If you're an elected dem who is open to cutting Social Security, or Medicare or S.N.A.P., Fuck you.

[cali]

It doesn't matter if you call yourself a democrat. It's not excusable because you support marriage equality. It's not enough that you support reproductive rights. Being a social liberal isn't enough. Period.

If you're an elected dem who leaves the door open to cuts in social security and the safety net, it won't go unnoticed.

And yeah, Fuck you.

[jpak]

1. +1

yup

[Trust Buster]

2. Your language is inappropriate and unnecessary. We have no choice but to address our financial

shortfalls. Our debt is out of control. Telling people to F*** Y** is not helpful in reaching consensus.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. You don't reach consensus with Dems

that would be open to cutting those programs.

[CharlotteVale]

6. [phone]

[cali]

10. Conservadems. Nothing like a big tent.

[Hortensis]

83. Well, we ARE a big tent. There are purer parties around for

those who can't stomach the realities of political diversity, Cali. I agree those are hard to stomach sometimes, but for me usually losing and being mostly ineffectual is far worse.

Speaking of what we want to protect and achieve, I don't see anything at all helpful to progressivism in your post.

[cali]

93. Is the tent big enough for anti-choicers?

[Quackers]

162. The tent is big enough for everyone, even Trump!

[Human101948]

179. His head wouldn't fit in under the tent....

Way, way too big.

[Quackers]

212. I thought we were using his head as the main tent post? nt

[RKP5637]

477. And his hair would be a fire hazard! n/t

[Kall]

323. The tent is big enough for Jeb Bush's big donors, apparently.

[7962]

325. Ouch!

[mdbl]

439. Might as well be

That's the dumb logic I keep hearing.

[Hortensis]

198. Yes, it has to be. We have significant religious blocks

of various faiths, such as the black Christians block, who support most liberal policies but oppose abortion. Plus irreligious members who also oppose abortion. They're here, and they're not going away just because the kind of people who reject working together toward the goals they have in common don't like it.

You can go find a smaller and purer party, but no party can please all members. If members aren't worried about huge issues like abortion in one of those, they're instead divided into factions over whether all fungicides must be made illegal or a couple of organic forms should be allowed.

[cali]

202. You'd be booted off DU for being anti-choice or opposing marriage equality.

[Hortensis]

209. Nonsense. It's all in how it's expressed, as you

know very well.

[cali]

219. Bullshit. Those are the rules. Certainly when it comes to marriage equality.

[Hortensis]

234. Nonsense. Produce the rule or stop misrepresenting DU's TOS.

Hate speech is not allowed. It is always possible for reasonable people to express personal beliefs without turning them into hateful attacks on others.

Good thing considering some Democrats are anti-abortion and anti- gay marriage and this IS Democratic Underground.

[Scootaloo]

244. Here you go.

No bigoted hate speech.
Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

On DU, opposition to marriage equality is 100% considered a form of hate speech.

[Hortensis]

251. "No bigoted hate speech."

You're right. And it certainly could be used to bounce hatemongers, and no doubt has. But it is normally not enforced to smother free speech.

DU leans over backwards to allow almost any free speech as long as it does not qualify as "hate speech." Certainly hate-ful extressions are extremely common here, and constant hateful attacks on the Democratic Party and its members and elected representatives itself are routine.

But you know all this. There are some who just resent DU's TOS because they sometimes get in their way or have resulted in the banishment of favorite roilers.

[Scootaloo]

253. I bolded the relevant point for you

And explained why it's relevant. Opposition to marriage equality has always been considered a form of hate speech on DU, and yes, people HAVE been banned over it.

Maybe stick around for a while, pay attention to the place you're posting in, learn some things.

[Hortensis]

261. I'd forgottten other threads we've intersected in.

Most of us, Scootaloo, check the TOS for what we can do. Some memorize them to use as weapons to use against others. Like lawyers searching for words that can be put to work.

[Scootaloo]

264. I'm informing you about the fact that anti-equality opinions are considered hate speech on DU

It's right there, in the content I quoted.

[cali]

286. Playing the victim after being hoisted on your own petard. Charming

[cali]

262. Don't bother. A modicum of honesty is needed. It's not there.

[Scootaloo]

265. I like watching them turn their own arguments into spaghetti n/t

[rhett o rick]

290. Good to see you posting scoot. They can't argue, that why they won't enter any discussions

with anything other than ad hominem attacks.

[MNBrewer]

446. Opposition to marriage equality was OK on DU

Right up until about the time when President Obama "evolved" on the subject.

[Marr]

454. You demand to see the rule, and when it's placed right under your nose, you climb onto

a fucking cross and play the victim.

Zero integrity.

[sulphurdunn]

306. Does crticism of Israel

by DU members for its policies toward Palestinians count as hate speech?

[cali]

317. Certainly not. Have you been to the I/P forum?

[sulphurdunn]

318. I'll take a look at it.

[Henhouse]

368. Plenty of Democrats support civil unions but not same sex marriage. That is not a violation of TOS

[Scootaloo]

393. It is, in fact. The ToS mandates full equality

I mean, you can have your opinion, but you would need to keep it to yourself

[Henhouse]

366. Many socially conservative democrats oppose abortion and same sex marriage.

I'm in SC and many of my friends are Democrats but they are socially conservative southern Baptists. They don't hate me for being pro choice or pro same sex marriage. Why would I disown them for having a different opinion.

[cali]

444. How do they feel about cutting Social Security?

[KPN]

272. No party can displease 45-50% of its members on economic issues and remain viable.

[ReRe]

424. Now...

... there's a quote.

[alfredo]

349. Reps tried purity, and look what happened to them

Our strength is our diversity

[cali]

356. Oh please. There is no party without these bedrock principles

[alfredo]

362. Yes, but we allow for some differences of opinion

around those bed rock principles. We do not demand slavish devotion to the party line.

Democrats fall in love
Republicans fall in line

[Marr]

455. Yeah, let's just make it the Blue Hat Club. Push any agenda you like, so long as you wear your

blue hat!

A party has to actually stand for something. Not cutting Social Security is the absolute minimum we should expect from a Democrat.

[alfredo]

464. Demanding purity of thought and actions is not

What makes our party strong. Yes we have core values, and they are what makes us Democrats, but regecting a person because he/she doesn't check every box does not.

I did not agree with Obama, I thought he was too conservative, but I supported him because I agreed with much of what he stood for. I was not compromising my values, I understood that I will not find a president that mirrors me.

Our party is not authoritarian. We do not demand agreement on every issue. We allow some wiggle room on issues outside of our core beliefs. We allow all religious beliefs, all races, and all economic classes. We allow for Supporters of Israel and supporters of the Palestinian people.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

[DLevine]

435. Anti-choice is a Republican value, not a Democratic one. nt

[Henhouse]

363. Yes...Democrats For Life and its members

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_for_Life_of_America

Democrats For Life stresses that pro-life and pro-choice Democrats should unite in a common cause to make abortion rare through social programs, despite their differences of opinion on whether and to what degree abortion should be legal.

[DLevine]

434. If Democrats can't back a woman's right to make her own

reproductive choices, then shame on us.

[me b zola]

139. I prefer Bernie's outreach to republicans to the Neo-Liberal method

Bernie tells people his long held beliefs and shows republicans where we share common ground. This is what Bernie brilliantly did at Liberty University. He began by acknowledging that there were some issues where we are not going to agree, but there are other issues that we can agree on.

The Neo Liberal way to reach out to republicans is to absorb conservative ideas into policy and call that progressive.

I like Bernie's big tent better.

[Kittycat]

164. +1000

[cali]

189. Just yes.

[Hortensis]

190. Neoliberal is an arcane term for the CONSERVATISM

that developed in the context of American-style democracy, to replace monarchical and other European forms. Spinmeisters dusted it off, knowing the combination of conservatism + "liberal" in the name would make it useful.

Whenever I see this word being used this way, I know the poster's been suckered, or more usually gleefully grabbed onto it to sucker themselves. I also know it's being shoved at liberals as a gratuitous insult, so stuff it.

[Scootaloo]

206. So... you don't actually know what a standard political term means or where it comes from, then

[KPN]

274. OK -- we've heard you make this argument before and easily discredited its relevance.

So move along.

[suffragette]

276. Exactly so!

[myrna minx]

320. Thank you.

[Marr]

147. This isn't fucking 'diversity', or some incidental issue. He's mouthing the

Republican position on the issue that defines the (supposed) difference between the two parties; the economy.

[pangaia]

333. I SURE DO !!

[AllyCat]

365. Cutting social programs to "reduce debt" is what Republicans do

Not Democrats.

[leveymg]

457. We need a new tent if this one shrinks SS to fund another war.

The neocons and Cat Food Dinos can go take over the GOP. This is my Democratic Party and they don't own it.

[840high]

321. .that^

[cali]

7. Oh for fuck's sake. How lame is your whingeing. You sound just like

the republicans. How about raising the cap? Raising taxes on the very wealthy? And don't fucking begin with the " you hate the wealthy". That's my family background for generations. I benefit from it.

[Trust Buster]

11. I would like to think that such language is not found to be offensive by just Republicans.

[cali]

12. That you are more concerned with language than this vital issue, and that you are open

to cutting the social safety net, is appalling.

[Trust Buster]

15. Please re-read the TOS. Negotiation and compromise is a political reality regardless of your nasty

verbiage.

[cali]

24. Alert then. I've been here for a decade longer than you. Cursing is not a violation.

[Trust Buster]

28. Posters have abused the alert system IMO. Just pointing out that some find such language

to be offensive.

[cali]

32. Tough. I find people who think cutting.the social safety net acceptable, more than offensive.

[hobbit709]

40. +1000

And even more offensive when coming from an alleged Democrat.

[Kittycat]

176. I really wish people would go take back their own party

Instead of trying to hijack ours under the "big tent" philosophy. No where under our tent does it say we accept this brutal mentality that never benefits society in the end.

For Fucks Sake - we are judged today, tomorrow and forever by how we care for the least among us. It's the single best indicator of society's success. Of Man's success. Ignore it at your own peril, and history will repeat itself, like all the "great nations" that came and fell before us.

[Silver_Witch]

227. +10000

Super offensive.

[TrueDemVA]

73. Hell yeah!

Anyone you even tries to argue Financials when it comes to social security, needs to beat feet. We wouldn't be in this mess if these scumbags would just force their rich friends and corporate owners to pay their fair share in taxes like the rest of us.

Fuck them!

[DLevine]

80. + a million. Thank you. nt

[cali]

82. Thank you!

[FlaGranny]

143. Totally apalling

that a Democrat would consider cutting the very best of FDR's programs. They say "we can't maintain it, it's too expensive." So far I guess we're still the richest country in the world and the ONLY one who can't afford basic human services. Every American should watch "Who Should We Invade Next" for a very rude awakening. That any Democrat could justify cutting our very minimal and extremely insufficient safety net is extremely OFFENSIVE and illustrates the success of the brainwashing that has taken place over the decades.

My father worked on the WPA and we had FDR's photo hanging on our wall. I am still an FDR Democrat. The US CAN do it but the brainwashed believe the lies of those who want everything for themselves.

[snort]

193. +1

[Stryder]

186. Just a post

in appreciation of members like yourself, who keep my
number low by saying just what I'm thinking much better than I
ever could.
And might I add Fuckin Ay.

[cali]

187. Lol. Thanks. Now please post more.

[snort]

191. Well fuck.

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuckety fuck. Fuck.

[pangaia]

335. My thoughts exactly.. I'll go add my thoughts right now....

LOL!

