Only 33 of the 75 Progressive Caucus members signed the Social Security letter to Obama.

[madfloridian]

The one asking that Social Security not be harmed by privatization or cuts?

Why did only 33 of them sign the letter? Do the others not plan to stand up for this program that gives seniors a safety net? Are they going to go along with the "bipartisanship" proposed by the White House?

From Talking Points Memo:

Dems Press Obama..Hands Off Social Security!

Ahead of the State of the Union address, House progressives want a word with President Obama about Social Security.

In a letter delivered Friday to request a meeting with President Obama, 33 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus seek assurances that he will not work with Republicans to cut or privatize Social Security.

"There is no Social Security crisis," the members write.

"We believe that cutting Social Security benefits, beyond the already scheduled increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67, will create even greater hardship for our most vulnerable citizens.... We urge you to send a clear message in your State of the Union Address: Hands off Social Security!"

Here is the letter linked from TPM:

Progressive Caucus letter

On the front page of the letter is a list of the entire caucus members, 75 of them. But only 33 signed the letter. Why is that?

The 33 signatories are listed on the last page of the letter link. Page 4. I was going to post the 33 names, but the format does not allow for copy/pasting.

I would like to know why the others did not sign it.

We already know that a first step has been taken to cut funding for present retirees, though it is not called that.

Being in denial about possible damage to Social Security by Democrats is harmful and wrong.

There was a blunt assessment of the effects of the tax deal on Social Security in a recent Palm Beach Post op ed. It was co-authored by Robert Weiner, a former chief of staff of the U.S. House Select Committee on Aging.

This bill puts in motion two devastating policies: lowering taxes for the rich and destabilizing the financing of Social Security. Without sufficient worker and employer matching money, which has kept Social Security solvent for 75 years and helped millions of Americans live out their senior years in comfort, the program could be doomed. Congress and the White House say they want to "protect Social Security's solvency," but this action does just the opposite.

The most dangerous aspect of the payroll tax holiday is that it could become permanent. The new philosophy in Congress seems to be "once a cut, always a cut." When the payroll tax holiday expires in a year, Republicans will insist on keeping it, just as they did with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

The fact that our party has even considered a part of the deficit commission's plans that would harm present retirees and cut their benefits by 3% to 6% is quite breathtaking to me. No Democrats should defend such a thing.

The chairmen’s plan would increase the Social Security retirement age and limit yearly cost-of-living increases to the rate of inflation rather than of wage growth. The cut in annual increases would affect current retirees -- which was supposed to be off the table. Their benefits would go down by about 3 percent after they’ve been retired for 10 years, and about 6 percent after they’ve been retired for 20 years.

And the retirement age increase is just a particularly cruel way of cutting benefits. The age at which the elderly can retire on full Social Security benefits is already increasing to 67 by 2027. The chairmen’s plan would “index” the retirement age to increase in longevity, meaning it would hit 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075.

10 Flash Points from Fiscal Commission's plan

I wonder again why only 33 signed the letter to President Obama? Do they not consider there to be a serious threat to Social Security? Or are they willing to go along with the new "bipartisanship" with the extremist Republicans?

[Faryn Balyncd]

1. K& R

[xchrom]

2. sigh -- i can only think progressives feel that they are backed into a corner and that whatever

they express -- it doesn't matter.

[bobbolink]

10. That's no excuse. You don't give up because its hard... you don't give up because it looks

impossible.

[xchrom]

13. i'm not saying i know anything -- cause i don't.

perhaps they'll surprise us. the unsigned that is.

[Poboy]

3. Recommend.

[Jefferson23]

4. Good question. K&R n/t

[bobbolink]

5. The writing is on the wall.

Its grim today and getting horrifying.

[katnapped]

6. Might be the certain contingent

Constantly telling them to "Shut up and go along or else OH NOES SARAH PALIN"

[FiveGoodMen]

7. What's in a name?

The word 'progressive' apparently doesn't mean anything at all.

[DirkGently]

8. Perhaps a firm deal is already in place.

[madfloridian]

9. I think you are most likely correct.

I hate to believe that, but it may be quite true.

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. It was Rahm. Rahm did it.

It's always Rahm.

Oh, wait a minute...

[bobbolink]

12. i'm soooo surprised that Rep. John Salazar D-CO isn't one of the signatories.

:sarcasm:

:puke:

[Robb]

18. Salazar is nothing but excuses.

John's is probably that his successor Scott Tipton took office almost three weeks ago. ;)

[bobbolink]

21. Really? You know, I didn't even realize he got bumped.

Too bad..... he played his cards wrong, and lost.

Thanks for the update!

He wasn't a member of the progressive caucus anyway, (I don't think)... he's a died in the wool conservative. It really isn't that much of a loss.

[Robb]

82. I think you are confusing your Salazars. nt

[bobbolink]

84. Another erroneous assumption. thanks for playing.

[Robb]

87. Perhaps I've merely misplaced your confusion, then.

But John was hardly the conservative in the House that his brother was in the Senate. I lived in his district, met him many times and supported his previous campaigns. He was defeated by a true knuckledragging conservative bastard, to the detriment of that part of Colorado and indeed the entire House.

Your comment about playing cards is grossly unfair to him and his record, I believe. You are of course welcome to your opinion. My impression was merely that you were confused or misinformed; if that is not the case I'm truly sorry, if disappointed.

[bobbolink]

88. I saw John on the wrong side of many a voting issue.

[mikeburetta]

14. if you cant stand for social security what can you stand for

This should be a no brainer sign on the dotted line no hesitation for a democrat! Social security is the most basic of our safetynets provisions if we let repubs dismantle it what will be left?

[madfloridian]

15. List of the 33 names.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Are they suffering a "What's the bloody use?" moment?

[bobbolink]

22. Many of us are, that is for sure. But when you take on the job of representing a lot of other

people, its somewhat like being a parent... you can't throw in the towel on important things.

[Kaleva]

17. An indication of how much a minority progressives in Congress are.

[Buns_of_Fire]

19. These are the same people who said "no public option, no HCR," right?

Without going into whether or not their Public-Option-or-no-bill-at-all letter to the administration -- and their subsequent caving after the administration told them to go pound sand -- was a good idea, I wouldn't blame the President if he took such a plea from them with a grain of salt or two. He knows now that, by and large, they've proven themselves toothless tigers when it comes to bare-knuckle blood-on-your-teeth political infighting and standing by their stated principles. He knows, when push comes to shove, that they'll go along to get along, just like they do every time.

After all -- as we've been reminded so many times now -- where are they gonna go? And, being politicians, they sure do like those nice offices and cocktail parties and congresscritter pensions and all the other perks.

I'm rapidly coming to the opinion that liberals and progressives are being played every bit as much by most of the people supposedly on "our" side as the teabaggers are being played by Minority Leader Yurtle and Speaker Boner and the rest of the mouth-breathers on Capitol Hill. It's all theatre, the roles have been cast, you ain't in it, and you still have to pay for a ticket to watch.

[Swamp Rat]

20. We The People must stand up...

[DrLax]

23. What's the point?

I see three reasons for most of the caucus not signing.
1. What's in it for them?
2. Creates a disadvantage when negotiating with repubs.
3. They intend to allow the retirement age to increase.

No one is going to defend benefit cuts but there's the possibility they could cave and allow it.

[provis99]

24. why? because this letter is pointless grandstanding.

It is the 33 who should be ashamed of themselves, for what amounts to nothing more than a cynical attempt to embarrass the President and the other members of the Democratic Congressional caucuses.

[madfloridian]

25. "a cynical attempt to embarrass the President".....this is about seniors..

not the president.

I thought we still counted.

Is every effort to speak out when there is deafening silence from the WH on such a vital topic...to be considered a move to "embarrass the president"?

That's pretty sad.

[bobbolink]

27. Of course its not about us. Its all about the president, right or wrong.

[Enthusiast]

47. The President is never wrong.

[Fuddnik]

75. Neither is the Pope.

[neverforget]

29. +1

[somone]

33. Please, His Image must be guarded at all costs

using smoke and mirrors

[bluestate10]

55. Why should democrats take a hit on this?

Seniors voted heavily for republicans in the 2010 midterms. Southern seniors are the heart of the vote that send goonish neanderthals to Congress election after election, even as democrats protected southern senior's SS and Medicare benefits from ravage at the hands of republicans. At the risk of sounding hostile, seniors should get a taste of what they voted for. If democrats wade into the swamp and save seniors, expect more democratic losses in 2012, precisely because people that feel no pain don't appreciate what pain is. The 33 democrats are dead wrong, the 42 that refused to go along are on a more fruitful path. The ill advised 33 need to stand down and let wiser heads craft this fight.

Once seniors get a does of medicine and see which party is on their side, democrats can clean of the mess without facing obstructionism from a republican party that will be too weak to elect county dog catchers.

[madfloridian]

56. That is very convoluted and rather dangerous thinking.

And I wonder about your motives in saying it.

[bluestate10]

59. My motive are building an enormous democratic majority.

And having that majority be more moderate or liberal, even in what is now red states. Democrats have gained nothing from having fought off republicans concerning SS and Medicare for decades, particularly in red states, where the very seniors that democrats are protecting are electing republicans in ever larger numbers. I am all for allowing those seniors to get a dose of the medicine that they vote for, many live under the illusion that some mythical welfare queens that have babies to get more money are taking the national wealth, I say let those seniors see that their benefits and defense take up close to 75% of what is spent annually. The wingnuts that seniors happily vote for are not going to cut defense, even when that means paying billions for an obsolete, poorly conceived Marine amphibious fighting vehicle. Once republicans have caused carnage and have been sent to the insignificant historical footnote that the party should already be, a super majority democratic party can correct the damage without having to deal with republicans obstructing it. The 33 House member's actions are just delaying that democratic super majority and prolonging republican's act of bullshitting seniors.

[madfloridian]

60. It doesn't work that way, sorry.

Until we stand up for what we believe in....nothing will change. The other side never backs down, and they have a propaganda machine we don't have.

[bluestate10]

62. Democrats have done nothing but stand up for seniors.

That has gotten democrats buried in red states. Red state seniors will suffer the most from republican pushed changes to SS and Medicare. I say let red state seniors get a taste of whet they voted for, democrats should focus on building moats around blue states. Like I wrote, my state will take care of it's seniors, even the teabagging seniors. But as teabagging seniors in my state see the carnage that is happening in other states, particularly red states, they would be wise to reflect on how lucky they are to live in a blue state.

[madfloridian]

63. The Democratic president appointed 2 SS privatizers to head the commission.

Wonder why he did that?

Your argument about the Democrats standing for seniors now doesn't hold water. Last year of Bush II seniors got 5% cola....since then not a damn penny.

[bluestate10]

70. Oh please!! COLA changes are determined by the previous year's

Cost of Living Index change. 2007 was a year of robust growth, right up to the very end of that year, the cost of living went up, hence a COLA increase for seniors. The cost of living went down substantially in 2008, 2009, and 2010. By all calculations seniors would get a negative COLA for 2009, 2010 and 2011, but are seeing a negative change only for 2011 after President Obama prevented the negative adjustments in 2009 and 2010, holding the change at zero, ie, no change. Seniors may see a COLA increase in 2012 if the economy continues to grow, which all indicators say it will.

[madfloridian]

72. Yes, I keep hearing that the cost of living is going down.

Yep, that is what they say. But they don't include food and insurance payments and silly stuff like that.

House insurance went up over 50 a month, health insurance over 130 a month, groceries up.

I know of the so-called formula....but people see what happens and judge it by how it affects them.

Don't use the "oh-please" crap with me.....Most seniors know that since Obama has been in office they have not had a COLA raise. They know they had a big one with Bush.

That is how minds work.

I believe you would justify anything in the world to make things look okay.

[boppers]

80. Uhm, you need more information on how COLA is calculated.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_7

---
What goods and services does the CPI cover?
The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:

FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses)
---

The CPI-W has increased, but it hasn't caught up with past increases in payments....

