Ok.. Fuck You Lawrence O'Donnell and MSNBC

[TheProgressive]

Another shill trying to propagandize Americans and Democrats to 'accept' the cuts to Social Security.

FUCK YOU O'Donnell...

You see, there is nothing wrong with Social Security. And, the way that our government
has fucked American worker over the last 30 years, retirees need the money.

The proof? Us baby boomers or soon to be lost our jobs, our homes and our savings. The rich are
richer, and far to many honest hard working Americans are being screwed by legislation. Obama and
democratic legislation.

And here you are shilling for Obama.

Seriously, fuck you O'donnell, Obama, and all those you want to screw Americans out of the MONEY we
paid into.

[LittleBlue]

1. O'Donnell and the rest of MSNBC are just corporate shills

like every other corporate channel. Turn it off.

[whathehell]

122. Not really -- Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow are both speaking out against the CPI cuts to SS.

[silvershadow]

183. Yes, they are, but I'd frankly rather hear Big Eddie on the case. He was sidelined on purpose, imho

nt

[whathehell]

185. Yep, I liked Big Eddie on earned benefits too, as well as on organized labor. I agree that

he may very well have been sidelined on purpose....The timing seems suspicious.

[ebbie15644]

196. I've been thinking he was sidelined on purpose too!

It seems real convenient that right before the President's budget comes out, when everyone knows how Big Ed would have felt about it.

[treestar]

207. FDR must have been a corporate shill too

Along with Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins

After all they "settled" at the time and "compromised" for a program to avoid old age poverty, with no provision for inflation, which did not cover many workers.

[rug]

2. I don't like his Blue Link segments.

[Tx4obama]

3. He gave an interesting report on the background HISTORY.

Everyone can have their own opinion, but facts are facts.

I hope everyone has the chance to see that segment.

[TheProgressive]

9. Sure. But what is the story then compared to today...

There is no need to cut SS. There is no emergency crisis with SS.

But they want to cut what we pay for? Just who the fuck are they to reduce
our SS benefits.

It isn't like retirees are living life as good as....hmmm, US Presidents, TV people, and corporate executives.

[HiPointDem]

26. the background history of democrats and republicans colluding to cut social security, so

what difference does yet another cut matter.

you're fucked, you've always been fucked, and we're going to keep fucking you.

cause that's how the ruling class rolls.

[elleng]

41. Yes and thanks, Tx4.

Looks like many are not interested in facts, and would rather impugn O'D's success.

[NOVA_Dem]

46. Do you want to call O'D a "job creator" too??

Are you accusing us of punishing his success? Sounds like something from the other side.

[elleng]

53. 'Larry O'D has always been a Reich-Wing Democrat. Just look at what he did to The West Wing,'

posted below, at #29.

Some more facts:

'from 1993 to 1995, he (O'Donnell) was staff director of the United States Senate Committee on Finance, once again under Senator Moynihan’s chairmanship. He thus led the staff of the Senate's tax-writing committee during the consideration of President Bill Clinton's first budget, which Congress enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

From 1999 to 2006, O’Donnell was associated with the television drama The West Wing. Over that time, he wrote 16 episodes. From 1999 to 2000 he was executive story editor for 12 episodes, in 2000 he was co-producer of 5 episodes, from 2000 to 2001 he was producer of 17 episodes, from 2003 to 2005 he was consulting producer for 44 episodes, and from 2005 to 2006 he was executive producer for 22 episodes.[9] O’Donnell won the 2001 Emmy award for Outstanding Drama Series for The West Wing, and was nominated for the 2006 Emmy for the same category.[10]

In 2002, O’Donnell was supervising producer and writer for the television drama First Monday, and in 2003, he was creator, executive producer, and writer for the television drama Mister Sterling.[9]'

Hell yes, he's a job creator!

[NOVA_Dem]

124. He was a Senate staffer and a writer.

He didn't create the West Wing and he's an employee of MSNBC.

[elleng]

125. He was

co-producer of 5 episodes, from 2000 to 2001 he was producer of 17 episodes, from 2003 to 2005 he was consulting producer for 44 episodes, and from 2005 to 2006 he was executive producer for 22 episodes.

[NOVA_Dem]

126. You still haven't listed employer. n/t

[RockaFowler]

140. Producer and Executive Producer

He was responsible for hiring people

That was part of his job

[elleng]

145. Thanks. People don't know, care, or think, I guess.

[Bluenorthwest]

139. He was a highly compensated employee and that's it

He was also, by the way, a serious jerk to deal with when he was in that capacity, which is why he is no longer in that capacity and now has to be a talking head for a fraction of the pay he'd get as showrunner, which is what he expected to be and thought he already was. A real bridge burner.

[sabrina 1]

52. Are you serious? Do you really think most of us have time to be concerned about some

pundit on TV's success or failure. What a truly weird thing to say.

I don't watch any of these shows anymore. I get my news from real news sources.

We know the facts.

Here's the most important fact that it appears O'Donnell didn't tell you:

SS HAD ZERO TO WITH THE DEFICIT! It didn't cause it, didn't contribute to it, it is a totally separate fund from the Fed Govt's fund.

Cutting SS will do NOTHING to lower the deficit, in fact it could do the opposite.

Did O'Donnell explain why a fund that belongs to the people, that is solvent, that has over a 2 trillion dollar surplus, that will be able to pay out all of its obligations for the next quarter of a century even if no one does anything about it and that is under the worst scenario.

Thankfully I don't see these people as I am not interested in propaganda from Wall St. left or right.

We KNOW the facts. Someone should supply O'Donnell with at least the main fact here which is, one more time that, SS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFICIT.

So, why is it the main topic when the deficit comes up?? I think the answer is obvious, at least to those who are informed.

[dothemath]

75. Facts?

Is one of the facts you are referring to is SS did/does not contribute one penny to any financial problems this country currently has - and won't for 20 years if nothing is done to it?

[elleng]

78. No, that is NOT one of the facts I am referring to, dothemath.

I am well aware of that fact.
I referred to the facts Tx4 referred to, as in the history and related facts discussed by Lawrence on his show.

[eridani]

130. And every bit of that history occurred before we got hit with the biggest depression

--since the 30s. Unless times are really bad, people don't pay attention. Now they are.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

150. The whole argument is "It's historically less than it is now,...

....and has been cut in the past by Dems in order to save it so what's all the fuss about?"

This ignores that current benefits are way below poverty levels to the point where recipients dependent on other programs like housing which can be cut off with a change in eligibility or budget cuts.

Today's reality is that workers have not had payroll increases to meet inflation so they simply don't have a "disposable income" to set aside for retirement. People are often one paycheck away from total ruin. There was a time not so long ago when the formula was no more than 1/4 of your income was to be for your housing. Another 1/4 was to go into general savings/life insurance/inheritance for your kids, another 1/4 went into a personal retirement fund and the last 1/4 was what you had to live it up now. That 1/4 was for everything from your winter coat to your meals out on the town to that new TV.

It also ignores the fact that since the Media has decided to claim Obama is a Liberal then everything he does is deemed "Liberal" so people go up to known Liberals and get in our face to defend things like drone strikes and now Social Security cuts.

Then they scoff at us for saying we don't support those things because "Our Guy" does.

[bluestate10]

162. People need to watch the segment from last night and the one to come. The facts

demolish the bullshit that some rabid posters here on DU as been spewing about what FDR's intent was and how FDR was so much better than President Obama. The thing that galls me is that some of the same people bashing O'Donnell for truthful reporting of facts jump to call right-wingers deniers of facts. While I know the right is fucked, I find it no less egregious when progressives chose to ignore inconvenient facts.

