It will be eliminated but there won't be any way to know. How silly of me - carry on.

No knowing is a new thing here. If you're charged under the Patriot Act or other national security legislation, your prosecutor gets to stipulate evidence supporting some or all of the charges. The resource for a defendant is ... well, there is no resource. The defendant can never see that evidence designated as protected by national security legislation and the defense attorney can only see it if the attorney has top secret clearance. But there can be no arguments.

When you make your smart ass little comments to those of us who have chosen to resist The Money Party, you do so from the comfort of a nation that has decent medical care and a civil approach to the world (well Haiti is an exception but you know what I mean). Some day soon, coming to a country you live in will be the same crap we're getting here. The Wall Street crowd already subjugated Mexico with leaders placed in power, most recently, through election fraud. The country is in ruins.

You're next.

But one thing you can count on is that none of the people you mock with your snarks will show up on a Canadian blog and mock you for resisting the greed driven fascism that we're enduring here. And if that doesn't happen, it will because there are tens of millions like those you continually disrespect who actually pulled off some sort of real change.

Ironically, when they screw with Social Security, that will be just the ticket to mobilize people to action. Just about everyone, regardless of political stripe, knows the game. There just needs to be an activating event to end the kleptocracy of the "bipartisan" one party system with its Republican and Democratic wings.

Not so very long ago, fueled by demagogues peddling that same cocktail of anger and fear, off your nation went to Iraq.

Angry people make mistakes (that's "recourse", by the way, but you knew that), and big groups of angry people make really, really dreadful mistakes. Anger and fear don't produce the right answers.

Consider stepping away from the computer for a bit and taking a nice walk. I had one today - the weather was great, a lovely sunny warm early October day. Come back refreshed.

Condescending much?

Why should he step away from the computer? Anger is exactly the right emotion. The US needs a people's revolution to bring the corrupt and greedy elites to their knees.

And yes, we Canadians better watch out. If Harper doesn't get thrown out in the next election the same fate awaits us. Our rights and freedoms have never been more fickle. Trudeau, he of "Canada must be a just society", must be turning in his grave.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

Iraq and Social Security? Apples and Oranges?

Not so very long ago, fueled by demagogues peddling that same cocktail of anger and fear, off your nation went to Iraq.

There are no demagogues peddling a cocktail of anger and fear. The anger and fear felt by Americans are spontaneous emotions - a direct response to the abject disregard for the welfare of its citizens shown by those ruling demagogues

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

Then emotional factors are introduced as has been done by those making the point of this thread "anger" rather than the obvious attack on the people by the cat food commission and it's targeting of Social Security.

You are right, anger and fear, are two emotions that come up in our "shock and awe" political culture. But the good news is that there is a quiet but vast awareness of the nature of the game here - relentless, incompetent, blundering fascism.

That's where Jonithyn's excellent post and observation comes in. The blunderers have become so grandiose and myopic, they're willing to take a trip down the third rail of U.S. politics. They'll have an awakening that will be both abrupt and unsettling. Anger isn't an option for th eoligarchs but fear is (and has been). They'll regret the day they greatly expanded their little scheme to steal everything that isn't nailed down.

Thank you for your comments on this thread.

To take anything I said or the focus as a one of the causes for Iraq is just pathetic. I can only assume it's an attempt, failed to be sure, at irony.

You are borderline defamatory and unwelcome. You pair "anger and fear" with my name.

Stop it.

You set something like that out there - in the subject field - and it becomes litter. When repeated enough times, it becomes the propaganda of personal attack. I'm simply describing the rhetoric of your replies.

you've stepped in to defend, the irony of your final paragraph is exquisite. Here's the first part of the first sentence.

This is part II of a multipart series to demonstrate how everyone in Washington—and one-term President Barack Obama in particular

Propaganda.

As to the first, should you feel my posts rise to defamation, the law provides you clear "resource" and you should most certainly sue me. I will await my notice of service with intensely amused anticipation.

And I said borderline defamation. You're behavior is very rude and worse, you're flip about it. You comments to me are not welcome.

Our societies are structured differently in very fundamental ways. We're not next for the simple reason that myself and two million of my colleagues, representing 7% of economic activity bust ass to make it not so every single day. It's taken about 70 years, but what is done here can't be undone.

The thing that has underwritten that progress in large part is patience and expertise. The big flaw of the modern Internet mediated progressive critique is that the metric of success isn't whether something is correct or wise, the metric is how well it rates on the overnights. I've spent the last seven years watching that critique unfold and the few parts of it that I am qualified to assess have left a lot to be desired and have been largely ineffective. Folks want to drive change via discourse? Become actual experts on an issue - that's an issue as in numbers, one (1) issue. This ersatz public intellectual approach where everyone rushes around after the outrage of the day isn't helping anyone.

