As I understand the Third Way argument, we have to cut Social Security, and if we don't

[Recursion]

then in a few decades we will face an absolute nightmare that will require us to... cut Social Security.

As far as I can tell, that's what this comes down to. We have to put cuts in place now, or else we'll have to put cuts in place later.

I've caught hell here for being willing to accept means testing for SS in return for something from the GOP (which they're currently in no condition to deliver, so it's a moot point until their caucus figures out which of them are actually in charge). But even to me, the Third Way position doesn't make any sense whatsoever: in "response" to a non-existent "crisis", we have to lower payments so that we won't face the horrifying prospect of having to lower payments.



I doubt it goes anywhere, personally, but there's no sense letting them change the goalposts of "mainstream" discussion more than they already have been...

[awoke_in_2003]

1. The third way...

Is nothing but republicans. They call themselves dems, but who are the kidding?

[djean111]

2. Evidently, a lot of Democrats, and quite successfully, too.

I have no doubt I will be reading third way crap right here at DU presented as Democratic campaign fodder. And ya know what? All the third way offal in the world will not get one Republican to vote Democrat, they KNOW that.

[awoke_in_2003]

3. And our evident candidate for president...

Hillary, is amongst the bunch. Ex Walmart board member, still a 1%er.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. Hillary, Queen of the DLC. Wanna be GOP. Fools plenty of DEMs, though!

[awoke_in_2003]

20. What really sucks about our system...

is in order to get national office, you have to be a sell out. Wall Street presents us with two candidates to chose from, we go to the polls, hold our nose, and vote for someone who doesn't give a damn about us.

[tazkcmo]

62. That doesn't matter

What matters is her gender and that's it. If you don't vote for her and you're male, you're a chauvenist or misogynist. Walmart board? meh.

[awoke_in_2003]

65. If she wins the primary I will vote for her...

I will not vote for her in the primary.

[tazkcmo]

66. ok

i won't.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. Getting Republicans to vote for them is not the point.

Getting Wall $$$treet to vote for them (with their dollar$$$) is the point.

Wall Street doesn't mind abortions, gun control, or gays, so the Turd Way gets to pose as liberals on social issues.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. Like the old...

good cop, bad cop.

[RC]

37. That is not the point.

The point is to make Democrats think the 3rd Way is main stream Democratism. And it is working all too well.
A reading of DU will show that.

[djean111]

40. Yes, what used to be the tenets of the Democratic party are now jeered at as

unicorns, ponies, and we see that foully misused phrase "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".
And we get called trolls and infiltrators when we call bullshit.

[L0oniX]

58. Goes right along with the "who else you gonna vote for" gang.

Let's all get all kumbaya and vote for the centrist because the lefty won't have a chance. If you don't vote for the centrist you are voting against the Dems ...2016 primary DU angst ...and there will be mass DU purging again to eliminate those nasty progressive lefties.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. I don't believe anyone ...

here, or IRL, considers 3rd Way, main stream Democratism, but rather just a wing of the Democratic Party.

[sabrina 1]

38. That's why they infiltrated the Dem Party. They know that some people will vote for

the letter after the name and make all kinds of excuses as to why 'we need their votes' and why we have to vote for them in order to have a majority.

It's pretty clever and it apparently works. On some people.


They need more than one party to get the job done. They worked on that for a long time then began working on the Dem Party.

[L0oniX]

59. I blame both Clintons for this ...and that's putting it mild enough to avoid the jury clowns.

[sabrina 1]

70. I do too but they were not the architects of the DLC, and I wish we had known more about

all this a whole lot sooner. Now that we do, what can be done about it?

[Populist_Prole]

29. They're republicans with somewhat more leftist social views IMO

I remember a growing meme in the mid-late 80's to 90's of poeple ( many of them my social peers ) boasting of "being socially liberal but fiscally conservative" long before any official "third way" proclamation was made.

It's a bit more complicated than that though: One might think the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" = Libertarian, but in this case not really. They don't mind being do-gooders of sorts and don't mind government doing good things. It's just that at their core, they don't give a damn about the working class.

[Prophet 451]

4. The problem with means testing...

... is that it always triggers a race to the bottom where the level you have to be under gets lower and lower and, because it's now a program for "poor people", the benefits get smaller and it becomes the very first thing on the chopping block. Every single time.