[kristopher]

170. +1

[merrily]

190. Yes, fact are facts, but spin is also spin. And O'Donnell spun the facts like a top.

He also added in a ton of his opinion. And when he said that he knew for certain, "as I sit here tonight" how FDR would feel, I was so sorry that he has no studio audience so no one could laugh in his face.

[treestar]

206. +1000000000000000000000

[kentuck]

4. Just raise the frigging cap...

Those making up to $450K per year just got a big tax break with the continuation of the Bush taxcuts. They can afford to pay the same payroll tax as everyone else...

[Hoyt]

13. Well they got a 3% "break" in a sense, so you want to hit them with a 12%tax.

I kind of agree with the 3%,but a 12%increase on portion of "lifted cap" without paying them more benefits hardly seems right.

[kentuck]

15. And what does the person that makes $110K per year pay?

More or less than the person making $450K?

[Hoyt]

23. If you pay him 450k based benefits, maybe. But if you do that, you don't help SS fund much.

Now, if you are just levying a big tax increase on the guy with no commensurate benefits, that's a bit much. Besides, those folks making that are not many, and it ain't gonna happen even under sanders or Grayson, both of whom I like.

[LooseWilly]

131. SS is only charged on first $110,100 for 2012, at 4.2% (and another 6.2% paid by employer)

For 2013 it rises (back) up to an even 6.2% paid by employer & employee each.

The person who earns $450K only pays Soc Sec on the first $110,100. the remaining $339,900 is not taxed the 4.2% (6.2% come 2013). That's $14,275.80 (rounds to $14,276) for this one fictitious individual in potential Soc Security funding, were all of his/her income subject to the same FICA tax rate as the income of those who don't enjoy a fantastic salary. And, that's at the 2012 reduced rate! Come 2013, when Obama's cut to Soc. Security tax rate expires, that would rise to $21,073.80 ... which is more than the Soc. Security payments for an entire year for many 80 year-olds who've been working all their lives.

Meanwhile, dude who makes $450K gets same benefits, based on amount of time they've worked, as anyone else. "Commensurate benefits"?... no, a progressive tax rate, by definition, doesn't give a "commensurate" benefit... it taxes those who can afford it more, and those who can afford it less, less.

If anyone is ever serious about "fixing" Social Security, this is precisely the method that would best be used (& maybe apply FICA taxes to investment income for any who don't have a "minimum" level of "ordinary" or "labor" income). If someone earning $450K will pay the Social Security for over a year for one beneficiary, themselves... then those who earn $10 million would be able to reassure themselves that they are single-handedly paying the social security benefits fo 20+ beneficiaries.

It could happen, if anyone ever gets serious about fixing anything.

[AAO]

149. They pay pretty much the same.

If I have to pay SS on my entire income, then so should everyone else.

[Walk away]

154. So do I but S.S. is supposed to be a way to have security for the future and pay for it.

It was never supposed to be a tax. Why should people who make more money pay more for the same product? It doesn't make sense. I get progressive income taxes but payroll contributions are not actually taxes.

[AAO]

157. I don't care what you call it - the cap should be raised.

[Walk away]

181. Then should we make everything cost more if you make more money???

That's one approach.

[AAO]

182. I think it should be proportionate to your ability to pay. It's truly patriotic.

[Walk away]

187. I understand that you like it but it doesn't seem fair to me.

It turns S.S. contributions into a middle class tax. My problem isn't with people who work hard for the median income in the North East. My problem is with corporations and the rich screwing us.

This is just another instance of pitting the poor against the middle class while the rich sit back and collect the spoils.

[HiPointDem]

28. not too many people making $450k on wages. tax capital, not labor.

[HiPointDem]

57. The cap is raised every year. You want to turn high earners against SS, make them fund 60%

of the program & get 10% of the benefits, that'll do it.

Tax capital through the income tax and make them pay back what they borrowed.

Not labor.

[Walk away]

155. Absoutely!!!!!!!!!!!! nt

[bluestate10]

164. I favor high earners paying in more to SS. But to have those people pay in at 6.2% all

year long would be unfair to them. I think the majority of people on DU want social and economic justice, but there is a small, vocal fraction that despise capitalism and people that earn high incomes.

I favor a system where everyone pays 6.2% up to the Cap. Then the rate for people that earn more than the Cap drops dramatically to 1% or less, but that rate is paid for the remainder of the year. Under such a system, a person earning $450,000 annually would have paid in $10,220 instead of $6,820. My argument is that the person wouldn't notice enough of a difference to impact that person's feelings about the program.

[HiPointDem]

193. Well, that would be an improvement over lifting the cap altogether, but it has similar problems.

But my first point is: Why do you feel such urgency to do something *now,* when the trust fund isn't projected to be extinguished until 20 years from now?

What purpose does dropping a big chunk of change into the Trust Fund *now* serve?

It allows the borrowing to continue, that's what.

[tex-wyo-dem]

64. Totally agree...

That would be a simple solution...too simple, apparently...kind of like single payer healthcare or Medicare for everone.

Everyone needs to remember why SS was created to begin with. Before SS, particularly during the bankster/wall street created Great Depression, older poor folks were literally dying in the streets and of starvation. We are better than to allow that to happen again...but apparently the wealthy elite couldn't give a shit. At least they can filter that ugliness out while they're playing golf in their exclusive retirement enclaves and enjoying their 5:00 highballs.

[reformist2]

5. They need this first cut, so that more can follow. And there will be more cuts proposed after this.

As other posters have stated so clearly, the US income tax payers (read: rich people) owe the SS Trust Fund $3 trillion dollars, and they don't want to pay it back.

[Triana]

11. That's just EXACTLY it. They want to get RID of SS. That way...

...they don't HAVE to pay our money back! And retirees who paid in all their lives - can just drop dead.

Once the cuts start, they will not stop until it's GONE. That's the entire mantra/M.O. of Pete Peterson's "Fix the Debt".

What that little diabolical, evil outfit ought to be called is: "Fix it so we don't have to pay back your money we stole!"

And OBAMA is part and parcel of this scheme.

[Life Long Dem]

6. 1977

Been there done that.

[madamesilverspurs]

7. Nah, LoD was just being informative.

History matters. It IS important that SS began to provide seniors with something, it was never intended to provide everything.

I'm a senior citizen, also disabled. And I am NOT panicked over this.

[TheProgressive]

10. Well, maybe you are a well off senior and disabled person who doesn't give a damn

...about other retirees....

[Tx4obama]

19. I'm not panicking over this. It's better to wait to hear more details of who is exempt, etc. n/t

[TheProgressive]

20. That's just it... SS and Medicare are not welfare and not subject to 'conditions'

Any type of means testing or age requirements are designed to turn our
god damn earn benefits insurance program in to welfare program... Which it is NOT.

[madamesilverspurs]

27. Well off???

I wish! My ONLY income is my SS check, and it's under $800. No Swiss bank account, nothing stashed in the Caymans, no giant inheritances, and my last savings account ended decades ago. As for my giving a damn about others, you have absolutely no damned clue.

[TheProgressive]

33. Yet, you think it is ok if retirees receive less than is owed them...

Expenses always rise yet it is ok with you if your earned benefits don;t keep pace? Really?

[madamesilverspurs]

37. I said no such thing.

I said that I'm not panicked. Do try to pay attention, okay?

[bluestate10]

166. The poster didn't write what you claimed. Let's take emotion out of this.

The poster stated that she can live comfortably enough under Chained CPI. I have to agree with her.

[TheProgressive]

173. Silly comment... Emotions are an important part of humanity..

And, just because you and the poster don't care about c-cpi, many many others do... Get it?

