Elizabeth Warren to Congress: Grandma "Will Be Left to Starve" If We Cut Social Security

[n2doc]

By Erika Eichelberger

On Monday afternoon, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) delivered a speech on the Senate floor slamming those on Capitol Hill who want to cut Social Security in order to balance the budget, and calling on Congress to expand the program instead.

"This is about our values," the senator said, "and our values tell us that we don’t build a future by first deciding who among our most vulnerable will be left to starve."

Lawmakers have to come to an agreement to fund the government by mid-January, and some are floating Social Security cuts as a bargaining chip in a possible budget deal. Even President Barack Obama's last budget proposal contained cuts to the program.

Warren says slashing retirement benefits for elderly Americans is an absurd idea. Warren noted that Social Security payments are already stingy, averaging about $1,250 a month. Plus, an increasing number of Americans can no longer count on healthy pensions through their job. Two decades ago, 35 percent of jobs in the private sector offered workers a traditional pension that provided monthly payments retirees could rely on. Today, that number is only 18 percent. Some 44 million workers get no retirement help from their employers.

more
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/11/elizabeth-warren-social-security-retirement

[Autumn]

1. Elizabeth Warren gets it.

I would have thought Obama would, but he doesn't.

[winter is coming]

2. He should be intellectually capable of doing the math.

Which begs the question of why he doesn't.

[JoePhilly]

6. Maybe he hates America?

[Autumn]

13. He's a smart man, thats for sure.

[n2doc]

27. He has different priorities n/t

[polichick]

3. She definitely says the right things, but then...

so did he once upon a time.

[Autumn]

4. Rather strange isn't it how that works.

I never thought I would live to see the day a Democrat would offer SS up on the bargaining table.

[polichick]

5. Know what ya mean - that's why this moment is so critical...

The party has to decide what it is - who it serves.

[Autumn]

7. I have a sinking feeling in my gut we will find out before too long. n/t

[woo me with science]

9. The only hope is with the proles.

The nation has to demand it.

That's why ALL the propaganda is geared toward disrupting and silencing.

They don't want this pushback to catch fire in the national narrative.

[L0oniX]

33. Over 1/2 of the budgit goes to the military ...and they talk about cutting SS.

Either they are not Democrats anymore or the term Democrat does not mean what it used to mean or represent what it used to. I would ask everyone to examine what the progressive party in all its forms has historically been and compare it to what is believed to be Democratic ideals today. Democrats will need to decide if they really are progressive or other.

[woo me with science]

8. That's why, although I am delighted to hear so much talk

of potential candidates who will actually stand for the 99 percent, I still think we are missing the biggest issue of all: corporate money in politics.

It's great to talk about jailing bankers.
It's great to talk about defending SS and Medicare.
It's great to talk about progressive taxation.

But the single most important issue needs to be the corruption of our entire SYSTEM by corporate money and influence. Otherwise, it all keeps happening.

We desperately need public financing of campaigns, and we need to get people into office who will be serious about dismantling the massive structural corporate rigging of our government.

[BrotherIvan]

11. ^^This!^^

It could have started in 2008, but now I fear we will have to get public financing another way.

[Laelth]

12. I hear you.

But "discussing" the problem of money in politics gets us nowhere. The only entity capable of addressing this issue is the SCOTUS. We need some retirements and we need a Democrat elected in 2016 to make the necessary changes on the Court to undo that insidious line of cases that says "money=speech." Until that happens, "taking about" the influence of money in politics accomplishes little.



-Laelth

[woo me with science]

14. edit: Yeah, I definitely hear the chicken and egg problem.

We need a non-corporate candidate to un-rig the system, including the SCOTUS, but we need the system un-rigged in order to elect a non-corporate candidate. It's maddening.

I still want to hear about it, though. It's a goal that needs to be in the national consciousness.

Preferably, I'd like to hear about it from the candidate who will set this nation on fire by making it clear that his or her candidacy is ALL about stopping the corporate rape of America.

