear or not, it is insulting to call people who are registered Democrats 'Greens,' and I have grown weary of you calling Democrats who disagree with you Greens. I've seen from you-accusing liberal Democrats of being Greens and telling them to go away. Well, I'm not a Green and don't even know what their 'philosophy' is. I do know what the Democratic Party platform is and many years I've been involved with the formulation of it as I have often been a delegate to my state conventions.

[eridani]

70. Some Dems don't want to cut Social Security

Quite a few others are Wall Street whores.

[eridani]

69. Pure unmitigated horseshit

The Catfood Commission is totally stacked with lifelong opponents of Social Security. What kind of sociopath would be in favor of a "deficit commission," that takes military spending off the table at the start?

[neverforget]

81. And what kind of fool comes up with a "deficit commission" in the middle

of a recession? Worry about the debt when the economy recovers not now when anyone who is not rich is suffering.

[laughingliberal]

72. I'm pretty much in agreement with David Obey about the food stamp cuts:

The secretary of education is whining about the fact he only got 85 percent of the money he wanted .… hen we needed money, we committed the cardinal sin of treating him like any other mere mortal. We were giving them over $10 billion in money to help keep teachers on the job, plus another $5 billion for Pell, so he was getting $15 billion for the programs he says he cares about, and it was costing him $500 million . Now that’s a pretty damn good deal. So as far as I’m concerned, the secretary of education should have been happy as hell. He should have taken that deal and smiled like a Cheshire cat. He’s got more walking around money than every other cabinet secretary put together.

It blows my mind that the White House would even notice the fight . I would have expected the president to say to the secretary, “Look, you’re getting a good deal, for God’s sake, what this really does is guarantee that the rest of the money isn’t going to be touched.” We gave $4.3 billion in the stimulus package, no questions asked. He could spend it any way he wants. … I trusted the secretary, so I gave him a hell of a lot more money than I should have.

My point is that I have been working for school reform long before I ever heard of the secretary of education, and long before I ever heard of Obama. And I’m happy to welcome them on the reform road, but I’ll be damned if I think the only road to reform lies in the head of the secretary of education.

We were told we have to offset every damn dime of . Well, it ain’t easy to find offsets, and with all due respect to the administration their first suggestion for offsets was to cut food stamps. Now they were careful not to make an official budget request, because they didn’t want to take the political heat for it, but that was the first trial balloon they sent down here. … Their line of argument was, well, the cost of food relative to what we thought it would be has come down, so people on food stamps are getting a pretty good deal in comparison to what we thought they were going to get. Well isn’t that nice. Some poor bastard is going to get a break for a change.

http://washingtonindependent.com/91851/obey-white-house-suggested-cutting-food-stamps-to-pay-for-edujobs-funding


That's some fixation you have going about Jane Hamsher. I've never seen a Hamsher story that I didn't already know about from another source. The pisser about the food stamps cut was that the House wanted to use some of Arne's RTTT funds for the offset as he was given more money than all other cabinet secretaries combined and President Obama threatened to veto this bill if they took any of the money from Arne's pot. I'm with Obey on the food stamps issue: "Some poor bastard was going to get a break for a change."

[TheKentuckian]

15. Absolutely, fuckin A, praise Jesus yes, I am against it

I was against it before the seven or eight Republican co-sponsors fell off in a bit of Party of No madness or calculated game of chicken to trick Obama into actually taking the heat while they achieve their wicked generational dream on our dime.

A commission?!? Fucking ridiculous hiding behind a commission and hiding the process.

[sandnsea]

17. What is hidden? It still has to go through Congress

This commission can't do diddly on its own. What usually happens after a commission sits for god knows how long? NOTHING.

The rantings about this commission are insane.

[TheKentuckian]

23. ' What is going on in the meetings? Secret

Fuck walking blissfully into the slaughterhouse.

The Republicans will vote for the recommendations this time, don't be a fool. If they hadn't fallen off last time it would be binding up and down.

We dodged a bullet, being cocky is silly season. The votes are far from a reach.

[sandnsea]

26. Well of course the Republicans will, DUH

That's why Grayson should be fighting THEM. That's what I said at the very beginning.

[laughingliberal]

59. Grayson needs to be fighting anyone trying to raise the benefit age or cut the benefit amount.

We have a few on our side, too. If not, we wouldn't have to worry about the Republicans. All they can do with 41 is filibuster the vote on the commission's recommendations. With Conrad a shoe in to vote for cuts, we have reason to worry.

