Why are Democrats buying this Cut Social Security Mantra?

[jtown1123]

I see this particular column in the Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/the-case-for-fast-and-broad-social-security-reform/61907/ as a sign of bad things to come with Democrats and Social Security--Particularly President Obama. We all need to flood our representatives with letters that we DO NOT support cuts to Social Security (Raise retirement age, means test, Price index, etc.)Here is a sample letter you could send: http://capwiz.com/ncpssm2/issues/alert/?alertid=16040566

Read RJ Eskow's column in the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/what-did-a-senior-adminis_b_689391.html) where he discusses a conversation he had with a Senior White House official's willingness to "reform" Social Security to appease the bond markets.

Please, this is so serious. I urge everyone who cares about this issue to put as much political pressure on their representatives as possible.

[RKP5637]

1. I'm beginning to think they don't give a damn what we think. n/t

[jtown1123]

4. I think the same thing

[Javaman]

31. Only just now? nt

[RKP5637]

45. Actually for awhile now...

[babylonsister]

2. Why are you buying it, but thank you for your concern...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=410680

[jtown1123]

3. Privatizing Social Security is the Straw Man

Raising the retirement age and means testing is: http://www.truth-out.org/social-security-the-republicans-are-right62574

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. That is the "okey-doke"

Obama vows to fight privatization, which is irrelevant to the question.

He equates that with "protecting social security"

Meanwhile he is instrumental in the push for benefit reductions.

[jtown1123]

10. Here Here!

[jonnyblitz]

17. bwahahahaha! so you link to a speech by Obama as PROOF!

of course Obama NEVER lies!! :rofl:

[QC]

28. He's going to be a fierce advocate for Social Security! n/t

[Javaman]

34. Perhaps. We'll just have to wait and see. nt

[RKP5637]

52. Yep, that fierce advocate stuff really works well, like his transparency does... I often

feel so duped...

[donheld]

75. But he gives such a pretty speech!

[SammyWinstonJack]

78. I'm tired of his pretty speeches. Just empty words and lip service.

:puke:

[closeupready]

26. Oh, how encouraging.

:eyes:

[Marr]

53. That argument is so dishonest.

He's framing it as a fight between Republicans who want to privatize Social Security, and Democrats who want to "defend" it. That is not what people are worried about. People are worried about Democrats cutting Social Security via raising the retirement age, means testing, etc.

You must know that-- and you must know that the frame you just referenced above is a perfect means of eventually achieving those cuts. It sets up political cover for 'pragmatic compromises'.

[QC]

79. Why are you calling the OP a troll? n/t

[BeFree]

5. The answer is simple

If SS is going broke, then revenues need to grow. Growth is good.

Let SS grow.

Don't allow this attempted abortion of SS to continue.

America needs to feed and nurture our Social Security.

[jtown1123]

9. SS is not going broke, we do need to strengthen it

in the future to cover the 22% projected shortfall. SS is hardly in crisis: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

[BeFree]

13. jtown, welcome to DU

There is no SS money 'in the bank'.

It is pay as you go and IOU's.

Pretty soon, if we don't increase revenues and start saving it in a bank as cash, then it will experience another, as you call it: "shortfall".

Did you know that as it stands on the 'pay as we go' current system, that a billionaire pays less, percentage wise, into SS, than a minimum wage worker?

[jtown1123]

22. Of course I knew that billionairs pay a smaller percentage of their income

I am just pretty baffled how a lot of commenters here think U.S. bonds aren't real. I think I will defer to Krugman and actual economists on that one. I would support revenue increases to keep the program solvent. What I don't support is raising the retirement age, or other benefit cuts that harm the poor and middle class.

[BeFree]

23. Cut benefits?

Only a loony tune would suggest that.!!!

The only fair and balanced way is for each person to pay the same percentage.

SS is now a 'pay as you go' system. It was NOT designed that way, but that is what it has become. So, the billionaires need to pay their fair and balanced share.

[Hannah Bell]

56. it *was* designed as a pay as you go system. it is *not* that now. your posts are full of misin-

formation.

"billionaires" don't pay into ss at all.

because their income comes from CAPITAL, not wages.

workers pay ss. it was designed that way for a reason. it was not designed as a welfare system financed by the rich for a reason as well.

quit spreading misinformation.