[Laelth]

16. Certainly nothing wrong with talking about it.

The national consciousness could benefit from keeping the issue front and center.

Agreed on that.

-Laelth

[LuvNewcastle]

25. We've gotten to the point where this is ALL that matters.

We can't get anything worthwhile done without stopping corporate money/power.

[airplaneman]

21. I agree SCOTUS is where the problem resides.

To really win we need to win the house, strengthen the senate and take states like Texas and Florida. There are too many republican governers out there. Unless we make inroads and I think 2014 is pivotal, we will not win this battle.
-Airplane

[Half-Century Man]

22. There is a way to side step the corporate SCOTUS.

A convention to amend the constitution called by the states.
Visit wolf-pac.com and find out about it.
The supreme court has to gauge things by the active constitution. Change the document, change the interpretation.

[Laelth]

23. Hmm ...

A constitutional amendment (alone) would do it, but we lack support from the States to do so at this time.

A new constitutional convention, on the other hand, could change everything, and I think that's a really bad idea.

-Laelth

[Half-Century Man]

24. No, I have to disagree. The logic is sound the the support is growing.

Hit the website and see. It is worth the trip.
www.wolf-pac.com

[L0oniX]

34. Balance of power must be enforced.

[Half-Century Man]

35. It does preserve the balance of power.

Just a slightly different balance. State vs Federal. The states call for the convention to draft and ratify on their own an amendment for the constitution.
Just check the site
www.wolf-pac.com

[polichick]

17. The only way I see to do this is to make the money irrelevant...

Go around the establishment and play a new game, create a new system - a grassroots social-media driven campaign that has little to do with TV ads, "public financing" in its truest form.

A first-step would be to "draft" a candidate - a Warren, Sanders, someone trusted by the people - and build from there.

[woo me with science]

18. +10000

Absolutely.

They depend on our acceptance of the limited corporate narrative.

We need to DRIVE the narrative and present a candidate whose entire candidacy is built around stopping the corporate rape of Americans.

And this may be our last chance. They already surveil it, and they are working to seize control of the internet as we speak.

[polichick]

20. Yes - we have a window of opportunity...

The stage for a digital populist movement has been set but the ptb will close down the show as soon as they can. Maybe this is what Sanders understands, why he's willing to jump in.

[bvar22]

28. THAT is exactly how they have done it in Latin America.

Word of Mouth.
They have accomplished nothing short of near bloodless Ballot Box revolutions.
Another South American country joined their ranks last week by electing a "socialist" president.

In many Latin American countries, the 99% have been successfully taken their
government back from the hands of the Oligarchs who have owned ALL the Media.
They have given us a successful Blue Print for "change".
It CAN happen here too.

When the American Working Class and Poor realize WE have more in common with each other than we have in common with the 1% and their mouth pieces in Washington,
then WE can have [change too.

Spread the WORD.
We outnumber them.
VIVA Democracy!

[polichick]

29. Did they draft candidates or did someone step up on his/her own?

I'm trying to imagine the initial organization - wondering if it could grow from an org. like boldprogressives or what.

[bvar22]

30. Obama claimed to "get it" back in 2008:

[Laelth]

10. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

[L0oniX]

19. Military first ...people ...ehh ...who cares. Message received!

[Grey]

26. I knit for Warren……..K&R

[TheKentuckian]

31. If you can't grasp this then just register TeaPubliKlan and be done with it

better yet, the Libertarian party is looking for recruits.

[liberal_at_heart]

32. she is a warrior for the people.

[avaistheone1]

36. That she is!

[libdem4life]

37. Love everything I have seen and heard. I don't want her to stop what she's doing, aka selfish, yet

has anyone seen her with a gaggle of feisty and often nasty reporters trying to rattle her and prod her? Asking stupid questions to an academic? One thing I notice is that she usually reads directly from notes, well-written and well-delivered, and the content cheers me up. But how would she hold up when her natural role of being the authority along or when her superior (at least to most of them) intelligence is called into question?