Obama and the Senate Democrats Will Eliminate Social Security: Part II

Dog Whistle Politics and Impending Democratic Congressional Losses

This is part II of a multipart series to demonstrate how everyone in Washington””and one-term President Barack Obama in particular””are telegraphing the fact that they will be gearing up for a major campaign to steal money from Senior Citizens by making drastic changes to ”œfix” the Social Security program. Part I can be read here.

“You didn’t elect me to do what was popular. You elected me to do what was right.”
–One-term President Barack Obama,
Speech to Congressional Black Caucus, Washington DC, September 18, 2010

I was pecking away at my computer, absentmindedly watching Countdown with Keith Olberman when I heard something that made my blood run cold.

We always knew this was going to be hard. I said it was going to be hard, remember? I said I was going to tell you some things you didn’t want to hear. I said that we were going to have to make some difficult choices. I said not everybody was going to be happy with every single decision I made.

You did not elect me to do what was easy. You didn’t just elect me to read the polls and figure out how to keep myself in office. Whenever you read the media in Washington, all they’re concerned about is, boy, his polls numbers are down, so that must mean that he didn’t do the right thing. Just because your poll numbers are down. That’s how everything is measured.

But you didn’t elect me to look at the polls. You elected me to do what was right. You elected me to do what was right. That was change you could believe in — that I was going to do what was right, not what was expedient, not what was convenient.

Now think to yourself. Was he talking about Medicare for All or a Public Insurance Option during the Health Care Reform debacle?

Noooo”” those were popular measures that would have been expedient in that they actually reduced the deficit and solved many if not all of our problems related to the delivery of health care.

Was he talking about Wall Street reforms?

Noooo”” those were also popular measures that could have seriously curtailed the plutocrats who rule both Wall Street and Constitution Avenue.

What in the world could possibly be universally unpopular yet sold to us as doing ”œwhat was right?”

Social Security is the last big nut that they’ve never been able to crack. It’s a spigot of money within the economy that they have never been able to tap, and if they could only tap into that cash flow by privatizing it, or divert some amount of money out of the pipeline, the diverted money can be directed into already well-established money pumps flowing directly into their bank accounts.

They’ve been coming at it from twenty different angles, undaunted by facts, mercy, or anything to the contrary, like a persistent, relentless, horny twenty-year old trying to get into your pants:


  • ”œHoney, the deficit’s too big, so we have to reduce benefits,”
  • ”œPeople are living five years longer as comatose zombies in Intensive Care Units, so we should raise the retirement age,”
  • ”œInflation? Excluding fuel, food, housing, and medical costs, inflation was 0.5 percent, so no Cost-of-Living Adjustment for you! (Besides, do Seniors really need to drive cars, heat their homes, eat food, have a roof over their heads, or get medical attention to survive? Seriously!)”
  • ”œSocial Security is only intended to supplement the pension your employer defaulted on years ago, and the 401(k) you could afford to pay into if you paid Zero to 15 percent income taxes like the guys who run your 401(k).”
  • ”œHistorically, the stock market has outperformed other investments, just not in your lifetime, or well enough for you to ever retire.”
  • ”œWe just can’t afford Social Security. We have to spend $2 Trillion on ”˜emergency supplemental spending’ for our unforeseen costs arising from a ”˜Mission Accomplished’ that’s lasted nearly a decade. Nobody Could Have Predicted it would appear in the budget again in 2010. Or that it will in 2011. And 2012. Yeah. Those wars.”
  • ”œWe just can’t afford Social Security. The Federal Reserve floated $3 Trillion in exchange for Treasuries to buy exotic derivatives contracts at face value when anyone else could get them Over the Counter for 4-5 cents on the dollar.”
  • ”œThe Social Security Trust is just worthless scraps of paper in a vault somewhere. Not like U.S. Treasury Bonds. Actual Very Serious rich people might have those.”
  • ”œEveryone feels so entitled these days. We must cut entitlements. What makes you so special? Why are you so entitled? Paying into Social Security every paycheck, all your working life, for fifty years? Did you ever think of Warren Buffet’s feelings? Doesn’t he deserve a few billion of that? At least he works for his money. You’re just retired.”

      And so on and so forth, all in the service of creating an atmosphere of inevitability in Washington. Remember the days of ”œwe cannot wait for final proof in the form of a mushroom cloud?”

      All the signals are flashing red that the lame duck Democratic congress will vote on the discredited Catfood Commission’s recommendations to cut taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and that if it passes, One-term President Barack Obama will sign it into law.

      The political reality that confronted one-term President Barack Obama when he took office was borne more out of awkwardness than inability. How could he make so many initial ”œconcessions” to the Corporate Right, how many crocodile tears would Mitch McConnell wring out of him, when the Democrats held the magic number, 60 seats in the senate, and a majority in the House? Why oh why would he be so reluctant to hasten Al Franken’s ascension to the Senate? Why did they drag the debate out long enough for Ted Kennedy to die? Why would he let Martha Coakley go down in flames in Massachusetts? Because 59 plus Franken equals no compromises. No compromises minus Ted Kennedy equals Health Care ”œReform”, aka ”œChange You Can Believe In” just right.