[thesquanderer]

9. Examples? (n/t)

[Prophet 451]

10. Well, I'm British

But I woulkd mention our unemployment benefit. The figure you're allowed to have in savings gets lower all the time. And observation of your own politics shows that when something is thought of as being for poor people, it's always first on the chopping block. See the recent cuts to food stamps for example.

[thesquanderer]

12. Okay, so a little hyperbole?

Food stamps have a long history of changes, sometimes up, sometimes down.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap

As I understand it, the recent cut is the first across-the-board cut, and it happened, not because there was a vote to cut it, but because there was not a vote to reauthorize the "temporary" increase that was approved in 2009, so the temporary increase expired. (And while it's a real problem, I think calling the expiration of a temporary increase a cut is a little disingenuous, in the same way that I don't like calling the expiration of Bush's "temporary" tax cuts a "tax increase," an accusation the right has long thrown against Obama. But I guess that's another conversation.)

Anyway, I don't see more eagerness to diminish the means tested food stamp program than there is to diminish the non means tested social security. Both are currently under attack. So I'm not sure I see the evidence of your premise that means testing makes something a bigger target for cuts. And over the years, the food stamp program, while always means-tested, has seen both increases and decreases of various sorts, so I also don't see the correlation between means-testing and a race to the bottom.

So since you listed food stamps as an example of the race to the bottom that always happens, well, can you mention any other?

Whether you means test them or not, there are going to be people who support food stamp and social security programs, and people who don't. Obamacare is not means tested, everyone is eligible, and there are people eager to knock that down as well. (Yes, the subsidies are means tested, but that's not the part that has its opponents up in arms.) Some people are just not supportive of government assistance programs, means-tested or not, and I'm not sure means-testing alters that equation very much.

We've had means-tested programs that sometimes increase, we have non-means-tested programs that people are trying to cut. Bottom line, while I do understand the reasoning behind worrying that making something means-tested might make it a bigger target, I think saying that "it always triggers a race to the bottom...Every single time" is, at best, a bit of hyperbole.

[Prophet 451]

14. Maybe a bit hyperbolic

OK, I'll concede the point. I am maybe using cynicism as a guide more than I should.

[jeff47]

17. Food Stamps, Medicaid, Welfare, CHIP

basically what Republicans & DLC-ers do to every single program for the poor.

While there is now an attack on Social Security, it's been the "third rail" of US politics for decades. Even the people attacking it couch their attacks in positive terms - they're "Strengthening" it!

Meanwhile, Welfare was such a horrible thing that it got slashed repeatedly until it was eliminated under Clinton - TANF is a hollow shell of what welfare was.

[AgingAmerican]

25. That's exactly what would happen

...because of the political climate in the US.

[FogerRox]

48. Here in the states, means testing an entitlement program makes it legally welfare

The author of the 1935 SS law knew that and wrote the law without any means testing. thats why its been popular since 1935, SS benefits avoid the stigma of being on the dole, or welfare..

[Bearheim]

6. The Third Way is

Nothing more than rich folks desperately trying to avoid removing the cap from SS tax, as well as ever mentioning that we might just need to hike Medicare taxes.

[Aerows]

81. Bingo

And start with the members of Congress, all of whom make WAY above the cap.

[silvershadow]

7. All they gotta do is lift the cap on income re: contributions, problem solved forever.

Third way doesn't want to go there. They think the rest of us don't see through their crap.

[joeglow3]

15. Benefits paid are based on what is paid in

All this will do is give bigger payouts to the rich.

[jeff47]

18. There's a cap on payouts. (nt)

[FogerRox]

49. The cap is on income, see AIME forula. the top benefit is about 31k

there is actually no cap on benefits, since benefits are based on earnings and earnings are capped.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. I have no problem with seeing the rich get a few more bucks

if that is the price for dramatically increasing the payouts to those closer to the bottom.

[FogerRox]

50. Rough numbers, raise the cap to where it was after the 1983 Reagan SS deal: 90%

right now the income cap is at about 84% ($113,700), 90% (216k) that would increase benefits by $2,000-$3,000 for the average senior, the top benefit would go from just under 31k to about 37k. And the left over money can go into the Trust Fund, about 30 billion a year.

