General Discussion

chervilant

(8,267 posts)

106. "We" have spent it all?!?

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:09 PM

May 2016

I think you need to do a little more research.

The corporate megalomaniacs (who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy) arranged to "borrow" the entire SS fund and now consider this gaping hole a part of the deficit they just don't want to repay.

You'll want to look specifically at St Ronnie Raygun's tenure. He was our first definitive simulacrum, used by the oligarchs to accelerate their thefts of our politics, our media, AND most of our planet's resources.

It's a good thing I'm a nobody. I think the vile oligarchs target those who are most likely to threaten their hegemony (our whistle blowers du jour, Occupy, and Don Siegelman come readily to mind...).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

171 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Have you noticed that the two presumptative nominees for the presidency....... [View all] socialist_n_TN May 2016 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author Buzz Clik May 2016 #1

WTF? RiverNoord May 2016 #2

Other than... deathrind May 2016 #7

It means that that Clinton Supporter could give two shits about you and your problems. Katashi_itto May 2016 #8

That's exactly it. /nt Marr May 2016 #22

I've seen an awful lot of rotten stuff on DU RiverNoord May 2016 #25

It doesn't really have anything to do with the campaign newthinking May 2016 #54

I didn't just want to go straight there :-) RiverNoord May 2016 #63

+1000 Katashi_itto May 2016 #90

that's all? hfojvt May 2016 #108

'that's all?' What is wrong with you? RiverNoord May 2016 #126

thank goodness you don't want to hfojvt May 2016 #137

Yeah, you're really wrong there - just read what I've got to say and then decide. RiverNoord May 2016 #143

Behind whose back? Buzz can see their posts and respond to them, if he wishes. merrily May 2016 #128

behind thexe people's backs hfojvt May 2016 #138

Buzz is one of the worst Doctor_J May 2016 #162

And Clinton and her supporters represent Democratic values? CoffeeCat May 2016 #86

Just what I expect from this particular Clinton supporter. Divernan May 2016 #102

Nailed it! SammyWinstonJack May 2016 #109

This message was self-deleted by its author annavictorious May 2016 #30

Yeah. This is not the place you want to go there. RiverNoord May 2016 #50

You have to excuse some here Rex May 2016 #148

Oh, that's no surprise. RiverNoord May 2016 #151

I meant to reply to the OP annavictorious May 2016 #153

Well, that's not an apology, but it's close. RiverNoord May 2016 #154

Is expanding OASDI what she and Pete Peterson have been discussing? merrily May 2016 #130

You are the one who needs educating. After NAFTA, welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc Gmak May 2016 #132

Spoken like a true Clintonista. Katashi_itto May 2016 #5

Welcome to what is reality to too many people libtodeath May 2016 #6

Mean. Iggo May 2016 #10

Your (lack of) empathy is noted. truebluegreen May 2016 #12

And to think Buzz Clik wants me banned. Octafish May 2016 #76

What did he/she say before he/she deleted their apparently stupid comment? nt ChisolmTrailDem May 2016 #125

Something to the effect of "SS is 90% of your income? That's just sad" (nt) TacoD May 2016 #134

Thanks, the poster apparently bravely scurried away. nt ChisolmTrailDem May 2016 #136

There are very few who rank lower, imo. truebluegreen May 2016 #149

Well I have no idea how they stay under the radar, Rex May 2016 #150

Shit statement. n/t demmiblue May 2016 #17

If you're going to attack someone... scscholar May 2016 #103

Read the thread HOPNOSH May 2016 #127

Is it a standard human trait to explain, support and justify ill-will towards others to strangers? LanternWaste May 2016 #171

Yes it is. deathrind May 2016 #3

Yes, I've noticed. BillZBubb May 2016 #4

What COLA? -none May 2016 #55

what cola? heaven05 May 2016 #57

What have you heard was going to change, I know Sanders wanted to remove the max cap when he started Thinkingabout May 2016 #9

Raise retirement age to 70 - which is a HUGE cut and most people won't make it Triana May 2016 #16

Read somewhere that it was set at 65 notemason May 2016 #27

It's not just about "making". People live to 70 but their health is sufferring newthinking May 2016 #74

"Why do we even want people like that in leadership positions." Triana May 2016 #79

