If the Democrats dare to make ONE cut to social security

[boston bean]

The party will be dead to me and it should be that way to ever self respecting liberal, leftist and/or democrat.

If these corporate wall street pocket lined hacks screw with it, I will HOPE they lose a majority for eons to come. I will not only hope they are never entrusted with the reigns of power EVER again. I will work MY ASS off to see to it. Because, at that point, truly, what would be the difference between a DEM and Repugnican?

There will be NOTHING, that will make me be a member of the Democratic Party again. NOTHING.

And call me a hater, call me a repugnican, call me a liar, call me a purist, call me the fuck whatever.

This commission on SS is looking for cuts. It seems we can't even get the head of the DCCC to make a pledge to no cuts in SS. JESUS H FUCKIN CHRIST!

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. There is ONE screwing I will take

raise the cap to pay into the fund. or better yet, remove it.

[Hannah Bell]

8. yeah, keep growing the trust fund so they can skim the surplus. good plan.

[tomp]

60. lock it. make it illegal to borrow from the trust.

pay back what's been borrowed.

and, dare i say, "get rid of the pentagon".

[rhett o rick]

77. Who ever "locks it" can unlock it again when ever they want. nm

[defendandprotect]

104. .... especially for wars . . .. W used it for tax cuts for rich -- and war --

[tomp]

114. well, then what's the fucking point?

you got an answer?

[quinnox]

2. Understandable, for me its the Bush tax cuts for the rich

If Obama and the Dems renew the obscene tax cuts for the richest Americans, I will be done with the Democratic party. I will either become a Green or an Independent.

[sendero]

21. Me too.

... I don't even have to wait for SS, renewing the tax cuts will be the FINAL INSULT and the FINAL CAPITULATION TO THE REPUBLICANS.

If Obama can't expire those cuts he might as well BE Republican as far as I am concerned.

[Enthusiast]

95. +1 nt

[glitch]

57. They go together. The DEFICIT commission is supposed to be looking at the DEFICIT. SS is not part of

the deficit, the fact that money was borrowed from it has nothing to do with the growing deficit.

SS has run a surplus and left alone will be solvent until 2037.

Social Security should not even be a part of the "DEFICIT" commission's purveyance.

[Vincardog]

73. use this link to contact your government and let them know how you feel about it

[ http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[EJSTES2005]

76. Glenn Greenwald was all over this yesterday....

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/democrats/index.html

"From the start, that Commission was stacked with people from both parties with a long history of advocating for serious cuts in benefits. The Democratic co-Chair, Erskine Bowles, worked a decade ago with Newt Gingrich to try to privatize Social Security when he was Clinton's Chief of Staff, and in 1998, was hailed by Business Week as "Corporate America's Friend in the White House." Other Obama appointees include David Cote, CEO of the defense contractor giant Honeywell, and several typical corporatist Democrats with histories of explicitly advocating for cutting Social Security (watch this short video with one of them, Alice Rivlin, showing the level of transparency and responsiveness with which the Commission is working). Needless to say, all GOP appointees are also fully on board with Social Security cuts."

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. Needless to say, not a single person advocating cuts in SS benefits

will ever have to depend upon those SS benefits themselves.

Hell, I could retire on what those people make in a single year.

This is class warfare, and we know what class they are fighting for.

[Enthusiast]

96. You said it. +1 nt

[EJSTES2005]

102. Well said.

It has always been a class war, but some people forget which side they belong to with the right amount of conditioning.

[liberation]

103. Never take advice on tightening your belt, from a fat guy wearing suspenders...

A point that seems to be lost in many Americans.

Hearing all these rich hacks talk about the need for austerity is the epitome of moral bankruptcy.

[defendandprotect]

106. Thanks -- Grayson also has a PETITION going to stop destruction of SS/Medicare ...

Sorry -- I can't pass it along -- and couldn't find it on his website!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. Yup.

[nightrain]

3. knr. yep. I'm with you. Third rail.

[Fumesucker]

4. But .. but.. President Palin..

:scared:

[Nite Owl]

5. Van Hollen was on with Cenk

earlier and he wouldn't commit. All he could say is he had to see the 'whole' plan' first.
I think we are screwed.

[boston bean]

27. Yep here is the head of the DCCC not making the pledge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHr3nMG6Y4&

[Subdivisions]

47. Because they already know how they are going to vote. It's a done deal. n/t

[tomp]

62. agreed.

why would they ever allow it to be packaged together with something else?

so, they can rob the ss fund and have a fig leaf of cover for doing it. that's it. that's how the sick fucking
game of american politics is played. and some of you still buy it, to the detriment of us all.

idiots.

[Enthusiast]

97. We just haven't raised enough hell yet.

This will be a lot louder than HCR.

[defendandprotect]

108. Seniors aren't even united --- except thru AARP, which is an insurance agency!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. ...which would profit handsomely with the privatization of SS.

I was only a member for 2 years before they backed the pharmaceutical boondoggle - tore up my card and mailed it back to them.

[alllyingwhores]

101. News flash...we're already screwed...oh, and what are you going to do about it?

Take it.

And who you gonna vote for between GOP and the DLC (or GOP Lite)...that's right, they know you don't have a choice. Because as they continue to F__K you (and me, and us) they know that even though they lied to our face during the campaign...and continue to lie to us as they do corporate America's bidding, there's not a damn thing we can do about it...except make things worse.

Oh yeah, vote for a third party candidate in the next election...and we'll end up putting Sarah--I'm a F__KING IDIOT--Palin in office.

[Hannah Bell]

6. i'll be right behind you. that commission has no mandate.

[boston bean]

35. I believe there will be millions of us. nt

[dkf]

7. Oh they won't cut existing benefits. They'll just wait til we are practically dead before we can

Collect. Of course they can tax future workers a third of their salary as there will be one retiree for every three workers.

[boston bean]

9. raising the retirement age is a cut in SS benefits.

[eridani]

41. By your stupid logic our entire country is starving to death

Have you noticed the unprecedented decline in the ratio of farmers to total population? Devastation, I tells ya! Tragedy! Alarm!

[TransitJohn]

10. They will. I can almost guarantee it.

Gotta be 'pragmatic' after all.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. YOu can meet with them and tell them

[boston bean]

14. you enjoy being condescending over this?

i'm embarassed for you. either you are a mean heartless person, or you are a political viper with a lot of frickin dough who doesn't really give a shit.

sickening.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. I'm not Boston, I do go and make appointment s with these people

Over the Gulf oil spill I was down at my Senators' offices forthwith. NO condescending.

[boston bean]

34. my sincere apologies for giving a false meaning to your words.

I will do that.

thank you!

[lob1]

12. Everyone has a bottom line. S.S is it for a lot of people.

It is for me, too.

K&R

[daleanime]

13. You will not be the only one!

:nuke:

[jwirr]

15. There is one form of cut I would accept - means test all those who are

rich. They get to pay but they do not get to play. This is the cuts the Democrats should offer the pugs when they want to cut benefits.

[Statistical]

18. Means testing is the first step in killing Social Security.

Means tested social security = welfare and we have seen how welfare programs have "flourished" over last 50 years right?

Oh wait no they are much maligned, used as political fodder, face cuts in the good years, and downright anhilations when politicians think people aren't looking.

Means test social security and it will be dead (or at least a shadow of its former strength) in a generation.

[eridani]

42. +10,000

Besides which, there is means testing of a sort in place already. Low income people get initial benefits that are a lot higher compared to what they put in than do more affluent people. That formula could be further jiggered to favor the low income, IMO. However, how DARE anyone say that people who paid into a retirement security program should not get any payout?

[Enthusiast]

98. Correct. No means testing.

Make the rich pay a share.

[defendandprotect]

109. Agree -- 1000% -- turns it into a "Welfare program" ....

[customerserviceguy]

28. Once you means test Social Security

and that might have happened back in the 1980's when they started making it taxable income, you turn it into something the Repukes can legitimately call it a 'welfare program' and you undermine popular support for it. Plus, you guarantee that the wealthy will expend every effort in opposing it, since they will no longer get a dime from it.

[eridani]

43. Taxable income is no big deal.

My SS was taxed in my retirement year because I still had fairly high income for the half year I worked. I had no problem with that. It wasn't taxed at all the following year.

[Hannah Bell]

36. ss is already means-tested, in 1983 they started taxing benefits.

if you want a welfare program, look to the income tax, not social security.

[Mimosa]

54. That was so wrong.

Some seniors need to be able to supplement S.S. as they have no pensions or savings. :(

[pecwae]

50. No--unacceptable.

Means testing screwed up the veterans administration system.