[BeFree]

60. Well Hannah

It was designed as a system that "banked" a part of workers wages.
That design has now taken on a falsity.
The money is not banked, it has nearly all been spent.
Right now it is pay as you go, in the sense that as the money comes in, out it goes.

Now that they have ripped us off, it is going to have to become a system that taxes everybody fairly an equal percentage of any income.

We have discussed this before and you, I guess, are stuck on thinking the way SS works is the way it used to, or was set up. It no longer is. It is time for a new definition. And the billionaires need to start forking over their gains to help support our aging population. They are the only ones who can afford to do so.

[Hannah Bell]

65. no, it did *not* "bank" wages. you don't know what you're talking about & are just making up shit.

it was designed to be pay-go.

reagan changed that.

your remarks are the exact opposite of the facts.

you don't know beans about social security & are spreading disinformation.

[BeFree]

68. Oh

All that money I paid over the years.... You know where it is?

Is it in the bank, or is it just another IOU?

It is an IOU and the only way it will be paid is from the taxes the government gets.

What is your definition of pay-go?

[Hannah Bell]

70. maybe you should review your own comments.

this post in particular:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9005081&mesg_id=9005515

you aren't even consistent with the nonsense.

[BeFree]

71. You can't even discuss this, can you?

I think the rich need to pay the same percentage as a minimum wage earner.

And you can answer the question: Where is all that money I have paid into SS. Where the fuck is it?

[BeFree]

72. What is your agenda, Hannah?

You won't even attempt to answer direct, easy questions.

All you are doing is deflecting and using trash talk.

Whatssup wit you?

[Hannah Bell]

74. bye-eee.

[sendero]

80. Don't worry...

... she's been in la la land re SS as long as I can remember.

SS is, for all intents and purposes, paid from current revenues, period.

As for Obama's promise, well he's carefully parsing his words as usual. I've said for years here that SS will be cut via raising the retirement age, lowering benefits or both. Why? Because the country is broke, that is why.

The US govt can only print so much money before the bond markets say no mas, and interest rates go up. They can't go up very much or WE CANNOT SERVICE OUR OWN DEBT and then all hell breaks loose.

The perfect answer would be to simply eliminate the cap on SS taxable earnings, but in this country no matter how bad things get the rich are exempt from any of the pain.

[Hannah Bell]

83. "the country is broke" = the voice of neoliberal austerity

"the rich" = lol.

the rich don't pay social security. they don't work for wages.

rescind the bush tax cuts, raise capital gains.

i never hear the neolib cheerleaders discussing those options.

[girl gone mad]

24. "saving it in a bank as cash"??

That's a completely nutty concept.

There is absolutely no sound reason for the issuer of fiat currency to save or store up its currency.

[BeFree]

33. yeah, i forgot

anti-fiat monetarism is anti-America, eh?

[girl gone mad]

61. If you have a plan for moving the country back on to the gold standard..

without doing significant damage to our global competitiveness, I'd love to hear it.

I don't believe it's possible or desirable in the modern era.

Despite the incessantly dire warnings, moving off of the gold standard has not led to hyperinflation, currency collapse or high interest rates. We are not in any danger of default, demand for our debt is healthy, our monetary system functions in a very predictable fashion.

[BeFree]

63. Predictable fashion?

Yeah, we predicted this economic collapse that is occuring.

Back when the SS funds were banked in actual liquid cash, this country grew like crazy, then when raygw started spending it, it grew again.

That era is over. Oh, they are propping it up, but east Asia is getting ready to make a predictable alteration and along with all the cheap and easy oil gone, oil which our currency exists on, the times they are a-changing.

[girl gone mad]

66. Of course it was predictable..

and predicted by many, many people.

[Hannah Bell]

67. crock of shit.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dkf]

6. The only other option is to inflate our way out of it.

That cuts the value of the payment anyway. Social security is but one of the areas to be examined. Next they will be cutting food stamps to pay for social security.

[jtown1123]

11. Why not raise the tax cap?

As it is now, it's only $106,800.

[dkf]

12. As it is now that means a higher benefit when they retire.

If you cut the relationship between contribution and payout then that makes means testing more feasible which then potentially turns it into a welfare program.

[eridani]

76. That is ALREADY PART of calculating initial payout

Lower income people get more compared to what they put in.

