Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kenny blankenship

(15,689 posts)
22. That's next. But first-
Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:49 PM
Dec 2012

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)

But FIRST they have to weaken it with a thousand cuts, so people despair of its future, so the people will drop their psychological attachment and investment in it, and so people are no longer sure what it is, or how important it is to them, since the constant chipping away and constant fear mongering against SS means they can't say with any confidence what it will be in the future. A guarantee that is constantly under revision, always being renegotiated and subject to changes ISN'T A GUARANTEE AT ALL. They have to turn it into another "one of those things the government fucked up". THEN they can cut it up and throw it to their friendly Wall St. patrons at Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan, et al.

Reagan didn't directly attack the existence of federal regulatory agencies his patrons hated when he could expect partisan and popular resistance. He went after them indirectly. He DEFUNDED them so they couldn't do their job anymore, or couldn't do it well without botch-ups and episodes of what would look to the public like a uniform and routine incompetence. Making regulatory agencies useless, even in the eyes of their beneficiaries and backers, would be Step One to getting rid of them altogether, and accomplish in the meantime much of the Free Market-ey "good" of abolishing them, without the up-front political warfare that would require. If Reagan had wanted to go after Social Security, he would have pushed a payroll tax moratorium, so that SS would go into deficit and become part of the furor over the national debt. Then he would degrade the benefits it paid. He would make sure that SS which previously was untouchable and a fixed certainty of American life, was always on the table in any future negotiations. It would be appear constantly diminishing, always subject to revision and more cutting. Eventually people who previously defended Social Security as though with their lives would be convinced it was hopeless and just give up on it. It will have become, in the popular mind, another one of those things "Government just can't do."