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/cpiw.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/colaseries.html

Rather than back-charge people on Social Security for getting too much in 2008, it's been frozen until inflation catches up with prior increases.

[madfloridian]

86. "Rather than back-charge people on Social Security for getting too much in 2008"

"Rather than back-charge people on Social Security for getting too much in 2008, it's been frozen until inflation catches up with prior increases."

Whose words are those? Yours? Or is it fact?

Look at the last part of the chart you posted:

2005 4.1
2006 3.3
2007 2.3
2008 5.8
2009 0.0
2010 0.0

I don't think you understood my words. I am speaking of how it appears to the seniors who are not understanding the CPI...hell, they don't even understand what Rick Scott stands for. All they know in their little minds is that what I just posted from your chart.

Did they really freeze the COLA deliberately? Is that what you are saying? Then if that is true, our party is really lousy and sorry in the messaging department...don't you think?

Or is it supposition on your part?

You can lecture me all day, though I do understand. It simply won't matter to preach to the choir.

In fact, I don't think I am actually a member of the hosanna choir right now...now after the appt of Duncan. Not after the latest choices for cabinet.

[msanthrope]

90. Don't bring facts in when blaming Obama will do.....n/t

[Jakes Progress]

26. Why are you on DU?

Why do you think taking a stand against cutting SS is a bad thing? Do you favor the commission's suggestions? Just how is it that you think a person should tell the "President and the other members of the Democratic Congressional caucuses" what they want? Why should it shame the President to get a message from his fellow Democrats? Why should it shame Democrats to agree with this letter?

There is plenty of room for shame and cynicism, but it is not from the 33 who signed the letter.

[rhett o rick]

32. Because centrists want to cut Social Security. They worship at the alter of CorpAmerica. nm

[bluestate10]

58. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I am a centrist democrat for reasons. I am no less a democrat than you are. I hold certain core values close to my heart. But why should my party take the lead in protecting a group of voters that is increasingly voting for the other party? Let the other party take the lead in crafting SS legislation. Let republican voting seniors see first hand how bad that legislation can be for them.

I know that my deep blue state will come up with ways to protect it's seniors, even as an unacceptable percentage of them vote against their best interests. If red state seniors are going to be afraid or suffer because the people that they vociferously elected attempt to pass legislation that will damage them, I say let them be concerned, maybe they will wake up.

Democrats have fought a battle for seniors for decades. Where has that gotten the party? As seniors, in particular white seniors in red states have become more comfortable, they have turned against the very party that delivered those comfortable benefits to them and voted for the very party that would have them out on streets begging if it had it's way.

[rhett o rick]

61. So your argument is that we should try to protect Social Security because the seniors dont like us?

Let the ingrates starve. Is that what you are saying? Then why not just let the Republicans take over entirely. You seem to think that the public deserves it. Interesting. I would assume you were rooting for Bush all those years.

I would love to hear what a centrist's core values are.

[bluestate10]

64. You are distorting my words.

I have wrote several times that I EXPECT my state to protect it's seniors regardless of what happens with SS reform. I also pointed out that seniors in red states are the people that are providing victory margins to republicans, if they stayed home or voted for saner democrats, red states would not be the swamps that they are. Do I care if red state seniors run the risk of going hungry, yes I do, I am a %&$#*+ democrat, I would expect that their state's working citizens would come to their aid and if that does not happen, would not be opposed to funds being collected in my state for drives to feed and shelter red state seniors. Am I made at red state seniors? Hell yes I am, their votes are why the country is fighting it's way out an a deep pit.

I tell you what. You dedicate a large dollar amount of your pay to charities that you will never use, you donate more money to foodbanks in your state, you donate money to five different charities outside of the ones already mentioned. You donate new, virtually unused clothing regularly. You, of all the votes that you have made in your life has voted for only one republican that was a moderate. You support your parents financially and morally until their dying breaths. Then you come back and lecture me about what your fucking values are.