      The quote at the beginning of this post is nauseatingly galling when you consider the many messages it conveys to its many intended audiences. To the public, it is just cliché political tough talk they’ve heard before: You didn’t elect me to do what was popular. You elected me to do what was right. Rah team.

      To wizened civil rights leaders that language that brings to mind a protest march despite opposition from all the white people in a community, despite their dogs and fire hydrant hoses, despite their hatred and insults and lynchings, because the protest marchers were there to do what was right.

      And to the plutocrats Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Timothy Geithner, and Ben Bernanke, it signals that this member of the Joshua generation, standing on the shoulders of the Moses generation, will lead them to a perverse promised land, where every function of government and profit is privatized, every loss is borne by impoverished masses, the wealthy rule every aspect of the land without regulation of any kind, no law no court and no attorney general will dare stay their hand, and Obama will have finally given them their due, something no Republican could ever accomplish in his wildest dreams: the last money spigot in America, the rock of financial salvation that American workers could count on if all else failed, the one thing that would let them keep their dignity in impoverished old age, the trust fund they have toiled to contribute to for all their working lives to take the burden off their own Moses generation: Social Security.

      You didn’t elect me to do what was popular.

About author View all posts

Jonathryn

49 CommentsLeave a comment

  • “You didn’t elect me to do what was popular.” Obama

    What a foolish remark. We elected him or, I should say, the election put Obama in a position to serve all of the people from the perspective of his electoral program. Silly me to think that a pol would actually keep his/her word after elected. But that’s how the system is sold.

    Why wasn’t this in the platform – I’ll do things against the public willi.

    Bring it on: In a poll on deficit cutting priorities, subjects were asked to endorse programs that they would find acceptable to cut.

    12% endorsed Social Security.

    Reap the wind, sow the whirlwind. And that’s what will happen. Good riddance.

    On edit: Great final paragraph/summary!

  • he’s going to eliminate it by? I’d like to set a reminder in my calendar.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • It will be eliminated but there won’t be any way to know. How silly of me – carry on.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • 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.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • “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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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

  • …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

  • 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.

  • 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.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • You pair “anger and fear” with my name. Stop it. – Michael

    Why should he step away from the computer? Anger is exactly the right emotion. – adrena

    There are no demagogues peddling a cocktail of anger and fear. The anger and fear felt by Americans are spontaneous emotions – adrena

    … 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.

    Dave, exactly who is angry? Not me. – Michael

    – when y’all settle on an internally consistent narrative.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • yes, everyone can see you’re both angry. You can feel the anger in your posts.

    For that matter, hell yeah, I agree with you on that level – there is indeed much for you to be angry about.

    I’d like to believe the readers here are smart enough to keep the example of Iraq in the back of their minds – that long-to-be-remembered drive to whip Americans towards a target through appeal to their basest emotions – and resolve to keep on doing their own critical thinking about where the faults in the system lie, and how best to work to solve or improve them.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • 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.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • 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.

  • 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:

  • 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.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • did you talk to anyone on the Hill about this? When one takes up the mantle of public journalist or public intellectual and posts things like this I think they also need to apply a little conventional journalistic effort to the task rather than simply going with their gut. At a minimum I suggest you do what I did and call the offices of your senators and congressperson and ask where they stand on the issue. You may be surprised that the policy flacks will actually return your calls and let you know where your elected official stands on the issue. My experience was that, if they had not been such polite young people, they would have asked what the curious constituent had been smoking so early in the morning to inquire if there was a plan to gut social security afoot.

    Sean Paul started this, not me, so I will bet you US$10 that no changes to social security, as you have suggested, take place by the end of January 2011. Your timeline, not mine. The loser will provide the winner with proof that the money has been paid to medecins sans frontieres. Not a controversial charity, to my knowledge. Bet on?


    Outrage=controversy=site traffic=revenue.

  • 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


    This post is brought to you by a “Planted government disinformation agent.”

  • like to throw in Michael O’Briens The Hill’s blog from 9/30.

    Congressional liberals threatened to vote down whatever results from President Obama’s fiscal commission if it contains a plan to change Social Security. Liberal members of the House and Senate Democratic caucuses said they would look to defeat the fiscal commission’s final proposal if it calls for cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, or privatizing any part of the entitlement program. “[D]o not send Congress a plan that cuts Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age, or privatizes Social Security,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned Thursday on a conference call. “If you do, we’ll vote it down.” The bipartisan commission Obama created by executive order is set to make its proposal to address the nation’s looming debt crisis at the end of the year. House and Senate leaders have pledged to allow a vote on the entirety of the recommendations, which would come during a lame-duck session of Congress. But both Republicans and Democrats have already been jockeying over the commission’s final possible outcomes. GOP leaders have railed against the prospect of any new taxes, and Democrats have led the push to leave Social Security unchanged.

    Somebody may like to explain what “congressional liberals” actually means to a naive aussie, tia! :)

  • 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 best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • 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.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • 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”.


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • 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


    “The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential.”

    - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  • (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.


    This post is brought to you by a “Planted government disinformation agent.”

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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!

Leave a Reply

3bb1012ca7881a903f6bb688401857a5453d3be4