For Dems this is a wining deal.

[Jackpine Radical]

63. I'll take your word for the numbers, but yeah, that's exactly what I mean.

The point is that, regardless of what we think is fair, we have to make the deal at least somewhat palatable to the rich, and that means letting them benefit somewhat from the change too.

[Laelth]

8. I don't think that argument is what's driving the Third Way.

The real argument goes something like this. We need SS reform because that's what Wall Street wants. Eventually, they want SS privatized with all that cash available for speculation on Wall Street so that more people can become fabulously rich, and if we don't give Wall Street what it wants, they won't donate any money to us, and, if that happens ... Republicans!

To which most liberals respond ... if I wanted Republican policy, I'd vote for Republicans. What's the point in having two parties fighting to see who can most quickly give Wall Street what it wants?



-Laelth

[AgingAmerican]

26. The third way is driven by a fantasy

....that implementing half Democratic policies and half Republican policies will magically bring about a utopia of bipartisanship in which Dems and Republics Koombaya together.

But all it does is make the third wayers look like idiots and wreak even more economic havoc because it includes the problem as part of the solution.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. I think that's their line for public consumption. Bipartisanship and all that. But

Laelth is exactly on the mark regarding the underlying motivations and grand scheme.

Wall Street has the money. Politicians need money. Therefore they dance to the tune of the ones paying the piper.

[Egalitarian Thug]

42. Not a fantasy, an agenda. The 3rdway, formerly known as the DLC, was begun and financed

by a backroom deal between From&Co. and the leading promulgators of what 41 called the New World Order. They took millions of dollars from Coors, Koch, Citi, etc. to bring about neo-feudalism in the U.S with a great big 'D' on it. They really do believe that they're the masters of the universe and know what is best for them.

We won the battles, but the Fascists (that's what this really is) won the war.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. And those voting for 3rd Way candidates ...

in general elections, are making the calculation that getting those half Democratic policies is better than getting no democratic policies. I doubt many here would vote for a 3rd Way candidate in a primary; but when given the choice between a 3rd Way candidate and a republican, the choice for most of us is a no brainer.

However, the "lesser of two evils" choice is something that everyone does, everyday of their lives ... The fantasy is believing that this choice doesn't/wouldn't/shouldn't apply in politics, as it does in every other aspect of our lives.

[AgingAmerican]

69. Absolute tripe

Getting Democratic policies is better than getting watered down Republican policies, which is what comes out of the third way. The third way is absolute nonsense.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. All or nothing, right? ...

Something "watered down" is a STEP TOWARDS something more desirable i.e., progress. To make it clear, the "watered down republican healthcare plan ... the ACA, is better than the republican healthcare plan ... No? And it's a step towards single payer ... No?

[great white snark]

74. Exactly.

Having some kind of representation in the south or having the majorities to hold chairmanships mean nothing to the purist "all or nothing" crowd. Very selfish IMHO.

[AgingAmerican]

76. Republicans in the south hate Obama and the third way

...and would never vote for them. You are saying that if the Democrats are anything but watered down GOP, they are some sort of 'purist' whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

You are delusional.

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. That is nothing like what GWS was saying ...

It is true that republicans in the south hate PRESIDENT Obama and everything Democratic; but that does not mean Democrats must oppose anything non-progressive Democrat, i.e., 3rd Wayers, because even a 3rd-Wayer win, in the south, will support a progressive social agenda AND give Democrats a majority in the House, i.e., committee chairs ... ergo, agenda setting.

[AgingAmerican]

75. Watered down Republican policies

Are a step towards the right wing cliff.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. So ...

the ACA is a step off the right wing cliff ... as opposed to a step TOWARDS the progressive desire of single payer? Please ... tell that to the 1,000,000 that now have/can get health insurance.

[AgingAmerican]

82. Things like austerity

You know, republican policies that wrecked the economy in the first place?

The ACA is the old market based Republican plan and it has nothing to do with single payer.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. Okay n/t

[AgingAmerican]

84. I see no reason whatsoever for any Democrat to implement Republican policies

ever.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Well ...

We clearly disagree.