[rhett o rick]

65. I didnt lecture you about values. You said you had strong core values. I asked what they were.

I have yet to get a so-called centrist to tell me their values. Tell me how your values differ from the left. There are only two sides. Just because Clinton did less damage than Bush doesnt make him a friend of the working class. There are only two sides. Ruling class and working class. There is no center.

[bluestate10]

71. When no other argument works, whip out the nuke, Class Warfare.

There are more than two sides and many shades of gray in between. Only zealots fail to see that. I am moderate politically, but do more for society than some that call themselves flaming liberal. So what am I, and more importantly, what are flaming liberals that do less than I to better society?

[rhett o rick]

81. So what do the flaming liberals believe that you disagree with?

And if you pay attention to statistics you will notice that the middle class is dying. It isnt a natural thing, it is class warfare.

[rhett o rick]

66. Help me not distort. Is it ok with you if Obama cuts SS benefits? nm

[bluestate10]

73. No. But if cuts do happen, I want red state voting seniors to feel the impact most.

Only then will there be a prayer of the country moving toward being a more equitable society. Red state and pink state seniors are underpinning the very people that not only would destroy SS, but do serious damage to many important social functions of government.

[bluestate10]

57. The 33 need to stand down.

The democratic party has worked it's ass off to protect seniors, in particular red state voting seniors. Where has that concern gotten the party with seniors? Well, in key lost states, 65% of seniors voted republican in the 2010 midterms, costing democrats seats that were winnable. Democrats must let republicans take the lead on SS reform and not act as a shield for republicans. Let seniors see first hand how bad things would be for them if democrats had not sacrificed for decades and lost elections because they were fighting for benefits for people that became so comfortable with those benefits that they lost all sense of how those benefits come about.

There are those that will argue that seniors have earned SS and medicare. How is that? White poor and lower middle class seniors, the very people that are fueling the tea party and republicans have not earned the benefits that they are getting, it is workers like me that are delivering those benefits to them via payment of FICA taxes. I say to those seniors, you vote in a way that goes against my values and your best interests, why should I defend you from the very people that you vote for and stand out in front of post offices collecting signatures for as I run in the post office for a quick mid day bit of business?

[Jakes Progress]

79. Ah. I get it. You're, what, 22?

Bet you hate those nasty unions too. All those old people.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. In 2007 Obama was a politician from Illinois and my Rep

stood up for him early, at great risk. Obama has returned only chiding and insults to him and to us since then. It is he who should be chagrined at his own lack of loyalty, his hesitation to speak clearly about this issue, so vitally important to all Americans.

[rhett o rick]

31. Exactly right. The Democrats should learn a lesson from the Repukes. March lock step with your lead

leader. Never question, never express your concerns.

[Hannah Bell]

39. bullshit

[sabrina 1]

44. Sometimes I can't believe the things I read here.

Who cares about the president? It is he who is supposed to care about the people and it looks like he may very well go along with the Republicans ONCE AGAIN on an issue that is one of the most important issues to a majority of the American people in this country today?

If he takes a single dime from the elderly, he is finished. No one is going to be reading or listening to ANY excuses. He is a DEMOCRAT, and no democrat will ever touch SS. If he does, he is no democrat and that will be the last straw for millions of people.

No raising of the retirement age

No refusing to pay Cost of Living increases, he's already done that to his eternal shame while he doled out billions to his buddies on Wall St.

I don't care about him, he is fine, his family will be fine. I care about the millions of elderly and disabled and dependent children who need MORE not less of the money THEY own. So, he better not even be thinking of giving any of it his corporate buddies. He has too many rich, and corrupt friends. Where are the ordinary people in this president's inner circle?

If the thought of touching SS has entered his head, he deserves to be embarrassed.

[madfloridian]

53. 2 years without cost of living raises to Soc. Sec. have hurt.

[tomp]

45. grandstanding? debatable. pointless? you're full of shit. nt

[Enthusiast]

48. No shit, full of shit. +1 nt

[inna]

68. unbelievably dumb and disgusting post.

sickening.

