General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWow, really, are Democrats now a party that want to gut Social Security in favor of tax cuts?
Seriously, the payroll tax cut should not be a position that any Democrat, liberal or progressive is in favor of.
First of all, what does this payroll tax fund? Oh, yeah, Social Security, the penultimate Democratic legislative achievement. Yes, I know, the funding shortfall will be made up, but how? The money comes out of General Funds, which means that now the funding for Social Security can be politicized, subject to votes, lobbying and various background deals. The invulnerable lockbox structure that has protected Social Security from generations of greedy 'Pugs has now been cracked, and if we continue down this path, that crack can be further widened, eventually to the point where Social Security can be destroyed.
Seriously, is this what the Democratic party wants? Yes, I understand that we need an economic stimulus, but frankly it has been shown that tax cuts are the least effective form of economic stimulus bar none. But this, this is the path we're being called upon to follow? Really, truly? Sorry, that's not Democratic by any stretch of the imagination, but rather Republican lite.
Are we this foolish that we're going to play right into Republican hands and put Social Security on the path to ruin? Whatever happened to paying taxes as being patriotic? Whatever happened to sacrificing a little in terms of short term pain for yourself in order to benefit the whole in the long run?
I simply can't fathom the support for this payroll tax cut, not among Democrats in DC, or on this board. The 'Pugs are just drooling at this prospect, the Democrats delivering them the means with which to destroy SS, all the while some Dems are taking up that 'Pug chant "Cut taxes, cut taxes".
What does the person with a fifty thousand dollar salary receive from the tax cut? Approximately twenty bucks a week. Frankly I imagine a lot of people making fifty thousand spend more than that a week on coffee from Starbucks. In other words, if reinstated, the payroll tax would not be a great hardship for people.
But some Democrats are acting like 'Pugs, like the restoration of this payroll tax is going to send people to the poor house and send the economy into a tailspin. That's simply not true. All that this payroll tax cut is is a short term buzz that does no real stimulating, but looks good politically. However if this cut continues, as is looking more and more likely, it will spell the beginning of the end for Social Security.
Is that what Democrats and liberals want, to open the door to ruination of Social Security. Are we so shallow and greedy that we want a tiny bit of short term gain for ourselves at the expense of long term pain for untold numbers of our elderly and poor who depend on Social Security? I certainly hope not, and I sincerely hope that people will contact their reps, especially their Democratic ones, and tell them hands off Social Security.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LonePirate
(14,367 posts)Just saying a bill contains a tax cut without any sort of tax increase is usually enough for the Rs to sign up en masse.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)
AnOhioan
(2,894 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)Answer is YES re: Dems in Washington.
They do not represent me. Nope.
Get ready to be bullied, MadHound. "Thou shalt not speak ill of Democrats." But I have your back. When they're wrong they're wrong.
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)what in the world are they doing- it is not a tax cut, it is a reduction in contribution to a pension.
Sad is what it is. Glad that you brought it up.
Bogart
(178 posts)and Republicans will continue to vote for anyone with a R after their name.
And then...they will ask themselves why doesn't anything change...?
I would 
about it if it didn't make me 
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Not any more.
Bogart
(178 posts)And if someone surprises them, they have some pretty effective countermeasures that they can employ. Howard Dean can vouch for that.
Republicans operatives conduct themselves in an identical manner, e.g., Cain, Gingrich.
cally
(21,868 posts)because the tax cut is targeted to middle and low income workers who will spend the tax cut. When I studied macro economics, payroll taxes were touted as one of the best stimulus measures--better than government spending because the money is immediately spent and government spending takes awhile. We are still desperately trying to avert a depression and reduce unemployment.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Tax cuts and tax credits, it doesn't matter which demographic group they are targeted at, are the worst form of economic stimulus going. The rate of economic stimulus is something like a buck and eight cents for every dollar of taxes cut, far lower than broadening unemployment insurance, expanding food stamps, or the real big form of economic stimulus, a WPA style job creation program.
cally
(21,868 posts)and government spending if targeted correctly does stimulate more but it takes a certain amount of time to get programs in place. Umm, UC Berkeley, highest honors. BS and Masters.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But the fact of the matter is that they're still a tax cut, and thus a worse form of stimulus than UI, food stamp increases, welfare increases, job creation, etc. etc.