[ebayfool]

395. Annnnnnd Fuck! n/t

[maddiemom]

210. Sorry, but GROW UP.

Language is just a series of words strung together. Trying to shock with words to which we've assigned certain meanings is just childish. Taking offense at such usage is just playing into it. Perhaps sadly to many, we've pretty much become impervious to the shock value of certain words. That may be a good thing. Take any word, like "cookie" and assign it some sexual (dirty?) meaning. There you go! Instantly offensive. Use it on a daily basis and you're getting away with a word that many would find "offensive" without raising an eyebrow.

[JimDandy]

293. You're patently transparent. Really you are... Just look at your profile. n/t

[Ilsa]

376. Let me go on record and say

that I think your priorities are fucked up if you think a few four-letter words are more offensive than cutting benefits and entitlements for the elderly, disabled, orphaned, and hungry. There are ways to balance the budget besides hurting the poor.

[maddiemom]

447. By "the poor," do you mean those lazy moochers who expect the government to assist them just because

there are no jobs that haven't been shipped to third world areas where the desperation to put food on the table makes them anxious to work hard for peanuts. Soon "American" workers will get with the program (or so Republicans hope). Our infrastructure is falling apart and many decades ago, FDR and his advisors came up with a plan: put the unemployed to work repairing that very problem. How hard could it be? Hard-core Republicans were just as sure that the unemployed were "just lazy"... ask Mitt Romney how that works out. The solutions to our present problems should be a "no-brainer" Much repair needs to be done in this nation. Many people are desperately willing to work. Very few really believe the Republican line that most people would prefer to have a handout rather than be productive. What a crock!... Make Excuses for being hard-hearted while stealing everything you can.

[Ilsa]

451. Every jobless person I know that needs work is

Actively looking for work, even with pay cuts. The others are medically disabled.

[maddiemom]

467. Hello! Were you paying attention?

I'm not used to my obvious sarcasm fly so completely over someone's head. I now realize the need for the "sarcasm" icon. Previously I thought it was too obvious overkill.

[mazzarro]

103. +100 - n/t

[hatrack]

21. It doesn't sound like you've read many posts here . . .

(clutches pearls, staggers to fainting couch).

[awoke_in_2003]

134. Someone caught the vapors

[ctsnowman]

407. lol Love it.

[Skink]

63. All this political correctness

Boggles the mind

[Trust Buster]

67. Naw, finding the term "F*** Y** to be offensive isn't political correctness. It's common decency.

[cali]

70. I take it you disapprove of the rude pundit.

[Trust Buster]

75. Does he or she post on DU ?

[cali]

81. Never fucking mind. You really are clueless.

We are permanently done. I'm offended by democrats spouting right wing shit.

[aggiesal]

137. What a take down ...

It's was classic.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

173. You mean you don't know that answer to that question? Why don't you know the answer? nt

[Brainstormy]

86. That's fucking ridiculous. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

136. People who want to cut SS and SNAP

deserve zero decency.

[Scootaloo]

249. Your initial post made it clear you're just trying to silence an opinion you disagree with

You're using a smothering tactic to get there, and it seems to be failing pretty badly.

Maybe you should stop? 'Cause it's just not going to work for you and you're looking kind of silly with it.

[truebrit71]

361. Are you fucking serious?

Bad fucking language is your beef, not fucking "democrats" that want to fuck with the fucking safety net?

Un-fucking-believable....

[chwaliszewski]

443. Fuck Yeah!

FDR would be rolling around in his fucking grave.

[TransitJohn]

87. Oh my stars and garters! The language!

There aren't enough pearls to clutch!!

[maddiemom]

222. LOL!

[blackspade]

114. Offensive in what way?

[NV Whino]

175. If you are so offended by the language

1. Put the poster on ignore
2. Trash the thread

[Trust Buster]

181. No, putting posters on ignore is a form of self censorship IMO.

[noiretextatique]

437. Only Democrats

Who are no different than Republicans.

[hfojvt]

452. you would be wrong

The more general statement of Cali's post "If you are a person who disagrees with me on any issue, then fuck you" is just about the guiding principle of DU. At least it seems to have a LOT of adherents here.

No deviance is ever allowed on any issue. Any position on any issue is always based on High Moral Principle and any disagreement makes that person a heretic of the very vilest sort who should be told to take a flying fuck in the strongest possible terms.

[jpak]

8. and cutting SS and Medicare is "helpful"

fuck that

yup

[Trust Buster]

13. Allowing these systems to go belly up would be even worse. Compromises must be sought.

[cali]

17. Bullfuckingshit. And yeah, I hope that offends you to the core.

Raise the cap. Close corporate tax loopholes. Raise taxes on the very wealthy. Working people have been compromising too much for too long.

Disgusting.

[katsy]

90. ^^^T H I S

[stage left]

228. +1

If the government would pay back the money it "borrowed" from the Social Security trust fund, there would be no problem. That money was in trust,damn it. Fucking thieves.

(Very good to see you, Cali. Rock on with your bad self. )

[cali]

236. Nice to see you too, sl. Thanks. And agree.

[Protalker]

311. Food Shelter Clothing Safety

How about slashing defense, Eisenhower 90%tax on the richest. Then look at SSI..

[Rex]

254. Well they showed their true colors today, repeating GOP talking points without any shame.

I guess they loath all the elderly on SS and all the folks putting money into the system. Says a lot about that poster imo.

[cali]

256. Yep.

Wonder who they support. No, I really don't.

[Rex]

258. Me either, you told them the easy alternatives and they ignored you roundly.

So freakin obvious...

[cali]

263. It makes.me want to puke

[cheapdate]

343. Yeah, sure, but just try and fucking do that

while at the same time saying "fuck you!" to any and all other Democrats who fail to meet your purity standards. Good fucking luck getting that done under the GOP House and Senate - with Paul fucking Ryan leading the House and Orin fucking Hatch leading the Senate Finance Committee.

Winning fucking elections is ten-times more important than your silly little purity pledge. The party in power gets to put James fucking Inhofe in charge of the Senate Committee overseeing science, and Darrell fucking Issa in charge of the House Oversight Committee.

A party out of power doesn't control shit.

[cali]

345. The vast majority of dems.feel as I do on these issues.

[cheapdate]

353. Sure, the "vast majority" of Democrats in blue states and safe blue districts.

I think we've pretty much established that for the present time, taking the House and Senate requires a "big tent". The last time the Democrats had the House and Senate, it was with the help of "Blue Dogs" -- conservative Democrats like Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas and Bart Gordon from Tennessee.

I've heard it a hundred times before. Someone who thinks they know regional politics better than the locals themselves proclaims that the entire country has moved dramatically to the left and all we need are Democrats in red states to "run as Democrats!."

I don't believe it. Democrats win in some places by being more progressive, and they win in other places by being more conservative.

What matters is that they win. What matters is who holds the Speaker's gavel. A conservative Democrat still counts as a Democrat when they're passing out committee chairs.

[Teamster Jeff]

441. A Blue Dog still counts as a dog. Keep em. Come up with a better plan

[cheapdate]

449. I think winning is more important.

Nothing but nothing is more important in the House than which party controls it. The party in control has nearly complete control over the agenda and business of the House. The party out of power has almost no influence over the legislative process.

I'll take a Blue Dog who votes with the Democrats in electing a Speaker over a Republican every time.

[ctsnowman]

408. The vast majority of Americans.

[dchill]

401. It's almost too easy sometimes.

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. Some things are not for sale.

No compromising here.

[jpak]

22. You realize that cutting SS & MC is not a "compromise" - it's surrender to the douchebags

raise the cap

raise payroll taxes

negotiate drug prices

these are the are the things the douchebags will not "compromise" on

fuck 'em

yup

[cali]

26. +1

[weknowvino2]

122. And don't forget Single Payer / Universal Health Care

Because health insurance is NOT health care.

[eShirl]

34. I find it sad that such a Republican paradigm has come to infect the Democratic Party.

[cali]

39. It's sickening.

[blackspade]

118. Because Repubs have infected the Democratic Party....

Over the last 30 years.

[Phlem]

314. Hm......I think they are called.....

The Thirdway?

Oh and Spot On!

[alarimer]

152. I think you can blame Bill Clinton for that.

His triangulation is responsible for most of that legacy.

I'm not voting for anyone simply because they have a D after their name.

[KPN]

282. Yep!

And Hillary's riding in to dot the i's and cross the t's -- to put it in concrete.

[Lars39]

36. You're pushing austerity measures here?

The only acceptable "compromise" is to tax the wealthy. Fuck austerity.

[Trust Buster]

41. That's not a compromise. The two political parties need to compromise to shore up these programs.

[Lars39]

61. Tax the rich or eat the rich.

[KPN]

280. That's whats actually gonna happen if people don't wake up.

[jpak]

68. When has the GOP compromised on SS or MC? When have they been fiscally responsible?

All they want to do is cut or privatize - not compromise.

wake up

[Lydia Leftcoast]

211. Not since 1980

As a state official in Minnesota once said at an informal Dem gathering, "We used to be able to work with the Republicans. Now they're out for blood."

[Beowulf]

98. Spoken like a true Clintonian!

You start with neoliberal assumptions that nets neoliberal solutions. I reject your assumptions, so what you call compromise is to me surrender.

[Silver_Witch]

239. Republicans don't compromise!

What has compromise gotten us!

[HooptieWagon]

44. Horseshit. You do realize SS can't go "belly up"?

That's just conservatives neoliberal spin. Once the money borrowed from SS is repaid and spent, if nothing at all is done then SS is still funded at about the 80% level. As long as employees are paying into the system, there is funding to pay out.

[They_Live]

141. We've been compromising my whole life.

It's time that the pendulum swings the opposite direction now.

[C0RYH0FFMAN]

174. It is impossible for SS and Medicare to go "Belly Up"

It is logically impossible for Social Security and Medicare to go "Belly Up." This is a lie that has been sold to us by Pete Peterson and his various hydra head organizations like the Concord Coalition and "Fix the Debt" since the seventies.

The United States is the sole, monopoly issuer of the dollar. Uncle Sam is constrained only by the real capacity of the economy. There is nothing to stop us from paying for the retirement and healthcare of the elderly. The question is, will we be smart enough to invest in our people to ensure there are enough retirement facilities, nurses, doctors, drugs, medical devices, etc. To ensure that the dollars we spend on their behalf ensure a decent and just livelihood.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

207. On the backs of some of the most vulnerable members of society?

Riiight.

God forbid that we should raise taxes on the wealthy even to 1980 levels. They might whine and stamp their feet or something.

God forbid that we should cancel useless fighter jets that cost $2.3 trillion, or over $6000 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.

[KPN]

278. Fuck compromises ... until we've done everything else first ...

like meaningfully cutting defense spending and corporate subsidies. We've compromised the economic security of the vast majority of Americans away already to the "uncompromising" Republicans.

Fucking New Democrats should just go back to the Party from whence they came: the GOP. You can compromise all you want from there!

[DonCoquixote]

347. and it is never the rich that compromise

or their lackeys that think they will be rich someday.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

350. Now the rich COULD compromise by accepting a 50% MARGINAL (not total)

tax rate.

Since most people don't understand the concept of marginal rates, the right-wing shills can scream, 'No one should pay half their income in taxes!"

No, darlings, it's 50% on the amount over x million, not 50% of everything.

If they're not willing to compromise, we can go for a 75% top marginal rate.

[Urchin]

399. Under FDR

The rate was 93% on income over $25,000 a year.

The idea was not just to have a minimum wage, but also a maximum wage.

If the top earners wanted to earn more money, they had to do it in a way that lifted all boats.

[Mnpaul]

413. We could start by actually paying the interest on money borrowed from SS and other federal pensions

Currently we are borrowing money from SS to pay the interest on money borrowed from SS. We pay the interest on paper but borrow the money again before it gets there. To pay the full amount of debt owed we would need to spend around 500 billion each year to pay the full amount. The smoke and mirrors finances have to stop. Bush grabbed over a trillion in this manner from 2003 on.