You don't need no stinking Social Security notadmblnd May 2016 #11

Link? liberal N proud May 2016 #13

Social Security liberal from boston May 2016 #43

That doesn't support the OP's claim liberal N proud May 2016 #80

I anticipate changes in SS moonbabygo May 2016 #14

There are changes that need to be made - lift the cap, expand jwirr May 2016 #38

I don't think we can save it moonbabygo May 2016 #46

I don't think you have looked into SS sufficiently to say this. KPN May 2016 #56

I only know what I have heard moonbabygo May 2016 #58

Good to know. Look into it. I think you will agree that SS can be made whole and viable KPN May 2016 #61

Different shows...........The mainstream media speaks with forked tongue. Enthusiast May 2016 #139

You know that is what my daughter tells me - I look at her jwirr May 2016 #67

It has always been "spent" (turned into treasury bonds). What has changed is our priorities as a newthinking May 2016 #81

"We" have spent it all?!? chervilant May 2016 #106

This is actually an enormous lie, propagated by people who want to cut it. jeff47 May 2016 #112

Eliminating the cap is the very least that should be done, along with merrily May 2016 #131

The "lockbox" isn't a problem either. jeff47 May 2016 #135

Thanks, Jeff47. The funds should be segregated, IMO. merrily May 2016 #166

Huge +1! Enthusiast May 2016 #140

Raise the cap madokie May 2016 #165

The real problem with Social Security is the loss of all those Living Wage Jobs that used to -none May 2016 #65

That is needed also but maybe we should have started fighting jwirr May 2016 #68

There is no "problem" with Social Security" that is not related to warped priorities and moralities newthinking May 2016 #88

ONE candidate will EXPAND (not cut) social security: BERNIE SANDERS n/t Triana May 2016 #15

No he won't. He might propose it but the Republican House wouldn't even discuss it. nt stevenleser May 2016 #124

ARE YOU AWARE that 80+ % of congress is up for grabs in November 2016? Triana May 2016 #145

Have you not be paying attention to the redistricting issues for the past 6 years stevenleser May 2016 #159

Well that's a step better than Hillary would will sign the cuts and blame the Republicons. nm rhett o rick May 2016 #158

Nope it's not better. Bullshit bluster is bullshit bluster. Nt stevenleser May 2016 #160

Yes, I will yield to the expert. rhett o rick May 2016 #163

Six things we know about Hillary Clinton's Social Security stance liberal N proud May 2016 #18

Good to know. I remember her saying these things at different times. ancianita May 2016 #21

Weird. It seems those would all count as "changes" to the Social Security system MH1 May 2016 #29

One quickly presumes change is bad liberal N proud May 2016 #31

Changes so far have raised the vested retirement age from 65; advocacy to use chained CPI Kip Humphrey May 2016 #45

Chained CPI is a huge issue. I know Bernie will fight that tooth and nail ... KPN May 2016 #64

My recollection is when her campaign first began she was using the same dog whistle phrases we Kip Humphrey May 2016 #83

Yup. I'm with you on that. KPN May 2016 #92

I don't think improvements to pensions Joe Chi Minh May 2016 #51

Huh. RiverNoord May 2016 #40

It is all your emphisis because there is no link liberal N proud May 2016 #72

The only things Sanders supporters have left are lying and scare-mongering. annavictorious May 2016 #41

Exactly...it's pathetic the lying and ignorance...nt joeybee12 May 2016 #52

For example? KPN May 2016 #66

Wait no more... liberal N proud May 2016 #75

I hope she stands by her campaign promises/positions. KPN May 2016 #59

W Post: How Hillary Clinton’s positions have changed as she’s run against Bernie Sanders Omaha Steve May 2016 #62

And that is a problem? liberal N proud May 2016 #82

Would she have evolved without Bernie in the race? Omaha Steve May 2016 #89

Yes. It proves she will SAY anything. It proves her words and deeds have no connection. arcane1 May 2016 #94

And if she didn't evolve you would be attacking her for being to rigid liberal N proud May 2016 #97

You're making up shit now. arcane1 May 2016 #100

I think this thread started with shit being made up liberal N proud May 2016 #105

Believe what you want. Or who you want. n/t arcane1 May 2016 #107

The problem is, Hillary's word is worth shit. arcane1 May 2016 #93

You keep repeating that right wing rhetoric without anything to back it up liberal N proud May 2016 #95

Lying and calling it "right wing" just shows how easily is was for her to fool you. arcane1 May 2016 #99