[Dappleganger]

72. They certainly do get to play in other ways.

They are investing in the country whose laws and economy helped them become rich. Yes, the rich should be cut off from SS because they don't NEED it.

[Raejeanowl]

75. Agreed

And while we're at it, let's start with members of Congress, who receive insane retirement benefits.

[toppertwot]

93. NOT JUST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

but ALL federal employees retirement benefits should be under the gun at the Cat Food Commission! WHY are they not included?

[Enthusiast]

99. Absolutely! NT

[dflprincess]

78. Whenever something is "means tested" the income limits never bear

any relation to what kind of money people actually need just to get by.

Look at the income limits in the recent insurance bill - and keep in mind that the same limits apply whether you live in New York City or Rapid City.

[John Q. Citizen]

107. No means testing.

[Booster]

16. Remember when they all laughed at Gore's "lockbox"?

Nobody's laughing now.

[Statistical]

22. Al Gore lockbox made no sense.

Didn't then and doesn't now.

What was going to be in the lock-box. dollars (without interest and subject to the slow ravages of interest compounded over the century) which is merely paper backed by full faith and credit of US treasury?

Somehow that would be superior to $2.4 trillion in US treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US treasury?

Dollars = paper instrument w/ no interest and subject to full effect of inflation & backed only by faith in US treasury.
T-bonds = paper instruments w interest and offering a shield/offset against effects of inflation. Also backed only by faith in US treasury.

[Recursion]

32. I thought he wasn't even going to keep cash?

Just spend the excess redeeming bonds rather than buying them, and keep a notebook somewhere in Treasury keeping track of how much had been redeemed.

[John Q. Citizen]

111. Both are going in and neither are coming out, except to pay benefits as promised.

What Gore meant was segregating SS funds from the general fund and not using SS funds for anything except SS.

[Statistical]

115. SS funds ARE only used to pay SS benefits.

However since he have $2.4 trillion surplus which makes more sense.

Hold it as cash in a giant Scrouge McDuck money vault

OR

Use those funds to buy T-bonds (exact thing pension funds & insurance companies do) to gain a small return and avoid the ravages of decades of compounded inflation.

[Recursion]

31. The "lockbox" was worse than what we have now

If Gore had had his way, SS wouldn't even have the 2.5 trillion in bonds, just a "gentleman's agreement" with Congress to credit it for all the money it's paid into the general fund.

[Hannah Bell]

37. i am. the lockbox was a fraud. gore was there in 1983 when reagan/greenspan

pushed through a "reform" which jacked up fica to collect an ever-increasing surplus. that's when gore should have spoken up -- to say what a fraud the whole idea was. he didn't. he abstained.

by the terms of the original social security legislation, any surplus HAS TO be borrowed into the general budget in exchange for t-bills. gore knew it in 1983 and said nothing. there is no lockbox, there never could be a lockbox, the fraud was (& is) collecting the extra money in the first place.

the original ss legislation mandated a pay-go system with a one-year cushion; reagan/greenspan turned the one-year cushion into a 10 year cushion & a slush fund.

[defendandprotect]

110. Agree . . . they used "baby boomers" to raise huge SURPLUSSES....

and, at this point, we should have been calling it a SLUSH FUND rather than

a Surplus!!

[girl gone mad]

49. The lockbox was a dumb idea.

It doesn't make any sense for a fiat currency regime to "store up" money.

My analogy is that it would be like keeping a file of alphabet letters stored on your computer to cut and paste into your DU posts. Why would you do that when you can just use your keyboard to type whatever you want whenever you want?

[hugo_from_TN]

69. nobody?

:rofl:

[McCamy Taylor]

17. Attacking Social Security is political suicide. Whose Kool Aid are they drinking in DC?

[seattleblue]

48. It is not political suicide to attack Social Security. .

Congress raised the retirement age in 1983 to 67 from 65. Nobody paid any price.

[glitch]

58. Who needs people when you have corporations, their filthy lucre and riggable election processes? nt

[Joe Fields]

112. sad, but true.

[Radical Activist]

19. I suspect party leaders know how unpopular it would be.

Even Alan Simpson repeatedly says they aren't cutting it.

But as long as we're dealing in speculation... If Pujols leaves the Cardinals he's dead to me!!!

[boston bean]

23. uh, no we are not dealing with speculation.

[Radical Activist]

30. Oh that's right, a committee with both liberals and conservatives

plus a few accusations posted on blogs and a lack of denial by Obama is POSITIVE PROOF.

Well, I just posted that Obama might be leaving the Cardinals and Obama has yet to say it isn't happening. So this rumor has equal standing with the accusation that the deficit commission is going to cut social security!

[boston bean]

33. did Chris Van Hollen make the pledge to no cuts in SS?

Why is a democratic presidential commission even looking into SS with a deficit reduction commission.

With Alan Simpson?

You may choose to not look at the copious evidence staring you in the face, but please don't belittle others for seeing it for what it is.

Your comments are eerily reminiscent of the comments regarding the public option.

That worked out well, huh?

[Radical Activist]

38. I'm sure the deficit commission

will heavily consider Obama's proposal to lift the income cap for SS taxes. That's enough to make the system solvent for many years.

The public option is in no way similar. Most Senators are cowards and they know what will happen if they cut SS benefits.

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. Reality. Most Senators are multi-millionaires and don't give a flying fuck.

They'll never have to deal with retirement issues - they'll just retire. And if they are voted out, they'll retire just a little sooner, but no less comfortably.

[eridani]

44. 4.5 conservatives for every liberal

If they aren't up to no good, why are they meeting secretly?

[TheKentuckian]

56. Conservatives widely outnumber liberals on this commission.

This deal is chock full of right wingers and corporate big wigs.

You do a (D) (R) head count and declare all is well. I see Jan Schakowsky as stalwart with Durbin and Stern as decent but more "flexible" than is comforting considering the general make up of the group, and Becerra as meh and broadly sympathetic to budget hawks.

After those four the rest are a fucking disaster.

Spratt, Conrad, Bowles, Baucus all suck. None of the big wigs is worthy of trust and of course the Republicans are all beyond the pale.

Don't truss it. It's not fine at all. Not a one of these people can identify with limited income, being paycheck to paycheck, or wearing out their bodies, not even Stern on a personal basis.

[glitch]

59. One moderate surrounded by far right conservatives is not 'both liberals and conservatives'. nt

[Spheric]

70. Alan Simpson: "We're not cutting it - we're saving it."

And then he goes on to explain how cutting it is the only way to save it. So, I guess as long as they say they aren't cutting it, it's okay to cut it.

And it also ignores the fact that it doesn't need saving.

Here's the real deal. We are now stuck talking about whether or not to cut Social Security when we should be talking about expanding it. There are no businesses that are going to continue to employ workers until they are seventy years old. It ain't gonna happen, especially in this economy. Christ, it's damn near impossible to keep your job until you reach sixty-two now days. That is the cold, hard truth.

Removing the cap on payroll taxes would allow us to retire at sixty and continue to see surpluses far, far into the future - far beyond any reasonable predictions. And taking people out of the work force voluntarily at a certain age opens up jobs for younger people.

Of course, there is a problem with this solution. There are always problems. How the hell do we keep them from stealing from Social Security to fund wars and tax cuts and everything else under the sun? How do we put Social Security into a lock-box? That is where the fight should be. That is the line in the sand that will either save Social Security or not.

Cutting benefits to "save it" is just another step toward the total destruction of the Social Security system. Anyone who supports that is either lying or brain dead.

IMHO

[boppers]

20. Some see indexing to inflation (CLOA) as a cut...

We already have more than a few "cuts" built into the system.

[mmonk]

24. I'm watching it as well being a Roosevelt Democrat type.

When they cut it, they cut me as well. I will not yield to voodoo small government political based economics.

[G_j]

25. something would be dead if they could ever get away it,

& that would be the American people for letting them.

SS used to be the third rail of politics.

[rucky]

26. Is raising the cap officially "off the table"?

If it is, then there's no real crisis.

[ipaint]

39. Pete Peterson, another asshole billionaire with too much money and time on his hands.

Peterson bought the washington post to run scary deficit pieces, he put money into a campaign agaist social security on MTV to pit younger and older generations against one another. He's been pushing a commission on cuts to entitlements for a while in Washington.
The commissions purpose is to get the elite in this country out of paying back their gov. loans of our retirement money they used to finance 30 years of tax cuts and resource wars.

The elite borrowed the fund they can damn well pay it back.


"The first TFT "dispatch" to appear in the Post--"Support grows for tackling nation's debt"--made no mention of Peterson's crusade. But it featured the same devious gimmick the financier has been peddling around Washington. Congress should create a special commission of eighteen senators and representatives empowered to to make the "tough" budget decisions politicians are loathe to face--slashing benefits, raising payroll taxes or both. Other members of Congress would be prohibited from changing any of the particular measures, and would cast only an up-or-down vote on the entire package, no amendments allowed. Supposedly, this would give them political cover. Look, no hands. We just cut Social Security but it wasn't our fault.

This "reform" is profoundly antidemocratic because it would strip ordinary citizens of the only leverage they have in Washington--the ability to lean on their elected representatives and exact retribution if they get sold out. Peterson has two advocates in the Senate--Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire--who are self-righteous fiscal hawks. The TFT story describes the rising federal deficits as a threat to the republic, yet fails to explain why deficits on rising. The billions have been devoted to bailing out major banks and Peterson's old chums in Wall Street or to turning around the failed economy or fighting two wars at once.

...But the assault on Society Security, we knew, would come back sooner or later because many of Obama's lieutenants are devoted to Peterson's fiscal logic. Budget director Peter Orszag once co-authored a "reform" plan that would raise the payroll tax on young workers and cut benefits for older people near retirement. Isn't that clever? Pinhead economists evidently think that workers won't notice. Now the billionaire is cranking up another fight. We should finger him again, big-time, and all those who willingly collaborate in his plot.


...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

Much of what Greider writes about in this article from last january has come to pass.

Why did Obama adopt a right wing, anti-social security, billionaire's idea and staff it with anti social security right wing hacks? Why are the meetings closed to the public and why is congress only allowed and up or down vote on the recommendations?

[Jim Lane]

40. I don't know if you'd consider this a cut....

I think the tax treatment of Social Security benefits should be changed. There should be a small or no exemption, count the rest of the benefits received as ordinary income, and make the marginal rates more progressive.

You could consider that a cut because some Social Security beneficiaries would suffer a drop in their net (after-tax) benefits. Nevertheless, I'd be in favor of that change.

Other than that, I'd agree with you -- I can't think of any cut that I'd accept. And, as a practical matter, making the tax code more progressive isn't likely to be a priority of the Cat Food Commission, given its makeup.

[eridani]

46. They already do that.

You have to have fairly high income to be paying taxes on social security. I did in my last half year of work before retirement. Fine by me. I, like the vast majority of retirees, am not now taxed.

[Jim Lane]

74. Benefits are taxed now but only to a limited extent. I'd include them with other income.

To make this fair, though, it should be coupled with making the entire income tax system more progressive.

[Sherman A1]

45. The can raise the cap on the earnings tax, but that

is the only change I will accept. I have and will email, call and contact my Congressional rep and Senators.

And I might point out that many have a presence on Facebook. Never hurts to post something on their FB pages to that effect (be civil, but firm). My Congressional Rep just had a post on SS's 75th Birthday, so the topic is out there to use in many cases.

[NorthCarolina]

51. The DLC New Dems feel confident that they can cut SS because,

as always, "Who else are you going to vote for"? Of course, their claim to glory as protectors of SS will be that while they may have raised the retirement age and cut total benefits, they nevertheless stopped the GOP from "Privatizing" it. That's the entire plan in a nutshell, and after watching Van Hollen repeatedly sidestep the question asked by Cenk regarding raising the retirement age, I can virtually guarantee it's already a done deal. I am sick of these damn DLC New Dem centrists conniving with the GOP to do the work of their corporate masters. The write-in box at the polling booth is going to be getting much use from me unless The Dems run a Liberal candidate worthy of voting for.

[boston bean]

52. I agree

:hi:

[NorthCarolina]

53. ..

:hi:

[Poboy]

55. Ed Schultz reported on a poll that

people do not trust Dems that much more than repubs to protect SS. While I find that encouraging, what does it say that the Dems are quite willing to destroy a program that should be a trophy in their case, an something to be proud of and champion?

[closeupready]

61. K&R

n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

63. Someone needs to tell the Catfood Commission that Fancy Feast is unaffordable.....

...and that food and other necessities are rising FASTER than the CPI.