[Arugula Latte]

417. Such utter bullshit.

Wow.

[Leontius]

405. Have you called the White House to explain how you feel to the President.

He is the one that opened the door for cutting Social Security.

[n2doc]

14. Keep on clutching those pearls

Your concern is noted.

I'll bet you don't need social security, that you have a nice fat pension waiting for you if not already there. I generally have found the biggest 'deficit hawks' are those who won't be harmed in the least by the cuts they propose.

[Trust Buster]

23. I have no idea what "clutching at pearls" is supposed to mean. I do know that our

Social Security system will go broke if we do not address the financial imbalances. Compromises will need to be made as a basic matter of political necessity.

[hatrack]

29. The Peterson Institute called - they want their talking points back

[Trust Buster]

33. You just wish to insult. Congratulations.

[cali]

42. The overwhelming majority here have no use for repuke "solutions" that harm

the most vulnerable among us. That is what you're pushing. You are going to get called on it.

[Trust Buster]

46. I just used the word "compromise". What a curious time we live in when using the word

"compromise" is looked down upon while using the term "F*** Y**" is celebrated. Speaks volumes.

[cali]

48. We duers know precisely what repuke compromise entails

We overwhelmingly reject it.

[Trust Buster]

52. Then the SS system will run out of money. That would be the worst case scenario.

[cali]

59. You are wholly wrong and terribly misinformed.

And alternate solutions have been offered. You just stick with your right wing talking points.

Maybe you should post on.a site where people support right wing policy. And cutting social security is right wing.

[snort]

200. That is some shitty shit

that you keep shitting out. Please, put me on ignore, will you? Let me be your first. Because fuck this shit (and your right wing lovin' bullshit, or is that bullfuck?)

[Rex]

252. That is exactly what republicans say too...you must be so proud of yourself.

Also that is a total lie told by the GOP every election cycle. Why are you here repeating GOP talking points?

[Katashi_itto]

334. Suprise! What clintonistas are really all about...

[BlindTiresias]

383. Holy shit

You are painfully fucking misinformed, apparently.

Shit. Fuck.

[n2doc]

37. I don't play your game n/t

[maddiemom]

375. You don't? Is English your first language?

And How big a batch of that right wing Kool Aid do you keep around?

[YOHABLO]

411. You are terribly misinformed my friend. The only compromise will be to scrap the cap of $118,500

FOR MILLIONAIRES .. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO GO AFTER THOSE CHEATING THROUGH TAX HAVENS AND SHELTERS .. BOTH IN THIS COUNTRY AND OFFSHORE. THAT'S YOUR COMPROMISE. SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE FOR ALL WILL BE JUST FINE.

[noiretextatique]

438. +1000

[hobbit709]

18. Well in that case

commit anatomically physically impossible acts upon yourself if you support cutting those things

[Trust Buster]

25. We cannot find solutions to challenges with that kind of attitude.

[hobbit709]

31. Solutions do NOT include selling out.

Anyone that proposes selling out should be given a big FU along with the horse they rode in on.

[Trust Buster]

35. The political reality is that compromise is essential in divided government and rudeness will not

change that basic truth.

[hobbit709]

38. Appeasement worked so well for Neville Chamberlain.

[Trust Buster]

43. And to think that some are accusing me of using Republican talking points because I dared to use

that evil word "compromise". Appeasement ? Chamberlain ? Really ? LOL

[hobbit709]

45. Evidently you believe everything is negotiable, including selling out the safety nets.

If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything-which explains your support for Clinton.

[Trust Buster]

49. Well, let's see if your "rule with an iron fist" strategy works any better for you than it did for

the Tea Party. I don't think it will.

[hobbit709]

51. I don't want to rule anything much less with an "iron fist" I will let myself be governed, not ruled

But I will resist any attempts that want to stop me from having my own thoughts.
"For I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson

[Trust Buster]

54. Silly, we weren't talking about your own thoughts. Quit hiding behind victimhood.

We were talking about how Democrats and Republicans can seek a compromise to avoid the disaster of SS running out of money.

[The Far Left]

167. Sovereign nations do not "run out of money"

This may be hard to grasp, especially when the conservatives lie about government debt all the time, but money is debt.

One person's retirement savings is another person's investment loan. There can be no US Savings Bonds without US Government debt.

The US sells Savings Bonds to Social Security to represent wealth invested in Social Security.

These bonds will likely be honored in the same way that bonds held by billionaires are honored, unless US politicians steal from the poor to serve the rich.

All official money is an IOU, a debt. Sovereign nations that manage their own currency can create as many IOU's as they need to pay debt.

[FlaGranny]

171. Don't be silly, Republicans have forgotten the word

and democrats have decided that since Republicans have forgotten the word that they themselves should start acting more like Republicans. Democrats have been the compromisers in the last few decades and what has that gotten us - a more right wing Democratic party, one that has forgotten Democratic values, one that dares to say we must cut social programs.

Eisenhower knew this was going to happen and warned against it. The big corps that make billions from war are the real leaders of the country. If they were not, we could afford what every other country can afford - excellent safety nets for their entire populations.

I would break it down to say that if you are against sufficient safety nets you are for war and full power for the war machine, because that is where our money goes.

P.S. Did I hear recently that 61% of our tax money goes to the military? I could be mistaken, but that is probably close.

[cali]

53. And you.have the unmitigated gall to accuse someone else of hyperbole?

Standing up for the vulnerable, refusing to acquiesce to bad, right wing policies that harm the elderly, children, the disabled and women, is bedrock democratic principle. And you call it "ruling with an iron fist".

Sickening.

[Trust Buster]

55. No, I referenced "ruling with an iron fist" to describe the attitude that the SS imbalance can be

realistically resolved by telling the political opposition who have the power to stop legislation to go F*** Y**. That might make you feel tough but it won't lead to a solution.

[awoke_in_2003]

144. You're being called a republican

because you are using republican talking points like "Social Security will go broke".

[KPN]

462. What the hell have Democrats been doing without reciprocation for 35-40 years?

"Compromise"! And in the zero-sum game of politics, the Dems have come up as BIG losers in "compromises" over the long haul. Dems have basically been irrational about compromise for far too long, whether by design or by ignorance (I think both). Compromise requires reciprocal action from the other party to be "compromise". Over the long haul, compromise requires a roughly equal balance of interests and demands in order to achieve a "compromise" outcome over that long haul. That hasn't been the case -- at least on economic fronts. Without some reasonable balance, its really just capitulation.

The hell with capitulation! The hell with framing compromise as gains on social issues vs give-aways on economic issues -- from the vantage point of those who are affected, that's not compromise either, it's win - lose.

I'll agree to "compromise" as a rational approach to governance when we have a balanced economic playing field once again. Until then, I have NO TRUST IN COMPROMISE.

[HooptieWagon]

47. You have no clue how SS works, do you?

[Trust Buster]

50. I know it's going bankrupt unless we act. I know telling anyone that does not bow to your position

to go F*** Y** will probably not fix the financial imbalance.

[HooptieWagon]

56. No, it cannot go bankrupt.

You obviously DONT know how SS operates. As long as employees are paying into the system, there is money available to be paid out. Once the SS reserve is used up (15-20 years?), if absolutely nothing is done, the money paid in still funds 80% level (at least until millenials are retired in 45 years). That is not bankruptcy.

[Trust Buster]

64. There use to be 20 workers for every SS recipient. Now it's down to a 3:1 ration and heading for

a 2:1 ratio. Yes, the program can run out of money. Me thinks that you're the one that doesn't know how SS operates.

[HooptieWagon]

69. How does it run out of money if money continues to be paid in?

You're just parroting RW talking points. Conservatives want to abolish SS not because it's faulty, but b/c it works so well that Wall St wants to get their hands on it.

[Trust Buster]

74. Nope, just "parroting" basic math.

[HooptieWagon]

79. Then you failed.

[Trust Buster]

97. No I didn't. There is still just 3 workers for every one SS recipient. The fund is still projected

to have a large shortfall. My math didn't fail, but, your deflection did.

[Harcourdt Fenton Mud]

448. You might want to read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-System-That-Works/dp/0465079164
Your talking points were thoroughly debunked in this 1988 book. Pretty dry stuff, but facts usually are.

[The Far Left]

192. How many bots will you include in your ratio? nt

[KPN]

285. We certainly haven't found solutions by compromising with the GOP

over the past 35-40 years now, have we?

Give it up man -- or just go back to the GOP if you want to compromise.

[suffragette]

288. There are better solutions than 'bust the trust" by privatizing or cutting S.S.

Rep. Schakowsky and many other Democrats get that and I support them.

https://schakowsky.house.gov/press-releases/schakowsky-matsui-and-murphy-introduce-resolution-to-protect-and-expand-social-security/



Schakowsky, Matsui and Murphy Introduce Resolution to Protect and Expand Social Security
July 30, 2015

Washington, DC – Today Representatives Jan Schakowsky, Doris O. Matsui, Patrick Murphy and 57 of their colleagues introduced H.Res. 393, a resolution expressing Congressional support for efforts to protect and expand Social Security while securing its long-term future. The resolution is included below. Representatives Schakowsky and Matsui are co-chairs and Representative Murphy is a member of the House Democratic Seniors Task Force.

Social Security, which celebrates its 80th anniversary on August 14, provides retirement, disability and survivor benefits to more than 59 million Americans. With one monthly contribution, working men and women purchase financial security and have the peace of mind of knowing that their earned benefits will be there when they need them.



For 80 years, Social Security has provided guaranteed, inflation-adjusted benefits, without ever missing a payment. Social Security keeps nearly 15 million seniors, 1 million children and 6 million non-elderly adults out of poverty. Social Security provides the majority of income for two out of three retirees and 7 out of 10 households receiving disability benefits.

The resolution recognizes that Social Security earned benefits, although essential, are extremely modest. The average monthly earned benefit for a retired worker in 2015 is $1,305 and for a disabled worker $1,146. It calls on Congress to protect and expand Social Security benefits while taking steps to ensure its long-term financial future.



Rep. Schakowsky: “Our nation faces a retirement crisis. The average working American has only $2,500 in retirement savings – those nearing retirement have only $14,500. Social Security was supposed to be one leg of a three-legged stool – along with pensions and retirement savings. With an erosion of defined benefit pensions and inadequate retirement savings, Social Security today is more important than ever. We can and must build on Social Security’s very sturdy foundation to expand benefits so that older Americans, disabled workers and their families can live in dignity and meet their basic needs.”

Rep. Matsui:“Americans who work hard and play by the rules deserve a dignified and secure retirement, which Social Security makes possible. It’s our job as lawmakers to preserve and strengthen it. I am also acutely aware of Social Security’s impact on women and families. Women on average live longer than men, earn less throughout their working life, and spend more time out of the workforce caring for children and parents. Social Security is key to ensuring that older women do not have to live in poverty.”

Rep. Murphy:“Social Security is a sacred trust, a compact between seniors and their government, that says that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can live your golden years free from poverty. Even as this bedrock program faces attacks from the Tea Party, Social Security remains a lifeline for our nation’s middle class and lifts 20 million senior citizens and disabled Americans out of poverty. I am proud to join the leadership of the Seniors Task Force to defend Social Security and make it stronger.”



