They caved! It's a testatment to how far we've fallen that

just start all over again and the Republicans will make demands for cuts and refuse any tax increase. The last week of February we will right back playing chicken with the Republicans all over again.

that's what they were discussing on cenk. That unemployment benefits may be only 79 weeks. At least the degrading drug testing for benefits, paying for it by decreasing medicare didn't pass.

"They caved! It's a testatment to how far we've fallen that"

...the Dems caved?

that the Teapublicans caved, not the Dems.

...is considered "maintaining the status quo."

...working Americans and can't jeopardize SS if we elect proper representatives. Of course, we can sit home some 2012 and let the fascists take over completely, then perhaps our little dreams will come true.

I won't and I never have. But payroll "tax" is a misnomer. Quite simply, they are contributions to the public pension fund. That self-same pension fund that has been in "crisis" for the past 3 decades. So, now we've reclassified some of that contribution, formerly protected from the vagaries of political football right into the center of the field... the General Budget.

Oh, and counting on the U.S. public to vote the right way is a fool's pursuit.

As a justification for ending SS completely. "We didn't pay into it for 2 years, OMG, it's completely insolvent!"

Just fear mongering as far as I'm concerned.

I've been listening to the right come up with a multiple of schemes to weaken, defund, and destroy SS. One of those ideas has been to fold contributions into the General Fund.

I've been around long enough to see that once a tax cut has been granted, it is extremely difficult to get it back.

It's not fear. It's cautionary. It's a heads up to possibilities. It is, quite frankly, pragmatic.

Bemoaning truly progressive stuff over "possibilities" that are remote, is just giving those fascists ammo more than anything.

And how is the possibility remote?

Eleven years ago, I couldn't image that a near majority in the U.S. would endorse torture and indefinite detention. These are issues that I worked on with human rights organizations to highlight atrocities in other countries.

I've witnessed so many of our freedoms and the rights and economic security that were attained during the 50s 60s being eroded that it makes me weep.

Affirmative action... propagandized out of existence.

Abortion... not available locally to most of the women in the U.S. and freely used as a negotiating point for Democrats.

The overthrow of U.S. workers standard of living for free trade agreements.

Welfare "reform". One of the meanest bills I've seen pass through Congress and signed by a President.

The almost complete obliteration of the ant-war movement.

No-knock warrants, drug testing in the work place, and sobriety check points.

Stop and search which disproportionately targets brown & black folks.

The mission of our prisons to be institutions of reform to institutions of revenge to the point that Amnesty International deems that our prison system in inhumane.

I've watched our country allow nearly 50% of our population slip into poor near poor & poverty. Nearly 50%. We, as a nation don't have less money. It's simply been increasingly allocated upwards.

And the implication that it is threatening the fund will likely be used by right wingers in the future as they attempt to demolish it.

In fact, it is already being used by right wingers in an attempt to demolish it.

This is precisely my argument. That it cracks the door ajar to make SS partially dependent on General Funds and leaves it vulnerable to Republican grandstanding and reduced or cut out of the budget altogether.

There is a reason why, Democrat, Al Gore was so adamant about a "lockbox".

I will tell any right wingers in the future that it is simply not the case and I will vote in progressives so that they aren't pressed to actually use said false memes in legislative debates.

Try to argue with my words as they are actually typed rather than arguing within your own head.

I said, quite plainly, tying its funding to the General Fund, leads its funding vulnerable to annual budget shenanigans. (And, I say this, solely, as a budding sociopath.)

You are arguing with your imaginary foe rather than the plain words in front of your eyes. I refuse to be bullied into defending a position that I never promoted.

According to you, "folding contributions into the General Fund" is one of "multiple of schemes to weaken, defund, and destroy SS."

How in the is that not "leading to insolvency" according to you?

"I've been listening to the right come up with a multiple of schemes to weaken, defund, and destroy SS. One of those ideas has been to fold contributions into the General Fund. "

This is a fact and why Al Gore was a fierce advocate of the "lock box" for SS funds. Making the health of the SS Trust fund dependent on annual budget wrangling was a danger that he recognized and he was specifically addressing the right wing's desire to privatize and destroy SS as a publicly funded pension program by weakening it.

This is not a right wing meme. It is a right wing strategy. A reduction of the payroll tax would have accomplished similar goals without leaving SS funds vulnerable to budget wrangling.

In my opinion, weakening an already weak barrier between SS and the General Fund leaves the door ajar for a right wing govt. to play political football with it's funding.

Except that I predict it will be some other privileged bemoaning about how the stimulus wasn't enough or something.

Welcome to the new U.S.

Otherwise it may well be merely sociopathy. I choose the former explanation because the latter is sinister.

he and I should embrace sociopathy. Sinister at that may be, he thinks we'd have a better chance at inuring ourselves to a sociopathic lifestyle than we'd ever have attaining a privileged lifestyle.

Yep, indeedy... because there are only two reasons (just TWO reasons!), sociopath or privilege, as to why I didn't mention something that you think I should have mentioned.

Those are not options I thought were available given your seeming intelligence and forthrightness.

There's nothing wrong with being privileged, nor is there anything wrong with holding views that the privileged hold. What's wrong is not appreciating the downtrodden and instead using that position of privilege to make political observations that don't help them in any way whatsoever.

from this day forward, refer to me as a sociopath.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Nice to meet you.

We figure it is a hobby perhaps worth pursuing to keep us busy in our 50s.

if you can't beat them join them!

who's playing 3D chess, and it ain't the Dems. Tax cut - Repub talking point. SS in trouble - Repub talking point. We can't afford entitlements - Repub talking point. SS contributes to the deficit - Repub talking point.

"Caved".... RIGHT!

as an excuse for cutting or eliminating Social Security benefits. Just try retiring without either Social Security or a government pension. Just try it.

Saving money? Ha! At today's interest rates, for example, you get no income from the money you have saved -- unless you saved far, far more than a normal middle class family can possibly save -- maybe even more than the average family earns in a working lifetime.

By definition, whatever the tax was funding will get less.

It also delays the 27% cut in Medicare to doctors for two months. Enough time to cram in a few surgeries and treatments that will be cut when that 27% cut goes into effect. (The Republicans got that 27% Medicare cut passed this year, I read. Not sure how that happened.)

Reduce Federal Income taxes 2% on everyone earning less than $110,000 is the way to enact the stimulus. Don't screw with SS

With the teabaggers signing on board.

...and there wasn't enough will to expend the political capital.

Not realistic.

They could have used the budget reconciliation process, which can't be filibustered. So they needed only 50 Senators plus the VP.

The "Bush" tax cut was passed that way originally.

Educate:

Payroll Tax Cut Doesn’t Impact Social Security - http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/23974-1

to the general fund -- where Social Security recipients have to compete with the lobbyists for the defense industry, the oil industry, etc.

The payroll tax cut is a horrible idea. It undermines the structure of Social Security. It's like a nest of termites in the beams supporting Social Security. That is because it changes the source of the funding for Social Security from taxes dedicated to the purpose of Social Security to taxes that are up for grabs from the most aggressive and most politically savvy.

Shame on Obama for undermining Social Security. And shame on anyone who doesn't think this through and see what is beneath it all.

Pete Peterson headed the committee that chose Geithner for the Fed. Pete Peterson virtually leads the Republican attack on Social Security. And now -- who has Obama appointed to the Treasury Dept., the very department that is supposed to safeguard the Social Security Trust Fund? Geithner.

This is no conspiracy theory. This is reality. This is a total attack on Social Security and on seniors. And it is being done to force people to entrust their money to the crooks on Wall Street.

And, of course, Obama also tells you that the Wall Street crowd didn't break any laws.

How about laws against fraud? They have been around for a long, long time. You don't need any special legislation to enact them. Lying to investors about the investments you are selling is fraud. Knowing a product is bad, shoddy, of poor quality and selling it as first-rate anyway is arguably fraud -- and I bet virtually any jury would agree with me.

This payroll tax cut is a trick -- a sellout to Wall Street.

because it was already in place. The choice was to keep it or to change and this keeps it that way it already was. Hence status quo.

Just a general comment, not specific to anything.

You are a child of God, and deserving of my love.

Peace to you.

And said, sometimes a weenie is just a weenie.

Usually they can't man up and run for help after being a weenie and getting called out for being a weenie,

Then he had me sing Amazing Grace!

equals "maintaining the status quo"? Oy.

It's a win which is great. But some perspective... it's not as much relief as say, implementing Medicare for All (wanted by 2/3 of Americans). Definitely better than raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67.

since the Democratic establishment hasn't tried?

Unless you'll have me believe that the Republicans are obstructing trivial stuff because they want it to be more progressive. Which, btw, is even more laughable and I couldn't even continue responding to you if you believe it.

I think if we fight, we win.

You think otherwise.

We're both probably half right.

Obama took it to 50k American people (who signed on his site) and then took it to the media and said "Enough is enough." I do expect Obama to start taking more populist tone as the elections go on. And here's the thing, and you won't like it. Obama didn't take a remotely populist tone during the 2008 elections. He was 100% consistent in that event, even as he pushed for this bill he said "it's not about dems or repubs." I had to facepalm at that. But, I can't disrespect him or mock him because that is precisely the kind of person he campaigned as.

Which is why as his new campaign is turning more populist (very subtly), I will be more pressed to criticize him in his second term if he ... isn't consistent. Meanwhile he's doing everything a centrist moderate post-partisan would do, and I never expected anything better of him. For that he earns my respect.

operandi almost constantly at least on economic issues. From the late 70's and greatly accelerating under Reagan - holding back the tide of reactionary policies has been pretty much the best we can do even when we have had Democratic presidents. Even when we have had minor steps of progress – it has always involved accepting completely unacceptable policies as part of the package that once even respectable Republicans would have bulked at. But what can we do? But I will say that compared to the reactionary steps that were taken in the 90's with the full support of a Democratic president - the modus operandi has become less reactionary. I guess that's progress?

even more blood, I agree.

"They caved!"

...they did!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100262657

Sid

The American people have always had his back. They are the ones suffering and if he takes it to them the pukes don't stand a chance.

the country and scream whatever the RW GOP corporate 1% think tanks want 24/7.

for the most part the 'left' just walks by.

like making single payer unacceptable for tens of millions who need it. like telling 50 mil a week for several months (ignored by the left) that raising the debt ceiling is another dem trick. like this last teabagger dittohead waste of time.

no significant reform will be possible as long as the 'left' keeps ignoring those 1000 coordinated think tank megaphones.

Obama is a chess player all right but who does he play for?

Sometimes I honestly wonder. Especially with this horrible idea of a payroll tax cut. Worst thing yet for the middle class.