One thing you left out of your list jeff47 May 2016 #113

Do you have a link to that? liberal N proud May 2016 #115

Are Clinton's own words credible? jeff47 May 2016 #116

And you twisted that into means testing liberal N proud May 2016 #118

Feel free to explain how paying more to the lowest-paid group is not means-testing. jeff47 May 2016 #119

She said she'd be open to raising the retirement age in October in NH riderinthestorm May 2016 #117

Positions can be easily changed just look at Clinton on Gay Marriage SusanLarson May 2016 #123

Then explain this if you can. Gmak May 2016 #133

She also wants to means test Social Security which would make it like a welfare program. Enthusiast May 2016 #142

But, their "openness" is different ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #19

According to her web site, RiverNoord May 2016 #42

"those who need it most" hfojvt May 2016 #110

Simply not true. George II May 2016 #20

There is only one presumptive nominee (and one presumptuous candidate) lagomorph777 May 2016 #23

Right Trump, and then Hillary ... in that order. KPN May 2016 #69

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #24

You didn't see my post up thread - 18. Six things we know about Hillary Clinton's Social Security liberal N proud May 2016 #35

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #39

I linked both for reference liberal N proud May 2016 #78

You mean the changes protect and expand SS? annavictorious May 2016 #44

Hillary is Third Way. djean111 May 2016 #26

You're what's known as a "low information voter." annavictorious May 2016 #36

Results... Major Nikon May 2016 #60

Still waiting. KPN May 2016 #71

Yup -- starve the beast. KPN May 2016 #70

Don't worry, they won't mess with elderly too much. fbc May 2016 #28

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #34

It is 100% of my income. I really do not understand why jwirr May 2016 #32

Actually read the policy paper annavictorious May 2016 #37

You believe that at your peril. dchill May 2016 #84

She said she'd be open to raising the retirement age in October in NH riderinthestorm May 2016 #120

That's my problem with Hillary, a proclivity for weasel lingo. Enthusiast May 2016 #146

That is a perplexing question. We have a chance for something better... why not take it. yourpaljoey May 2016 #87

With respect to you and your wife, you will almost certainly not be affected Stinky The Clown May 2016 #33

Please show evidence to support your assertions. Enthusiast May 2016 #147

why do the rich need SS? moonbabygo May 2016 #47

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #48

Ah, first I must tell you that this is not a threat - just a reason jwirr May 2016 #91

Because that is what keeps the program alive. jeff47 May 2016 #114

Simple, really. It makes it harder for them to steal our money and futures and cuts into theirs! FighttheFuture May 2016 #144

Because they paid into it. It is not a handout you earn it! Logical May 2016 #164

Bernie put EXPANDING Social Security on the table..... Spitfire of ATJ May 2016 #49

That's the establishment speaking - the status quo wants more status quo. eom Betty Karlson May 2016 #53

Or more to the point Populist_Prole May 2016 #104

Bill Clinton very interested in Chile's changes to Social Security, post CIA coup... Octafish May 2016 #73

VERY SCARY, and absolutely unacceptable. Who is responsible for selecting these two? highprincipleswork May 2016 #77

obvious u didn't take the time to read Cryptoad May 2016 #85

Yes, be afraid. zentrum May 2016 #96

Yes I have noticed Ferd Berfel May 2016 #98

twins I say PatrynXX May 2016 #101

Yes, but there could be positive changes. lark May 2016 #111

Yes felix_numinous May 2016 #121

when did the democratic presumptive nominee say that? spanone May 2016 #122

Have you seen this video by Progressive Politics of Creepy Bill & Paul Ryan plotting the destruction Gmak May 2016 #129

LOL Skittles May 2016 #155

They sure sound like they're on the same side. CharlotteVale May 2016 #156

Obama could not get the cuts done with his "Grand Bargain" initiative so its up to the next servants FighttheFuture May 2016 #141

Obama just renominated a Republican who wants to privatize Social Security to the CharlotteVale May 2016 #157

He's working hard to secure his ticket into "the club". He saw the millions made by the Clinton's FighttheFuture May 2016 #168

Define changes, please. Bernie says he wants to expand SS, isn't that a change? n/t doc03 May 2016 #152

That is why they are the presumptive nominees. Corporate America wants that money Doctor_J May 2016 #161

Bernie has proposed changes to Social Security Progressive dog May 2016 #167

Right. He is also "open to changes." But like Hillary, his changes would be positive. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #170

They have OPPOSITE positions. Hillary is open to changes like lifting the lid on social security pnwmom May 2016 #169