Text of the Resolution to Protect and Expand Social Security While Securing Its Long-term Future

WHEREAS the nation is facing a retirement income crisis with millions of hard-working Americans fearing they can never retire with dignity and economic independence after a lifetime of work;

WHEREAS expanding Social Security which provides guaranteed, lifetime and inflation-adjusted benefits, and is our country’s most universal, fair, efficient, and secure source of retirement income, is an essential solution to that retirement income crisis;

WHEREAS, Social Security is the heart of economic security for American workers, allowing them to earn comprehensive birth-to-death protection against the loss of wages due to death, retirement or disability, in one simple package;

WHEREAS, for most families, Social Security is the only family protection against the loss of income due to the disability or death of a worker and is the single largest source of retirement income;

WHEREAS Social Security’s earned benefits are modest, averaging around $14,600 a year for all beneficiaries and replacing only 40 percent of an average worker’s wages – a percentage that is falling and which is lower than the comparable benefits provided by most other industrialized nations;

WHEREAS two out of three beneficiaries receiving Social Security in retirement and seven out of ten households receiving Social Security as a result of disability rely on those earned benefits for half or more of their income; and one out of three senior households rely on it for virtually all of their income;

WHEREAS more than 1 in 10 of America’s children receive Social Security benefits in their own right or through a household member and Social Security lifts one million children out of poverty;

WHEREAS Social Security provides benefits to more than 9 million veterans, about 4 in 10 of all veterans;

WHEREAS Social Security is vitally important to women, who, on average, live longer than men, suffer a significant and persistent wage gap throughout their working years, and are less likely to have employer-sponsored pensions or other retirement benefits, and Social Security prevents two-thirds of all older women who live alone from falling into poverty;

WHEREAS Social Security is vitally important to African Americans, Latinos, and other people of color who disproportionately experience disability and premature death and, on average, have lower wages, are less likely to have employer-sponsored pensions or retirement benefits, and disproportionately work in physically demanding jobs; without Social Security, poverty rates among African American and Latino seniors would nearly triple;

WHEREAS Social Security’s benefits total more than $72 billion each month and its 59 million beneficiaries tend to spend those benefits immediately and locally, thereby supporting the economies of rural, suburban and urban areas alike;

WHEREAS Social Security protects all generations and strengthens families, providing earned benefits—life insurance, disability insurance and retirement income — to one in four households;

WHEREAS Social Security is an earned benefit, one Americans work hard all their lives to secure for themselves and their families;

WHEREAS Social Security has always been a secure and reliable source of basic economic security, never a day late or a dollar short;

WHEREAS although many Americans have seen their wages stagnate or decline in recent years, the United States is the wealthiest nation in the world at the wealthiest moment in its history and can easily afford to expand Social Security benefits if the wealthiest among us are required to pay their fair share;

WHEREAS expanding Social Security’s protections and providing Americans with greater economic security while securing Social Security’s long-term future is completely achievable and can be done fairly and equitably;

WHEREAS the majority of Americans of all ages and in all parts of the country believe Social Security is more important than ever and support increasing its modest benefits;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Representatives supports policies to protect and expand Social Security and secure its long-term future in a fair and responsible manner.

[cali]

27. +100

[shraby]

19. No language is too strong for those who would harm the less fortunate to get the debt

under control. There are people and corporations with enough wealth who have benefitted from the infrastructure of this country that should start giving back to the country by paying some taxes. Those taxes would go a long way to righting the system and lowering the debt. Much more that the pittance that can come from those on the bottom couple of rungs.

Don't give me the song and dance that debt is out of control until those who have are made to give back to the system instead of allowed to take and take and take. Cut some big time subsidies to the wealthy and corporations. Let them feel the pinch for a change.

[cali]

30. Thank you, shraby. Horrifying to see such views here.

I fear we'll only be seeing more of it.

[shraby]

403. You're very welcome Cali. This place isn't what it used to be that's for sure. Du had caring people

before, now not so much.

[cali]

459. I know.

[malaise]

106. Ah well you

busted the trust of New Deal Democrats - adios

[arikara]

111. Debt is out of control due to the war machine

Has nothing to do with the relatively piddly little amount spent on necessary social programs. Yet that is what these assholes always want to cut?

And they sure the hell never hesitate to vote themselves very nice salary increases, benefits and pensions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

226. The money pit that people in mainstream Dem society don't talk about

the money pit that is bleeding our nation dry, the money pit that kills our young people and corrupts our foreign policy, the money pit that is the reason we can't have nice things.

[cali]

170. Cutting the safety net is not compromise. It's CAPITULATION.

[cali]

342. Horseshit. As has been explained over and over.

And this has nothing to do with third way hilly.

[Turin_C3PO]

331. No.

Not all of us who like Hillary are for compromising on the backs of the less fortunate. When the interests of the wealthy harm the lower 99%, that's a problem. And Clinton would agree with that as far as the safety net goes. Bank on it.

[WIProgressive88]

414. Much of your post reads like something you'd see on FreeRepublic. Very telling...

[WIProgressive88]

469. "Revolutionary Vanguard of the hippie campus left" is certainly a phrase you'd see on FreeRepublic.

Don't want to be compared to a Freeper? Don't talk like one. Pretty damn simple.

As for the rest of your rant, I do not oppose democracy or think Bernie is godlike. He's a politician like any of the others, but I am a progressive, so naturally I support the progressive candidate over the conservative one. If Hillary is the chosen candidate of Democratic voters, I will happily support her despite whatever misgivings I may have. You, like many, and perhaps most, Hillary supporters with whom I have had contact just seem to be bitter that anyone dare get in the way of your chosen candidate's coronation.

[WIProgressive88]

472. Completely not what I said, as that comment was based on your choice of words rather than your

support for Hillary, but whatever.

[puffy socks]

120. Our debt is not out of control...yet.

i Cutting spending isn't the answer at this point either. That serves to make things worse. Austerity measures have proven to be bad again and again.
Cutting taxes is wrong headed. You do not advocate quitting your job when focusing on paying off debts, do you?
Cutting spending cuts everybody's cash flows and that isn't good for the economy either.

We need to roll back the special business tax breaks, capital gains tax breaks. That's how we got here , and every bit of it is welfare.
It's a lie that large already established businesses need tax payer help to compete in the global market. When we then talk about raising taxes they say "we just pass those costs onto the customer", so they are never really paying taxes anyway. At this point they are not only passing the taxes off on to customers but also getting huge tax breaks and sometimes refunds.

Obama's idea to tax anyone making over $250K is wrong headed imo as well. You hit a lot of truly small businesses that way.
The problem is the wealthiest aren't paying taxes and that's because most of their income is unearned income from financial securities.

All income should be taxed at the statutory rate for that level of income, quit panicking and slowly lower our debt.

[ladjf]

128. I disagree with your rebuttal of Cali's OP. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

132. Our financial shortfalls

do not need to be fixed by fucking those who need it the most. That line of thing is why the majority of the party is right wing financially.

[Feeling the Bern]

138. Are you a Democrat, because you just used Fox News/GOP talking points about debt?

[Marr]

142. That is the Republican position. /nt

[Rex]

250. There are a couple around here that I cannot tell any difference between their POV

and a republican POV. Hopefully they won't be staying longterm.

[tiredtoo]

157. Many ways to address our financial shortfalls

Including taxing the rich (have them pay their fair share), cutting military spending, stop fighting Saudi Arabia's wars, Tax the churches. Stop building billion dollar sports stadiums for billionaires. Eliminate corporate welfare.
And more.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

169. You sound just like a right-winger... Why did you start posting so prolifically in the past 90 days?

Where were you before you started posting against progressive ideals around 3 months ago?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313007

Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Sun Mar 16, 2014, 08:15 PM
Number of posts: 2,627
Number of posts, last 90 days: 2354
Favorite forum: General Discussion: Primaries, 1830 posts in the last 90 days (78% of total posts)
Favorite group: Hillary Clinton, 30 posts in the last 90 days (1% of total posts)
Last post: Sat May 7, 2016, 10:33 AM

Jury
Willing to serve on Juries: Yes
Chance of serving on Juries: 0% (explain)


You appear to believe in right-wing ideals, so is that why you support Hillary so vehemently? Or was your purpose simply to do everything you could to help derail Bernie? What is it about you?

[Helen Borg]

177. Debt is not out of control.

And to the extent that it is, it is so because of tax cuts to the wealthy and uncontrolled military spending. Take care of those, not of SS, which is a safety networks for the elderly we all paid into.

[FairWinds]

178. Those with your perspective always conveniently forget to mention . .

that there is always, always plenty of money for war.

Veterans For Peace

But I agree that Cali's language is not appropriate.

[ljm2002]

184. And another post from Trust Buster...

...that sounds just like a Republican.

Funny, that.

Ha, fucking ha.

Oh, and: Fuck You for supporting cuts to Social Security. Yes I am directing this at you personally, since you say it is necessary to do so. If the language police wish to alert, so be it. No more pussyfooting around when faux Democrats start spouting Republican talking points.

[cali]

196. Bravo.

[Iggo]

275. .

[ScreamingMeemie]

194. Her language is completely appropriate in this instance.

The last thing DEMS should be doing (if they still want to wear that cloak) is walking hand-in-hand with the GOP to cut the benefits for the people who need them most. It is a drop in the ocean compared to the bloated corporate spending. Our debt is not "out of control" due to any of these issues.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

203. But somehow, cutting the military budget is NEVER on the table

with the Conservadems.

[Silver_Witch]

216. Did your feelings get hurt by dirty words??

Well my feelings are hurt by greed and selfishness!

When did Democrats become so greedy and selfish. We have to address financial issues by taxing those who are not paying their fair share - not punishing the poor and the old!

[Hoyt]

220. I don't believe we are at the point where cutting SS is necessary. HOWEVER, it is ludicrous to say

that could never happen. Economic conditions COULD change to the point where it's necessary to ensure young people's future, sick people will get care, etc. Again, we aren't there at this point, but I agree it's foolish to believe it couldn't happen.

Also, if the government comes up with a proposal to remove the Part B Premium $121.80, I'd have no problem cutting SS monthly benefit by an equal amount (would like to see those on lower end not get cut). Similarly, if government removed coinsurance on Medicare, wouldn't bother me to see monthly benefit cut. A few years ago, Obamacare significantly cut the doughnut hole in Medicare prescription drug coverage. That was a significant benefit to most people on Medicare.

Or if we were in a true economic disaster -- and all other options had been tried, such as increasing taxes, cutting military budget, etc. -- I would expect our government officials to consider the situation. Sad fact is, without some changes, we can not expect our young people to bare the burden of paying Social Security for the elderly living longer and longer. I hope our government officials look far enough ahead to avoid that. My guess is they won't. And, any "cut" in SS would directly impact me. But you can't discount the possibility and any government official who acts like it couldn't happen is lying to us.

[pottedplant]

458. Nonsense

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/health/disparity-in-life-spans-of-the-rich-and-the-poor-is-growing.html?_r=0
First off, there is a significant disparity in wealthy vs non wealthy living longer. Stop the Pete Peterson fantasy.
Second Medicaid picks up their Medicare premium for seniors making less than 990/ month. So you are taking money away from the most vulnerable by cutting ss to pay for part b premium. Yeah I see that you said they should be protected...I'll believe it when I see it.
Third, if you are a healthy person who doesn't go to the doctor often or who is not on a lot of drugs, the copayment and additional drug benefits are useless. Again you are taking money from people who might spend that money on healthy food. Cutting a penny from ss should not be an option. Get rid of the regressive cap. Wealthy seniors will live longer and garnish more benefits.....that's the compromise. Oh and by the fucking way, I am not a goddamned troll.

[Hoyt]

463. Raising the cap is one of the options I would pursue first. Problem is, if economy does not produce

the income to tax -- which is a real possibility down-the-road -- what are you going to do? Tell young people who are working to pay seniors' SS that they'll just have to pay more. Again, anyone that says SS COULD never be cut/revised/suspended is simply lying. It SHOULDN'T be cut, but that's not the same as saying it will never be cut if conditions get bad enough.

[pottedplant]

465. Here's an idea

Stop cutting public sector jobs. There's a desperate need for public service workers at all levels. The "do more with less" mantra is a joke and taking its toll. Funding should be plentiful and taxation is the answer. Having a president who boasts about cutting 600,000 federal jobs is not helpful; also not helpful is making 98% of bush's tax cuts permanent.

[Hoyt]

466. Look, I used to work for gubmit and loved it. But, we aren't going back to those levels anytime soon

Might as well be running on a platform of "no cancer."

[Bradical79]

225. Republican compromises would have the opposite effect

Cutting those programs would increase our national debt. There's no reason to compromise if nothing is gained. The purpose of their "compromises" are to kill the programs.

[bkkyosemite]

240. "our debt is out of control" WHAT! So you are saying that Social Security is a debt?

Social Security we all paid into (except the billionaires) it is not an entitlement nor a debt. It was stolen from over and over. You sound like a Republican.

[Rex]

248. But you lecturing some username on an anonymous forum will help?

Seriously, get real here...nobody asked you to participate...rub you the wrong way did the OP? All for cutting SS are you? Okay then bye bye...

[Betty Karlson]

259. Want to do something about the debt? - Tax the rich who created it with their wars and tax cuts

(often conducted simultaneously for maximum effect).

Don't clutch your pearls and wail about two words.

Know what? I'll give you some exposure therapy. FUCK CONSENSUS! FUCK THE STATUS QUO. FUCK THIRD WAY (which is a dead end)!
We have real problems, and we need real solutions. Taking money from those who don't have it doesn't solve anything - but it will further impair consumer confidence, and translate into a further consumer spending regression. Need money? - Get it from the egotistical one-percenters who are hoarding it!

FUCK THEM AND FUCK THEIR PROPOSED SUB-STANDARD LIVING CONDITIONS FOR THE REST OF US! FUCK THEIR RACE-TO-THE-BOTTOM 'TRADE' AGREEMEENTS.

And FUCK YOU to any 'Democrat' who entertains such notions.

[G_j]

268. You have to be fucking kidding! nt

[Android3.14]

269. I second the OP's sentiment

You just lack the balls to stand for ethical governance and taxing the wealthy.

[Cal Carpenter]

270. Our financial shortfalls can be dealt with by taxing massive wealth hoarders

and dealing with offshore tax havens, not trying to get blood from a stone.

And telling people to Fuck You is perfectly appropriate when people are justifying the fact that senior citizens are starving, children are homeless, and people working 3 jobs still can't afford proper healthcare while inequality is hitting unprecedented levels.

Civility is overrated. Fuck that shit.

[KPN]

271. So cut fucking defense and corporate subsidies.

[Iggo]

273. Aw.

[cali]

281. Only you can decide that. Freeperville? RimJob? Ugh.

Did you support one of the other repubs?

[shadowmayor]

283. Social Security has never been a problem

While strong language may not seem helpful, what is harmful is letting the notion that we "must" do something about SS. Social Security has never required a bail-out from the general fund of any note, and in fact over 2 trillion $$ was borrowed against the fund to pay off the interest on our national debt by daddy Bush and Clinton (over $300B in some years) throughout the 1990's. This republican meme that SS is going to run out of money is a chicken-little argument that too many democrats give a pass to. Shame on us. A simple raising of the ceiling to $250K and problem is essentially solved for ever. Medicare needs some funding, but that comes from the fact that so many thrown onto the program are people that private insurers wouldn't touch like dialysis patients and type I diabetes people with a lot of problems. So let's not quibble about the small stuff when the real danger is the fact that cutting SS is even a topic. It shouldn't be! It's a great program that works, and paid for primarily by the working class, and over the last 30 years has been a much better investment than 401K's. And the kicker is, it's a social program so your investment directly helps others unlike a money market fund or some other Wall Street concoction.

[jillan]

287. Always money for wars. But none for the citizens of our country. Is that what you are saying?

Because it sure sounds like it.

Shame.

[rhett o rick]

289. Addressing our "financial shortfalls" is code for cut programs that help those struggling. I can

see why you take the OP's remarks so personally. I second what he says. And I must lol at your faux concern about reaching consensus. Frack consensus, we must drive the bastards out of our government that dare try to cut our safety net programs.

If you were seriously concerned about financial shortfalls, you might look to eliminating one of the 10 nuclear carrier fleets we have. There are zero other functioning nuclear carriers in the world. Their fleets cost tens of billions to maintain.

[Phlem]

312. OMFG.

[octoberlib]

327. Let's address our shortfalls. Specifically, let's address the billions and billions and BILLIONS

of dollars spent on unnecessary wars and fighter jets that aren't worth a crap. You wanna cut spending? Let's start there!

[magical thyme]

328. OMGGIH -- balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable is obscene

and anybody who supports it merits obscene language.

It is not worthy of consideration or debate.

You want consensus? How about seeking consensus on clawing back taxes on the trillions stashed by 1% tax evaders? Including corporations making obscene profits and not only paying zero taxes but actually being given "tax refunds?"

[gregcrawford]

329. Social Security...

... does not contribute one penny to the deficit, and cutting benefits will not relive the deficit by one penny. Get your facts straight. And who the hell wants "consensus" with liars and thieves? I have MUCH stronger language for anyone advocating cuts to Social Security.

[nadinbrzezinski]

332. Damn RW talking point

By the way, you need to inform GAO that it is out of control. I am at a phone. So forgive me for no links.

[pangaia]

336. Well, fuckity fuck fuck on a fuck stick.

[RoccoR5955]

339. How about addressing the shortfalls by

Taxing the rich? Taxing financial speculation? Tariffs?
You don't cut the debt by cutting Social Security, which is not even supposed to be included in the debt. Also, if you want Social Security to survive, lift the cap, or remove it totally.

[JDPriestly]

341. If our debt is out of control, we should cut our military spending.

We have bases in hundreds of countries. We don't need that.

We don't need half of the equipment we have.

Let's cut our military budget and take care of the security of our people.

Let's improve our schools and clean our water and heal our sick. We should not be trying to put every evil person in the world into Guantanamo. We should take care of ourselves first.

If a foreigner comes to the US and sees all the homeless in Los Angeles, California, I think that foreigner's opinion of the US would worsen considerably. People in other countries don't have to take on monstrous debt to go to college if they do well enough in school to qualify. People in other countries (that I have lived in) get not only single payer, universal healthcare, but single payer, universal dental care as well. And every pre-school child can go to free, government-paid kindergarten half days beginning at the age of three.

We squander our money on a military that can't even respond to the real threats of our time. That is where we need to save money, not on social programs like Medicare and Social Security which will be fully paid for when we raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and the cap on incomes so that the payroll tax applies to all incomes.

We need to save on the 50-60% of our tax revenue that goes for the military.

[Arugula Latte]

418. Exactly. It's a matter of priorities.

Ours our completely warped. It is sickening.

We can do much, much better.

Shut down 90 of our overseas military bases. Slash weapons systems. Stop corporate welfare. Make corporations pay taxes. Stop the cash-hiding loopholes of the .001 percent. And so on.

There is plenty of money there.

[DonCoquixote]

346. the fix for social security has ben there for years

eliminate the cap

"but why should I pay from something I won't need?"

Because you are one downsize or medical bill away from needing it! The social security offices are full of former right wingers who found out that those bosses of their really did consider them disposable one they got old or sick.

"we have no choice"

Really, not like finally KILLING the tax cuts that we have spent the better part of 30 years giving to the the rich? Actually taxing the wall street speculation which does little but to siphoned funds into off shore tax havens?

We never ask the rich to sacrifice, only the people who have little as is.

[ihaveaquestion]

364. High gov't debt when interest rates are so low is a good thing.

A very good thing.

And about the adult language - last I knew, this was an adult forum. Don't read it if you can't stomach it.

[lbrtbell]

369. There should be no consensus

Going after the most vulnerable members of our society is non-negotiable, if you're a true Democrat.

And if your virgin ears can't take the F-word, might I respectfully suggest you avoid any elementary school playgrounds.

[whereisjustice]

371. The fucking, mother fuckers taking our jobs and giving them to slaves in India now

want to cut SS.

Fuck you to them all. If you are in that crowd, no apology from me.

[Red Mountain]

372. Nah.....fuck that

Consensus implies concessions.

It's east to fix the SS situation. Eliminate the cap on taxable earnings.

Done.

That was easy, don't you think?

Do we have a consensus here?

[Skittles]

396. LOL

how about we address our senseless wars? It is ABSOLUTELY appropriate to tell anyone who thinks whacking at SS and Medicare is a SOLUTION to our "financial shortfalls" F*** YOU - because they are FULL OF SHIT

[Urchin]

398. How about taxing the super rich before cutting social security????

[Hissyspit]

402. People have been cussing about corruption here on DU since the beginning of the Bush administration.

[MrMickeysMom]

404. The language is plenty appropriate, and if you think unnecessary...

Well, you know what you can do, to.

[The Green Manalishi]

406. Bullshit.

Make up the shortfalls somewhere else some other way.

As far as I am concerned anyone even suggesting that ANY reduction in any sort of Social Security or other earned pension could in any way happen should be hauled into the street and given a necklace, South African style. Or at least dispatched in some horrific manner.

No compromise, no discussion, NO CUTS and string up from a lamppost anyone who even considers discussing AMY reduction in any sort of already earned entitlement. As with anyone who opposes universal healthcare, they are someone who has said that my and my family should die, therefore ANY action in retaliation is only self defense and therefore justified; if it is horrific then perhaps it will serve as warning to those subhumans who would set others to starve or die in illness.

[Lancero]

410. Remember when we used to call Republicans for being full of shit when they spouted this stuff?

[ibegurpard]

422. Please go back and fix your own party

[emsimon33]

425. First, have the government repay what it took from Social Security

Next, cut the obscene military budget. Then, stop corporations and the wealthy from off-shoring their money to avoid taxes. After these steps are taken, then let's talk about other ways to "address our financial shortfalls." Raising the minimum wage to at least $22 an hour would go a long way to increasing the tax base also.

[noiretextatique]

436. I think you are taking the OP personally

Because it is referring to Ds like you.

[JPnoodleman]

468. Why not balance it on the backs of those reaping huge reward from our decline? n/t

[Odin2005]

471. You sound like a Republican.

Free Republic is over there if you want to spew right-wing propaganda about the debt and SS.

[demmiblue]

474. Indeed. n/t

[FarPoint]

3. Since when are the Democrats supporting this cut?

At present, this is a moot issue...

[cali]

9. No it is not. Senator Warner yesterday.

[FarPoint]

16. Talk is cheap and easy...

It won't go anywhere.... Not via the Democratic Party.

[Octafish]

185. Like that time Bill Clinton was going to bring it up.

History intervened.

How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security

by ROBIN BLACKBURN
CounterPunch, OCTOBER 30, 2004

Had it not been for Monica’s captivating smile and first inviting snap of that famous thong, President Bill Clinton would have consummated the politics of triangulation, heeding the counsel of a secret White House team and deputy treasury secretary Larry Summers. Late in 1998 or in the State of the Union message of 1999 a solemn Clinton would have told Congress and the nation that, just like welfare, Social Security was near-broke, had to be “reformed” and its immense pool of capital tendered in part to the mutual funds industry. The itinerary mapped out for Clinton by the Democratic Leadership Committee would have been complete.

SNIP...

The “Special Issues” secret team was set up by then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (later elevated to Treasury Secretary and now President of Harvard) and Gene Sperling, the head of the Council of Economic Advisers. The Deputy Treasury Secretary’s fondness for schemes to privatize Social Security comes as no surprise. As Chief Economist of the World Bank in the early 1990s Summers had commissioned a notorious report, “Averting the Old Age Crisis”, that argued that Merrill Lynch and Fidelity would be better at pension provision than any government. In fact governments should offer only a safety net and farm out their power to tax payrolls to private financial concerns, which would run mandatory funded pensions on the Chilean model. The task of the Special Issues group was to find an installment of privatization that could reconcile realistic Republicans and Democrats, and be sold as still honoring most existing entitlements.

