Skip to main content

Sigh. We've been forced to resort to playing old video clips of Ronald Reagan to explain why Social Security benefit cuts should never be part of a deal to reduce the deficit.

Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or growing the deficit.
And despite Monday's "cliff" offer, as of three weeks ago, the White House agreed.

h/t: Matthew Filipowicz


Send an email asking President Obama to take Social Security cuts off the table.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:01 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm looking for the other Ronald Reagan and Lee (9+ / 0-)

    Atewater (his Karl Rove I believe) where I remember reading their plan to use large tax cuts on the wealthy and boosted military spending to create a debt crisis that would cause Democrats to agree to reign in social spending.

    How sad, that even in his diminished cognitive state he seems to be outsmarting generations to come.

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:06:39 AM PST

  •  But Reagan was not a Very Serious Person! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kdoug, jck, RJDixon74135, xynz

    He was a B-movie actor!

    We need to listen to great minds like ... like ...
    Paul Ryan? He's a wonk!

    BTW, "Wonk" is the noise made when one of the fairies from Ryan's fairy tale budgets flies headlong into the plate glass window of reality.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:07:09 AM PST

  •  I don't remember the Reagan/O'Neill deal (0+ / 0-)

    as it was happening but how did O'Neill get away with blowing up SS from his party back then?

  •  Shame we have to go to Reagan to get people (13+ / 0-)

    to remember this fact.

    •  a dirty, rotten shame. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and me?" - Don Van Vliet

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:55:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The President knows (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and he clearly doesn't care.  No one here should be baffled by this fact.  He said as much during the debates, and before and since then.  The only thing he has promised regarding SS is that he won't harm current recipients and won't "slash" SS for future recipients-whatever the fuck that means.  

      I thought that given his strong bargaining position, he wouldn't even make an offer to cut benefits with this chained CPI bullshit, but if there was every any doubt, that should have been the last of it.  He doesn't care, and he'll sell out the income security of future generations, and probably current ones, by cutting the most important and well liked social program in American history, which he knows doesn't contribute to the deficit, just so he can achieve his bullshit grand bargain.

      I know we'd have to pressure him to do more progressive things in his second term, but didn't think we'd have to beg him not to cut Social Security, of all things.  

  •  Great... (8+ / 0-)

    We've elected a President that is to the RIGHT of St. Ronny...

    'Goodwill' between the GOP and the President is as abundant as unicorn farts - Me'

    by RichM on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:15:22 AM PST

    •  And it isn't even a close call either n/t (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teacherjon, RichM, 714day, justmy2
    •  Smoking them out? (0+ / 0-)

      When confronted with the idea that a few months ago Dems proposed extending the Bush tax cuts on those making less than one Million she replied that that was just a tactic to "smoke out the Repubs" ie. show the world that no matter what was put on the table the Repubs were not going to agree. Now we have this "chained SS" that far too many on here are seeing as a sellout by the President when in fact I truly believe it is the same tactic. Already Boehner has rejected the Presidents offer even though it included the Republicans CPI idea just as they rejected any tax deals last year. Relax people and let the Dems and the President torment and expose the Repubs a little longer. After all we can't know what is in the final bill until it is passed by the House and Senate now do we?

      •  The negotiations are going well for the repubs. (0+ / 0-)

        The chained CPI was tantalizing, but not quite enough. The administration will come out with even more cuts because a collapsed economy will do more harm to the Dems in 2014 than the repubs. That's because the repubs have a core voter base that will come out and vote for them no matter what. Whereas the dem voter base will not.

        But that'a a false assumption. As Kos pointed out earlier, the president, and I'll assume democrats in general do better when seen as taking a firm position on populist causes.

        The president is quite seriously trying to negotiate and the only one being smoked out is him. And that's unfortunate for the dems in general.

        Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

        by Pescadero Bill on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:03:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Plan B? (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry but I just have to disagree and point out that Boehner has given the shaft to the Presidents overtures and will vote on the Plan B proposal that preserves tax cuts up to a million bucks. He has rejected all the President has offered just as Mr. Obama felt he would under pressure from the tea baggers controlling the Republican caucus. President Obama has exposed the Republicans for the obstructionist plutocrats they are once again. There is no deal until the ink dries under the Presidential pen so keep the pressure on but keep the faith as well.

      •  It is now a "democratic proposal". Whether or (0+ / 0-)

        not it passes, for the next 30 years we will hear that "Even OBAMA thought cutting Social Security benefits was ok!".

        Do you understand that?

        If this was a cute little game, it was reckless and irresponsible and even less defensible than if it were just cowardice.

        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

        by JesseCW on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:19:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But it's not going to pass right? (0+ / 0-)

          As much as you'ld like to imagine you can see the future and how this overture by the president will be interpreted you can't. You can imagine the worst but it is only your fevered imagination, do you understand that? What will be remembered is that the President went more than halfway in negotiations with Boehner but those compromises were rejected by the Tea Bagging Republicans. It's already showing up in polls with McConnell having the lowest approval of any Senator.

    •  He's been that way for some time.... (0+ / 0-)
  •  Okay, someone tell me if I've got this wrong. (18+ / 0-)

    Social Security is actually $2.7 TRILLION in the BLACK, based solely on social security income and outgo.

    However, any time the social security "trust" fund (trust is an ironic word here) runs a surplus, the general fund borrows it to pay for things like wars, unfunded prescription drug plans, and tax cuts for the wealthy.

    So, as far as the people spending our social security funds on things other than social security are concerned, OMIGOD, WE'VE GOT AN EFFING DEFICIT!!!  WE'VE GOT TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS RIGHT NOW!!!

    This, despite the fact that the money borrowed from the social security trust fund is OWED to the fund by the government, and by extension, to the very seniors who are now seeing their benefits proposed to be cut because their money has been spent on worthless unnecessary bullshit and NOT repaid.

    And now, after all the horn blowing and confetti dropping is over, seniors find that neither party gives a damn about them or simple justice.

    Are we the stupidest animals on earth, or what?

    And who the hell is Grover Norquist???

    by ZedMont on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:23:22 AM PST

    •  the fund is solvent until 2040 or so and (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nanorich, 714day, winsock, Aspe4, JesseCW

      any problems could be resolved by removing the FICA cap; the fiscal problem for SS is MC

      •  We can also do what Congress did more than (0+ / 0-)

        12 times in the life of the program.

        We can just raise SS witholding on everyone.

        If we raise Minimum Wage to a living wage, 10 or 11 bucks an hour, we will also strengthen Social Security massively.  Withholding will be paid on all that income.

        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

        by JesseCW on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:20:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  wouldn't it be nice................. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      justmy2, Aspe4, JesseCW

      if some enterprising young journalist would point in out on the TeeVee?

      "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and me?" - Don Van Vliet

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:56:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To answer your question: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      we're not "what."

      "There's been a little complication with my complication"

      by dash888 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:56:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Almost Right (0+ / 0-)

      The government (or general fund) doesn't take money from the trust fund.  The trust fund buys government bonds with the growing surplus.  Those who think the money should be stashed under the bed or something would probably be screaming even louder if that money wasn't invested to earn income.  And those treasuries would be sold somewhere else if the trust fund didn't buy them (do I hear fearful screams of "China!").  I believe those monies are only allowed to be put into treasuries by law (I could be off on that one).  Furthermore, the trust fund DOES have income (interest) from those investments every year.  That is one reason that although we are taking in less in employment taxes (thanks, Obama) than we are paying out in benefits, SS still has a net positive income - from that interest and certain taxes on SS income.
      So all those screaming about how the government "stole" our money are way off the mark.

      If humans fought wars like cats, the troops would stop every 30 seconds to lick themselves. This would make for very interesting news footage.

      by paironoids on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:20:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe somebody can tweet the link to POTUS? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, JesseCW

    Couldn't hurt.  Might help.

  •  Contrast that with Barack Obama (in 2006) (9+ / 0-)
    Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938.

    “The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.” – Abraham Lincoln

    by Sagebrush Bob on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:47:23 AM PST

  •  he told the truth.broken clock right 2 times/day (0+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up !

    by Churchill on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:49:30 AM PST

  •  I can't understand why SS cuts are a part of (0+ / 0-)

    this discussion at all. I think it's simply punitive. Rethugs want to punish PBO first and foremost for being black, and also for wanting to "redistribute" wealth from the wealthy to those in most need when everyone knows all those Joe Plumbers are about to buy the company and join the 1%.

    “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

    by RJDixon74135 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:50:51 AM PST

  •  A Reagan quote? Fucking Really? A senile fascist (0+ / 0-)

    fuck who dripped with the blood of 10's of thousands is your go to guy for advise on SS?

    Reagan was a dick. nuff said.

    The Republicans of 2012 don't give a shit what Reagan of the 1980's said about anything.  He was President 40 freaking years ago.  

    Today is what matters.  Today, they don't care if SS contributes to the deficit or not.  Its not about the deficit, its about the New Deal.

    ...and Dickhead Reagan tried to gut SS and was shot down.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:52:18 AM PST

    •  Looks like somebody doesn't understand (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, Pescadero Bill, Aspe4, JesseCW

      the word "context."

      When your defense of the current president's pursuit of policies that are a) right-wing and b) harmful to seniors is that words which are true happened to be uttered by a senile idiot republican 30 years ago you ought to stop, step back, and consider how well you understand the issues and what your actual motives for being politically active are.

  •  Basically, Reagan is Wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, Aspe4

    Social Security has a great deal to do with the deficit. In it's inestimable wisdom, the Government has borrowed heavily from the Social Security "Trust Fund" to prop up the deficits/national debt.

    That's the first step - treat it as a cash cow. The second step is to cancel the notes. Then Social Security really will be broke.

    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything even remotely true." -- H. Simpson

    by midnight lurker on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:52:48 AM PST

  •  Will Obama get a clue or a backbone? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He seems like the guy that goes in and gets talked into buying "undercoat", etc., by the "friendly" car dealer.  Or even worse he's the guy that gets talked into putting junior's college fund into junk bonds by a cold-calling broker.

    Time for our reelected president to send that charlatan and his whole caucus home empty-handed to rethink things over the holidays, perhaps with the help of their constituents.

    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    Give 'em hell, Barry—Me

    by KingBolete on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:52:48 AM PST

  •  I don't think quoting that piece of shit (0+ / 0-)

    does anyone any good.  It won't change any conservative minds - it just further cements the alternate universe cultural perception that Ronald Reagan is a moral authority.

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

    by Troubadour on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:53:01 AM PST

  •  most people still think SSS is funded by FICA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    which while it is administered by SSA is not funded by FICA; only SS and SSDI are FICA funded

  •  So -- have there been any changes to Social (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Security since Reagan's days, or was he just talking the same talk that Democrats do with regard to Social Security?

    However it worked then, the way it works now is that the Social Security Trust Fund holds US debt instruments, the money for which Congress obligingly spends. Technically speaking, it is the Congressional spending that drives up the debt and the deficit, not Social Security directly.

    It all kind of works so long as Social Security collects more than it pays out -- except for the fact that the federal budget is adjusted to include those surpluses.

    Once the surplus is gone, and those t-bills come due, however, they have to be paid.  A double whammy:
    no more money coming from surpluses, plus money going out to pay benefits == borrowing even more.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:53:57 AM PST

    •  social security is not T-bills (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aspe4, JesseCW

      You don't buy the debt on the market.  They are special bonds which are paid back with small interest due.  Guess what?  They always have been paid back.  Are we really planning on reneging?  Bad idea!

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:27:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tomato, tomahto, but they are not negotiable -- (0+ / 0-)

        only the federal government can hold them.

        As to being paid back, that wasn't the point.
        The point is that Social Security surpluses end up in the general fund, getting spent, and contributing to deficits and debt.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:08:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  And this concludes our 1st, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Voodoo king, Aspe4, JesseCW

    and only, installment of "Republicans Making Sense"

    Check back in 30 years or so, when it's bound to happen again.

    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:54:22 AM PST

  •  At least the President might listen to St. Ron. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Fuck knows he doesn't listen to us.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:55:29 AM PST

  •  Shhh. (0+ / 0-)

    "Let's see what fresh fuckwittery these dolts can contrive to torment themselves with this time." -- Iain Banks, The Hydrogen Sonata

    by Rikon Snow on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:55:43 AM PST

  •  It is obscene, just obscene (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NanaoKnows, JerryNA, JesseCW

    to take food out of the mouths of seniors, the disabled and vets to feed the wealthy.

    Just obscene.  Signed, called my rep, my senators, Nancy Pelosi's office (202-225-4965), emailed the WH and have tried the comment line many many times.

    Thx for the petition.

  •  Reagan also supported an assault weapons ban (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, vacantlook, JerryNA, Aspe4
    WASHINGTON — Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.

    Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban.

    Together, the four make a formidable lobby, stretching across a broad ideological spectrum and giving political cover to wavering House members.

    As pressures intensified Wednesday, several lawmakers who had never voted against the National Rifle Assn., the leading opponent of the ban, announced that they would support the measure.

    Of course that was in 1994 and everyone knows Ronald Reagan was a RINO, right?

  •  So why the hell did Obama offer it up?!? (8+ / 0-)

    I sure wish that Obama was the freewheeling liberal painted by the whackjob right, instead of the right of center pol he actually is.

    •  Puzzling. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I don't think we should throw Obama under the bus for taking a wrong turn, but we do need to quickly point him back onto the path we elected him to take before he gets completely lost.

      Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

      by winsock on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:15:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need to drop weird emotional entaglements (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        winsock, 714day

        with our employee.

        We need to support or oppose policies and proposals based on the harm or benefit they do to our country, and not worry about whether we have some politicians back, or have thrown him under the bus, or are "uplifting him", or "teaching him a lesson".

        It isn't about him.

        It's about us.

        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

        by JesseCW on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:25:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  While this is techincally true (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think what gets most people worked up is that the money going into the trust fund isn't used specifically for paying out social security benefits... It gives the federal government a cookie jar to put its hands into and use on other projects... While I'm not one of those who subscribes to the idea that the IOUs that are put in the place of the actual money are worthless (since it's a pretty small chance the US would default on its debt) it does concern me that the trust fund is used as something that can be raided whenever is necessary... Obviously this has nothing to do with the deficit, but it does add to our debt... And I've heard the "but it's debt we owe to ourselves" argument before, so no one needs to bring that one up!

    The other thing that always bugged me anyway was current benefits being paid out with current revenues... So the money I put into social security is long gone by the time I'd actually collect... This becomes particularly problematic as people have less and less kids...

    In any case, most people don't know what the difference between the federal debt and federal deficit is anyway and use them interchangeably which isn't right...

  •  Still buying into right wing framing? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlochow, JerryNA, bluegrass50

    Why is the deficit bad? It is because that's what everyone says, or is it a fact? What does a federal deficit mean? It is sort of basic accounting that one person's deficit is another person's surplus. In the economy as a whole, a federal deficit is a private sector surplus, by definition and dollar for dollar.

    Why is the debt bad? Is it because everyone says so? What is the debt anyway? For the debtor it is what they owe, but for the creditor it is what they have due - it is their investment, their savings. The public debt is the private sector's wealth. Eliminate the debt by paying it off with taxes and you drain the economy of monetary resources leaving behind a debt bubble. We've tried it seven times - taken the federal balance sheet into surplus - and had six depressions and the great recession.

    The US Government is the MONOPOLY ISSUER of our sovereign fiat currency. As such, the government faces NO fiscal constraints except those imposed by political will. It can always pay its obligations in full because it only incurs obligations in dollars, and it is the sole creator of dollars.

    So why do we have $16T in interest bearing debt? Why didn't we just create the money without the debt attached? Good question, but you might not care for the answer. The treasury and the fed sell bonds so that the wealthy can store their money risk free and still draw interest. Consequently, every day the Fed mops up $Billions in excess reserves from the banking system to keep the interest rate from falling to zero. It is a gift to the financial elites that required printing an extra $360Billion last year, simply to line their pockets. Isn't that special?

    Check out MMT - get a second opinion. Don't let the bastards cut just because they say they have to - make them prove it. Hint: they can't.

  •  Well...of course President Obama doesn't want (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to be like Reagan silly...He is a Democrat.

    Buck up and accept your want compromise dontcha...

    you betcha

    "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

    by justmy2 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:03:31 AM PST

  •  How long will it take for the pro-SS crowd at (0+ / 0-)

    dKos to get harangued as "purity trolls"?

  •  What changed? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That's what I want to know.  How do you from one week saying that changes to social security make no sense to putting it front and center.

    Talk about spending your political capital foolishly.  

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:06:37 AM PST

  •  We're debating Soc Security? a 1930's debate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, JesseCW

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up !

    by Churchill on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:07:50 AM PST

  •  If only we had a president as liberal as Ronnie (0+ / 0-)
  •  I say it again...all of these quotes need to be (0+ / 0-)

    put together in a video and broadcast nationally....

    If Mike Huckabee can get on MSNBC 24-7...why can't we? We can not wait for leadership...we have to lead...

    "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

    by justmy2 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:15:15 AM PST

  •  Previously signed. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Gimme a flippin' break (0+ / 0-)

    You have to be smart enough to understand the WH put SS CPI changes on the table because the GOP wants entitlement cuts and the WH won't cut Medicare.

    It was a negotiation to get the debt ceiling off the table for 2 years, unemployment benefits and stimulus infrastructure.

    This is getting ridiculous around here with these liberal hissy fits over the past 4 years.

    •  Hissy fit? Really? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      justmy2, JerryNA, JesseCW

      sounds to me like you are the one doing the hissing.

      This is a real cut and one that doesn't help the deficit.  Why should we support it?

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:24:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  what is good about your proposed context? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that actually makes them look more inept or cruel to me...I would hope this isn't the case...

      "Hey GOP, we don't want to discuss this debt ceiling that you raised over 40 times before but are holding hostage now...and our donors would never let us default exchange to alleviate our about we throw a core Democratic program and benefits under the bus?  Would that work for you?"

      "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

      by justmy2 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:25:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Which by the way (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Which by the way, did not stop Reagan and O'Neill from cutting out the Social Security benefit paid to students in college.  

    The law went from "until age 22 (maybe 23) to what it is now.  Now Social Security benefits for students ends at age 18.  Or if still in high school until graduation.  

    In other words, the program that helped millions of students, including Paul Ryan, was dismantled with the complicity of Democrats.  

    All of this was done in the name of keeping Social Security solvent.  

    We got fucked then and we're going to get fucked now.  Call it what you want:  Bend over.  The reform poker is coming.  

  •  It seems clear (0+ / 0-)

    It seems clear at this point that like supposed followers of Jesus and others, Reagan's followers don't actually care what he said.

  •  Call your senators and congressman, and the Pres (0+ / 0-)

    Do something to apply pressure to kill this bad idea.

  •  It is a pretty sorry state of affairs ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... when a progressive can build an entire campaign around some of President Reagan's quotes ... not all of his quotes, of course, but certainly some of them.

  •  This is a bogus argument (0+ / 0-)

    Money is fungible.  Money coming into the government's coffers can be used for any benefit or service.  The law says it goes into a trust?  So what?  We can change the law.  

    This is sleight-of-hand way of dealing with the economics of the deficit.  It does not help advance the debate.

  •  I appreciate the sigh..... (0+ / 0-)

    Pathetic, isn't it.

    We're worse off than in the Reagan era and they're calling us socialists and communists!

  •  I've felt for a while (0+ / 0-)

    that almost every government function except for the military (whose purpose is to destroy stuff) has the capacity to generate its own revenue. If only they were allowed to do so (remember when the public option was on the table?)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site