Let's privatize SS instead leftstreet Dec 2012 #1
Why don't we instead talk about de-coupling the means by which PUBLIC debt is financed from patrice Dec 2012 #10
That's next. But first- kenny blankenship Dec 2012 #22
No offense, but bullshit. I guess you were not around in 2008 still_one Dec 2012 #26
Guess I should have used sarcasm tag leftstreet Dec 2012 #35
I'm sorry I should have realized it still_one Dec 2012 #37
And how many private pension plans have EC Dec 2012 #71
One does wonder how this rhetoric looks to younger generations. Link please? I need to read up. patrice Dec 2012 #2
As a member of a younger generation democrattotheend Dec 2012 #40
George W Bush said in his first campaign we were overtaxed doc03 Dec 2012 #55
Gore was dead on democrattotheend Dec 2012 #57
FYI, if absolutely nothing were done.. davekriss Dec 2012 #59
But 25% is a pretty draconian cut democrattotheend Dec 2012 #61
Again, that is based on GDP growth of 1.8% davekriss Dec 2012 #64
Right on! & I think one route that would help would be to stop talking exclusively in terms of patrice Dec 2012 #68
As members of a younger generation, we have to remember there was a lot of history before us jeff47 Dec 2012 #81
Ghastly. Vampiric. A disgrace. nt Romulox Dec 2012 #90
I think it's better democrattotheend Dec 2012 #3
I would MUCH rather they raise the cap Siwsan Dec 2012 #5
The cap corresponds to a commensurate cap in benefits davekriss Dec 2012 #12
There is a cap because benefits are capped democrattotheend Dec 2012 #15
Thanks for that explanation Siwsan Dec 2012 #27
Agree. I'm betting that 20/30 years a 8% or so cumulative "cut" from Chained-CPI will look good. Hoyt Dec 2012 #16
Well, I will not be here in 30 years, RebelOne Dec 2012 #4
Wow, pass it on to next generation. If we think it is going to happen, why do that? Hoyt Dec 2012 #19
At least you admit it democrattotheend Dec 2012 #20
Why should I not be worried about surviving now? RebelOne Dec 2012 #44
I never said you should starve democrattotheend Dec 2012 #48
Do you have any idea of what it's like to struggle? bitchkitty Dec 2012 #51
Not to that degree democrattotheend Dec 2012 #52
Thank you. I couldn't have said it better. n/t RebelOne Dec 2012 #54
I'm sorry, the younger folks are in essence paying our benefits. We have to consider them. Hoyt Dec 2012 #76
How are we screwing the younger generation? bitchkitty Dec 2012 #78
Actually, it's not a Tbag talking point. A poster right here said cut the next generations benefits Hoyt Dec 2012 #80
So you're saying, it will hurt people too much to cut the budget bitchkitty Dec 2012 #84
Cut it all is OK with me, but it's a drop in the bucket. As to your last line, have a good life. Hoyt Dec 2012 #85
If you get your way, I and countless others will have no life, bitchkitty Dec 2012 #86
you know it, bk Skittles Dec 2012 #77
It's unlikely that I'll be here in 30 years. In_The_Wind Dec 2012 #23
By the same token, *I* don't live off of SS, so cut away! Romulox Dec 2012 #91
How about we do this instead? ColesCountyDem Dec 2012 #6
That would be a tax increase on the wealthy and we CAN'T have that! SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #63
how many Baby boomers will be alive? kentuck Dec 2012 #7
I know that your tongue is in your cheek, but MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #8
Okay, so where is that 30 year figure coming from? Shouldn't we go after that source? patrice Dec 2012 #13
It's coming from the same math that produced the 2010 figure jeff47 Dec 2012 #82
if only satire worked so strongly in our world... NuttyFluffers Dec 2012 #9
Colbert is a genius, but yeah, supposedly RWers think he's really one of them. What kills me is that Dark n Stormy Knight Dec 2012 #18
I Don't Agree davekriss Dec 2012 #11
World GDP growth has been slowing since the 70's bhikkhu Dec 2012 #24
"Its not things that are lacking, regardless of growth and demographics, its fair distribution." +1 HiPointDem Dec 2012 #31
Yup! davekriss Dec 2012 #56
Hahahahaha... you have a dry sense of humor. We need to raise revenue and protect it all. Done. The Wielding Truth Dec 2012 #14
Who's all for fucking over our parents and grandparents? Raise yer hand! L0oniX Dec 2012 #17
Not me, but I'm not for f*cking over my generation and our children either democrattotheend Dec 2012 #21
...the benefits they paid for. L0oniX Dec 2012 #25
As are we democrattotheend Dec 2012 #29
Baby Boomer bashing on DU. How original! SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #65
As are Millenials now democrattotheend Dec 2012 #66
If someone tells you Social Security won't be there for us... jeff47 Dec 2012 #83
kr. why are we being stampeded into immediate changes? HiPointDem Dec 2012 #28
A democratic site spouting right wing talking points. Hell has frozen still_one Dec 2012 #30
orwell-speak at a democratic site. wow. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #32
A better characterization still_one Dec 2012 #33
it's your post characterizing the OP as right-wing talking points i refer to. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #42
Regardless that is the line they use still_one Dec 2012 #45
Link to any member of the GOP saying that cutting benefits now to prevent future benefit cuts HiPointDem Dec 2012 #47
This is nonsense. SS needs only two things to make it solvent for the next 75 - sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #34
Exactly. And ss has nothing to do with the budget. It is all about reps Evergreen Emerald Dec 2012 #38
I am sick of Cato Institute lies being spread about SS duffyduff Dec 2012 #60
Only SS cuts can prevent SS cuts DirkGently Dec 2012 #36
Most baby boomers will be dead within 30 years. L0oniX Dec 2012 #39
And sadly, too few seem to care democrattotheend Dec 2012 #49
Your logic escapes me Oilwellian Dec 2012 #75
Why not raise SS taxes for salaries above $250,000 a year? MindandSoul Dec 2012 #41
The TF already has over $2.5 trillion dollars in securities in it. How about the general fund pay HiPointDem Dec 2012 #43
Yep. GoCubsGo Dec 2012 #46
Engage with reality, would you? Congress is debating MORE TAX CUTS along with SS cuts. Romulox Dec 2012 #87
Fix the economy, build more manufacturing plants, etc., fadedrose Dec 2012 #50
Then why did they cut the payroll tax? n/t doc03 Dec 2012 #53
BUT their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Jefferson23 Dec 2012 #58
Can we please stop fucking the future Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #62
You heard them--they don't expect to be alive in 30 years, so they don't care... Romulox Dec 2012 #89
Get back to me when you cut military spending in half, MadHound Dec 2012 #67
+++1 & put the money saved into developing authentically NEW forms of entrepreneurship which patrice Dec 2012 #70
if we cut our military spending in half, we'd still spend more than the next 4 countries combined Major Nikon Dec 2012 #79
We may never have to cut them. EC Dec 2012 #69
That WOULD make it easier to talk about DEVELOPMENT, e.g. HR 676 Expanded & Improved Medicare for patrice Dec 2012 #72
Immigrants will one day want to collect Social Security, themselves. Either the plan is sound Romulox Dec 2012 #92
The age for full SS was gradually increased 2 months doc03 Dec 2012 #73
30 years? datasuspect Dec 2012 #74
Thanks for expressing the "I got mine; screw you!" attitude that animates this debate. Romulox Dec 2012 #88
I never expected to find "I got mine, screw you" attitude here. Life is going to suck in 25 years. Hoyt Dec 2012 #93
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Look folks, politics asid...»Reply #22