[treestar]

208. Interestingly, the elderly, at the time

were most likely to be poor.

Today, it is not true. Children are most likely to be poor.

[HiPointDem]

32. but it *does* provide pretty much *everything* for 1/3 of workers. and half or more for 2/3.

those are the workers that lived in workhouses, sros or dependent on their families before social security.

iow, the majority of workers.

[bluestate10]

167. You raise a reality of FDR's day that is not true now.

The elderly lived with the families of their children. Today, few elderly people live with their children's families. The woman that crafted Social Security crafted it for a time when the money paid out was to help at the margins. Today, many expect SS to pay for everything.

[elleng]

36. Good, Thanks

[graham4anything]

40. +1

[tex-wyo-dem]

93. You're right, history does matter...

SS under the first New Deal was never meant to provide everthing for retirement, but it certainly reduced, even eliminated, seniors losing their homes, starving and dying in the streets, which was literally what was happening during the Great Depression.

The Second New Deal proposed by FDR, however, advocated a stronger SS program that would fully fund a comfortable retirement for everyone, especially the poor. Sadly, this never got implemented, much less was given much attention, as FDR died shortly after announcement of the proposal.

As a prosperous and modern society, we should be pulling out all the stops to assure SS is fully funded and strengthened for the future.

[Douglas Carpenter]

100. so right - why can't these whiners who complain that they don't have enough income just sell off

some of their stocks or cash in some of their bonds or perhaps lease out some their properties they are not using. Hell, I'll probably have to sell one of my offshore properties and cash in one of my bonds - I might even have to lay off one of my servants (admittedly I really don't want to do that one -since they have been so loyal over all these years) but its better than complaining and making a fuss over nothing.

[Egalitarian Thug]

107. This comfortable class that simply ignores what others are subjected to are the problem.

They were the idiots that voted for reagan. They were the one's that never saw any need to stand up to the wrongs they witnessed. They are the selfish and unconcerned that made all this possible.

[zeeland]

8. Should have heard Tweety earlier.

In a sarcastic voice, lecturing Democrats that they need to learn
to give a little...blah...blah..blah. Wanted to reach in and throttle
his spit spewing throat.

They were sure to get Ed Schultz off the air in the nick of time. He
would have refused to share the sentiment.

[JaneyVee]

12. Gee, millionaires telling us to do without? Who would have thought.

[Union Scribe]

14. From what I've seen of O'Donnell I don't like him

I remember when I first came to DU there was a thread about him yelling at Alan Grayson over the latter's opposition to extending Bush's tax cuts in a bill. O'Donnell said he needed to "grow up" or something like that. For someone to be so wrong and so condescending about it really turned me off.

[NOVA_Dem]

30. Yep. I don't like his SMARMY persona.

He's the #1 MSNBC proponent of the Obama 11th dimensional chess meme.

[Union Scribe]

60. Yep, and this thread got me doing some more digging.

I found a little episode from five years ago where Keith O. asked if Obama might anger union members by saying he wanted to change the U.S. like Reagan (amazing he was warning us of that so long ago!), and O'Donnell replied it was fine because the culinary union was "not all that sharp" so they wouldn't see the problem. (Not sure why he singled them out.)

I think he digs it that Obama is running a game.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2709406

[kristopher]

69. ODonnel is the most left wing pundit on TV, bar none

If you think anything else you either do not watch his show or you aren't paying any attention at all when you do. He is without question on the side of the good guys.

I'd note that extremely intelligent people are often perceived as being arrogant or condescending.

[Union Scribe]

72. That's probably not saying much.

"I'd note that extremely intelligent people are often perceived as being arrogant or condescending."

Am I to assume you're "extremely intelligent" from how I perceive your lecture about my ability to pay attention?

[kristopher]

76. No, you should just pay more attention

Because you are going along with an attack that is dead wrong.

Lifted from Wiki
On the 1 August 2011 episode of The Last Word:

"I have been calling myself a socialist ever since I first read the definition of socialism in the first economics class I took in college. Not that we choose the socialist option every time but we do consider socialism a reasonable option under certain circumstances; in fact, under many circumstances. As any introductory economics course can tell you, there is no capitalist economy anywhere in the world, and there is no socialist economy anywhere in the world, not even Cuba. We are all mixed economies; that is, mixes of capitalism and socialism, and we all vary that mix in different ways. China has more capitalism, and a lot more capitalism, than has Cuba, but it also has a lot more socialism than we [the United States] do. Our socialist programs include the biggest government spending programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, as well as welfare, and the socialist program I hate the most, agriculture subsidies. Yes, I'm a socialist, but I hate bad socialism, and there is plenty of bad socialism out there, just like there is plenty of bad capitalism out there, like the capitalism that pollutes our rivers or makes health care too expensive for so many people. I can argue this because every side of this is true: capitalism is good, capitalism is bad; socialism is good, socialism is bad; all of those things are true at the same time. That's why we have a mixed economy, an economy in which we are trying to use the best, most efficient forms of capitalism, and the best, most efficient forms of socialism, where necessary. So my full truth is I am as much a capitalist as I am a socialist; but since we live in the only mature country in the world where "socialist" is considered such a dirty word that no one would dare admit to being one, I feel more compelled to stand up for the socialist side of me than the capitalist side of me.[31]

[Union Scribe]

83. BFD. You can call yourself anything.

I don't give a shit what you call yourself. I only care what you support and what you don't. That's the truth in it, not some label to market yourself.

[kristopher]

86. So you clearly and unquestionably do NOT watch his show.

You couldn't possibly write that if you did.
We're through.

[Union Scribe]

89. Perhaps you "should pay more attention"

Remember the subthread I started that you're replying to, where I said "From what I've seen of O'Donnell I don't like him?" Yeah, that kinda implies I'm not a regular viewer. So does the rest of the post where I said he turned me off screaming at Alan Grayson.

But there's nothing in my post that isn't true: people can call themselves anything; the proof's in the pudding. And O'Donnell's pudding is clearly eaten at Obama's feet.

[navarth]

153. I saw that segment with Grayson

and I thought Lawrence was a total dick, even though I had liked him before that. I haven't been able to bring myself to look at him since without remembering that.

Kinda like Chris Matthews; can't forget what he did in that interview with Phil Donahue.

[Egalitarian Thug]

94. Or maybe, are paying close attention to what he does and ignoring what he says. n/t

[kristopher]

96. Pay attention to what he "does" not what he says?

You do realize that what he "does" is speak, right?

His words are the measure of what he "does".

*Shaking my head in disbelief*

[Egalitarian Thug]

98. And you are showing that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

You're being a sucker and the nature of a con game is making sure the mark never realizes he's been conned until it's too late to do anything about it. Larry O'D couldn't possibly care less about you or me or anybody else that doesn't directly effect his life. Just how much time do you believe it takes to be a television talking head, or to write for a television series?

As a celebrity, there is quite a lot about him out there and he has written at least one book and many television episodes, if you care to learn about him.

[kristopher]

99. your previous post said everything I ever need to know about your opinion.

Don't pay attention to what the tv pundit says, pay attention to what he does!

[Egalitarian Thug]

103. You're going to spend a lot of time shaking your head if you never bother to learn.

But, this OP deserves more kicks and the resulting recs.

[carolinayellowdog]

121. 14 mocking emoticons says everything we need to know

as well

[bluestate10]

168. O'Donnell is a self described Socialist. He has consistently fought for what was right. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

204. Care to list some of these Herculean tasks that this multimillionaire has undertaken in

his fight "for what is right"?