I would rather see incremental change based on the political reality than policy stagnation ... ever if it means realizing a baby step such as the ACA. And so would the millions that now have access to health insurance.

[AgingAmerican]

86. I still don't see the rational for offering GOP policies

What is the use in offering them? How is that a baby step? It's a step backwards.

To Obama's credit, it appears he has seen the error of his ways. He hasn't offered up the poor or middle class to the Republicans for zero in return since the last government shutdown. Hopefully we will see no more of it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Does the republican designed ACA offer ...

health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions, limit the out of pocket cost for healthcare, remove the life-time cap on payments, establish a medical loss ratio, or not?

Compare that to what existed prior to its passage. How is that a step backwards?

[AgingAmerican]

88. Austerity is a step backwards

nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. The ACA isn't austerity. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

89. The ACA institutionalizes the problem

Corporate insurance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. I guess Vermont didn't get the memo ...

and every other state can do the same ... thanks to the ACA.

[polichick]

35. Yes - it's easy to miss their true intentions...

Because we don't want their true intentions to be what they are.

[Laelth]

43. Quite so.

I don't want to believe that about 3rd Way politicians, but, despite the fact that my skull is rather thick, the truth keeps seeping in. It's disconcerting, to say the least.

-Laelth

[polichick]

45. I think they're counting on people blocking the truth...

for just long enough to finish the job. Scary.

[DJ13]

57. Theres also another reason that coincides with what Wall St wants

If SS is cut theres less money that needs to be repaid to the trust fund out of future federal revenues, which (in their minds) would allow continued low tax rates on the 1% and corporations.

[Laelth]

60. Quite true. n/t

-Laelth

[Warren Stupidity]

11. means testing? Fuck that shit.

Everyone pays in, everyone gets a pension. Its been working just fine for 80 years.

[L0oniX]

24. Does raising the cap relate to "means testing"?

It's not like the 1 to 10% can't afford to keep paying into SS.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I'm actually against raising the cap as it would just result

in the continuing use of the regressive payroll tax to hide the deficit under the SS surplus. The cap rises with COLA, lockstep with benefits, and that is at it should be. If there ever is a shortfall it will be temporary and it should be covered by general revenue, not by benefit cuts.

Oh and income tax rates should go back to the multi-step progressive rates in existence before the Great Bamboozlement started in 1981.

[FogerRox]

52. No relation. There is no means testing in SS retirement.

Let me be clear, legally an entitlement program that is means tested is a welfare program. We know what the GOP says about welfare programs.

Create 20 million jobs, raise the min wage and watch the FICA roll in, SS will good thru 2090.

Expanding SS benefits is fairly straight forward, I explain it here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4142762

There isnt any good reason to cut SS benefits or use means testing, unless you want to destroy SS and hurt seniors.

[L0oniX]

54. IMO the cap is a means limit. It's a reverce means testing.

Ya think? I dunno ...seems like we're saying if you make over an amount you don't have to pay anymore. That looks like something ....maybe not "means" but it is a measurement.

[FogerRox]

64. In essence you have a point. but from the legal standpoint there is no means test.

Benefits are calculated on earnings, using bend points:



If I have this right: if your monthly earnings were over $4,624, only 15% of that is calculated for benefits. See second bend point.

[AgingAmerican]

27. Means testing works in other countries, but it would never work here

because of the political climate against 'socialism'.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Means testing indeed would be fine if there was a general consensus

that food clothing shelter healthcare and a basic comfortable standard of living was a fundamental right, not a privilege. We do not have that consensus.

[AgingAmerican]

47. Right

nt

[CTyankee]

13. The best person to explain the progressives argument persuasively is Paul Krugman.

He neatly and crisply cuts through the fog of arguments for cutting SS in a nicely big picture way, as he does with lots of RW crap economics. He delivers, IMO.

[upi402]

16. We need to tax the filthy rich, not kill the middle class and elderly

Until the media is reformed, we will be stuck on stupid and misinformed. Obama says 'the people' will change things.. But not if we're propagandized thoroughly. That's a huge punt.

[vinny9698]

19. No Labels, Third Way all are for the 1%

Their concern is saving their money.