Hmm, who to believe, a Nobel Prize winning economist or an anonymous internet poster? Thanks, I'll go with Krugman.
cally
(21,868 posts)tblue
(16,350 posts)Everyone here is, more or less. No?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Tax cuts don't really provide that much stimulus. Tax cuts at the bottom provide slightly more ebcause those in poor and working class brackets are more apt to spend the money than the wealthy.
This does not mean that tax cuts are the best vehicle for economic stimulation, as a matter of fact we can safely say that it may well be one of the worst methods for creating a healthy economy. We have had thirty some odd years of tax cut ideology and tax cut policy and it has contributed to where we are today. Massive deficits and terrible job numbers seem to be the result.
Tax cuts also require the government to make stupid choices regarding budget cuts to make up for the deficit, which seems to disproportionately fall on those poor and middle class people that the tax cuts are for. This means the poor and middle class get the honor of stimulating briefly a consumer based economy that, at best, produces a few retail jobs before shipping most of the profits to large corporations that tend to employ slave labor in far off countries lacking worker protections.
This seems like a bad thing to me but I am curious what you might think about this.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I guess I didn't really expect a bloody response.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)liquidity trap. And he positively mocks anyone who believes that "hyper-inflation" is possible as a resuslt of such an action when such an action is taken in a liquidity trap. He actually has a name for them: "inflationistas."
It is a shame that in cases like these, anonymous internet posters become more credible to some than Nobel Prize winning economists on monetary policy.
The random internet poster you speak of hasn't proved a bloody thing. And the inflation panic people are those in hedges and the wealthiest who understand that money and wealth are zero sum games. Why would they want to change the game that interferes with their positions in society?
Some inflation is inevitable but banks that have fixed rates of interest tend to lose a lot of money if there is moderate inflation. Not all inflation leads to Weimar Germany though, and it is ridiculous to try to conflate that fear to that level.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)I agree with Krugman.
Any inflation that could possibly occur (given that we are in a liquidity trap) would be very moderate by historical standards.
I probably misunderstood.
There is a subset here that criticizes Krugman for some strange reason, and then there is the OP that seems to think Tax Cuts are the answer. I dunno, sometimes I react.
Thanks 
juajen
(8,515 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Good luck getting that passed with this congress though.
They are just trying anything to get a little extra money into the hands of the working class right now.
The problem is congress. That is where we should be putting our energy, into electing more progressive and real liberals to congress.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And untold pain for generations of the elderly and poor in this country when Social Security is torn apart, which is the Pandora's box we're opening up with this tax cut. No thanks, the trade-off simply isn't worth it.
As far as getting a WPA style job creation program through, well, we won't know until we try pushing it through, try fighting for it, but that is something this administration, and Democrats in general, seem to lack, the will to actually stand up and fight for something.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)that's why we need to concentrate on getting real democrats/progressives who are willing to fight for such things elected to congress. The ones there currently aren't doing jack.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)After all, I don't know whether dropping a ball will result it falling to the ground until I try it. But I can make a pretty good guess from experience and knowledge without trying it.
Republicans do not want to help the economy before November of 2012. They certainly do not want to help the economy by spending money. In fact, they want to reduce spending by taking away money that would otherwise go to the non-rich. They want to reduce government payrolls, lay off government employees, freeze or lower government wages, and close government departments.
There is literally an equal chance of a ball in my hand drifting to the sky when I drop it, than there is that a single elected Republican in either the House or the Senate (let alone a majority) would vote for a new WPA.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)They are the least effective form of economic stimulus going. Yet the Obama administration continues to propose tax cut after tax cut.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)could pass the current Congress.
You are merely saying "we don't know until we try." But basically everyone but you does know, even without trying (just like we all know that gravity will operate the same way today as it did yesterday, without trying). There is a difference between an optimal policy (which no one is arguing this is), and the best policy out of the alternatives that are possible.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Can't do anything when they're out of power, can't do anything when they're in power. I'm becoming real convinced that they simply can't do anything, no matter how large a majority they have, no matter who is in the White House.
And if they are so powerless, what good are they and why should we support them?
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)pass legislation. The White House and the Senate (together but without the House) cannot spend one dollar. So you should be convinced that with the White House and Senate (together but without the House), they can't do anything that the Republicans don't approve of. Because it is an accurate statement. See US Constitution, Article I.