[AmandaRuth]

7. wanted my phone number

will give them my address and email, but hell no, I am not giving them my phone number. Why would they even assume i have one anyway.

[whistler162]

14. I'm beginning to think that someone could post a editorial

in whoch the cite a senior aide stating that Obama welcomes the overloardship of the little green men from Mars!

[alc]

15. because they've been "loose with the books" for too long

Even though there is technically money in the SS books until 2037 there is no actual money. They will be taking in less than they are supposed to pay very soon, so they need real money. That means taking it from other programs, borrowing, or changing the payouts. Simply increasing/eliminating the tax on the rich won't make up the difference.

That's my guess. I can support it with "facts". Unfortunately both sides have been lying about things for so long that any guess can be supported with "facts". I am sure that they've been doing things with the books that would put any CFO in prison (general and SS books not being kept separate).

Gore wouldn't have needed his "lock box" if they were buying US bonds. Those would not be causing a problem - someone else would have bought less and the government would owe the same as now (or less with another buyer driving down rates) and SS would be fine for 30 years. The "lock box" would be needed if SS was getting IOUs instead of buying bonds. IOUs means the government will need to raise the money in the future to pay them back. Next year is when IOU paybacks will need to be made and will show up in the general books if changes are not made. Some people who've been saying for years that SS is fine and there are no IOUs will be shown to be lying (or wrong) if that happens so they want to avoid it. And if IOUs have been issued the deficit is $3 trillion more than stated and the deficit scares people right now.

[jtown1123]

21. I really don't think we can say Social Security Trust Funds

aren't real. Does that mean all of our bonds aren't real? Wow, China will be pretty pissed. Especially, if we decide to default on a U.S. bond and essentially annihilate the world economy. I guess we can always find the money and widen the deficit for wars, tax cuts for the rich, etc. I thought this was a pretty progressive community...

[alc]

29. trust funds are real and will be paid (if needed)

But it's different if they are bonds or IOUs. Bonds are already on the general books and the world knows we've agreed to pay them off - we already admitted they are part of our debt. IOUs are off the books and not an admitted part of the debt. If/when we acknowledge them, our debt officially goes up which will affect future bond rates (and also be embarrassing to those who denied the IOUs out of lying or ignorance. That's why they want to do "something/anything" to avoid paying them back).

[w4rma]

32. The wealthy don't want to pay back what they took from the U.S. treasury.

Especially since some of those wealthy live is Saudi Arabia, China or Australia and they have their own nations which they are loyal to.

[spanone]

16. i don't see democrats buying any such shit.

[whistler162]

18. Shhh.. it was in a editorial so it must be true!

[jtown1123]

20. I hate to break it to you

but this has appeared in hundreds of news articles since January of this year. Renowned economists like Paul Krugman and Dean Baker as well as many respected journalists and the crew over at Fire Dog Lake have been watching these developments for months now. Not really sure why people are so quick to defend Democrats just because they are Democrats.

[jtown1123]

19. Denying the problem isn't what we need right now

Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer Refuses to rule out raising the retirement age: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70073

DNC Leader Chris Van Hollen won't rule out cuts (opposes privatization, but that's largely besides the point): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHr3nMG6Y4

and let me remind everyone Obama has said ZIP on where he stands on raising the retirement age, means testing, or price indexing. Just look at the people on his Fiscal Commission: http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/04/30/fiscal-commission-has-the-knives-out-for-safety-net-spending/

Peace all, I've said what I needed to.

[girl gone mad]

27. Members of Obama's Treasury Dept (including the Secretary)..

said in a meeting with bloggers a couple of weeks ago that they are happy with the deficit commission's work.

[jtown1123]

42. Yeah, pretty troubling. I think what will ultimately happen

is in the name of deficit reduction, everyone will pull together to support a package to raise taxes slightly and cut Social Security benefits. People who usually would be lambasted for cutting Social Security will say something like, "Sorry, my hands were tied!" or "It was an unfortunate sacrifice for the deficit Gods..." blah blah. I know some people won't vote on the package but this is going through a lame duck session of Congress. Who knows what will ultimately happen, I just keep speculating the worst so I am not devastated when the time comes.