[Raine]

69. Yeah it's all about Obama and all about his re-election

forget what's important to the people or what's best for them. At all costs Obama must never be embarassed by progressives. :sarcasm:

[cui bono]

89. The president doesn't need any help embarrassing himself.

He's doing a fine job of it by himself. He is no democrat. I wish he would just change his party affiliation and be honest with us.

[Better Believe It]

28. Only 33 signers for what is the weakest mealy mouthed plea to President Obama one can imagine.

So these 33 signers "stand by" President Obama and urged him to reaffirm his "support for guaranteed Social Security".

Wow.

I think President Obama can do that while at the same time he and Democratic Party leaders in Congress support cuts in benefits.

As long as current recipients get a check that "guarantees" Social Security.

Intentionally drafting a weak statement did not have the desired effect of winning a significant number of signers. They couldn't even get most of the "progressive caucus" to sign on!

And if they had prepared a strong statement in defense of Social Security and in opposition to any cuts they might have only obtained a dozen or so signers.

Well, they did do something.

Anyone think they might call upon the people to March on Congress or engage in other mass protests in defense of Social Security?

Probably not.

That would really get the administration pissed off at liberals and them.

[tomp]

46. so the signers are to the right of the non-signers? nt

[Better Believe It]

77. That's not what I wrote or suggested. The non-signers have little or no backbone to fight ....

those who want to cut government deficits on the backs or working people and the elderly.

Not even enough to sign a most respectful letter begging President Obama to maintain the social security system!

[madrchsod]

34. they are cowards

[madfloridian]

35. Having Jonathan Alter on TV to discuss Soc. Sec. cuts....pathetic.

He is spinning it on Countdown. No, they do not have to put everything on the table....just quit giving tax cuts to the effing billionaires.

[bluestate10]

76. The party that seniors put in control is the party that gave tax breaks to billionaires.

So, why is it not logical that is what seniors want? The national debt can't be allowed to keep ballooning, something has to give. Seniors voted in record numbers during the 2010 midterms and special elections and gubernatorial elections before midterms and stated emphatically that they wanted tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires preserved, republican candidates were clear on where they stood on the tax issue. Now, something has to give, millionaires and billionaires have their prize off the table for two more years and potentially forever if seniors continue to vote in republicans. There are only three budget items that can be cut enough to make a difference, SS, Medicare and Defense. Defense is being dragged off the table by hawks from defense industry heavy districts, sooo!!

[Jakes Progress]

36. Some doubted early.

Some only wondered at first and then came to see.

Some have only recently come to understand.

A few will just keep their eyes closed.

We are witnessing the end of the Democratic Party as the party of the people.

[madfloridian]

37. That was the goal after all....not having to take stands that kept us from winning.

Yes, one of the DLC founders really said that.

"freed... from positions making it difficult for us to win. "...Simon Rosenberg."

"Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

Looks like they finally made it.

[Jakes Progress]

38. Yep. Moral-free, conscience-empty party of winners.

I think the whole thing went like this.

American People: "We want this immoral war stopped. We want corporations to be responsible to the world and the community. We want to ..... Ooooh! Look at the handsome man who speaks so well. Ooooh! Never mind that other stuff. We want that."

[Enthusiast]

49. Yup nt

[bertman]

40. It's good to see that at least 33 solid Progressives signed. It's bad to see

how many cowards there are who will sell their souls and sell out America's senior citizens for another two years in the House.

REC.

[madfloridian]

42. Agreed.

[bluestate10]

74. I disagree.

Red is creeping into blue states. If the seniors that are the primary drivers of that creep do not feel the impact of their votes, expect to see more blue states go less blue in 2012 and less blue in 2014. Democrats have been the resolute protectors against craziness in regards to SS, seniors have repaid them for that by electing harshly conservative republicans. Explain to me again why you think not breaking that trend is good? Explain to me why any democrat that wants to keep making sound public policy should not allow republicans to take the lead while democrats work to limit damage? President Obama has his hands tied, seniors, as the key voting block have given the House to republicans and may give the Senate to republicans in 2012 if Democrats continue their pattern of protecting seniors from their votes.

[bertman]

78. The flaw in your premise bluestate10 is that the Democrats have not faced

a challenge of protecting SS like the one they face now. The most recent attacks on SS came when Dubya announced after his 'mandate' in '04 that he was going to focus on privatizing SS. Remember the uproar?

Seniors (of whom I am one) have been watching the Democratic party abandon every vestige of their role as protectors of the American working class. The two most recent examples being the debacle of so-called Healthcare Reform. The President and his Democratic majority abandoned the Public Option that was overwhelmingly supported by huge majorities of Democrats, Independents, and even a majority of Republicans. Our President's hands were not tied during that capitulation to the Health Insurance/Big Pharma cabal. He held them behind his back. In fact, he ignored his own campaign promises and the will of the American people to come up with a half-assed plan that made a small percentage of Americans happy.

The next full retreat by the Democratic party came when they had a chance to enact meaningful reform to correct the fraud and abuse we all watched tear our economy apart. Instead of dropping the hammer on their Wall Street financial backers they did exactly what the Republicans do, they talked big and then did jack shit. The same financial ponzi scheme is still in effect now and the employment picture for senior Americans is bleaker than ever. And let's don't forget the hit to their retirement plans that left many of them wondering how they were going to live a decent life, much less enjoy retirement.

Seniors are not blind, deaf, and dumb, nor are they RW crazies as you seem to suggest. Of course, there are a few of the TeaBaggers who are prominently displayed on national TeeVee as a 'movement' but they are only a fraction of the senior vote. Seniors saw what Bush was trying to do to them and elected a Democratic majority in Congress in '06. Then they elected a Democratic majority AND a Democratic President in '08. But they got fucked by the Democratic leadership that is now just an arm of Wall Street and the Military Industrial Corporate Complex. So the seniors who voted in '10 voted for another change. They might vote the other way in '12, but they sure as hell don't think of the Democrats as protectors of SS now that President Obama has appointed the Catfood Commission when he didn't have to do a damned thing.

[zeos3]

41. K&R

[vssmith]

43. When there are not enough jobs to go around you need to encouarage early retirement

[progressoid]

50. Woohoo! 33!!11!

Well that's, um, let's see...4 minus 3...carry the two...rounding up equals...%7.6.

Well, that fucking reassuring. %7.6 thinks SS is a cause worth signing their names to a non-binding document.

[sweetapogee]

51. Question?

What is the purpose of "signing a letter" when any of the changes being contemplated would have to debated and approved by congress anyway?

[blindpig]

52. Looks like a done deal.

Just a matter of squabbling over the details.

WE ARE ON OUR OWN.

Get used to it, be prepared to take responsibility.

This makes it abundantly clear that the political class is determined to rob us workers at the behest of their masters. That rump which signed serve no other purpose than to give 'hope' to the gullible, they are legislatively useless.

[Swamp Rat]

67. The rest of America better wake the fuck up, and prepare for hard times.

"Get used to it, be prepared to take responsibility."

I learned the hard way that we are on our own.

[blindpig]

91. Yes, indeed.

If I wore tin foil I'd call it a test run, but in truth Katrina was a node on a general trend.

[bluestate10]

54. Since republicans have the majority in the House.

Democrats in the House should stand down and let republicans lead on Social Security. That leading will prove to be the end of the republican party. Democrats in the Senate will drop anything passed in the House like a bad date, so there is nothing to be lost by letting republicans craft insane SS bills with all House democrats voting against and the Senate killing the foolish bills. With such a strategy, democrats will show teabagging retirees who really is on their side and either induce them to vote democratic in 2012 or stay their asses home. The abstaining 42 have it right, the letter signing 33 are without a clue.

[stillwaiting]

83. I have absolutely no idea what progressive means any more to those in power.

The words "progressive" and "liberal" have been co-opted by powerful interests to represent positions which do not threaten the status quo.

That's not progressive or liberal, and it never will be.

Shameful behavior by "progressives" in Congress. Beyond words.

[sarcasmo]

85. This tells me that Social Security is in dire straits.