[antigop]

21. Are the Third Way Foundation and the Third Way "think tank" the same thing?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/02/1228573/-Progressive-THIRD-WAY-FOUNDATION-Funded-by-the-WALTONS

According to dailykos, the Waltons fund the foundation.

Be sure to see interactive chart...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/woe1/9427021362/

[grantcart]

22. I don't know about the third way part of your OP but

both the Social Security Trust and the Medicare Trust face MANDATORY cuts when the Chief Actuary certifies that the amount in the trust is no longer to able to sustain payments at current rates.

With more people living longer some adjustments will almost certainly have to be made. (BTW Obamacare is going to have a dramatically helpful impact on Medicare which is in much more trouble than Social Security).

If nothing were to be done the first cuts are estimated to be about 22% for social security.

Obviously the sooner one makes adjustments then the smaller those adjustments will be.

Democrats generally prefer to increase income and Republicans generally prefer to cut or delay benefits.

It is unlikely that either side will get enough votes to control the President, Senate and Congress so compromises are suggested from time to time, but none ever have enough support to pass so the problem gets passed on and then the next time the changes required will be greater.

[L0oniX]

23. Cut the fucking military budget 50% and pay back SS for the robbery.

Raise the cap. Add a opulence tax for "B"illionaires. No one "needs" a billion dollars. People "need" food and shelter".

[JEB]

39. That is so fourthway, it just might work.

The solutions are obvious and obviously being ignored.

[geek tragedy]

28. The Third Way argument is that it's either small cuts on everyone or giving

current recipients a handout while screwing future recipients with a massive cut.

That's the argument, not saying I believe it.

[djean111]

41. Because, evidently, tweaking the cap or doing something concrete about unemployment and

low wages is unthinkable.

[geek tragedy]

46. Congress do something to create jobs and raise incomes? Ha! nt

[FogerRox]

53. Serious job creation would add more FICA, SS good thru 2090, Nah----- cant have that.

[Logical]

44. Means testing would piss a lot of people off! Nt

[BlueStreak]

51. How about we collect taxes on the $31 trillion corporate profits stashed offshore first?

If we connected that money, that could make both Medicare and Social Security solvent for 75 years.

Or how about we penalize companies for taking jobs and profits offshore when there are perfectly good workers here who could be doing the jobs, and in turn paying taxes. If we had more workers with good jobs and a less unemployment compensation and food stamps, there would not be any shortfall in Social Security -- AND we would be running a big Federal surplus.

These are the choices we make as a nation. But they didn't ask us.

Time we start telling them, because they aren't ever going to ask us.

[Lint Head]

55. Destroying the poor, unfortunate and elderly to save the future is extremely Orwellian.

Talk about "death panels". If the tea bagging greed lovers would just realize that preventing poverty and caring about helpless human beings would more than pay for itself they would get behind it. But, they are so immoral it would be impossible.

[AZ Progressive]

56. FUCK the the third way, they have hurt the Democratic Party and America for so long!

They have made the Democratic Party into another servant of the Corporate World and have kept the Democratic Party from fighting the Republican Party effectively. This has contributed to the harm that's been inflicted upon this nation since reagan.

[Laelth]

61. Hard to argue with that. n/t

-Laelth

[joshcryer]

72. SS is a political talking point because it is an issue.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Is it worth even entering into the debate now? No. But it is an issue that merits discussion. Even Bernie Sanders has accepted it is an issue and advocates simply raising the cap which would only affect the top 5%.

Why does it come up in American political debate? Because it's literally one of the biggest issues facing candidates going forward.

Would I prefer candidates say "SS off the table, not an issue for a decade, STFU please"? Yes.

Is that likely for any reasonable national level candidate?

No, preposterous.

So it is an issue and it will be discussed by socialists and third wayers alike. Various solutions will be proffered, the only one that passes will be raising the cap, in the end. That's 'hurts' the top 5%. The rest hurts everyone. This only ends one way.

[sendero]

73. Good observation..

... "let's solve a problem that is 25 years away".

Predicting anything about the economy more than a few years out is futile.

[mstinamotorcity2]

78. Lets expand.

People who earn more should have to pay more.

[adirondacker]

80. You and your logical way of thinking. ;)

Good Job of pointing out, what many will now sit back and say, is Obvious.