Social Security shenanigans

Slacktivist has PLENTY on this. great writing, too.

see here:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2005/01/gwb_vs_fdr.html

and

here:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2005/01/gwb_vs_fdr_ii.html

On that third link you posted, I couldn't get past the dishonest incorrect explanation of Social Security. Social Security isn't just a pension-like program; it does distribute on a needs basis (disability, for example); it is redistributive (just because it's not explicitly progressive doesn't mean that it's not redistributive.)

TalkingPointsMemo has been exhaustive in pointing out the obvious--that they don't call this the Third Rail of Politics for nothing--but in the end Marshall seems a lot more invigorated by political shenanigans than serious discussion of the issue. Which is sort of indicative of the slide in that blog for the past two years.

Yeah, but that seems to be what's driving most of the 'debate' right now anyway -- so an analysis predicated on studying that is more than understandable.

It is kind of amazing to watch everyone run from the issue. Esp. Rep. Thomas of the Ways and Means committee calling it a dead horse.

he will most likely rely only on the word "personal accounts", since "personal" tests better than "private"

xpost

well he didn't want to negotiate with himself! and by that, he means of course explain anything of all

Don't be afraid to dive into the discussion at some point, Gabbneb.

when Democrats are given a place at the table, we're ready to talk policy. the problem is that we're not invited. the bigger problem is that there's no table.

"pay stubs"

"blank checks"

so surely this is solvable, easily, by taxing more than just the first 100k of earnings, yes??? doesn't this seem like a simple fucking fix? tax the first 200k of earnings for god's sake.

^

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/the-war-on-entitlements/

short version: 97% of democrats and 71% of republicans agree with akm, but it's not even part of the policy conversation

The debate over reform of Social Security and Medicare is taking place in a vacuum, without adequate consideration of fundamental facts.

The only facts that matter to the majority of members of Congress are 'how do I win my next election'? If FOX News and all the other corporate-controlled media outlets can obfuscate the issue in the minds of voters to where they embrace their abusers (usually easy enough to accomplish these days), then little else matters but serving the raw greed of the elite and cruising to victory on a tide of lies.

Obama endorses expanding benefits -- just in time

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/02/obama-wanted-to-cut-social-security-then-bernie-sanders-happened/

Latest Trump to Ryan quotes on Social Security interpreted different ways

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/01/donald-trump-gutting-social-security-morally.html

“From a moral standpoint, I believe in it. But you also have to get elected. And there’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, ‘We’re going to cut your Social Security’ and the Democrat is saying, ‘We’re going to keep it and give you more.’ ”

"from a moral standpoint" he believes in the cuts? Or in Social Security?

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/05/29/trump-supports-slashing-social-security-moral-standpoint/

i think from the context he obviously means that he believes in the cuts. bc he's contrasting that w/ what he has to do to get elected which is not say that he's pro cuts.