[treestar]

209. Talk about attacking the messenger

But did you listen to Frances Perkins? Do you hate her, too? He played an interview with her.

[TheProgressive]

16. And remember this my fellow real Americans... it is for $12B per year of OUR money..

They want to stiff us out of $12B per year out of our own money.

Food costs rise.

Heating and power expenses rise.

Gas expenses rise,

But, no, Obama and the Shills want to to see retires *suffer*.

Can I type this again - FUCK them.

[octoberlib]

17. Had the same thought. I just tweeted him and told

him to tell the truth about how the Treasury borrowed 3 trillion from the SS Trust Fund and now doesn't want to pay it back. Aand that's what this is all about.

[neverforget]

18. The cuts won't stop until it's been destroyed

[tokenlib]

21. Sure, Social Security was supposed to be part of a three legged stool...

For most americans, savings are low and non existant, defined benefit pensions are gone in favor of 401Krap,and Social Security is the last leg really standing. We have gone from a GM economy with good paying jobs with good benefits, to a Walmart service sector economy with crap wages and low or no benefits FOR THE MASSES.

Student loans have sucked away the disposible income we could have saved, and the outsourcing of NAFTA has given us career insecurity. You may have paid off the first round of student loans--but then your job was oursourced or sold out from under you and you had to go back to retrain--more loans .

Social Security may have never been intended to be the sole source of retirement security...but it IS NOW for millions. This is going to be a fight...bigger than anyone realizes.

[TheProgressive]

22. Well said...and exactly correct.

[myrna minx]

160. Well said. Not to mention crippling heath care and energy costs (Remember the cackling about soaking

poor "Aunt Mille" on the Enron tapes?), rising food prices and 30+ years of stagnant wages. These are real problems that affect real people not some abstraction in a spreadsheet or a cynical political maneuver. Real people. All the while the income disparity is higher than ever, Wall Street and the Banksters are still raging along unabated, yet the poor and the working class are expected to shoulder this "shared sacrifice"? No. I think we've paid plenty with our blood and treasure already.

[Progressive dog]

24. O'Donnell explained that we're supposed to get more back than

we paid into SS. Then he pointed out that now the higher earners won't. He also explained that SS must be self funding because FDR.
So let me recap his argument in simpler terms. Everyone should get back more than they pay into SS but it can't pay out more than it takes in.
So I guess we have to cut SS and Medicare to continue to fund the plutocracies special taxes on unearned income.

[HiPointDem]

55. "Then he pointed out that now the higher earners won't." = the first salvo in turning this key

constituency against SS.

Take off the cap & it will get worse.

They're trying to get rid of it.

[Progressive dog]

73. that's correct

but you still can't have every person get more than he paid and not have to reduce benefits or use general funds. They are not trying to get rid of it. Any person who pays off the SS tax enough quarters is one of those higher earners.
Most of these people need and support SS.

[HiPointDem]

108. They *are* trying to get rid of it, & people should at least get what they put in -- as they

used to.

If you want a welfare program, tax capital through the income tax. SS wasn't set up as a welfare program & shouldn't be turned into one.

Welfare programs should tax both labor AND capital. They should not be funded solely by wage earners.

[Progressive dog]

132. It is not a welfare program, it is an insurance program

Have you ever heard of an insurance program that paid you back what only what you paid in? Have you ever collected unemployment insurance? Is that a welfare program? Is Medicare welfare? Should there be a cut off of Medicare when your medical costs reach what you put in the Medicare kitty?
SS is not and never has been a welfare program. A progressive pay out does not make it welfare.

[HiPointDem]

194. It will be a welfare program when the top 10% of earners is funding the majority of it.

[Progressive dog]

195. You are joking, among developed countries

the USA does less than almost all the rest for it's elderly, it's poor, it's sick. It has one of the worst income and wealth distributions.
The programs such as SS that do have a Progressive distribution are on the target list of the Plutocrats and their enablers. You do understand that the SS tax is regressive and that not reducing payments does not change either the percentage paid by the top earners or the percentage received. Your talking point is incorrect.

[HiPointDem]

197. no, i'm not joking. you want a welfare program, tax capital, not workers.

[Progressive dog]

198. How do you tax capital?

As far as I know the US has never had a tax on capital except for inheritance. Who would value the capital for taxation? Would investments in homes be capital? What other property would count as capital? When you can answer these questions, then we can discuss why CCPI would be not welfare and CPI-W is welfare.

[HiPointDem]

199. you're ignorant, then. capital gains tax, corporate taxes, taxes on dividends, inheritance

taxes, property taxes, gift taxes, etc.

taxed through the income tax, not social security taxes.

social security is a tax on labor. income taxes tax capital.

[immoderate]

25. Perhaps in a future installment of the "Frances Perkins Story"...

O'Donnell will allude to the fact that the compensation for the upper few has far surpassed the static returns of the working class, and adjust the "cap" accordingly.

--imm

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. Larry O'D has always been a Reich-Wing Democrat. Just look at what he did to The West Wing.

He's a multimillionaire in a blue jersey making more millions telling the little people that he cares about them and wants to help, so long as it doesn't actually inconvenience or cost him. The very definition of a limousine liberal.

[TheProgressive]

35. Limo Liberal? maybe so. I say more like

....a corporatist republican on a so-called liberal tv show.

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. He's always been a Boston Democrat & rich kid. I don't think he's a bad person, but he is

completely typical of the ruling class elite liberals. He's perfectly willing to lend his name and some of his time to a cause that strikes him, but he is completely unwilling to make any personal sacrifice or "dirty his hands" with anything that could make a real difference.

In addition to that, I personally think his writing sucks.

[bluestate10]

169. You know nothing about O'Donnell. He is not from a rich Boston family. Please don't

make up facts.

[Egalitarian Thug]

178. Perhaps you should try looking up a few facts yourself before getting your panties in a wad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_O%27Donnell

He wasn't born Kennedy-rich, but he left home with his future assured.

So, where's your list of gigantic donations and miracle working across the globe?

[CreekDog]

127. He's a socialist, a self described socialist

his own policies, if he were able to enact them, would be more liberal than what we have now.

what is frustrated you (and me, at times) is that occasionally, he will decide what he thinks is politically possible and use his experiences to explain what's going to happen.

i don't like it, but that doesn't reflect what he wants to happen --his political vision is much more liberal, more liberal than many people here in fact.

[Egalitarian Thug]

136. I'm a little green wagon with flames painted on the side.

The Nazis called themselves socialists and the Russians called themselves Communists. There are a couple of hard-right, conservative war mongers here on DU that call themselves Liberals.

One can call oneself whatever one wishes, doesn't make it so.

Hell, Bill Maher doesn't even call himself either liberal or a Democrat, and he's made far greater personal sacrifice than Larry O'D. I think every American should have to live in LA for at least five years so that they could learn the difference between celebrities IRL and their jobs.

[elleng]

31. Nothing like history.

Sorry about those who would rather not know.

[TheProgressive]

39. So,in your world and LoD's world

the conditions always remain the same.

Nothing changes?

History is to be learned from...not settled into...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

56. In their world the poor can go to hell.

Now maybe they don't hate the poor, but they come first, always.


To some politics is a sport. Its catch phrases, cocktails, cheering on your side, etc. For others (like me, and i'm presuming you) its about real life consequences. Its about putting enough food on the table, paying rent, etc. Those that are in it for the celebrity aspect could give fuck all about us. And those politicians that actually speak out for us and speak out for those living on the margins get kicked back down, mocked and ridiculed.

[bluestate10]

172. Complete hyperbole. The poor don't go to hell, they is fact do ok.

Maybe many on DU should drop the emotion and disregard for facts concerning the issue of Chained CPI.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

179. the poor "do ok"?

What fucking fantasy world are you living in? You must live a sheltered life.

I live this shit every day, I see kids who don't have enough to eat, I see people drop dead in their 40's-50's because they can't afford to go to the hospital, I see people asking for food and clothing even though they work a full time job.

Don't tell me they're "doing ok" leave your comfortable existence for once and maybe you'll have a little more fire under your ass when it comes to protecting the vulnerable in our society.

Yes I'm "emotional" about it, as are most people who are working are asses off to change things.

[ErikJ]

34. 3 words: RAISE-THE-CAP!!

[graham4anything]

38. Amazing, the 5% mob now wants to tear MSNBC down. Why not go to Fox & join with them?

I have a feeling, being that they want to sell Elijah Cumming and Sheila Jackson Lee and Joseph Kennedy down the river too that as usual there are other things at work here.

Are you sure these people are not part of the Paul/Libertarian crusade?

Sure seems like it.

Same as when the usual backed Rand Paul on his fillibuster a few weeks back and said how courageous he was

and same as the same crowd comes up with an issue a week to rail against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Something is brewing.

They would fit in fine with Fox. Fox already agrees with everything they say against President Obama and the two Clintons.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

42. Trolling hard or hardly trolling?

Did you realize how dumb you come off by saying those that want to give people on social security MORE money back are Ron Paul supporters or Fox News fans? Nice try but calling those on the progressive side of this debate "conservatives" isn't going to work.


Agreeing with Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson makes me a Republican huh? Brilliant logic there. Almost as brilliant as your plan to ban cars that go over 40MPH.

[graham4anything]

48. NO Liberal would sell a civil rights hero like Elijah Cumming down the river. But Ron Paul would.

And you are not telling the truth about cars. I said Texas allowing cars to go 85

Well, a Ron Paul fan in Austria went 200mph on the AutoBahn after he won election in Austrian. His name was Jorg Haider. Ron Paul and Rand Paul were big fans of his.

this is clearly becoming what it is.

Google Jorg Haider. Google the John Birch Society.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

51. This is disconnected rambling nonsense.

I honestly don't have the slightest clue what point you're trying to make, and I don't think you do either. Are you drunk or on drugs?

[HiPointDem]

58. rambling disconnected nonsense is that poster's speciality. he's a distractor.

[neverforget]

67. Baghdad Bob more like it

[bluestate10]

175. Facts are a distraction to some, like those on the right that are acting like something else.

In my very fiber, I am a pure democrat. My instincts are proven mildly left of center again and again over my life. I know bull-shitters when I see them, some of the most virulent Obama attackers are bull-shitters that are working at other objectives. And they are likely to call anyone that challenge them detractors or third way democrats.

There was a poster on DU that was a virulent Obama attacker and attacked democrats without quarter. Once that poster saw that his posts were gaining little traction and that there were those on DU that challenged his bull-shit, he vanished.

[HiPointDem]

191. the poster in question does not offer facts; he offers word salad and non-seq.

[NOVA_Dem]

43. Even if this is schtick...it's old. n/t

[TheProgressive]

44. Oh for christ's sake..

Now yo are saying we are extreme? People wanting what is rightfully ours? As per law?

Really? a Libertarian?

Here is the proof...again... SS has a $2.7T trust fund. SS payments are fully funded for *at least* 20 years. Yet you and
the shills think we need to reduce benefits?

[kristopher]

70. +1

This attack on LO'D stinks of right wing trolls.

[Union Scribe]

74. Yes, Fox News is known for its concern for Social Security.

So are Libertarians and Rand Paul, as I'm sure you know.

[rhett o rick]

87. I will fight to keep SS safe from Obama/Simpson/Bowles. If you want to drink the koolaide

feel free.

[markpkessinger]

156. +1 n/t

[bluestate10]

174. I challenged some of them. But they would rather keep posting under the cover

of "principled" democrats. But if one follow their posts closely, they are anything but what they claim. They spew jargon against and attempt to marginalize anyone that has the guts to call them on their bullshit.

[Samantha]

45. I thought his piece was terribly fascinating and informative

It is a series he is starting and I look forward to future installments. I also took a piece of info and did some further research on it and found out some things I did not know.

There are some at MSNBC who do lean right, but Lawrence I believe is a socialist. He is pretty intelligent.

If you need to flame someone at MSNBC on this issue, might I suggest Ed Rendell, a DINO member of Fix the Debt?

Sam

[TheProgressive]

49. It isn't flaming...

Just voicing my opinion that LoD is nothing but a shill for Obama and the wealthy...

And he could care less about anything but his huge paycheck he gets....

He is a 'screw you - I got mine' kind of 'new American'...

[elleng]

54. Thanks, Sam.

[Demonaut]

66. that's my opinion too.....I wonder if some posters want to taint the water for everyone

the op is treading towards morAnic

[ForgoTheConsequence]

47. Remember when Larry tried to fight people on his show?

And he used that stupid fake Boston accent? I do, it was embarrassing. MSNBC is corporate media first and foremost, never forget that folks.

[babylonsister]

59. Yawn. So get lost if you can't deal with it. Yes, I said that.

Instead of reacting, listen and watch. Your SS will be protected, as will mine. I'm so tired of the 'righteous indignation'.

Wait, watch, learn.

[TheProgressive]

63. I really cannot believe you wrote that...

Very disappointing...

Pretend just the opposite...

Nobody on DU or real Democrats said nothing about c-cpi...

C-cpi is then voted into law. Retirees receive less and suffer more...

Is that what you want?

Should we really wait, watch and learn? From who? With what outcome?

[babylonsister]

68. Hold on! Where do you see anything voted into law?

You're kidding, right? And I can't believe you wrote that! And I'm not pretending.

[Isoldeblue]

71. +1 n/m

[graham4anything]

79. Yup. Reminds me of Ron Paul selfrighteousness.

[Union Scribe]

80. So go back to the clubhouse. Yes, I said that.

Instead of following, read something besides a DLC blog. You are not important to them, nor am I. I'm so tired of the 'righteous indignation over righteous indignation'. [sic]

Wake, think, grasp.

[rhett o rick]

85. "Wait, watch, learn". Is that the new "sit down and shut up?" I am going to fight for keeping

SS safe from Obama/Simpson/Bowles.

[babylonsister]

112. Not at all.

But the folks on DU who bemoan what "might happen" tire me. Get your butts in a tizzy when you have something to actually be 'tizzied' about. I'll join that crowd.
No, I'm not happy, but I still have that darned faith in this Prez v. the prior one.

[rhett o rick]

144. Interesting

"But the folks on DU who bemoan what "might happen" tire me." So if a hurricane is on the way you would say "wait until it hits, then tell me?"

Some of us are trying to raise awareness to PREVENT the cuts instead of hoping he will do the right thing. Millions tried to tell him not to put the proposed cuts in his budget. He did it anyway. And now that he did it, it doesnt fall in to your "might happen" category.

As far as repeating the overuse sad rationalization that "this Prez is better than the last", no one here disagrees with that. It is only used when no decent argument is left.

[Number23]

106. "I'm so tired of the 'righteous indignation'." Join the club!

Especially when the majority of it seems to be based on ignorance, uninformed emotion, and the plugging of one's ears.

The fact that some are braying because this LIBERAL on MSNBC had the unmitigated to do an informative, historical piece on SS is absolutely hilarious. The Freepers are probably loving this place right now. They probably see so much of themselves in GD the past few days.

[bluestate10]

176. I am sure that Freepers are enjoying this fight. Some of the charges from the "principles"

crowd are so freeperish. Freepers are surely wetting their briefs and panties with joy over the DU attacks on an honest and decent President.

[sabrina 1]

205. I'm sure some of them are right here stirring it. They do hate SS don't they?

[Demonaut]

61. what are you talking about???..he's not shilling..he's making an argument that SS is something the

repukes want to change but run from any change being proposed

watch the show and LISTEN

[BlueStreak]

84. Exactly. I think the OP missed the point.

Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:31 AM - Edit history (1)

It is like a lot (maybe even the majority) of controversial posts here at DU. People go off half cocked on their tiresome rants without taking the time to actually try to understand what the poster was trying to say.

O'Donnell did verbalize the case against broadening the income base -- essentially that makes it seem more like a welfare program because then there would (apparently) be a greater disconnect between the contributions made by the richest and the benefits paid out to the richest.

If that is all one heard, then one might draw the OP's conclusion.

But you can't take snippets out of context. He was presenting the best case for that argument. He then followed it IMMEDIATELY with the statement that over the past 50 years the rich have found so many ways to distort income and taxation in their favor. Consequently, the best case argument is no longer valid. And then he said the real-world argument is too complicated to cover in a short segment, so he is going to allocate a longer segment to it in his next program.

Folks. Please read before you rant. Please listen before you rant. The MSNBC hosts deserve strong criticism from time to time, but this was not such an occasion.

[liberal from boston]

102. Frances Perkins & FDR

Thank you BlueStreak--you put into words my thoughts & analysis of Lawrence's Rewrite!!!

[liberal from boston]

115. Social Security

Exactly Demonaut - Tonight Lawrence had a segment w/ Howard Fineman that reports this & I would suggest you watch it..

[SugarShack]

62. I shut him off. let them see the ratings fall..........

[TheProgressive]

65. Exactly... I don;t need to watch the fox news equivalent for the 'liberal base'

[Skidmore]

142. You just sounded like

a Teabagger/Rand Paul acolyte relativeof mine with that last statement.

[Buzz Clik]

77. LOL!

[TheProgressive]

81. Very profound....

[Buzz Clik]

133. "Ok.. Fuck You Lawrence O'Donnell and MSNBC" hardly requires a profound response.

But, DU is so incredibly predictable. We compliment ourselves constantly about how smart, open minded, and informed we are, but as soon as a television commentator (who we adore) takes a stand we don't like, suddenly we're all, "Fuck you!"

Sorry, but laughing at that immaturity is as much profundity as I can muster.

[Cha]

82. You're outing yourself as someone who is not interested in FACTS.

Only want to say Fuck you to L O'D for your imagined "shilling".

Too bad for you he didn't rage.

[TheProgressive]

91. Yawn....

I read these types of posts on open forums all the time...

[Buzz Clik]

134. What a profound response.

[Buzz Clik]

135. +1

[delrem]

88. SS should have nothing to do with budget debates.

The very fact that these bastards are putting it on the table during budget debates, rather than properly defending it as being the user paid for insurance policy that it is, shows that they are "turned".
The fact that it's the f'ing *first* thing on the table makes the whole thing more reprehensible.

Oh yah, and O'Donnell is a bit too smug. I've never liked him, esp. for the way he treats honest foreign policy reporters.

[grahamhgreen]

90. Thanks for saying it! MSNBC if far from left wing.

[TheProgressive]

92. Well, MSNBC sure did show their cards with C-cpi

MSNBC = Fox News

[PBass]

104. Pretty strong evidence that this guy is a troll:

quote: "MSNBC = Fox News"

:rolleyes:

I love Lawrence O'Donnell -- IMO he is usually right on target. Thanks for clueing me in about his SS coverage. I will make a point to watch these segments.

BTW, what does Rachel Maddow say about the proposals?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

113. What does she say? Maybe the reason that you are asking is that she hasn't said much.

What has she said? Very little.

[TheProgressive]

141. Well, being called a troll is a first for me...

Lets see...

Obama proposes, documents, and present to the world that he wants c-cpi.

Shills like LoD, shills for c-cpi.

All of the so called liberals on MSNBC report luke warm 'some liberals' reporting on the c-cpi.

I have never called anybody a troll - sure is interesting you called me a troll...

[Egalitarian Thug]

105. MSNBC = Microshit and GE. Two very left wing organizations...

So it's only logical that they would have such a radical leftists talking head on the air.

[boilerbabe]

110. they showed their true colors when they cancelled Donahue because he was anti-war.nt

[veganlush]

95. we have divided govt. get over it.

Havent you learned from the 2010 debacle? This is exactly the time when we need to support Obama and the dems.

[LaPera]

97. Go back to fucking school dude - Learn something!!

Obama hasn't given up a FUCKING dime in Social Security.....

He knows there's not a fucking chance in hell the republicans will accept his budget plan especially with 50 billion dollars in stimulus spending for jobs....

The republicans don't want anything but cuts to programs that all working people pay into and not a dime from the richest people in the country.....Republicans will never agree to any budget deal Obama comes up with....They will make no deals him with any spending for jobs or cutting loop-holes on the rich in the budget.....

Obama had to put something forth or the fucking republicans would say 'well the president doesn't even have a budget plan on the table" Well now he does baiting the republicans to take the deal - OBAMA KNOWS THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS WON'T TAKE ANY DEAL THAT WILL MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD AND THAT WILL HELP THE ECONNOMY....

OBAMA IS CALLING THE SLIMY REPUBLICANS BLUFF - SAYING HEY, HE COMPROMISED YET STILL THE REPUBLICANS WON'T COMPROMISE NOR GIVE NOT EVEN A TINY BIT.

OBAMA KNOWS, ABSOLUTELY KNOWS THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WILL CONTINUE TO OBSTRUCT AND DO NOTHING AND THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH HE CAN DO ABOUT IT - SO HE'S COUNTING ON USING IT AGAINST THEM NEXT YEAR TO TRY TO WIN 17 MORE SEATS FOR A DEM MAJORITY IN CONGRESS....KNOWING THE REPUBLICANS WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME OLD SHIT FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS IF ALLOWED TO....THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE COUNTRY, THE ECONOMY, WORKING PEOPLE OR HOW MUCH PEOPLE ARE HURTING....THEY JUST WANT THIS BLACK DEMOCRATIC PREZ TO LOOK BAD AND SAY 'SEE YOU CAN'T TRUST A DEMOCRAT WITH THE ECONOMY'.....

IF YOU STILL CAN'T FILL IN THE REMAINING BLANKS THEN DUDE YOU REALLY SHOULD GO LEARN SOMETHING......

ALL WE CAN HOPE FOR IS THAT THE DEMS GET OFF THEIR FUCKING ASSES AND VOTE NEXT YEAR - AND NOT STAY HOME - LIKE THEY DID IN 2010 BECAUSE THEIR FEELINGS ARE HURT - OH GEE, THEY DIDN'T GET WHAT THEY WANTED...WELL THE CONS CERTAINLY AREN'T GOING TO GIVE IT TO THEM.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE HOPING FOR - THAT PROGRESSIVES PISSED AT OBAMA AND STAY HOME AGAIN FOR THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS - \THEN THE REPUBLICAN ASSHOLES WILL INDEED CONTROL CONGRESS FOR OBAMA'S LAST TWO YEARS AS WELL....AND ZERO WILL GET DONE - AND WITH SO MANY FOOLS WHO WON'T VOTE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T READ BETWEEN THE LINES - THAT'S JUST WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET, BOHNER AND THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FOR TWO MORE YEARS IN 2014.

[HiPointDem]

109. We're going to get republicans because Obama & the democrats are going to be branded as

the destroyers of SS. If they didn't want that brand, they shouldn't be pulling this asinine, politically idiotic bullshit.

Typing in caps doesn't make the bullshit in your post smell sweeter.

[LaPera]

111. THE REPUBLICANS AREN'T GOING TO SIGN ANY BUDGET DEAL!

BOHNER HAS ALREADY SAID OBAMA ISSTILL NOT OFFERING ENOUGH - OBAMA KNOWS THIS - SO HOW COULD HE CUT SOCIAL SECURITY....WHAT GO WITH THE RYAN PLAN AND SS VOUCHERS...GET REAL - NOT A FUCKING CHANCE!!

[HiPointDem]

119. It doesn't matter *what* the republicans do. A democrat offered up cuts to SS in a recessionary

environment, an environment in which wages are declining, middle-class wealth has been lost, pensions are gutted, and 401ks have lost value.

Even *if* the pubs don't accept it this time:

1) The democrats are on the record as offering cuts to SS.
2) When the pubs *do* try to cuts, the dems are already on the record as having tried first.
3) The pubs can pose as the 'saviors' of SS.

stupidity all around, and worse.

it reeks, and ALL CAPS doesn't make it reek less.

[Life Long Dem]

202. Do you know how stupid that sounds

"Offered".

"Jimmy Carter" made an adjustment to the CPI in "1977". House, Senate, and Presidency, were all controlled by Democrats. Reagan, Clinton. and Nixon as well.

Been there done that.

[HiPointDem]

203. do you know how stupid *you* sound? 1) SS COLAs weren't even in effect until 1975, the result

of 1972 legislation.


2. In 1977 the Trust Fund had had negative cash flow for three years running and the fund balance was less than 40% of one year's payout, and was projected to be depleted in under 5 years. In contrast with today's situation where the fund has been in continuous positive balance, holds 350% of one year's payout, and is projected to be depleted in two *decades*.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html


3. What happened in 1977 is basically unrelated to what is being proposed now. It had to do with how initial calculation of benefits was done.

The Hsiao panel had characterized the problem with the 1972 automatic benefit adjustment mechanism as one of "overindexing.&quot 26) The advisory council report described it as a "coupled" system.(27)

Both of these terms were widely used in discussions and documents at that time. They referred to the fact that initial benefit levels increased from year to year as a result of two separate indexing mechanisms. Initial benefit levels were computed by applying a formula to the retiree's average wages under Social Security. Under the 1972 legislation, the factors in the formula were periodically increased by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index....(28) Thus, initial benefit levels were automatically increased by a mechanism which "coupled" the impact of price growth through an explicit indexing of the benefit formula and the impact of wage growth through the use of average wages. This "coupling" of the two factors made the increase in year to year benefit levels extremely difficult to predict since the increase would be based on both the absolute values and the interrelationship of inflation and wage growth...

The advisory council recommended that the situation be corrected by replacing the "coupled" mechanism for increasing initial benefit levels with a "decoupled" system which would rely entirely on wage indexing. Under the advisory council approach, the 1972 system in which the percentages in the benefit formula were indexed to the CPI each year would be dropped. A new formula would be adopted in which the percentage factors would not change from year to year. Instead of indexing the formula for price inflation, the new mechanism would index the wages to which the formula was applied. A retiree's creditable wages for each year would be adjusted to reflect wage growth in the economy between the year in which they were earned and the year of retirement. The benefit formula would then be applied to the average of those indexed wages.(30) Once individuals had their initial benefit levels computed at retirement, those benefits would be kept up to date through price indexing....
the wage indexing approach recommended by the advisory council, was essentially the approach ultimately enacted in the 1977 amendments.(31)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/notchfile3.html

4. Carter made no change in CPI of the type your post implies.

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/carter-bls.htm


So fyi, if your only knowledge of the system comes from media talking points, going around telling others how 'stupid' they are is liable to find you looking -- stupid.

SS benefits have been cut by the following presidents: Reagan, Clinton. Real changes in CPI were made under Reagan, Clinton, & Bush 2.

Reagan made both direct (for example, cutting the student benefit) and indirect cuts. Clinton made indirect cuts through changing the benefit formula and increasing the proportion of benefits subject to taxation.

[babylonsister]

117. And your argument is weakening.

Just fess up when it falls through totally.

[HiPointDem]

118. No argument, just the facts, ma'am. This is a politically damaging stunt. You folks are claiming

that it's people's *reactions* to it that are damaging. Nope. People's reactions *are* the damage.

[graham4anything]

128. People's reaction are like someone in Frankenstein's village. MOB action attacking

Reminds me of SNL
Townspeople are mad. mad mad (they sure were mad). They get their torches, and attack Frankensteins castle looking like Zimmerman going after an unarmed man.

They knock on the door threatening to break it down and Frankenstein comes to the door and tells them

You mean the castle across the street

So they look at each other, shrug and go to Dracula's castle

where the angry CUJO like Mob rings the bell and says they are going to burn it to the ground
And Dracula says you mean the castle across the street

Just an old fashioned Frankenstein's mob that weekly wants to burn something down
without ever once questioning what will be there the day after
and without ever once waiting to see what will happen.

It's the second inning of a baseball game. Do you guys leave to beat the traffic without even waiting for the 3rd inning?

Every single week since President Obama was elected in 2008, there has been one event after another.
There wasn't one day when the Frankenstein's mob ever acted nice to President Obama

They tried, like Rush Limbaugh, to exploit the fight between the President and Hillary Clinton in a naive way.

Only problem was, Hillary did not play along. She did not fight with the President.
She and the President worked together and brought along Bill to work with them.
To do as Ted Kennedy wanted- to advance forward.

And look at that list on the Grayson Upstart (who the hell is this Grayson? Sounds like Ron Paul to me) and on that list is one Civil Rights Fighter after another, and Joseph Kennedy III

So now along with Obama,Clinton(2), Jimmy Carter we can add Ted Kennedy to the list of people being torn down, and Elijah Cummings and Shiela Ann Jackson.

And this mob is going to be very disappointed when it becomes evident Elizabeth Warren eagerly supports HIllary Clinton to continue the fight WITH Barack Obama.

Then they will toss her in the river too.

Because it matters little.


This Frankenstein's mob is more like Ron and Rand Paul's audience.
They proved it when Rand Paul did that fillibuster and all sighed and cooed and cawed their love of Rand and their hatred of President Obama and everything President Obama stands for.

Frankenstein's MOB. Anyone who has seen the old 1939 movie, knows the scene of the townsfolk. And the folks mobbing are going after President Obama.

Cue in from the Invisible Man, Una O'Connor screaming
(and all the old monster movies in the 30s 40s 50s 60s were parables/allegory's on prejudice and paranoia from mostly Jewish film makers and production companies) because Jews in the 30s knew what was happening in the Holocaust, and those in the 50s and 60s were direct parables to the racism in the USA)

I know a Frankenstein's mob when I see it. All they want is blood. Gladiator eaten by Tiger.

The 1% are the mob. The 99% are those being burned down.

As I discovered earlier- It is a new ratio- 80-20. The 5 on the extreme left, bumping into the Rand Paul Ron Paul 15 on the extreme right. 80-20.

[img][/img]

[jaysunb]

192. Excellent post ! nt

[Union Scribe]

120. You know just saying that doesn't make it so, right?

Any more than saying this is no big deal doesn't make it go away?

[graham4anything]

129. see my reply right above this.

It's just the people in Rome wanting to see blood in the arena.
Doesn't matter the topic

Every week there has been a different one since the election of 2008.

and this one on the week of the Gun fight.

What a coincidence. NOT

[Union Scribe]

116. A few things

1. There's a key on the left side of your keyboard, and it appears to be stuck. Maybe you could "LEARN" how to fix that.

2. The idea that 2010 was the fault of disgruntled liberals staying home is a myth.

3. If Obama knows his budget won't get the GOP to bite, then it's even dumber for him to include something that just makes him look like a villain. It's dumb practically and it is dumb politically. There is literally nothing to gain by doing it.

4. One period will do just fine at the end of a sentence.

[siligut]

158. I agree and understand the yelling

Incredible how DU seems to just throw up their hands and forget what they know. Mob mentality?

[burrowowl]

101. Yup!

Fuck them all!

[avaistheone1]

114. k&r

[green for victory]

123. Lawrence O'Donnell behind the scenes- a revealing look at an arrogant blowhard

We Are Change= Edison Carter! Max Lives!

Some other great glimpses of the elite:
http://www.youtube.com/user/wearechange/videos

[UTUSN]

159. O.K., I sat thru 7 of 11:29 minutes when my player jammed & saw nothing "arrogant blowhard"

about him. At the beginning he made no bones about expecting conspiracy questions in the "Bilderberg" domain from this video ambusher who has apparently stalked him before, but then he gave a very thoughtful and prolonged several minutes reply to questions about the Espionage Act and "Patriot" Act, in depth describing his lack of expertise and lack of minute following those issues and how the political climate of 9-11 stampede could not have stemmed the passage of such things and how no president/OBAMA could now have gotten a cowardly Congress to reverse things.

[PA Democrat]

137. I wonder if their ratings are down?

I used to watch MSNBC every evening. First I stopped watching Tweety when he started having paid corporate whore Ed Rendell on pushing for SS cuts without revealing the fact that he is a paid LOBBYIST for that cause. Then I pretty much stopped watching altogether because I was sorely disappointed in the lack of a robust defense of SS. I was glad to see the segment that Rachel Maddow did with Axelrod, but I have to say that MSNBC as a whole has been a huge disappointment on this issue.

[ProSense]

138. I didn't see the show, and

I think chained CPI should be rejected. In fact, I don't think that it will pass (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655701).

Still, I think there is huge denial surrounding the history of Social Security and Democrats. People who want to portray Obama as the first ever Democratic President to touch Social Security prefer to ignore the history of changes to the program, most of them resulting in more severe, actual and immediate cuts.

Social Security's peculiar partisan problem
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655796

[Tx4obama]

147. A link to the video of O'Donnell's Wednesday evening Rewrite segment referred to up in the OP

The woman behind Social Security: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/51512508

[treestar]

143. Sounds like your "us" means me.

All of us baby boomers are going to lose everything? That's hyperbole.

[bluestate10]

177. Hyperbole is the order of the day recently on DU.

I am waiting for the post that claims President Obama and anyone that don't view the CPI proposal as evil are determined to line old people up on freeways and mow them down with expensive Audi SUVs, then go to the fanciest eating place imaginable and have steak and lobster. The claims and wild eyed charges are getting close to that bad.

[treestar]

188. No kidding!

And there are good things in the budget, too, yet they don't count. Closing tax loopholes for the rich, Pre-K, and others.

[whathehell]

146. Here is my tweet to O'Donnell on the issue and this is his tweet back to me..What do you think?

although I suspect it was part of a "mass" tweet, lol.

Your Tweet got a reply!



A. K. @naryaquid 12 Apr

@Lawrence : You are more enamored of Obama than you are of Democratic Party principles: "European Socialist" my ass.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawrence O'Donnell
@Lawrence

.@naryaquid Has anyone noticed that I haven't yet said what I think of chained CPI?

10:32 AM - 12 Apr 13


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't responded to his tweet, although there was a "conversation" with others on it, and it seems he's going to lay out his TRUE feelings on the Chained CPI next Monday.

Stay tuned.

[Tx4obama]

148. A link to the video of O'Donnell's Wednesday evening Rewrite segment referred to up in the OP

The woman behind Social Security: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/51512508

[Larkspur]

151. I watched both his SS segments and no where does he explain why the changes

were made or what assumptions were held when they made them.

In the 1980's, SS had to change to pay for the Baby Boomers and their parents generations. WE Baby Boomers accepted the increase in SS tax. Raising the age to 67 from 65 was under the assumption that SS would be 1 of 3 legs of retirement funds for working Americans and that Americans would be living longer. But today, most Americans only have SS and are not living longer than their parents. The wealthy are living long but not the working poor nor the middle class. Unlike, when Tip O'Neil was Speaker of the House, today's workers are either losing their pensions or not getting one to begin with. So that leaves 401ks, which were just beginning at the time of that SS change, and SS for retirement savings for American workers. With the recent economic disaster, many working Americans have devoured their 401ks so now only have SS to look forward to.

O'Donnell has always been a shill for the Dem Establishment. He began his career as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). He served him from 1989 - 1995. From 1993 to 1995 O'Donnell was Staff Director for the Senate Finance Committee.

While I agree that SS has been changed in the past and that there were benefit cuts to retirees, SS was also expanded to include disabled Americans and widows/widowers and their children. Just ask Paul Ryan about the SS benefit checks he got after his father died. I got them because my father died when I was 2.5 years old.

I challenge O'Donnell to invite Sen. Bernie Sanders on his show to debate SS cuts.

[ebbie15644]

152. Agree strongly!

I turned him off last night and I won't watch him again!

[bluestate10]

161. O'Donnell told the truth. Anyone that has really studied history should have known that.

SS was designed as a stopgap program to insure widows and their children had food and shelter. It was not intended to cover men and it was not intended to provide for a person's every need.

[TheProgressive]

163. Programs are allowed and most times required to change with the times...

Pensions are all but extinct.

401ks are a defined contribution plan not a defined benefits plan and
therefore subject to the whims of the market and administrators...

Citing what they thought in the 1930's is a republican talking point...

[Rider3]

165. Right on!

[LarryNM]

171. We Must Destroy the Village in order to Save It

O'Donnell selected the facts that fit his propaganda/agenda and ignored the others.

[Faygo Kid]

180. I watched it. Jaw dropping.

The chained CPI is a cut, period, that people can't afford, and it opens the door for the GOP to win in 2014 and go after Social Security with a meat cleaver. It was inside-the-Beltway crap, and I'll take Bernie Sanders over Lawrence O'Donnell any day of the week.

[TheProgressive]

186. I have a feeling your DU existence will be short lived...

But thanks for the comment!

[RBInMaine]

189. How about "Fuck the Republicans who want to end these programs entirely."???

[Jamaal510]

200. +1

I'm starting to wonder if the President has a trick up his sleeve, since most of us know that the GOP is highly unlikely to allow any top tax increases. Many people on this site and some progressives in the media have set their hair on fire and acted like this is such a lop-sided compromise, and that Obama "caved". But when you look at some of the details, it really sort of looks like a turd sandwich from the GOP's perspective because not only does it include higher top tax rates, but it also includes higher taxes on tobacco to be used for pre-K schooling among other progressive policies. I doubt very seriously that their side would agree to this deal. They are rightfully going to be painted as the party that was unwilling to reach out to the other side.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

201. Maybe he needs the job.

But, of course, that doesn't mean that any of us need to continue to watch him and such support.

[treestar]

210. Purely fallacious, as you are merely attacking the person

What of the Frances Perkins interview? You can hardly argue that at age 82 in 1962 she was shilling for Obama.