So let's get going and raise hell! Put up numbers to call, things to do now. Please.
Posted by fed up at May 25, 2005 11:00 AMpessimist, this is really tiresome. You're saying "It looks like" there will be a deal on SS. Based on what? Some rumors of some might have beens of some heard thats?
Don't waste bandwidth just because you *want* to be outraged. Or if you're going to, try and condense to something simple like:
"Something bad might happen. Pessimist mad."
'Kay?
I didn't see your name on the contact list on the front page of this blog. Therefore, you have no voice in deciding what I do or do not post. If you want that kind of control, start up your own Philadelphia blog and I promise that I will not ever darken your door with my opinions - pessimist
Posted by Optimist at May 25, 2005 11:41 AM
I am hoping all this SS talk about equivocating Democrats turns out to be some sort of political akido move by Reid/Pelosi. But after years of Democratic missteps, I have to remain skeptical.
Posted by dlb at May 25, 2005 12:07 PM
I am confident the Dems will sell out the American people so bush can have at least half a victory. Afterall, bush is god.
Posted by jj at May 25, 2005 12:08 PMO.K....Here's the deal...We give you want you want now, but in 2 years you have to nominate Ross Perot as your Republican Candidate. Deal? Good!
Posted by RC at May 25, 2005 12:48 PMhey, maybe Ken Salazar can 'lead' the way to a beautiful compromise where only 39.9% of benefits are cut!
Posted by Flamethrower at May 25, 2005 01:38 PMOptimist,
Here is the relevant text - This is the sort of talk we've heard just before every major capitulation by the Democrats & ain't it the truth?
I read the article too. the supposed deal is to raise taxes and cut some benefits without the carve out private accounts.
the Republicans will NEVER vote for tax increases. The tax increases talked about will hit the Republican backers right between the eyes. these are middle managers (if there any left after the corporate firings), and small business owners who file as individuals.
Also, the lack of carve out accounts also is a defeat for Bush. the accounts were a payoff to Wall Street, and it was going to be the dessert to swallow painful benefts.
it is not going to happen.
Remember Bush 41 when he broke his no new taxes pledge.
Posted by mje at May 25, 2005 04:28 PMAnyone who doubts the impending sellout on Social Security should simply look at the Bankruptcy vote. It doesn't take a wholesale sellout, but merely a half-dozen or so folks on the pad. If it's not painfully obvious by now that at least a dozen Dem Senators are seriously on the pad, think again.
14 Dems in the Senate voted for the BK bill, which they know damn well will ruin the lives of millions of people when the housing bubble crashes. 38 House Dems were more than eager to do the same and displayed their haste to do so publicly. Jeebus, wake the fuck up!
Seriously, what kind of kickbacks do you suppose are being offered by Merrill Lynch, et al to vote for SS Deform? We're talking a shit load of money here and that's what really matters. That's what "just enough" Dems are really thinking about, and nothing else.
Posted by Emocrat at May 25, 2005 09:39 PMHave to agree that the biggest indicator that there will be a cave in on SSN - is that the Democrats have consistently caved in.
Clinton triangulated, gave up on energy taxes, trade and other big issues. Iraq - caved in and signed up for the disaster. Bankruptcy bill. etc. The painful truth is that we have one extremist right wing part and one sorta, kind of, corporatist party.
There is no progressive party in the US. There is no party which advocates for the major social programs that most of the country says they want in most polls. If you want proof compare the platforms of the Democrats against all the other centrist or left wing parties in the world. It doesn't look at all alike. The Democratic platform looks like a Tory platform.
Posted by Samuel Knight at May 26, 2005 06:33 AMpessimist, this is really tiresome. You're saying "It looks like" there will be a deal on SS. Based on what? Some rumors of some might have beens of some heard thats?
Well, Spunky. You should be paying more attention to the political currents shaping the policy you get to live with. You've done the easy thing by calling pessimist foolish and reactionary in an attempt to refute his claim. The problem is, you have just said 'foolish and reactionary,' but where is your support?
If you go over this blog in detail you'll see where "deals" on Social Security have been a concern for a long, long time. Inform yourself before you make another ass of yourself.
Posted by phidipides at May 26, 2005 07:02 AMThe centerpiece of the American social contract IS Social Security. Destroy Social Security and you do have Social Darwinism. The whole point of preserving the filibuster through compromise is to protect Social Security, not to deal it away.
Yes, a heads up unmistakable defeat of the forces of darkness would be better, but right now we don't have the numbers. Total victory must await a better day. Here's a good explanation. LINK
Bush's plan gives us Social Darwinism.
These ideas -- raise taxes a bit, lower benefits a bit, and (although not mentioned here) means test a bit. Presto! Social Security keeps rocking for maybe another 100 years.
I was against the judicial filibuster compromise.
I am strongly against any compromis on Bolton -- take that one to the bitter end, filibuster him, whatever, just stop him.
But this, this is reasonable, on both sides, because this is what is actually needed. Not Bush's robbery or leaving it in a condition where we know it will break eventually and where we've already borrowed heavily against it. This is good fiscal policy, even if it is one less thing to beat the Republicans over the head with it.
Posted by Brian Bell at May 27, 2005 07:30 PM