Participants at the Harvard conference conceded that severe technical problems beset efforts to introduce commercial practices. The existing program has low administration costs whereas running tens of millions of small investment accounts would be expensive. The secret White House team sought to finesse the problem by pooling individual funds and stripping down the element of choice or customer service. But Summers was unhappy: as one Team member now recalls it, “Deputy Secretary Summers was fond of saying that we had to guard against the risk of setting up the Post Office when people were used to dealing with Federal Express”. And pooled funds were also to be avoided because they would risk government control of business.

SNIP...

In his 1999 State of the Union address Clinton seized the initiative from the privatizers with a bold new plan that gave substance to the “Save Social Security First” slogan. He proposed that 62 per cent of the budget surplus should be used to build up the Social Security trust fund. He promised to veto any attempt to divert Social Security funds to other uses, and he urged that 15 per cent of the trust fund should be invested in the stock market, not by individuals but by the Social Security Administration.

SNIP...

Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was willing to see the budget surplus pledged to Social Security but he denounced the plan to invest the trust fund in equities on the grounds that it would lead to government interference in business. A writer in the New York Times, January 25, 1999, warned that if the trust fund was allowed to invest in stocks and shares it would be impossible to prevent the politicization of investment: “The danger is that Congress will meddle, for example, steering funds into environmentally-friendly companies rather than, say, tobacco companies.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/10/30/how-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security/

Privatization through incrementalism is an example of New Democratic thinking at odds with traditional Democratic thinking.

[rhett o rick]

291. I guess saving SS and Medicare is moot to anyone with their head in their pocket. nm

[FarPoint]

297. My point is....this issue is and has not been on the table.

Just someone talking about it...it's a thought. Nothing current in Congress.

[arcane1]

476. Since the 1990's when Bill and Newt talked about it n/t

[CharlotteVale]

5. K&R. I won't vote for anyone who wants to cut SS...I live in

VA and that includes Mark Warner. He makes my flesh crawl just like republicans do.

[dgibby]

183. Fellow Virginian here.

I wouldn't spit on Warner if his pants were on fire, much less vote for that DINO.

[alc]

57. I'm for the small tent movement

Better to have fewer congresspeople who agree with my platform for the Democratic party than to include anyone who disagrees with me on some issues.

If a district is socially liberal but fiscally conservative they should elect an R instead of a D who doesn't agree with me. Control of the house and senate is overrated - who cares about committees, judge confirmation and other things the majority party gets to control. If the district still elects a D, that representative needs to ignore his/her constituents' wishes and follow mine because I will notice (even if I can't vote in that district).
</sarc>

There are plenty of representatives who don't represent their constituents on these issues. I agree with your sentiment on them. But there are others who are Ds that are accurately representing their district. Changing the voters' minds is the solution, not attacking their representative (or the voters themselves).

[Wednesdays]

412. Oh, brother.

So under the bus go the disadvantaged.

[apcalc]

58. What Dem wants to do that?

I have been a member of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare for 16 years.
(I suggest you all join.)
http://www.ncpssm.org/

Do something constructive to preserve the future for you and your children.

By the way.... It's Republicans who want to destroy the safety net.

[cali]

62. Mark Warner, for one.

[truebluegreen]

146. That was a joke, right? A lame one? Right?

Mark Warner is a long-time DLC-er, which is why he creeps me out.

[cali]

172. He's a close hilly.ally, friend.

[greymouse]

197. So a rat. The DNC is infested with rats.

Throw them all out and start new. Including their queens Hill and DWS.

[ljm2002]

201. Truth inversion...

...a favorite tactic of 3rd Way Dems.

Nice... not.

And of course as others have noted, he is a close ally of HILLARY, not Bernie. But you probably knew that -- again, truth inversion, or accusing your opponent of just what you are doing, is what is going on here.

[cali]

215. Some people lie with great ease. Like Hillary.

[ljm2002]

221. Yes indeed...

...lying and muddying the waters are favorite political tactics of certain types. And the really funny thing is, they recoil from truth-tellers, like vampires recoil from the cross. They practically hiss in horror when people point out reality. Because it might stop their team from winning. Oh and also, because it might stop the Democratic Party from continuing to promote corporate welfare over the welfare of the population at large. Because they've got theirs, and it must be protected from the unwashed masses.

And they wonder why the term "limousine liberals" took hold. Look in the mirror, you idjits.

[rhett o rick]

292. Who does that poster remind you of? nm

[Scootaloo]

214. So... we're using "DemocRAT" on DemocraticUnderground now?

[stonecutter357]

223. I would not call a member of the Democratic party a "DemocRAT" that is just for

bernie sanders.

[cali]

231. Personally I reserve neocon warmonger for hilly.

[Scootaloo]

235. Actually you just did exactly that.

he must be a bernie democRAT.

First off, you're talking about Democrats when you use that sad right-wing slur. Second, even if "it's just Bernie," you're comparing a Jewish democrat to vermin. Maybe don't do that. Third, as you may have noticed, you're just fucking wrong in the first place, as the subject of discussion is Mark Warner.

Go away. Take your freeper name-calling with you.

[stonecutter357]

238. no i called bernie democRAT.

[Scootaloo]

242. So you're not able to understand the stuff you write.

Fascinating.

[stonecutter357]

245. you seem a little unhinged are you ok?

[Scootaloo]

247. And now we get into the insults. Nice.

[stonecutter357]

266. you insults your·self.

i have nothing to do with that it's all you..

[Scootaloo]

267. Are you finished yet?

[cali]

260. I feel compelled to say exactly that to you. It's unhinged to suggest that Catfood Warner

is aligned with.Bernie when everyone knows that he's aligned with hilly. I'm sooo concerned. Are you ok?

[rhett o rick]

295. Projection. Unhinged would be like using no caps and weird sentence structure.

[rhett o rick]

294. You are calling Mark Warner a "democRAT". Here is your quote, "he must be a bernie democRAT."

Your he refers to Mark Warner a friend of Hillary. Wow, someone won't be happy with you today.

[rhett o rick]

382. I am guessing that you want to "save" SS by cutting benefits. I recognize you.

Clinton may say she wants to help SS but if Goldman-Sachs tells her to privatize she will jump.

[FreakinDJ]

60. DLC / Third Way Dems - The Clintons influence on the Democratic Party

Yes - they sold out the party long ago on the premise the Democratic Party couldn't survive after 12 yrs of a Republicans in the White House.

Oh Boy have times changed ..

Yet they are still clinging to their Corporate donors.

[cali]

65. Fucking frightening and grotesque.

[FreakinDJ]

66. and YES - Hillary will Cut Social Security

[apcalc]

71. No she won't and has said as much.

Screw Mark Warner.

Please join CPSSM... ( Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare!) We work continually for you.
Yearly dues cheap - $12. Strength in numbers!

We continually watch lawmakers , legislation, put political pressure where we can.


http://www.ncpssm.org/

[cali]

72. I hope you're right about Hillary.

[dragonfly301]

76. How does she feel about Chained CPI?

does she recognize that is a cut? Is she for that?

[apcalc]

91. Chained CPI...

Sort of fallen by the wayside in discussions since Obama supported it and took heavy heat from the left. Eventually he dropped that.
Hillary wants to preserve SS, work against privatization efforts of Republicans ( Ryan btw wants to cut SS and Medicare). She wants to increase taxes on the wealthy.
In this last Senate session Warren introduced, and and along with 16 other Dems (including Sanders) ,
a bill to expand .
We need to elect every Dem we can because the R's in Congress and the Senate will do their best to take it from you.

[FreakinDJ]

107. THEN HOW IS SHE GOING TO FUND IT

Lets quit tap dancing around the 9000 lb elephant in the living room

Your discussing Sanders plan to preserve Social Security - btw: What is Hillary's plan

Warren introduced, and and along with 16 other Dems (including Sanders) ,
a bill to expand .

<on edit>

I waited for 30 minutes and still this posters spouting Hillary talking points doesn't reply

[Enthusiast]

301. It's either raise the cap or Chained CPI. That is the reality. I know which Hillary prefers.

Whether she admits it or not.

[FreakinDJ]

77. Social Security funding DOESN'T run out in 8 years ???

So to preserve it you will need to fund it at least

So far Hillary has ONLP proposed changes that would require MEANS TESTING Social Security Benefits and changes that transform from an Insurance Program to a Entitlement Program

How is that preserving Social Security


and spare us the Hillary talking points designed to confuse the situation - lets deal in reality

[dragonfly301]

96. +1,000,000 eom

[apcalc]

102. It should have

Been discussed in debates. It wasn't .
Hoping it comes up again.
Irresponsible of Media to ignore it.

We can only go by what has been said and done in the past.

[FreakinDJ]

104. It was - by Bernie

and if I remember right he attempted to force Hillary to commit to expanding Social Security

[puffy socks]

218. 70 Dems committed to expanding a couple years ago and it was Warren not Bernie

who initiated it.


“I won’t cut Social Security,” Clinton wrote in an initialed tweet that included a link to her campaign website’s Social Security page. “As always, I’ll defend it, & I’ll expand it. Enough false innuendos.”

Clinton previously had stated that she planned to increase benefits, particularly for vulnerable beneficiaries, but progressive groups worried she might be willing to strike a so-called grand bargain on fiscal policy that increased benefits for some poorer Americans as it cut middle-class benefits.

Those organizations praised Clinton’s Twitter comment as the kind of airtight commitment they were seeking.

“Today, Hillary Clinton clarified her position that she, like Bernie Sanders, will oppose all Social Security benefits cuts, including, of course, raising the retirement age which is an across the board benefit cut,” said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works. “Expanding, not cutting, Social Security is profoundly wise policy and what an overwhelming majority of Americans want.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-pledges-not-to-cut-social-security_us_56b630dfe4b04f9b57d9d482

[Enthusiast]

305. What do you expect from an irresponsible media?

This is the most irresponsible media in the history of medias.

[greymouse]

195. remove the salary cap and SS lasts forever.

Can't cost Hill's 1% any money, though, so forget that if she'll elected.

Insurance to entitlement, I've paid more into SS counting compound interest than I will ever see back, but I guess since I'm in the 99% I can scrape by on less.

Hill ought to talk to Paul Ryan since she's sniffing up to Republicans. he has a dandy plan to more sicker people into a separate insurance pool. Hill will love that.

[Enthusiast]

303. +1! Weasel words are not comforting.

[awoke_in_2003]

149. She has also said

that she was critical of NAFTA from the beginning.

[Enthusiast]

308. She said a lot of things. Just words.

[apcalc]

309. Her position

“I won't cut Social Security. ... I'll defend it, and I'll expand it.”
HILLARY CLINTON, FEBRUARY 5, 2016

[Ed Suspicious]

389. . . . for thse who most need it.

means testing.

[Hydra]

78. I can't believe the people setting up the talking points to wreck these programs further upthread

Because we "can't afford them" and "need to compromise."

Oh, wait...yes I can- Team Hill is courting the Bushco funders saying she's one of them. Explains everything.

[cali]

85. Hillary supporters seem to be blindly loyal and quite a few are not liberals

[TransitJohn]

84. You just don't live in reality, and want free stuff.

[cali]

88. Hill supporters parrot that one a lot

[cali]

108. You are the one spouting.right wing crap

Oh, and only Hill supporters call me a repuke or freeper. Disgusting lie, but unsurprising.

Go......

[Kingofalldems]

110. And please cite.

[cali]

113. Go.....use your imagination. And take your right wing crap and....

[Kingofalldems]

116. Still waiting for proof of right wing crap.

[cali]

119. We are done. And everyone can see what you are.

[Kingofalldems]

123. Oh we are not done.

Believe that.

Everyone can see what I am? Been here 12 yrs. and have never been called a RWer until today.

And if you believe that you should take 'everyone' and go to Skinner or EarlG because right wingers do not belong here.

[cali]

130. Off. Brushes shoulders. You whine after calling me a freeper. Been here longer

And ... Off.

[Kingofalldems]

140. I posted I thought you were a republican.

Didn't say anything about freeper. You made that up.

Here's the post BTW.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10027812820&alert=op#post85

[cali]

145. Sorry, that was another Hillary fan in another thread. So many of you

March to the same drummer, you blur into one another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7812681

[Kingofalldems]

154. Well isn't that special.

A non apology apology.

[cali]

155. Lol. And now buh bye.

Ignore. You'll be my.one and only. You are special.

[stonecutter357]

160. are you a a freeper?

[ljm2002]

205. Lowdown bogus garbage...

...but not surprising.

[stonecutter357]

217. Are you a Berniebro ?

[ljm2002]

232. I am a 67 year old woman...

...who had a long and successful professional career. And I am a fervent supporter of Bernie Sanders. I have been told that my support of him defines me as a BernieBro, but I do not agree nor do I accept that label when applied to others, even those who are male.

I have no time for 3rd Wayers. Our party has been corrupted by that philosophy. And the entire political system in this country is corrupt. to. the. core.

Bernie has the courage to speak the truth about what is going on, and that has earned him the wrath of establishment Democrats.

Good on him.

[stonecutter357]

237. Berniebroing has nothing to do with being a man are woman.

[ljm2002]

241. What utter nonsense...

...but it's expected from a Hillary Minion.

And yes, being a Hillary Minion has nothing to do with gender either.

[CharlotteVale]

352. The hell it doesn't. It's sexist crap! I am a woman, don't fucking call me a bro.

[stonecutter357]

355. if you are not a berniebro ,I did not fucking call you a bro.

[CharlotteVale]

357. Stop spinning. You just said it had nothing to do with sex. But there is only one meaning

of the word bro. You can't erase a huge number of Bernie's female supporters while claiming you're not doing it. Well, you can try to claim that, but it's completely obvious what you're doing.

[stonecutter357]

358. Bernie's female supporters?

https://twitter.com/SAConScene/status/728747887383846912 it has nothing to do with sex.

[stonecutter357]

359. PS.

I'm one the biggest Male feminist in the state of Alabama.

[stonecutter357]

430. Welcome to DU!

[cali]

478. Bwahaha. Sure you are.

[Fuddnik]

112. I believe you aren't paying enough attention.

Senator Warner (D-ino) was talking this shit again, just yesterday.

The Pete Peterson Foundation is neck deep in the Clinton Campaign, and their one mission is to eliminate Social Security and the rest of the safety net.

These are the same people who pay Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches. Makes you really wonder what's in those transcripts.

[cali]

117. And these *expletive deleted supporters of a certain candidate, have the fucking nerve

to call me a republican and freeper with impunity.

[socialist_n_TN]

89. I agree. Fuck you.........

There are many "social democratic" methods of shoring up the social security trust fund and they've been laid out several times here. IF you don't use them, we Bolsheviks have got a little thing called expropriation of the wealth in private hands that we can and WILL try as soon as enough old folks begin starving on the streets.

So there's your choice.

[yourpaljoey]

92. Agreed

[jtuck004]

94. That should read "open to hurting and killing the most vulnerable, you coward, by cutting..."

Yours is too nice.

And in a few years when we have 20 million additional patients demanding even more care for their alzheimer's and diabetes, a nation full of old and infirm people being cared for by french fry servers and bedpan movers who could never get good jobs, the words and actions are going to be a lot harsher.

There won't be any place on earth far enough away from the effects.

[deancr]

95. Just so.

I think a little family values profanity is appropriate when commenting on such obscenity.

[Fuddnik]

99. I was starting to think my "ignore function" wasn't working.

This must be a wild thread.

95 replies so far, and I see 20 of them!

[puffy socks]

101. Which Dems have stated this? n/t

[cali]

105. Start with Warner. This has been going on for years in the dem party

[puffy socks]

127. Then concentrate on finding progressives to replace the 9 whole Dems I can find...

because these Dems keep fighting for us while being called sell outs and corporate lackeys.


In a move that may turn out to be politically shrewd but will almost certainly turn out to be practically ineffective, 70 Democrats on Sunday delivered a letter to the White House urging President Obama, in the vaguest of possible language, to “expand Social Security benefits for millions of Americans.”

“As employers continue moving from a defined benefit model to a defined contribution model of retirement savings, it is critical that we fight to protect and expand Social Security –– the only guaranteed source of income in retirement,” the lawmakers wrote, on the eve of the once-in-a-decade White House Conference on Aging that convenes today.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/13/Democrats-Call-Major-Change-Social-Security

[cali]

135. I'm from vermont. We don't elect Catfood Democrats

[blackspade]

109. Damn straight.

[Amimnoch]

121. Agree. Those aren't Democrats, they are Libertarians wearing Democrat

Clothing.

Seniors and those falling under the ADA need expanded services, not reduced.

There should be a scaled assistance program to assist those groups with housing/mortgage costs, protection from unfairly applied property taxes that goes above homestead exemptions, basic utilities assistance (it disgusts me that people today STILL consider those little things like electricity, clean running water that won't harm you, and heating/air conditioning to be "luxuries".. This is the fucking 21st century.. Those are NOT just "luxuries" any longer. Hell in this day and age, internet and basic phone service for all should be a GIVEN..not something that is chosen against putting food on the table. Expanded transportation services for those who are no longer able to get themselves around.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

224. YES! They ARE Libertarians in disguise!

They lack the Ayn Rand worship, and they brag about their devotion to freedom on social issues, but they're all about "don't raise my taxes to subsidize lazy good-for-nothings" and "privatize (insert name of function) for greater efficiency!" and other Libertarian fairy tales.

When faced with a self-styled "Democrat" who brags about being pro-choice but wants to privatize SS and Medicare and thinks all those corporate trade agreements are just dandy, I think that I much prefer the late Jim Oberstar (D-MN), who was anti-choice but was always on the side of economic justice and against stupid foreign interventions or the still-alive Peter DeFazio (D-OR), who votes against gun control but is practically a Socialist on other matters.

[Amimnoch]

257. If only we could get them to just take a step back..

And realize just how many of them are one... Maybe 2.. Maybe even 3 paychecks from falling into the same boat.. Be it from unplanned for illness.. Injury.. Layoff.. Outsourcing.. Or suddenly needing to add the care of family member that makes it no longer feasible to continue working.

Unless you are part of the EXTREMELY fortunate few that has enough money/stocks/resources stockpiled that will allow you to go for at least a year without any supplimental income the person they are sneering at today could very well be them tomorrow.

[CobaltBlue]

124. Didn’t Democratic U.S. President Barack Obama offer up cuts to Social Security?

[FreakinDJ]

125. So that makes it alright ???

If I remember right Many Many Millions of Americans were angry about that too.

So much so even the Republicans like Eric Cantor didn't want to touch it

[Lydia Leftcoast]

229. So that makes it all right?

Politics should not be a team sport, nor should we adopt an attitude of "My party right or wrong."

If one of our politicians does something wrong, we should feel free to reject it, or else what's the point of being a Democrat.

[MisterP]

277. and the Lewinsky scandal's the only reason we have it around today

[2cannan]

302. That's why Bernie wanted someone to run vs. Obama in the primary for 2012

Bernie Sanders Says It Would Be A ‘Good Idea’ To Primary President Obama
http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/07/22/277124/bernie-sanders-primary-obama/

June 22, 2011

snip

Recently, President Obama has faced fire from many in his own base for endorsing unpopular proposals that would include regressive cuts to Social Security in order to win a hike in the debt ceiling.

Today, while appearing on Thom Hartmann’s radio show, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — who, while being an independent, caucuses with the Democrats — said that one way progressives can make sure Obama does not enact huge cuts to major social programs is to run a primary challenger against him. Sanders told a listener who called in to protest a debt ceiling deal that cuts Social Security that such a challenge would be a “good idea”:

SANDERS: Brian, believe me, I wish I had the answer to your question. Let me just suggest this. I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president; who believe that, with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president; who cannot believe how weak he has been, for whatever reason, in negotiating with Republicans and there’s deep disappointment. So my suggestion is, I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. […] So I would say to Ryan [sic] discouragement is not an option. I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.

[ladjf]

126. I second that. (and, I've missed you on DU.) nt

[cali]

133. Thanks

[awoke_in_2003]

129. And the horse they rode in on...

Well, maybe not. It's not the horse's fault that they have a jackass on their back.

[alarimer]

148. Ignore the tone police

People who would cut those programs are not really Democrats. They are neo-liberals who have sold out to banks and Wall Street.

In fact, these programs would be saved with some higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, as well as slashing (and I mean SLASHING to the bare bones) the military. In fact, we could do a lot more, like true universal health care and infrastructure repair.

People who complain mostly about your tone are ignorant as to the true realities we face. It is not enough to be a social liberal. That makes no real difference in anyone's life, in terms of concrete solutions.

[Populist_Prole]

230. Tone police = Concern trolls

Concern trolls = Third-way "democrats".

Third-Way Democrats = somewhat socially liberal republicans.

[Enthusiast]

313. Plus one for truth!

[inchhigh]

150. there wasting when a person with similar

policies would not have been welcome in the REPUBLICAN party. That fact that we have allowed one to even hold statewide office is an insult to the core values of the Democratic party. I just keep watching in horror hoping its just a bad dream because in the real world those cannot possibly be the beliefs of the party of the people, can they?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

151. Also, if you feel taxes on the rich are too damn high.

[cali]

159. Yes

[Lydia Leftcoast]

233. Few things frost me more than the Western world's least-taxed rich people

whining about "high taxes," as if their tax bill is going to force them to sell their Lexus, by a Kia, and live in it.

[gopiscrap]

153. agreed

[floriduck]

156. Agreed, Cali. There is no good argument against your post. Just neoliberal white noise.

[EndElectoral]

158. Could all such supposed Dem's open to this be listed please?

[felix_numinous]

161. An abusive over culture

neglects and denies the basic needs of people, all the while shaming and blaming people.

These people simply need to be replaced, they are past being convinced and are incapable of doing their jobs of adequately governing the people.

At some point we have to save our fire for the battles ahead, do not waste it on deaf ears.

There are massive numbers of people who will resolutely band together and get this done, we have to work around these obstacles. We must become the solution we are looking for.

[dembotoz]

163. when i saw the topic line i thought straight click bait

and then i read the posts.....

no
some things are not negotiable

and if they become negotiable i am gone

[zentrum]

165. DLC sell-outs

[DirkGently]

166. KNR n/t.

[C0RYH0FFMAN]

168. Where is your party loyalty???

Don't you know that all that really matters is supporting the Blue Team at all costs??? WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU!?!?

[cali]

180. Gotta love that mindless drivel. Not.

[FairWinds]

182. Dems that will throw social security under the bus . . ?

try Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

[JEB]

188. Third way scum. FOAD.

[The Second Stone]

199. Agree with every word and sentiment

Thank you.

[Downwinder]

204. You are too generous.

They should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

[cali]

213. It's fucked up that on DU you can support cutting social security

You get booted for being anti-choice or opposing marriage equality. And I'm good with.that. I'm not good with the hypocrisy. If you're a social liberal but not a liberal on economic issues, you aren't a liberal.

