Skip to main content

View Diary: Lawrence O'Donnell : EPIC comments on Obama v FDR on SocSec (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think you are 100% accurate (0+ / 0-)

    Would you describe the overall sentiements of the outrage from the left (this site and others) as a sharp disagreement on the merits of what a 0.3% reduction in increases would have on society or a sense of outright betrayal on what has been conjured up as an untouchable core principle of our party?

    If you really want to talk policy, I will probably agree with you.  This is such a minor change that if this was all that was required to fix SocSec, we wouldn't even need to have a conversation about it and if it ISN'T enough to fix the true issue why are we just slashing things around the edges and keep changing things on our retirees and soon-to-be retirees?

    But, if you are honest, I think you will agree with ME on the fact that the "How dare he!?!" sense of betrayal has been driving the bus lately.

    I believe Lawrence's point is that it is historically unfounded.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 07:21:18 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  O'Donnell;s point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ACD

      was FDR would agree with Obama.

      Which is bullshit.

      Change it to Jimmy Carter would agree with Obama if you want to be truthful.

    •  Compounding annually. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, penguins4peace, tardis10

      Be honest about the impact.  It increases in significance, against those who can least bear that erosion of support.

      As for the "How dare he?" tenor of some of the argument, people feel betrayed.  Justifiably.  The President and Vice President both in the past have stated that SS benefits should not be reduced.  Now they advocate something else.  The Democratic Party created this program that is at the center of its proclaimed values to stand up for the average Joe or Jane.  Now its leader wants to whittle down that core.  And this Administration continues to propose this in order to protect a military budget, lax regulation and tax breaks for Wall Street and banks and oil companies and sweetheart deals for insurance companies that brought the deficit upon us in the first place.

      So, yeah, how dare he?

      •  you make two points (0+ / 0-)

        Your second I can agree with to a point, but there is a line where the outrage goes from poignant and fact based to just overheated Fox Newsesque ranting.  I am not a defender or C-CPI, I am just not a willing participant of a mob.  I would defend means testing and I'd want to slice and dice some numbers on FICA tax and cap adjustments but Chained CPI just doesn't seem like a major thing in either direction.

        To your first though, to be consistent, if a President were to introduce an increase to SocSec payment of three-tenths of one-percent and tried to tout it as a new $200 Billion expansion  of Social Security (by compounding it out over years), do you think we wouldn't call that out as some bullshit?

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 09:37:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, one more thing... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      penguins4peace, tardis10

      Why is our President, the smartest guy in the room, underscoring an erroneous idea that SS benefits is the place to make cuts to solve a general-budget deficit?

      How dare he mislead Americans on this score?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site