[newspeak]

30. I note your concerns

and I'm with Galbraith on this one, leave social security alone. What's really going on, is that they have overspent in other areas, especially defense. I believe they want to "rob peter to pay paul." We are in a dire economic situation presently, and I think cutting benefits to those who need it the most or upping the retirement age, does us all a disservice. What are those in their fifties and sixties going to do. Hell, many of us have lost our good jobs and can't find work. With no job prospects and maybe no roof over our head, we are supposed to wait even longer to collect? Or maybe they're waiting to see how many of us die.

And, Little Boots giving his sociopathic greedy pals that tax break did not help the deficit. I believe the government lost about two trillion dollars. For what? Little Boots has one of the worse job creations records, so the meme the wealthy will create jobs is false. The people were sold a "bill of goods" and the repukes are still attempting to sell it. They are still spouting extending the tax cuts to the wealthy will lead to jobs, when it definitely wasn't the case for eight fekkin years under Little Boots.

[jtown1123]

35. Wonderful, Galbraith is awesome ;)

[Greyhound]

46. That is the pile of cowplop they're trying to sell. There is no problem.

The parasites want to get their hands on that $4T, that's the one and only reason this entire "problem" was manufactured.

Stop buying piles of poop and spreading it around.

[mstinamotorcity]

25. Because it is the

way to get people to react. You tell them its going broke and old people or people close to retirement age get scared that their wont be enough for them. Social Security is fine and has a surplus. This was reported on every level. We are good at 100% until 2037 and we are good after that for 75% for about another twenty five years. We will need to make some adjustments as we go along the way,but when the economy changes there will be more to add to Social Security. Whenever you hear repugs telling you that they need to privatize an entity,you know they want to get their hands on people's money. In this case before they are even able to collect. It is a ploy, a scare tactic,and why would you think that all of a sudden repugs have changed their stripes. And when money is involved you may find some of your fellow dems in on the shenanigans. Nothing has changed with them its all about getting their hands on the people's money so they can do with it what they want. Plain and Simple.

[jtown1123]

36. Definitely, Thank you. Wish we had a strong third party.

[mstinamotorcity]

38. You are welcome

Welcome to DU:hi: :hi: :hi: Everyone always thinks its something sinister behind what politicians do. The motive will and always remain the same. Money. You can follow the trail far and wide, but you will always end back at the same motive. Freedomworks,Citizens for Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation. All railed up for money.

[jtown1123]

41. Yupp, it's definitely money

It just sucks not having a good choice of representatives who I believe will vote to protect the people and not the corporations. Some great campaign finance reform regulations I would heartily welcome!

[mstinamotorcity]

54. Dems

fighting words to any politician and music to our ears:fistbump:

[bobbolink]

37. Did you really expect any different? For decades, Dems have ignored the party's

disdain for poor people.

You all should have known this was coming.

[jtown1123]

43. I still had hope we could put enough

pressure on Dems to do the right thing. Guess that's pretty much shot now. What spineless weasels (with exceptions, of course).

[bobbolink]

59. I had no hope, because there aren't enough people who call themselves DEMS who are willing to put th

pressure on!

How many times there has been a simple request on behalf of homeless people here, and it goes largely ignored? Over and over and over.

When do you hear any of the national "progressive" media even talking about homelessness?

Yet, if I were to ask today to start a pressuring program to get even one of the outspoken ones to bring the true facts to light about homelessness.... it would fall flat.

And therein lies the problem. People don't give a flying fuck.

And that can't be blamed on the RW!!

[TheKentuckian]

69. I hear ya. The spectrum shift is deadly, one party can't even utter the phrase "middle class"

and the other is stuck there playing to comfortable suburbanites and can't be bother to mention working class and poor folks.

Well, the middle class better wake up fast because they are going the way of the dinosaur to be replaced as consumers by a more dispersed global middle class and they are going to be struggling to poor themselves.

If you can't be bothered to advocate on behalf of the poor on it's own merits then be advised that you better be laying down a livable floor out of pure self interest.

Even if you maintain, the new poor might be less willing to suck it up and let you enjoy the good life in peace.

Wake up fools!

[bobbolink]

73. "the new poor might be less willing to suck it up "

I have a news blast.... we "old" poor are quickly getting less willing to suck it up!

Anger is definitely building, and if I stoke some flames along the way, I won't regret doing so.

"If you can't be bothered to advocate on behalf of the poor on it's own merits then be advised that you better be laying down a livable floor out of pure self interest."

Wonderfully said! :applause:

That is quotable!

[laughingliberal]

57. The Reagan Democrats took over the party in the 1990's and brought Reagan with them.

You remember Reagan, right? Never met a poor person he thought deserved a break or even a kind word. The poorer you are, the less you deserve. That Reagan. Well, his followers are running our party, now.

Oh, sure. The Republicans talk about him all the time but the DLC is actively pursuing his policies of cutting social programs, entitlements, public education, and anything else the top 1% think should belong to them.

[Edweird]

39. DLC =GOP

[RKP5637]

47. +1000, +++ n/t

[Poboy]

40. K&R

[Greyhound]

44. Because the national party is run by republiks masquerading as Democrats. n/t

:kick: & R

[RKP5637]

48. That's what I think too... I just can't get too excited anymore about what

passes as a democrat today. Some are good, but IMO some are pretty questionable. Maybe when the country goes totally to hell we will get some action... but anymore I think we're just getting a different flavor of the same old stuff.

[Greyhound]

49. I've heard that the chocolate ration is going to be doubled soon. n/t

[RKP5637]

51. Can't wait! Hope the wrappers are editable too! n/t

[bobbolink]

58. !!

:applause:

If that is the platform you are running on, you have my vote! :yourock:

A sticker on my refrigerator, when I used to have a refrigerator:

"Things are getting worse. Please send choklit."

[Poboy]

50. I've resigned to this. Things will need to fall apart before anyone wakes up.

It will happen.

[Barack2theFuture]

62. When something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,

looks like a duck and acts like a duck, isn't it about time to admit that it really IS a duck?

[bluethruandthru]

64. I hate seeing people posting that they're giving up and that

they're resigned to the fact that benefits will be cut and the retirement age raised and that social security may even be privatized!
DON'T GIVE UP! How many emails have you sent to your senators and representatives..no matter what party they belong to..and whether you think it will do any good or not? How many letters or emails have you written to the White House or the DNC or event he RNC, telling them that you will not stand for cuts/raising the retirement age/privatization?
When our leaders...Dems or repukes, don't hear anything from us..they assume we approve of what they're saying and doing.
Let them know - often - how you feel!
If we sit by and do nothing, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

[bobbolink]

81. Do you really think telling people "don't give up" is productive?

Don't you think that just ignoring what people are feeling is one more step in shooing them away?

Wouldn't it be better to ACKNOWLEDGE what people are feeling and why, and listen to them enough to garner some ideas of how that could be built on.... what actions could be taken?

Obama was a neighborhood organizer, and what neighborhood organizers do is go from house to house, listening to what people are thinking and feeling, and helping them to devise strategeries to get from here to there.

Sermons really don't help much.

[bluethruandthru]

82. I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from?

Are you saying that I'm not acknowledging what people are feeling? I realize what people are feeling because I'm one of them! I just don't think it's productive to just say "oh well, the politicians don't listen to us anyway so why bother to write or call them and tell them how we feel". That's all.


Sorry if you thought I was giving a sermon.

[bobbolink]

84. We need to be *heard*. Remember when women joined consciousness raising groups?

Those weren't cheerleading sessions.. those were women sharing their anger and their tears, and HEARING each other.

THAT is where the power for working for progress came from.

Someone who feels like giving up deserves our understanding and our compassion. That is what has worked in the past, and will continue to work. Not dismissing it. Some of us are deeply wounded. Just brushing that aside and telling us "don't give up" comes across as a dismissal.

[bluethruandthru]

86. That's fine!

I'm not saying people who are concerned about what our politicians are planning to do to social security shouldn't be "heard". They can get together and share their anger and tears all they want.
All I'm saying is that doing nothing will accomplish just that...nothing!

I personally feel that writing, calling, faxing or visiting your congressional representatives and voicing your feelings (being "heard") is a good way to let them know what we're feeling.
If you feel that's not valid way express ourselves, that fine.

Ultimately, congress will be deciding on cuts to social security or raising the retirement age or whatever. I just hope others who have feelings about this take the time to let the politicians know how they feel.

[bobbolink]

88. How well has that been working?

You know, many of us have asked for that kind of support here, and get silence.

Telling us "don't give up" just increases our sense of futuility.

WE are part of the problem, and continuing to do what we have done will get the same results.

Clearly, what I am saying won't get through, so I will leave it at this point.

Discouraged.

[bluethruandthru]

91. What kind of support?

I'm sorry but I'm just not understanding why you are so opposed to my saying "don't give up"...or why that's discouraging.

Again, what kind of support have you and others asked for but not received? I support anyone who wants to work for positive change and if that makes me a "cheerleader" - to use your word - then so be it.
My original post was meant to remind people to make themselves heard. That we shouldn't just sit back and let things happen that we don't agree with. Why is that so distasteful to you? I'm sorry that you interpret that as a lecture or sermon. Would you rather I posted that we should all just give up - no one listens to us anyway -there's no hope for ever changing anything - ??
I work in the media and we - like politicians - can become ensconced in our own little world. We need to hear from people if they don't like what we're doing - or if the like what we're doing. We don't want to operate in a vacuum. That's why I've posted many times for people to email the networks if they feel they're being biased or not reporting the facts. It may not always seem that way, but people do pay attention. I'm just hoping it's the same for government.

I don't have all the answers on how to effect change. If you have ideas on what people might do - share them. I'll certainly listen. I'm all for doing whatever needs to be done to make sure that our politicians are hearing us.

[bobbolink]

92. I have posted those ideas over and over and over. I have requested action on things.

Many, many times.

It gets crickets.

I am told it is my issue, and to expect nothing from others. So, I no longer do.

One person can't do it, so no body tell me not to give up.

I really do wish that people would learn how to really hear each other... but that won't happen either.

This is an exact example of what I am talking about.... and it has to do with ALL forms of prejudice, bigotry and lack of rights. No one group has a lock on this, but there is no HEARING from one group to another.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9013036&mesg_id=9013036

People who are feeling like this, and there are many different groups who are feeling exactly like this, don't need the cheerleading. We ALL need the understanding and compassion.

This kind of shit HURTS!

Will it ever be possible for pain to have any meaning again? Do all we get for expressing things like this is more "don't give up"?

[bluethruandthru]

93. Clearly we aren't even talking about the same issue. n/t

[bobbolink]

94. And, clearly it makes no difference to you.

have fun with the sermons.

Then we can take up a collection and sing a hymn.

[bluethruandthru]

95. If I knew what you were bitching about, maybe it would make a difference to me.

But you just keep repeating that "no one" cares or you've been told to shut up or whatever. What are you talking about? What have people here done to you? What cause or issue does no one care about?
I doubt it's Social Security..which was what I was talking about!

I'm not sure why you won't say what it is you want to be "heard" about. I'm also not sure why you're so hell bent on picking a fight with me. I've never said I don't care about whatever your issue is...I've never told you to shut up about it. As far as I know, I've never communicated with you at all!

While I'm off having "fun with the sermons" I hope you have fun wallowing in self pity over whatever it is that no one listens to you about. Sheesh!

[bobbolink]

96. Well, your labels certainly have clarified things, haven't they?

I said plenty that you could understand, if you chose to.

But, you would rather insult and then scream at people to not give up.

The pity I have is for people who cosider themselves soooo superior, and soooo above all else that they can no longer hear the pain of others.

[bluethruandthru]

97. Sorry...not a mind reader. Don't know what your pain is about.

It's fine for you to hurl insults about me preaching to others... but not okay for me to bring up your self pity. I get it. I'm not sure what I chose not to understand but you obviously get off on playing "guess what I'm upset about".

I'm not playing.

[bobbolink]

98. No, and you don't know the pain of others you exhorted to not give up, either.

Now we see the hostility underneath that exhortation.

Tis a pity.

[Vinca]

77. People of any party who want to cut Social Security are self-centered

pigs who do not need SS themselves and want to protect their own boatload of money. Grandma needs to pull herself up by the bootstraps and hit the dumpster.

[KamaAina]

85. The KamaAina Two-Point Plan To Save Social Security

1. Remove the income cap on the FICA tax.

2. Mission accomplished! Move on to the next issue.

[bobbolink]

87. But that wouldn't get rid of all the useless eaters.

[scarletwoman]

89. Good plan. nt

[Hannah Bell]

90. social security doesn't need "saving". and removing the cap is exactly what the ptb want.

it gives them more money to "borrow".