“People mobilized without a course of action are just a mob - and a mob is just a bunch of people who don't realize that they are in enfilade." ~ not-Richard Haass

Dave. Glad to know we are just chasing outrages and ratings of the day and have not been consistent for years on our gripes of what is happening in America and within our government.

I'm not saying don't get angry - I'm saying that if you want to change things you have to be smart, right, wise and above all disciplined over an extended period. To be able to do that and actually change things as opposed to produce a lot of activity that looks superficially like change, one has to focus.

“Outcomes != Activity." ~ not-Richard Haass

Not me. When the conditions described are sufficiently grotesque, then the description, the accurate elucidation of the facts, can generate one of several emotional states in the readers.

So who are you saying is angry? Is it a generalized other (than you) or do you mean me specifically?

Just a trend that I've noticed. Too much of our critique is too generalized and ends up being wasted. The key to being effective I have become convinced is being highly focused on any given issue - rather than the current scenario which seems to be personality based (one looks to a particular commentator or site for a view on whatever is topical) the emphasis should be on whoever is in the same general mode, but is actually specialized on the issue - a network of like minded people rather than whoever is best at capturing eyeball share. Too commonly that share seems to be driven by ideological purity of message rather than fidelity to complexity.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Extended themes are the key, explored in their full complexity. However, they begin by observations based on a disparity between what's being done and what needs to be done. The circumstances here are exigent and emergent, hence focused pointers, in plain words, on what's at stake. The two, clear focus and complexity, go together.

plenty of rushing around on your part after the outrage of the day.

This ersatz public intellectual approach where everyone rushes around after the outrage of the day isn't helping anyone.

How does your intellectual approach differ from this ersatz public intellectual approach?

If we don't attempt to drive change via discourse then what other method would you suggest?

It's taken about 70 years, but what is done here can't be undone. Where have you been lately? Harper has already taken a few steps to undo some of our much envied rights and freedoms not the least of which are women's rights. But I suppose these don't count in your books.

Harper is also making a mockery of Parliament. From proroguing Parliament to interfering with the function of parliamentary committees etc. The list goes on.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

Military affairs and security pretty much exclusively. I don't comment on economics, social security, etc. etc. because I'm not qualified to do so.

A public intellectual is someone who knows a little bit about everything. In an Internet-mediated environment where one works without a filter, an editor or commonly even time to reflect - privileging Internet available sources and competing for eyeball slice, well that's not a recipe for producing outputs with much substantive effect in the long run.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

"I don't comment on economics, social security, etc. etc. because I'm not qualified to do so." These are the drivers of military action, except in the case of national defense. Adrena made some salient points and you ignored them. Perhaps Mr. Harper is Mr. Harbinger. It's eminently worthy of comment.

...the structure of which I speak not at all.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

How you've completely derailed the comments section away from the fact that Obama and the Senate Democrats will be stealing Social Security. Rather than making snotty remarks, let me make the revolutionary suggestion that you actually address the Original Post. Such as, How Obama and the Senate Democrats will be stealing Social Security? Dispute it if you will, but your haughty sniffing in this and other comment sections has become a bit tedious. Let's keep it to Obama and the Senate Democrats will be stealing Social Security for a change.

I'll condense your post:

Obama used the words "you didn't elect me to do what was popular, you elected me to do what was right". The inescapable conclusion we must draw from this is that he intends to eliminate Social Security.

But the evidence produced boils down to your "blood ran cold" upon hearing the phrase. That's followed by some process-of-elimination stuff which - astonishingly - gives positive confirmation to the testimony previously given by your blood temperature. Then it's Slogan Time.

It's surprisingly challenging to make a reasoned argument against the evidence of someone's "blood running cold".

I've scratched my head about this and I'm afraid the only way I can think to address it is with a lovely warm cup of cocoa.

Please present your arguments for or against. I'd like to address them in the next installment. My arguments aren't temperature based. I repeat, what is your argument against the original post? What is your evidence to the contrary? Sadly, pooh-poohing is not a valid argument.

worth the effort of rebutting. I have no intention of wasting time attempting to become the first human being in history to prove a negative.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. You haven't presented any. Your proof consists of your emotional reaction to a phrase in a politician's speech, some stretched process-of-elimination stuff (through process of elimination I could easily demonstrate that the plants on my deck are dying because a neighbour has cursed them) and some rhetoric.

There's nothing to rebut, nothing to argue against, and - now I've increased the odds that folks will read it carefully and critically rather than just getting riled up - nothing worth any more of my time.