[Downwinder]

243. Anything short of, "As President, I will veto any cuts to

Social Security," is DOA.

We have been whipsawed for the last 8+ years. It has got to stop!

[daa]

208. +100,000,000. Nt

[liberal N proud]

246. Is there a list of said Democrats

[JPnoodleman]

255. Get ready to privatized SS, Medicare and Obamacare being gone.

She will "grand bargain," it all away.

[Enthusiast]

315. That is why it is useful to preserve a Republican majority.

Otherwise we can't continue with the fiscal cliff showdown ruse.

[apcalc]

319. No she will not

She is 100% against cuts yo the program and privatization.

Her latest statement:
“I won't cut Social Security. ... I'll defend it, and I'll expand it.”
HILLARY CLINTON, FEBRUARY 5, 2016

[Ferd Berfel]

296. Agree with you completely cali

This election is about losing.

The final stages.......
Losing the Democratic Party to Right wing corporate control
losing Government sovereignty to right wing corporate control
Losing the middle-class to outsourcing through right wing corporate control
Losing Civil Rights to right wing corporate control
Losing the Media to right wing corporate control
losing social security and Medicare to right wing corporate control
losing more insane never ending wars
Losing our infrastructure and social nets to an ever increasing destructive military budget
and more......

All represented by Clinton and Trump

[Efilroft Sul]

298. One of those times when I have to log in and give a rec.

Eff 'em with a splintery broomstick. Sideways.

[cali]

299. Thanks

[Tsiyu]

300. Yes, FUCK any Dem who thinks we are that stupid

the neoliberal "austerity for you and me, anarchy for corporations and wealthy persons" has fucked this country beyond measure.

And now a goddamned democrat Mark Warner is pushing this evil shit?

A pox on him and his entire house. He thinks we're fools and can't see that: MARK WARNER and Dems like him are completely self-serving pieces of SHIT.

FUCK YOU Warner, and all the Dems like you. May you fail spectacularly from here on out so a TRUE person of the people can be elected in your place.

Oh, and FUCK YOU again you amoral globs of human filth who want to starve us all out so your buddies get a few more digits on the spreadsheets. FUCK YOU!

[cali]

304. Righteous rant

[Tsiyu]

307. I am pissed off

Thanks for the thread.

[brewens]

310. And the horse ya rode in on! And all of your supporters! n/t

[Enthusiast]

316. Kicked and recommended!

[Teamster Jeff]

322. kick rec

[closeupready]

324. Amen. K&R

[southmost]

326. wow there's an over fed troll actually defending cuts to our safety net? !?

[BlindTiresias]

385. Yeah

Bring up anything related to austerity and they can't help themselves. They become... excited.

[Jopin Klobe]

330. "If you're an elected dem who leaves the door open to cuts in social security" ...

... don't let it hit you in the ass when you exit through it instead ...

[misterhighwasted]

337. Likewise, if you call yourself a Progressive yet vote with the Bush cronies to poison the Latinos,

AND PERSONALLY PROFIT, YEARS LATER, then that claim of being PROGRESSIVE IS Bull Shit.

Since we're on the subject of who's worthy and who's not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107124800

Who would vote against Paul Wellstone, the greatest Democratic Progressive, in a Senate fight for Human Rights against Corporate cronyism, and against Environmental & Economic Racism in the VT waste dump in Sierra Blanca Tx.

What Progressive would vote against Progressives, to enrich themselves.
Who made the decision to go against Progressive Values, yet claims none are more Progressive than he?

And you cannot blame Pres Bill Clinton for Bernie & Jane Sanders action & choices made to involve themselves in a dirty deal of GWBush & his corrupt mega millionaire big corporate 1%er cronies.

Paul Wellstone fought for the people of Sierra Blanca. Sanders helped kill his Progressive ammendments.


Who stepped aside from their grandiose claims of "progressivism" to vote to kill the Wellstone Ammendments.

Who?

A pathetic self serving excuse for a progressive.

[cali]

429. Your post is chock full of lies.

Absolute crap.

[misterhighwasted]

450. No lies cali. Bernie voted against the most Progressive, Paul Wellstone

But I certainly understand why this truth about Bernie would be a reason for his supporters to want to hide from voter view.
Bernie is not a true progressive no matter how many times he says he is.
This isn't a lie at all.
It is in his Congressional voting record.

Truth hurts & in this case, the rush to polish the tarnish off bernie's Sierra Blanca record of profit before people, is a tarnish that will remain forever.
Nothing about this is a lie. He owns this dirty deed

Bye bernie

[RoccoR5955]

338. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! n.t.

[glinda]

348. Some seniors live or die on $700/mo as is.

[MisterP]

379. "well, they voted in the primaries, so they can go screw as I fight Trump for Republican voters"

Last edited Sat May 7, 2016, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

[glinda]

416. Not understanding what you are saying...

[MisterP]

419. Clinton's the hypothetical speaker--the elderly can starve as she flounders about trying

to out-Trump Trump

[glinda]

421. +1

[glowing]

351. By doing this, they are harming the bottom line in overall GDP.

When poor people don't have money, they don't have credit cards to fall back on. They just go without. Since SNAP has been cut back for families over the last year, Walmart has seen a decline in profits. Now, they want to make even more cuts to the program, plus they talk about fixing social security and Medicare by increasing ages and cutting benefits. Really? What will happen is that millions of Americans will keel over at the jobs they are working.

These sycophants, these leeches of the govt, these assholes in their ivory towers really think that a nurse should be laboring until they are 70yrs old? What damned 70yr old could work 12 hr shifts, keep medicines straight, deal with sponge baths and bed pans, oh and lift people in and out of bed? What cop can work "the beat" until they are 70? What coal miner can work in mines until they are 70? Shoot in many WV, and other poor counties, the life expectancy of a man is well below the age of 70, so I guess that's some savings. Or we just cut back on how much they receive... So, the elderly are going without their medicines or food or heating (one of these items is sure to kill them).

On the other end, we have poor parents raising their children in povert in America. 1 out of 5 children in America. What did they do to deserve such a "bootstrap" existence? And the cycle of poverty is extremely hard to escape when one is born into it. Housing, food, medicine, and schooling is often horrible and poor. And even if extremely smart and motivated, affording higher education is absolutely priced out of their thought. (And to be fair, a child living in poverty would be lucky to be in that "smarter" category since their lack of a nutrient rich diet causes brain development issues). This is America? This is why we spend more money on "defense" protecting? Everything is crumbling around us. Our trade policies are sending us into a third world status. Building new schools or bridges or modern transportation or green energy is pushed to the side. Seriously, when is the last time a new school that wasn't "charter" was built?

And yet, it was so important to pass the Panama Free Trade Act so the wealthy from around the world could hide their money from being taxed? That banks can rip people off, pay a few billion in fines, and reward the CEO for making a trillion off the fraud?

I guess America has spent so much time "losing", they can't even envision a life of happiness, stress free living, pushing for ideas and goals that are noble. All they see is struggle and prison and politicians on the take and wealthy laughing in their faces and wars... They can't even think to ask for more. To demand more. We have Democrats who say $15.00/ hr for a 40hr work week is too much? Really? Is someone's time on this earth so invaluable? Is someone else's life so much better that a few deserve to own it and the rest be destroyed by their greed for power and money?

There is a reason Trump got the puke nom and Bernie has been so successful. Honest to God, if the Dems hadn't stacked the delegates and the party so in favor of Clinton and the media so dastardly in the way they covered Bernie vs Trump, I think he would be the dem leader at this point. It is to the peril of our democracy that people in power are not seeing the real anger and frustration drawing to a head. And really its fascism or progressivism, but it won't be he status quo. Many people can't hold out another 4 or 8 yrs of struggling like they are just to keep their lips above the water. Many are tapping out via suicide. Others who are able will leave the country. but with all this military mite we've allowe our tax dollars to fund, I'm afraid authoritarian, regime by our corporate overlords may actually prevail over the people.

[DLevine]

431. Well stated. Thank you. nt

[appalachiablue]

445. Righteous, well done!

[glowing]

461. Thank you.

[SammyWinstonJack]

354. Agreed.

[wolfie001]

360. YES!!!!!

Preach it!!! And I approve of the wording!!! Cheers!!!

[AllyCat]

367. Interesting how many here supporting "compromise"

Are Clinton supporters. Compromise is for us underlings. We do the compromising, the ruling class reaps the rewards and offers platitudes.

[Vote2016]

370. You realize this is how the asshole auditions for VP. This was a trial balloon.

[Dont call me Shirley]

373. YUP, FUCK YOU!

[TIME TO PANIC]

374. K & R! Excellent Fuckin' post!

[leftstreet]

377. DURec

[warrprayer]

378. kick

and rec

[BlindTiresias]

384. +1 Honey pot thread

Is some magic sigil encoded in your post? The right wingers are shedding the Democratic skin they have been wearing and are flocking to this thread.

[BlindTiresias]

386. Jesus cali.. what have you done!

they are swarming!

[redwitch]

388. :-) I have a lot of people on ignore.

It is the only way I can manage to stay here. Seriously, I only see 87 replies. Ignore is my friend. It didn't use to be but it is now.

[mr clean]

460. +1

I've put ten on Ignore today!

[cer7711]

387. Not Only F.U.: You're A Self-declared Enemy of the People

And should be dealt with accordingly.

(In every legal way possible: protest, public condemnation, support for your political opponents, etc.)

[redwitch]

390. Yes.

Thanks cali!

[ozone_man]

394. Isn't Trump is against cutting social security?

Wouldn't that be funny if Hillary was further to to right of Trump. A Republican in sheep's clothing she is.

[RiverLover]

397. You f*cking ROCK, Cali!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell it! Straight Up!!!!!

[hopemountain]

400. thank you for your very

brave post, cali. this is not the democratic party of my parents.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

409. K&R

[Arugula Latte]

415. Happy to be rec #300.

[Uncle Joe]

420. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

423. Thanks for calling attention to this important issue, cali.

The social safety net shouldn't be a bargaining chip.

[emsimon33]

426. We are now well organized

We can organize to be defeated any politician that goes after Social Security, Medicare, and the safety net, from Congress people, through the Senate, all the way up to the president. It doesn't matter what the party affiliation is, what matters are the values and policies any more, I fear.

[highprincipleswork]

427. Really. I am tired of having my economics screwed over by Democrats. I reserve my vote to see

how these issues are played in the months before the general election.

[TeamPooka]

428. K & R! nt

[cali]

432. It heartens me to see so many duers are holding strong on this.

Doesn't surprise me, but it's great to see.

[merrily]

433. How about fuel subsidies?

[Teamster Jeff]

440. Kick

[nadinbrzezinski]

453. We have a center right and a far right party

Yes, they are democrats. People need to wake up and smell the roses. The Conservadem side of the house is not that much into you

[Marr]

456. Skinner, if you want some *real* purge material, THIS is the thread to pull from.

Oddly, they're also some of the big beneficiaries of the 'time out amnesty'.

[demmiblue]

473. Kick for exposure.

[haele]

475. A 'Pub I knew told me that it would take a Dem admin to dismantle the New Deal.

Republicans couldn't do it or they'd be attacked immediately. To many overt radicals that can be voted against.

The New Deal is a Democratic program and built into the Democratic platform for over 30 years.

So, Wall Street and other financiers would have been stupid not to know that if they want to get back to the un-regulated Gilded Age, they would have to get there riding Democratic Party.

So, as long as there's an opening through the ability to "invest" in politics, the people with money are going to maintain their comfortable make-believe society on the backs of people who have to live in the real world with real world problems.

We the People lost when Daley and the MIC pulled the out their "Commie" cards and played the party against itself to ensure that George McGovern - a WWII veteran - became "unelectable" against Richard Nixon.

Haele