[sandnsea]

61. If you shut down the Republican insanity

You wouldn't have any reason to worry about Conrad, or any other blue dog dem, because they wouldn't have any crazy Republicans in their home states raising all this ruckous.

Why doesn't the left get this?

[laughingliberal]

67. That makes absolutely no sense. There is an agreement to bring this to a vote in the lame duck

session. It will be the exact Senate we have right now-59 Democrats and 41 Republicans. The only way I know to 'shut down' the Repubican insanity is to vote them out of office. Even if we gain seats in this election, it's not going to change whose voting on the recommendations. The vote is to happen before the newly elected are sworn in.

[laughingliberal]

65. delete wrong place

[ipaint]

79. No they aren't.

"Alex Lawson has been livestreaming the closed door of the Catfood Commission on FDL. They have refused to conduct their deliberations in public, but the committee is stacked with enough votes to cut benefits. It takes 14 out of 18 votes to pass any recommendation on the committee, and there appear to be a sufficient number of votes to do so based on the past positions of individual members. So Altman and Kingson raise important questions, but to my mind, none more important than these:

Q. Why is the Commission apparently working so closely with billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who served in the Nixon administration and who has a clear ideological agenda?

Q. Mr. Peterson has been on a decades-long crusade against Social Security. The day after the first meeting of the commission, which focused heavily on the need to cut Social Security, the co-chairs and two other members of the commission participated in a Peterson event that reinforced the same message. A Peterson-funded foundation is supplying commission staff. And Peterson’s foundation is funding America Speaks to develop a series of high-profile town halls across the country to host “a national discussion to find common ground on tough choices about our federal budget.” (For more background about Mr. Peterson, see William Greider in the Nation on Looting Social Security — Part 2.)

Note the buried lede: Pete Peterson is supplying commission staff."

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/21/revolt-of-the-wonks-former-obama-advisors-want-to-know-whats-happening-on-his-deficit-commission/



"The biggest lie in Peterson's story-telling is his refusal to acknowledge the looting aspect of what he proposes. Despite his inflamed rhetoric, Social Security is not broke--it has a huge surplus of around $3 trillion (trillion, not billion). With no changes at all, the trust fund will be solvent for at least another thirty years. In fact, workers retiring now have already paid for their Social Security benefits because they paid higher payroll taxes for the past twenty-five years. I might have a little respect for fiscal crazies like Peterson, Conrad and Gregg if I once heard them state these facts honestly instead of demonizing Social Security recipients.

Here is what really worries the fiscal hawks: as the Social Security trust fund built up the huge surpluses, the federal government borrowed the money and spent it. The time is approaching--maybe ten or twelve years from now--when the federal treasury will have to start paying back its debts to Social Security. The accumulated wealth does not belong to the US government, any more than the money it borrowed from China. The beneficial owners are all those working people who faithfully paid their FICA taxes for all those years. If Washington stiffs them now, it will be a bait-and-switch swindle larger than Wall Street's."

http://www.thenation.com/article/looting-social-security-part-2



I didn't vote for peterson and any of the other cut social security nazi's obama stupidly put on the catfood commission. Nor do I see anything particularly open and democratic about allowing them secret, closed door meetings to scheme and plan their massive theft.

The insanity is thinking anything that comes out of this billionaires "don't raise my taxes" commission will do anything to protect workers.

[laughingliberal]

71. Quite a few of Democrats opposed the commission, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8947665&mesg_id=8949212

[AnArmyVeteran]

3. I wish Grayson was president. He wouldn't take crap off of anyone.

He has balls. And he is a progressive who will fight for the common man and not sell out to corrupt corporations. Grayson has more balls than every other democrat in congress combined.

[NorthCarolina]

4. +1000 n/t

[breadandwine]

10. A Democrat with balls? That's Like a pancake without a syrup! UNPOSSIBLE.

Just ask George Bush:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCOYJ7weFEw&feature=player_embedded

[JCMach1]

19. I love Grayson... wish they would gerrymander me into his district

:)

[jxnmsdemguy65]

6. Rep. Grayson certainly has my respect...

This man has a long way to go in the Democratic Party. I'd love to see him as a future prez!

[ProfessionalLeftist]

41. Just signed. Thanks. n/t

[laughingliberal]

66. K & R nt

[Greyhound]

75. K&R for more of that "change". n/t