They need to recognize the truth that Paul Craig Roberts, who wrote Reagan's first tax cut bill as undersecretary at Reagan's Treasury Department, has the guts to tell us: that the CPI has already been rigged to UNDERESTIMATE inflation, that this has ALREADY BEEN DONE specifically to fraudulently steal earned and paid for (by decades of payroll taxes) SS benefits, and that Allan Simpson's lie that the CPI overestimate inflation and COLA's need to be cut is not just a lie, but a damn lie.

[Mimosa]

64. K&R n/t

[KansasVoter]

65. I am 52, if they raise my retirement age above 66 I will be pissed.

[LoZoccolo]

66. If you use up your ultimatum on this, will you still try to use another one later?

[Mithreal]

83. Winning hearts and minds.

It's where the money is.

The President has never not sided with average Americans.

Why do they fear the catfood commission?

They're all stupid or crazy, right Loco?

Gibbs is bringing the revelation.

[LoZoccolo]

113. My post was about game theory, not political beliefs.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[progressoid]

71. Hey, you, "fuck whatever"

I'm right there with you.

:thumbsup:

[bobburgster]

79. Hopefully all who reply here have.....

contacted the White House and their reps. in the House and Senate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html

[dflprincess]

80. My prediction is that the Catfood Commission will come back with all sorts of recommendations

Many, maybe most, will have nothing to do with Social Security and some might even be good ideas.

Buried in all these will be the destruction of SS & Medicare. As Pelosi has promised an up or down vote our poor, beleaguered representatives will have no choice but to vote for the whole package.

And they'll tell us not to worry because they will "fix it later".

I have remained active in the local party organization - I have my resignation letter ready to go if they do anything to cut Social Security. My only regret is that Minnesota does not have party registration so I won't be able to change that.

[metapunditedgy]

81. Any pragmatists want to go on record saying SS cuts are unacceptable? n/t

[bobburgster]

82. You got one here....

and I just said so in my e-mail to the White House and my reps. in congress.

[metapunditedgy]

87. You have my respect for saying so! n/t

[rurallib]

85. Once they cross that line it is bye-bye SS

Republicans will take one crack as a signal that the Dems can be slowly backed down until it is gone.

[earth mom]

88. Those DINO bastards are playing with fire.Do they really think the people will take this lying down?

I hope those assholes all rot in hell! :grr:

[sulphurdunn]

89. The American people have been softened up

for this for years. I remember 30 years ago, people saying, "There won't be any social security benefits when you're old enough to retire" Well, I planned to begin collecting those benefits I wasn't supposed to expect next year. I have been paying taxes into that system since I was 16 years old. We have a deal about this. If these political whores fuck me over on it so they can spend more money on wars and bankers and other rich people, I will spend whatever remains of my life trying to abolish both political parties and establishing a government more in keeping with the principles of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution. I probably should do that anyway.

[bc3000]

90. I've already decided not to vote for this party again

I just keep coming back hoping something might have have changed. There's a few good ones, but until the Anthony Weiners and Alan Graysons outnumber the corporate shills why should I participate in the illusion that there's a progressive party in this country.

[Odin2005]

91. I agree with you completely!

:applause:

[Common Sense Party]

92. How about to Medicare?

[Enthusiast]

94. And after throwing billions down the

rat holes of Iraq and Afghanistan. The social security trust fund was thrown away for tax cuts for millionaires and two unnecessary wars. Those that profited from the tax cuts and the wars need to bite the bullet to reinforce social security. Not a single cut is justified.

[cliffordu]

100. I am a crazed degenerate, but I agree....

The Dems would have to be dead to me.


c

[defendandprotect]

105. If "New Democrats/DLC" dare to make ONE cut to Social Security . . . .

this is where DU'ers amd all Democrats have to wake up about WHO is doing what

to Social Security -- and WHO put Repubicans in charge of Social Security!!


I'd suggest that it's time for seniors - and all Americans to begin to unite

behind programs -- rather than permitting themselves to be pulled apart by

hate campaigns, propaganda from either side about Social Security/Medicare.

And keep in mind it wssn't only Reagan Economics which has brought us this "third

world America" -- it also includes Clinton having done his part with trade agreements!

Corporate/elites aren't dumb enough to have only one party push their destruction.

They have bought ALL of government and are working on pre-BRIBING and pre-OWNING

MOST of our elected officials -- both parties!!