And since it apparently wasn't completely obvious, and as you insist upon this being explicitly spelled out for you: no, I do not believe they will be "eliminating Social Security". It's not impossible that they will attempt some sort of "repair in place"; "eliminate" is simply insane. If you're confident they will attempt to "eliminate it", stick a date on it and we'll revisit this discussion then.

a devil's advocate helps to hone arguments. even being inflammatory and insulting helps. but somewhere in there you might want to remind folks that you disagree w/ the tactics and not the mission.

I was 20 feet away from my hero on Sunday, wishing I had remembered the camera charger. So I try not to watch, but only listen to these videos, as my memory has a much closer and clearer view. Just watch this one. "...searching is an american ideal"

Patti is eligible for Social Security at the age of 63. Damn she can rock; I was tired out by the end of an hour long set, but she killed the closer:

with the caveat that legislation will be passed by January 2012, but the changes won't be enacted until sometime in the future, a la the healthcare reform bill.

the bet is personal with Jonathryn and specific to his time-line:

The date should be
Between November 3 and January 5.

The signing ceremony will be behind closed doors

to "gutless government disinformation agent". if you really work in government, do you ever ask yourself why?

note the date on this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?_r=1

Jonathryn is probably only wrong in that the deal is already done.

given Mark's posting history is that his sig line is meant to be read in irony.

As to volunteering the term "gutless" - I certainly don't turn down a scrap if it's offered. But Mark doesn't seem to be offering you any sort of scrap (unless I missed something that would clue me in to context). He doesn't seem to be addressing you in personally pejorative terms, his post just said "no deal".

I was going to use the term "pussy", but I was trying not to be offensive for a change of pace. :)

$10 for a good cause, but he won't take my bet?
not what I would call courage nor conviction.

far be it from me etc :D

(Two hands on one belly) A Dutch expression that perfectly describes when two people think alike.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

school-yard insults all you want. What part of "no" do you no understand? My wager was not with you but with Jonathryn. This Congress will not do what Jonathryn says. That was the basis of my wager. If you want to bother people for not standing by their convictions, perhaps you could pester the strangely silent Jonathryn instead. I will post no more on this.

it was 'personal' ;)

or was that snark? I can't tell anymore :(

but by not accepting my wager you basically admit that Congress will indeed fiddle w/ SS. Maybe not this session of Congress, and definitely not eliminate, but like HCR those of us who have been paying 12.4% of our paychecks into the sytem for our entire careers do not have a seat at the table. Do you believe one public meeting per month qualifies the Deficit Commission's work as transparent or democratic? These people weren't elected, but selected because the Senate decided to abdicate their responsibilty. Jonathryn is absolutely correct to assert that they will be stealing Social Security.

Former Senator Simpson
"We are going to stick with the big three [Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid]" (CNBC, 2/22/10)

“We are talking about Social Security.” (Fox News, 2/18/10)

“It’ll be a bloodbath…you've got to scrub out [of] the equation the AARP, the Committee for the Preservation of Social Security and Medicare, the Gray Panthers, the Pink Panther, the whatever. Those people are lying... [They] don't care a whit about their grandchildren.”(CNBC, 2/22/10)

Erskine Bowles
“Everything’s on the table.” (CNN, 3/1/10)

“We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.” (N.C. Bankers Assoc., 3/10/10)

Previously Bowles had worked on a plan for Social Security that included "raising the minimum age required for Social Security and for changing the COLA formula." This is basically the same plan that is being batted around Washington today. (The Pact by Steven Gillon: 2008)

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/commission-watch

if you don't want to take the bet, will you at least sign the petition?
http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/action

Here Mark, if I win the bet you can keep your $10. You'll need it. If you win I'll sign over all of my future social security checks to you. Ha!

Someone on the left side of the right (Sanders, one of the few we'd recognize as anything else, is an independent).

Sanders says they will reject a plan that "calls for cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, or privatizing any part of the entitlement program".

Notably absent in that statement is Sanders giving voice to the fear they'll "eliminate" Social Security, as per the title of the original post.

the proof will be in the pudding. Legislators say a lot of things and have the unhappy history of doing the opposite(especially during election time).

Hence my opening post - a request for a timeline so we can all know when it's time to taste the pudding.

that's why it's so quiet, one loud noise and the souffle may fall.
I just have no interest in having it shoved down my throat after it comes out of the oven.

(the only difference between souffles and puddings is flour. that and yorkshire pudding is intended to collapse. there's some good metaphor escaping me in there somewhere)

Here's an interesting article on previous commissions dealing with SS, written by Eric Kingson, who served as policy advisor to two presidential commissions -- the 1982-3 National Commission on Social Security Reform and the 1994 Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform.