Skip to main content

When I read about civility in the context of Social Security cuts or other race & class warfare issues, it leads me to conclude that the writer or speaker has the wrong priorities. My priority in the debate over Social Security cuts is not to be civil. Its to protect my society, family, friends and self  from cuts that will harm us.

 If you are discussing civility, rather than how to prevent the cuts, you and I are quite simply going to fight. You can not serve both the dictates of civility and fight the class war being waged against us. This isn't Hollywood  where the good win simply by being good. The forces aligned against us aren't interested in civility. They are interested in winning. And, you k now what? I don't fault them. They are playing according to the rules of politics. You can wail until your throat is sore against the nature of politics, but even that wailing demonstrates you lack the right priorities.

For me and my family this is a real struggle. For many African Americans, in fact, cuts to Social Security would be devastating.

As my colleagues have shown, the “chained” cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security being discussed between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner is a cut to benefits. The AARP Public Policy Institute’s report, Social Security: A Key Retirement Income Source for Older Minorities, helps us to think about how this cut might affect different racial groups.

Nearly one-in-five (18.7 percent) of the Hispanic elderly lives in poverty. For African Americans, the rate is one-in-six (17.1 percent) (Figure A). A cut to Social Security benefits runs the risk of significantly increasing these rates."

More here:
But, more disturbingly, the reality is that all Social Security beneficiaries are not aged. This is clear among African American Social Security recipients where nearly 40% are under 62. This is because one in four Social Security checks for African Americans goes to a worker with a disability. This key element of insurance that Social Security provides far outweighs issues of shorter life expectancy for African Americans. Further, by including the spouse, widows with disabilities and the children of workers with disabilities, nearly 30% percent of African Americans receiving a Social Security benefit are being helped because a worker or his widow has a disability."
"The chained CPI, a Social Security COLA cut on the table in deficit talks between the President and Republicans, could dramatically worsen poverty among unmarried senior African American women. As such, it violates the request of major progressive organizations in a letter to the White House and Congressional leaders to “make sure that deficit reduction is achieved in a way that does not increase poverty.”

According to the National Women’s Law Center’s analysis of Current Population Survey data, in their report on how the chained CPI would affect women, the median annual Social Security benefit for a 65-year-old single African American woman is $10,680. (By contrast, the median benefit for all single senior women is $13,200.)

That puts the median benefit for African American woman seniors just above the 2010 poverty line for individual seniors, which is an obscenely low $10,458."

Nor is the reality lost on some African Americans like me:
President Obama and his Republican partners in austerity have choreographed a kind of bi-partisan ballet, in which the dancers reach out to each other in slow motion, their fingers almost touching, teasing the audience. These cheap and transparent theatrics are designed to transmit a soap opera-like sense of drama: “Can the two parties come to a compromise for the sake of the country?” But, the fact is, Obama and the Republicans reached most of their grand bargain more than a year ago, when they slashed $1.7 trillion out of domestic spending over a decade. As liberal Obamite Robert Kuttner, of Demos, points out, there’s very little left to cut except Medicare and Social Security.

Social Security has always been Obama’s Great White Whale; he’s conspired with Republicans and right-wing Democrats to harpoon the mother of all New Deal programs since the very start of his presidency. But Social Security is not an easy mark. George Bush found that out in his second term, when he suffered his worst domestic defeat in attempting to privatize the program.

It would take a Black Democrat, fresh from a near-landslide election, to put Social Security on the chopping block, as Obama did in January of 2009. But before he could move in for the kill, Obama and his allies had to convince the public that Social Security is a major contributor to the federal budget deficit – which is a lie. Social Security runs on its own stream of revenues that go into the Social Security Trust Fund, totally separate from general taxation and debt. However, by endless repetition of the Big Lie – that Social Security adds to the federal deficit – Obama and other corporate Democrats and Republicans succeeded in maneuvering the program into the austerity debate, where it does not belong.

Whatever is motivating President Obama doesn't matter. I simply am concerned with his objectives and whether they favor that of African American interests or not. This is what politics is.

Politics is many things, but civility isn't one of them. Nor can it be if your goal is to seek progress. Civility, which is pushed so much by the establishment, is actually a tool of the status quo. You can control someone who has as their goal civility. You cannot easily
control someone who has as their the accomplishment of their interest to prevent cuts to Social Security

At its core, Politics is the application of power to manage through government action various interests, which are often in conflict, to produce policies that advance one set of interests over those of another. There is no way around this conflict and this struggle
because we do not all share in a diverse society the same interests.

If it was simply a matter of all of us just getting along human's would have no beed to craft rules by which to manage our society.  In this sense, the yearning for civility is a form of idealism rather than addressing the realities of the human condition.

Some values and goals are so incompatible that to attempt to merge them is to guarantee gridlock. this is the central irony of civility in politics: the thing it wants to prevent is the thing it guarantees because it inserts a goal that's at odds with the struggle being waged.

The only way in many cases to address a problem is for the application of power to result in one set of interest defeating another. To play King Solomon, if you split the baby in half, you aren't solving the problem. Its only when one interest wins out over another that a resolution can be found.

Some of you may shriek at the idea, but this is a fundamental truth of human history. You aren't going to change it by ignoring the reality of what politics is.

Politics is often a word that is associated with something dirty. 'He's playing politics." "She's very political." As a result, many people don't have the stomach for it.  So, they call for civility rather than sully themselves with the ugly truth. And it is ugly, but to save my society, family, friends and self, I am willing to get my hands dirty with something that doesn't make me feel good, but will produce good results like preventing cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.  For those seeking civility may find politics unsavory, politics is in fact how the bulk of humans gets things done whether in
the public or private sector.

Without it, interests remain in conflict and people do not prioritize. Without it, Jim Crow remains in balance with equality. Without politics, what would have happened? These battles, while its quaint now to believe were won through civility, were in fact won through open confrontation with the opposing interests. That's what welcoming their scorn means. It means the realization that your ideas must win out or the society suffers. People suffer while you feel good about your self because you have been civil. A lack of civility isn't chosen for its own sake. Its chosen because the alternative are seniors dying. The alternative is human suffering.

So in terms of priorities, decreasing human suffering versus civility, civility. And yes, you must make that choice too because that's reality whether you like it or not. Denial of the reality isn't going to make it better. Its going to lead to more suffering here
about what you will do about these cuts rather than about what you will do about civility.

Originally posted to bruh1 on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:06 PM PST.

Also republished by Anti-Capitalist Chat, Income Inequality Kos, The Rebel Alliance, Invisible People, and In Support of Labor and Unions.

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

  •  How Can Social Security be 'Left' To Cut? It Has (28+ / 0-)

    no role in the deficit. Shut it down entirely, deficit remains the same.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:12:44 PM PST

  •  It always seems like (24+ / 0-)

    there's a strong correlation between people who think that civility is always the most important consideration in human affairs and those that have the luxury of personal financial security.


  •  I think people need to remember (20+ / 0-)

    whom this really concerns: Elderly people, and all the rest who will some day be SS recipients. It is not about notions of mistreatment of Obama, but rather mistreatment of millions of Americans who will be affected by this. I don't see a need to demonize Obama with all of the insults, and I won't join in that. But the People are what matters here. I've no need to psychoanalyze Obama to figure out what is in his head. I just know cuts to the third rail are wrong, and it is putting the problems with the deficit on the backs of the poor, rather than where it belongs, which is on those with higher incomes.

    SS didn't cause problems with the deficit. SS solvency can be fixed with better solutions. In a game of chicken over SS cuts, the republicans will lose. All it takes is the will to face them on it, unless, of course, Obama actually agrees with them, along with the third way democrats (Bill Clinton, et al) who have indicated they want to cut SS.

    Obama has gone on record defining himself as a Blue Dog Dem. That may be the real problem here. He may actually WANT to cut SS. And therein lies the problem.

    Manufactured cliffs only benefit one group: People who want to scare us into submission.

    Something is amiss here. Most people don't want to cut SS. So why is this on the table?

    Good to see you, Brue1.

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

    by ZhenRen on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:47:34 PM PST

    •  It's not just the elderly. It's millions with (19+ / 0-)

      disabilities and it's also millions of children who have lost a parent.

      Truth is, food got steady at my house when my mom died.

      That was because of Social Security survivors benefit.

      Since poor people die young, this is a lot bigger issue for us than for the middle class or the rich.

      "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 Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:50:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is why I think all the talk of (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZhenRen, JesseCW, PhilJD, aliasalias, JayRaye

      "Obama the bad negotiator" is misplaced:

      Obama has gone on record defining himself as a Blue Dog Dem. That may be the real problem here. He may actually WANT to cut SS. And therein lies the problem.
      I find this explanation more believable than Obama, an intelligent man, being the world's worst negotiator.
      •  Yep (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, aliasalias, JayRaye, denise b

        Obama negotiated his way into the Presidency just fine. No, if he weren't to some degree ideologically disposed to cutting the social safety net, I doubt he would have put it on the table so early in the game.

        This pure beltwaythink. This is how the beltway people see things.

        And the people are moving past this, I think... I hope.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:53:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'd welcome any links to any Dem President (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZhenRen, JayRaye

      that has ever done MORE to attack Social Security funding.Clinton was working with Erskine Bowles (sound familiar?) "Wall Street's friend in the White House" (their words) and Newt Gingrich but the sex scandal put that off.
      Still who has done more?
      In fact any Republican can be added to the mix and even George Bush gave up after 6 months but Obama has been trying relentlessly for 4 years and if anyone doubts his ability to legislatively fight for what he wants hasn't been paying attention. The guy ends up with a personal secret Kill list, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, expansion of the odious Patriot Act, Drone bombing weddings funerals and first responders and his upcoming so-called trade deal that will be NAFTA on steroids.
      That and the fact he does nothing that afflicts the 1%, all while prosecuting more whistle blowers than all previous Presidents combined..while protecting torturers, their enablers and Wall Street crimes that devastated millions of lives.
       No this guy does fight for what he wants, unfortunately he's winning and it couldn't happen without help from supporters that would read him threatening to kill their grandmother as a stroke of genius because they feel Repubs would never call him on it (forget the choices).
      His efforts were expressed in his first interview before he was even sworn in, he creates one Cat Food Commission after another, personally stacks them with right wing ideologues with organizations devoted to killing SS, Medicare, Medicaid and has yet not failed to add cuts to SS in every negotiation with Repubs.
      Not to mention the NYTs article where he complained about the media's coverage in not giving him credit for attempts to cut SS and if anyone can find me a link to where Obama has failed to put cuts to SS on the table when it was possible I'd like to see it.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:20:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The chimerical quest for "civility" on DKos (16+ / 0-)

    is the precise equivalent--writ small--of Barack Obama's striving after "bipartisanship" as something intrinsically desirable; as in fact the greatest good possible in the body politic.

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

    by PhilJD on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:03:54 PM PST

  •  I prefer that people be civil (13+ / 0-)

    but in politics when people feel passionately about something, they often get un-civil.

    In the latest great intrasquad liberal flame war, neither side has the monopoly on civility.  However, I will say that my sympathies are far more with the people opposed to Social Security cuts.

    Again, while I generally disdain nastiness, I can at least understand where the Obama critics are coming from.  Social Security cuts will harm friends, family, and the most vulnerable.  I can understand why people would get upset to the point of getting nasty over such concerns.  Because I have friends and family who would be hurt by a SS cut.

    On the other hand I have less tolerance for nastiness coming from the folks defending SS cuts.  It would be one thing if they were motivated by genuine belief that such cuts are necessary, good policy, but that's not the case.  We know this because they've been telling us that "PBO" would never cut SS in this way, but now that such cuts have been officially put on the table, suddenly they're not so bad after all.

    This, and a lot of the interactions with them over the last four years, indicate to me that much of the over-the-top nastiness that comes from the pro-Obama camp is motivated less by spiritied and honest debate over policy but by personal affinity for President Obama himself, and extreme offense when people challenge Obama, especially so when people are quite frank or angry in challenging the President.  At the end of the day, these folks seem driven more by loyalty to the President, much less so by principles.

    Why else why anyone would get so nasty defending someone, let alone a politician, who they do not know personally?  I mean, I get spirited defending Joe Montana in arguments about the greatest QB ever, but I never get nasty because I don't know the guy.  But if I get into an argument over my mom's SS benefits being cut, I could totally see myself getting a little emotional and carried away.

    While I like the President, he is a politician, and at the end of the day what matters to me more are the best interests of the American people.  I am far more offended when the best interests of the people are threatened than when someone threatens the best political interests of the President.  

    “Th’ noise ye hear is not th’ first gun iv a revolution. It’s on’y th’ people iv the United States batin’ a carpet.” - Mr. Dooley

    by puakev on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:24:17 PM PST

    •  When I posted a link to the Black Agenda Report (17+ / 0-)

      and their attack on the President due to his positions on SS cuts, and its impacts on African Americans, the response by one of the President's loyalists was to question the "blackness" of Black Agenda Report.

      To me, that story sums up what's wrong with the discussion from the loyalists. A series of posts about how Social Security cuts will harm Blacks becomes an  excuse to attack those making these arguments merely because they disagree with President Obama's positions and what they mean.

      Ultimately, the point really - whether its the civility distraction or the "blackness" dig or the "you question President Obama because  are a racist" misdirection all stem from the same thing: The desire to silence dissent.

      •  That gets nerve wrecking (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox

        Ther are plenty of things...personal things and grounds on which to question Glen Ford.

        Ford's (or Dixon's) blackness isn't one of them.

        oh well, maybe I should just to doing my little book reviews and things (which I am very, very busy doing)

        By the way, long time no see, bruh1

        •  I didn't find it nerve wrecking. I found it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, JayRaye

          clarifying. Its easy to say things like You don't like Obama because he's  Black, but when you say that in the context above one understands that the Obama loyalist argument isn't to be trusted as a substantive discussion of race.

        •  by the way, you keep doing the vague (3+ / 0-)

          comments where there are reason to dislike someone but you don't state why. For record, I don't care about the personal grounds. That suggests to me the wrong priorities too. I work with peple every day that I don't like. I am not workign with them to build a friendship. I am working with them to get something done.

          •  If you want me to be not vague (0+ / 0-)

            stop it with your usual ellipitcial bullshit.

            First of all, it's not as if both sides don't come fully equipped with a  set of facts

            The "I have the truth about x,y,z and the other guy has nothing...that's a bunch of bullshit and both sides do that.

            So what IS your function here; to preach to the choir? Simply to disseminate information? To educate those whom are confused?

            •  Just so everyone is clear (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chitown Kev, JayRaye

              (1) I asked you to please stop being vague in your attacks here , engaging in false equivalence and not attack people  based on how you feel about them personally if that has nothing with substance of public debates. You respond by claiming I am writing ambiguously.

              At this point, if you aren't able to backup your statements, please avoid making them. I don't think anyone here would question the meaning of what I am saying to you.

              (2) Your rebuttal about the facts relies on a post from the People's View that states Chained CPI isn't a cut because they say so. That's the core of the argument as written.

              I will focus on the relevant portions of the article you cite towards this discussion, which is under the sections about whether Chained CPI is a cut rather than the politics.

              Here are some of the articles and opinion pieces that the article you cite leaves out in its citation from Krugman:

              Switching from the regular CPI to the chained CPI doesn’t affect benefits immediately after retirement, which are based on your past earnings.What it does mean is that after retirement your payments grow more slowly, about 0.3 percent each year. So if you retire at 65, your income at 75 would be 3 percent less under this proposal than under current law; at 85 it would be 6 percent less; there’s supposedly a bump-up in benefits for people who make it that far.

              This is not good; there’s no good policy reason to be doing this, because the savings won’t have any significant impact on the underlying budget issues. And for many older people it would hurt. Also, the symbolism of a Democratic president cutting Social Security is pretty awful.

              3. Other things the article you cite says;

              (a) Compares Chained CPI to slowing the rate of growth in Defense spending

              (b) Mischaracterizes an article published by CBPP  by 2 authors there that was published months earlier that in fact admits that in terms of inflation Chained CPI can lead to cuts, but decides its worth the risk.  Your article claims that the article is some how endorsing the idea that its not a cut due to the impact of inflation.  Your article also ignores that the same CBPP said only 2 days before about the actual proposed policy:


              I can go on, but what would be the point. You aren't from what I can tell dealing fairly or honestly here.

              Feel free to respond as much as you want here, but realize that no one is buying that you are trying to bring civility. You are engaged in the politics of distraction.

              (c) Manipulates and parses in precise the way you attempted to accuse me of language to pretend that their statement about 'baseline benefits" has any meaning in the context of a discussion about benefits matching the rate of inflation.

              To illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of the article, let me offer a really simply version of the facts:

              i. I offer you 30k a year in salary.
              ii. Inflation is increasing by 3 percent.
              iii. I assume that inflation is increasing by 0 percent each year.

              So for each year that I make that assumption where I leave you at 30k, the reality is in real dollars, you have less money although baseline looks the same. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to claim that I have no harmed you economically by pretending that inflation is zero. Yet that's what the article you cited does.

              If you think you are dealing with two equal sides here- pro and con, I got to question whether you are as objective as you claim or simply pretending to be. Objectivity doesn't mean pretending all sides are equal. It means understand factually and logically what arguments actually pan out to be true.

              On its face, none of the pro-CPI peo claiming its not a cut. they are simply trying to obfuscate the admission.

              •  ambiguous...not at all (0+ / 0-)

                On one hand, you present a "set of facts."

                You say that the set of facts have been opposed by nothing other than accusations of racism and not another "set of facts."

                It's pretty much the exact same thing that I saw in the People's View post (TPV gets to be too much of an Obama circle jerk for my tastes...which is such a bad pun...)

                Now you're dealing with a "set of facts" from the opposition.

                That's what I really want to see.

                I haven't rebutted either of the posts, by the way.

                •  By the way (0+ / 0-)

                  all I'm really asking is that you engage in the substantive arguments that the other side is making, which you do wonderfully here. That's what I (as a reader and as someone who doesn't know much about this stuff) needs to see.

                  •  THis is not a conversation that exists (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    tableau rasa

                    Youa re doing something I find annoying about people online.

                    Its not my job when you are in an online environment to engage every aspect of an argument that leads me to write an article on one aspects of the debate.

                    Readers needing to see what you want to see are being unreasonable. If you wanted to know why this is a cut, you could have read the article to which you link me by linking through to the citations (that a lone would have made you question the article you linked me to since that's all I did). Instead, you required that I do that for you. Do you see a problem with that?

                    And if after reading if, it you were uncertain, you could also do what I did, which is google the topic to once again confirm, think about logical analogies etc

                    Again, see the problem here with what you are saying?

                    Its not my job to make you think. Its my job to present an argument that I care about, and if you don't hve enough background to understand it, and if you want to understand it, you will look it up. If you don't care todo that, you don't care tounderstand the debate. its really that simple.

                    And yes, of course, most Americans won't. That does't make it something that explains your arguments about vitriol or spewing.

                    if its all substnanceless exchanges in which you don't undrstand the debate then of course it appears the same, but that's your fault for not taking the time to understand. Not that of the anti-cut side. These arguments are all over the placed with a plenty of backup. You just have to choose to google them.

                    •  You're the one (0+ / 0-)

                      who started this conversation on this thread about civility.

                      It's in your first sentence, as a matter fact.

                      It's a topic that's important to you, yes, and by writing about it, I have to assume that you would think that it should be important to me.

                      And perhaps it should be. Not all of us have the time to research this stuff that thourghly.

                      and I don't trust either camp of circle jerkers

                      So you (or the TPV, for that matter) basically are doing the exact same thing...granted, I think there's more substance to your article.

                      There's a bigger issue more in line with my own interests, actually.

                      It's not simply questions of bias or information objectivity (whatever that is) or even's all of that.

                      You haven't exactly presented a debate. You've presented a set of facts with a POV...which there's nothing wrong with, provided we all know exactly what it is.

                      •  I don't find this exchange fruitful. (0+ / 0-)

                        Good luck.

                        •  Hey, you started the conversation (0+ / 0-)

                          about civility.

                          And you further stated these premises.

                          If you are discussing civility, rather than how to prevent the cuts, you and I are quite simply going to fight.
                          I'm saying that discussions of civility may not be simply a derailment of the issues (very often it is).

                          I am saying that the lack of civility could result in non- or mis- communication. If I say I don't understand what's being said or that I don't have enough information on the topic (pro and con) to form an opinion (although it is resonable to make an assumption based on the fact, for example, that I am a semi-regular poster at Daily Kos), then I'm not attempting to derail an issue.

      •  I hoped it would end (0+ / 0-)

        once the election was behind us, but apparently not.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:24:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  thanks for your eminently sane and balanced (6+ / 0-)

      point of view

      I myself have gotten a bit nasty due to being overly hot under the collar, these past few days. But I care less about personalities here on DKos or in DC than I do about real, concrete BAD effects of bad policy.

      A thousand Sharkeys are invading a thousand Shires every day across our country.--James Wells

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:59:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I second it. (8+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the details and the specifics. "A few dollars" really do matter to people who are already poor or on the edge of it, and they do add up fast.

    You know, ironically enough, this is a very "civil" diary--at least, no name-calling and no drama. But you are also extremely direct and clear about what's at stake. People's lives. And they matter (or they should) to the politicians making these decisions, and the citizens who weigh in on the discussion while it's happening. Unfortunately, far too often, they get disregarded, lost in the high-mindedness of civility or the abstractions of billions of dollars.

    People's lives are at stake. Not a time to be civil in the end, if incivility is what it takes to save people. I agree totally.

    Some DKos series & groups worth your while: Black Kos, Native American Netroots, KosAbility, Monday Night Cancer Club. If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

    by peregrine kate on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:58:40 PM PST

  •  Increase the income cap to 90% (5+ / 0-)

    See a small revenue improvement and about a 2k COLA for the average senior, and a 4k COLA for the max benefit of nearly 31k.

    The income cap was set at 90% in 1983 - the Reagan SS deal. 90% is about 186k, today the cap is at 110k, 84%.

    This is an elegant and simple change that does some good all around. Some details

    Chained CPI is a POS idea and will cause pain, cause pain to those who are already reeling.


    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:25:06 PM PST

  •  Oh, thank you. Thank you for this. (5+ / 0-)

    I had a bit of an ugly exchange earlier with someone who said that we liked Alan Grayson's policies better than Obama's b/c Grayson is white. I responded that I thought a lot of the grandmas and grandpas who were going to get their benefits axed were probably black, and that worrying about them seemed more to the point than worrying about Obama, who's already got it made economically--his family is fine.

    A thousand Sharkeys are invading a thousand Shires every day across our country.--James Wells

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:54:40 PM PST

  •  Why does neoliberalism persist? (6+ / 0-)

    From Vamsi Vakulabharanam, quoted by Yves Smith, over at Naked Capitalism:

    As long as the political groups on the ground do not make their voices heard loudly enough against the top 1% or the top 10%, and as long as there are continued benefits for the elites from the perpetuation of neoliberalism, the system will persist.
    Right now the political system is in "so long, suckers" mode -- there will be complaints, of course, but as long as people continue to vote for the same old coalitions, DLC Democrats or PNAC Republicans, the people will continue to get poorer.

    "On the sidewalk the people are hustling and bustling/ They ain't got no time so they think on the thing/ That will fill in the space in between birth and death" -- Donovan Leitch

    by Cassiodorus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:31:39 PM PST

  •  Warning to all poor people who are or will be (0+ / 0-)

    falling thru the holes now being ripped wider in the safety net:

    you are to remain calm peaceful and entirely civil at all times even as you and your loved ones go hungry or homeless.

    No incivility nor disturbance of any kind will be tolerated.

    WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For Dec: Life so cheap; property so sacred.

    by JayRaye on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:56:38 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site