"And if they are so powerless, what good are they and why should we support them?"
Republicans are definitely making that argument: that we shouldn't support Democrats, since they can't get stuff done when Republicans control the House.
Step 1: Use the House to block whatever the Democrats want.
Step 2: Exploit the ignorance of the public on the concept of "divided government" to blame the Democrats for nothing getting done.
I just never thought I would be hearing a progressive Democrat make that argument, not least because they themselves apparently do not understand the concept of divided government.
tblue
(16,350 posts)but if we fall short, AGAIN, then what? Aren't the people we elect supposed to represent us? Or are we just supposed to give them our money and our time and be happy "our" candidate wins no matter what he/she does once sworn in?
I don't mean to pick on you personally. It's just people keep saying "Just elect enough Dems and things will work out." Easier said than done and there is no guarantee we can even do it. And even if we succeed, they seem to fall short of expectations once they're installed. Am I wrong?
The turnout we got in '08 was amazing and and so many people worked so hard on that election. And it still wasn't enough. We don't have forever to fix this. I don't have an answer. I don't know what to do.
So aggravating.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)There is no such thing as a bad economic stimulus when the economy is on the verge of recession and unemployment is near 9%. Mark Zandi's projections are that failure to pass the payroll tax cut would decrease economic growth by 1% in 2012 and result in a million fewer jobs in 2012.
http://www.nul.org/content/act-payroll-tax-cut-now
The payroll tax cut is a sort of Robin Hood tax cut. It takes from the wealthy, who pay the preponderance of income taxes, to put money in the pockets of the working people whose labor created that wealth. Seeing people who fancy themselves to be progressive oppose it would be hilarious, if it weren't so pathetic.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Exactly how does it actually take money from the hands of the wealthy?
And the tax cut would increase the deficit which would need to be covered with government cuts. What programs do you imagine would be cut if the deficit increases? Can you say "austerity economics?"
This would be the working class and working poor cutting their own throats in the future for a few extra nickles today.
This is not a solution.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)For our investment. Don't you agree? Tax cuts get us the worst return on investment. WPA style job creation get the best. Why don't you want the best, why are you settling for the worst.
provis99
(13,062 posts)want to increase consumption? Shift a lot of money from the idle money in rich peoples' bank accounts and give it to homeless people and people on welfare.
that will do a whole lot more to stimulate the economy than any tax cut.
The BEST stimulus would be to send everybody a check from the General Fund.
THAT way, the Unemployed (remember them?) also get some short term relief.
Bush-the-Lesser already did that, so there is a precedent.
It would cost more,
but the FICA Contributions don't take a hit,
and Social Security is saved from the Death of a Thousand Cuts.
Tax Cuts as an Economic Stimulus are GREAT.... only if you are listening to Republicans, "Centrists", WhiteHouse.gov, and the 1%.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)If Bush had gone after FICA Contributions,
the Democratic Party would have Come Down on his Neck like a Saint George on a Dragon,
so WHY is it now a GREAT THING when Obama does it? 
During Campaign 2008, Candidate Obama stated that Raising the CAP on FICA Contributions was the best way to protect Social Security,
so WHY is he NOW preaching that we need to CUT them?
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Permanently raising the cap is not at all inconsistent with temporary counter-cyclical stimulus in the form of a temporary payroll tax cut. Both should be enacted simultaneously. We should have a temporary payroll tax cut until date X, and then a permanent raising of the cap from beyond date X.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Probably 99% of Americans have no idea they got this tax cut. So are they spending it? Probably. How has that boosted GDP? It hasn't. Besides, anyone who knows about it probably did the smart thing and saved it.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)The American economy added jobs every month this year, in spite of the Republican assault on private sector jons at the state and national level, in spite of the European economic mess, and in spite of the continuing depression in the housing sector. On what do you base your belief that it hasn't worked?
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)where did you get this story from?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Just applying a little common sense and foresight to the discussion. I've been around the block a few times and seen how these kind of things play out, and it won't be pretty.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)nt.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)back to the workers from the general fund?
How long do you think this could continue before the politicians decided we could no longer afford it?
If we can give half of it back in a taxcut, then why can't we give it all back??
If you think this is a wise move, then you should think a little deeper.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)as republicans apparently wont be happy unless they actually hurt the economy and working class somehow. Not just in the future, but now. Cause they are assholes convinced that desperate people will vote them back in since they successfully blocked any attempt to do good while democrats were in office. Of course some democrats are blue dogs and just suck so there is that....
jenmito
(37,326 posts)Protecting the Trust Fund: A Key Component of the Payroll Tax Cut
Dec 07, 2011
When the payroll tax holiday was first legislated back in 2010, there was considerable, and understandable, anxiety about the impact of reducing payroll taxes on the Social Security Trust Fund. After all, if 2% of the tax was going to stay in workers’ paychecks, wouldn’t that disrupt the flow to the fund?
Yes, but the legislation was crafted to explicitly protect the trust fund, by transferring resources from the government’s general coffers. Even the Social Security actuary—now that’s gotta be a fun guy at a party—whose job is to protect the fund, publicly recognized the replacement agreement (see box here).
Yet once again, we’re hearing the same arguments from opponents of the extension. These arguments were wrong then and they’re still wrong. In fact, given that the program has been in place for about a year, we can now see the evidence of the payments from the general fund to the trust fund.
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/protecting-the-trust-fund-a-key-component-of-the-payroll-tax-cut/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Not surprising.
jenmito
(37,326 posts)
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)But the simplest way to put it is this.
They can't cut the makeup funding from the general fund.
UNLESS
They can trigger an across the board program funding slash, which can only be done by hitting the debt ceiling.
SO:
Have we every had a problem with the debt ceiling? Uh oh yeah. If they cause an across the board cut, then they can target the makeup fund money, which will accelerate the consumption of the social security treasury notes and shift the bankruptcy date forward (from the most dire estimate of 2037, which assumes a 1.5% annual GDP growth rate).
Long term, if this measure is kept as a temporary measure, the damage will likely be minimal. If however they push it significantly past the projected debt ceiling cap (or god forbid make it permanent), then we'll see some serious problems.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Wow, really, are Democrats now a party that want to gut Social Security in favor of tax cuts?"
...that's inaccurate.
The NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, "resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011." This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-payroll-tax-cut-did-not-cost-security-revenue
Carry on!
MadHound
(34,179 posts)The money is being drawn from General Revenue. Which throws that funding channel into the political arena, to be cut, spindled and mutilated. Voila! We see the demise of Social Security begin before our eyes.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)You have no guarantee to SS. Congress can cut your benefit tomorrow. Congress can also take your payroll taxes and use them for whatever they want. SS funding is not guaranteed either. There is no special account payroll taxes go into anyway. It all goes into the same hopper than is used to fund everything else. So all congress is doing is a simple paperwork exercise that results in working people getting a 2% tax cut that doesn't go to non-wage earners and wage income that exceeds $110K.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)You are more intelligent than that.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)But count me in as someone who is pro-fact, pro-data, and pro-truth. The numbers don't lie, and I am proud to acknowledge them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Wow. Unbelievable.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Not how the party wants to describe it as a payroll tax cut for the working class.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)kentuck
(115,406 posts)I cannot believe so many Democrats and DUers are so short-sighted. It doesn't matter if it is coming from the general fund or not. It is putting it into hands of the politicians for funding instead of the hands of the people paying for it. This is a terrible mistake. Some folks are being cynically used by the Democratic leaders in Washington, most specifically, the President of the United States. It is a very sad betrayal.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)A: Ronald Reagan; back when the fund had a twenty-year-to-broke situation due to demographic shifts. The alternative was to raise the cap on payroll deductions, which would have made it more fair and equitable all-around, but of course the repugs chose the option that took more from the middle and lower-earners, and left the top end tax-free.
While its far from perfect, a cut in the payroll tax rolls back the Reagan increases, and replaces it with funds from general revenue - all taxes collected - which is a source based on the much fairer progressive tax system we have.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)with folks like Alan Greenspan on it, and approved by the Democrats and Repubs in Congress.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)The funding for Social Security is not "subject to votes, lobbying, and various background deals." The transfer from the general fund to the trust fund happens contemporaneously with the reduction in FICA taxes, and it is automatic (and not subject to the general appropriations process).
You may continue to believe that there is some set of lawmakers that would vote to cut SS benefits in the future if the funding source is X, but wouldn't cut benefits in the future if the funding source is Y. But that just makes you wrong -- not the national Democratic party wrong. Good for the Democratic party for pushing for a policy that isn't just nearly unanimously popular among Democrats, but popular across the country and will result in money going to people who need it.
juajen
(8,515 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)The General Revenue is subject to political whims.
Robb
(39,665 posts)What, you think these things are written on big stone tablets?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)whims and that includes Social Security. The Constitution explicitly give congress that power.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Bachmann said she didn’t support last year’s payroll tax cut, because it took money from the Social Security trust fund and “put senior citizens at risk.” But that’s not true. The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees said that the tax cut would have “no financial impact” on the trust fund.
Bachmann, Dec. 18: Well, I didn’t support it a year ago when it was first proposed, and the reason why I didn’t is because it, it denied $111 billion to the Social Security trust fund. I didn’t think that that was a good thing to do last year. I don’t think it’s a good thing to do this year. … t’s put senior citizens at risk by denying the $111 billion to the Social Security trust fund.
Reducing the Social Security payroll taxes paid by employees by 2 percentage points (to 4.2 percent) obviously brings in less money for Social Security. But the trust fund isn’t suffering as a result. The government must cover the shortfall with general fund money.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the tax cut, passed in December 2010, would reduce Social Security revenues by about $115 billion in fiscal 2011 and 2012. Again, that shortfall will be covered by the general fund. The trust fund isn’t being “denied” any money, as Bachmann claimed.
Congress and the White House are now working to pass an extension of this tax cut, and arguing over how to pay for it. Paying for it, of course, would mean the trust fund again won’t be shortchanged.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)whether or not the money is appropriated. At the present time, the Republicans are in power in the House of Representatives.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Because that's the central issue of the OP.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)to help with "deficit reduction". That's the whole point of those who are trying to save SS.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)forth bills that cut spending. Or increase it. That is their Constitutional power.
Edited to correct congressional with Constitutional
blindpig
(11,292 posts)The curtain is rent, the masks are off, the need is great(saving capitalism on the backs of the working class) and there is no need any longer for the subterfuge. Unions are massively reduced, socialists are broken and in disarray, the Soviet Union is no more and they can use those bucks that were placating the workers, whose to stop them?
By their own hubris they will raise the zombie from the grave, they cannot help but sell rope.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)tax cuts are not good for the economy, that is a right wing lie that now some Obama supporters are peddling. Anyways, the tax cut lie is talked about here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10171630
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)the ALL .....by thinking with the Small Moot Tiny Band Aid Shit...
big Better BEST....The BEST of ALL???
The GOPers Hate this Best Shit....they have the BEST and refuse to SHARE...even tiny amounts...they refuse...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They just voted to pass NDAA. I think most liberals are against it.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Don't worry, nobody will mistake you for a Democrat.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)transcontinental pipeline, support domestic spying, support the Patriot Act, etc. IMO the conservatives have abandoned the Republicon Party and left it for the nit-wits, and have coopted the Democratic Party. All of the president's advisers are conservatives, ala. Jeff Immelt, etc.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)see, if you disagree with the New Democrats old republican thinking, you can't possibly be a democrat. Talk about condescending arrogance.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
dawg
(10,777 posts)There is no linkage of this tax cut to the amounts that are being credited to the Social Security trust fund. If there was a linkage, most Democrats *would* oppose the cuts.
Social Security will be credited for the full amount that would have been colleted had the tax cuts not been enacted.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Every couple months ... "Obama and the Dems are definitely, absolutely, positively, going to kill Social Security!!!!!"
Obama is going to announce it ... the cuts are all but finalized!!!!
Then ... nothing.
This particular meme has become its own DU soap opera.
Build up, build up, build up ... then nothing scary happens.
And when you point that out ... the response is ... "they only did not do it because we screamed!!!!"
Its like the folks who predict the end of the world, and when it does not happen, they claim that it was their prayers that kept God from destroying everything.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Back when Obama and Boehner were working on the grand bargain, there were trial baloons being floated about changing one of the internal inflation-based factors used to calculate benefits. The key words to look for are "chained CPI".
This would have had the effect of cutting Social Security benefits for future recipients and I have never once heard the President or anyone close to him rule this out.
But the payroll tax cut is not a threat.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)"Chained CPI" discussion.
This is how I see the SS discussion.
Those who claim "Obama put SS on the table" are wrong. SS exists. The GOP hates it. And given those 2 facts it is ALWAYS on the table.
And then ... we on the left would argue we could improve SS if we "lower the age" or "raise the cap" ... and so on ... to even have those discussions, we need SS "on the table".
So back to the chained CPI ... I think of it like kids trading baseball cards. I have a Pete Rose limited edition rookie card. You want me to trade it to you. So I say ... agree to give me cards X, Y and Z ... and consider giving you Pete.
And then you say NO WAY ... you don't get X, Y and Z for Pete!! And we both walk.
I think Obama was simply testing them. SS, as I said is already on the table ... what is the GOP willing to give up in exchange for "chained CPI", which is a rather small "give" if you will ... and the GOP response ... NOTHING!!!!
I think it is good for him to bait them on the SS topic. It causes them to scream about it being a PONZY scheme (see Rick Perry) ...
Anyway ... I agree ... the payroll tax is no threat ... and I think, overall, Obama is daring the GOP to attack SS publically.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Personally I think it muddies the political waters to allow people to think there is even a possiblity of a Democratic President agreeing to something like a chained CPI, or an increase in the Medicare age, or other such foolery.
I know it has contributed to much strife on DU. And I feel like it let the Republicans off the hook with voters a little for the draconian Ryan plan that most of them voted for.
Just as strategy, I believe that the average voter - if they know nothing else about Democrats - should know that we will not stand for cuts to SS or Medicare benefits. I think this would have great value to us politically.
And considering the fact that most other rich nations are able to provide such coverage - not just to 65 and older but to all their citizens - I don't think it's right to put any of our safety net programs on the table.
If it was just strategy - I think it is a bad one. I think it hurts the Democratic brand.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)including news wars, drone strikes, de-funding of SS, extension of the Bush tax cuts, warrantless searches, indefinite detention without charges, and so on. Some of us won't.
I'm still looking for the elusive "I agree with all Obama policies 100%" Democrats on DU. How many are there? One? Five? Ten?
How many is "many, many"?
Or is it your construction meant to paint anyone who agrees with one policy as "probably some idiot who agrees with everything Obama does"?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)are many others that always, without exception (that I have seen posted anyway) defend every and all positions of the POTUS, it is all over the board, to deny it is a bit disingenuous on your part, I mean you must see the same posts that I do.
I could name a dozen, but that would start some shit I don't want to start, I perhaps should not have even mentioned Prosense, but I felt she would be proud of her unquestioning support of her idol, I have had idols in the past and been blinded to their sometimes glaring flaws, so I can identify with the unintended self deception.
Robb
(39,665 posts)There's a dozen people on DU who support every single policy of the Obama administration. Fools who idolize the man and are blinded to the glaring flaws?
How can a dozen people be "all over the board"?
I'm still thinking it's a backhanded way to broadbrush anyone who supports a particular policy as being one of those blinded fools whose opinions can therefore be discounted.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)In so many threads that one wonders what else they do during the day, you know this, quit pretending, it is unhealthy and denying an axiom is tiresome to all concerned.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...this President -- assuming they've been here a year or two.
I find it difficult to believe you could find five.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)...that the one poster you pointed out didn't even support Obama in the primaries?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Not candidate Obama, he was a rather different fellow, one that I supported in the primaries once the liberal candidates were pushed out (I would have preferred a new deal Democrat rather than a free trade Clintonian).
Actually, it does surprise me now that you mention it, I stayed out of the primary wars once they got down to two neo-lib new fangled "conservative dem" candidates.
Perhaps she was put off by the anti-free-trade, no individual mandate liberal pretense he put on back then.
It would make sense, I liked that rhetoric back then and dislike it's opposite in policy by him, perhaps she disliked the rhetoric and is enamored by the more conservative actions?
Yes in all honesty I am surprised I must admit.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)agree with the president on every right-wing policy he adopts (or is "forced into by political realties"
, that's a pretty big chunk. Check out the current thread on MJ decriminalization. The same DUers who agree with the president on insurance mandates, new wars, escalation of old wars, tax relief for billionaires, and so on also are with him on the War On Drugs.
WillyT
(72,631 posts):kick:
