Skip to main content

Received another e-mail regarding Social Security today but this one came from Senator Tom Udall (D. NM):
Social Security was there for my parent's generation. It’s there for my generation. And I want to make sure it’s there for my kids, their kids, and generations to come.

For 78 years, Social Security has been protecting the financial security of our seniors. It’s been a safety net for disabled Americans, and those who’ve lost loved ones. It’s been a promise to seniors that if you work hard and pay your dues, we will support you when you retire.

We cannot break that promise.

On this anniversary of Social Security, join me in renewing the call to protect Social Security. Sign on today:

http://www.tomudall.com/...

Today nearly all of New Mexico citizens 65 years or older receive Social Security benefits, and has helped lift countless retirees out of poverty. Right now, 1 in 6 New Mexico residents receive Social Security.

All of those people can’t afford to see their benefits cut. They can’t afford to see their financial security privatized, and tied to the unstable fluctuations of the market.

We need to make sure that any changes to Social Security are made with the intent of strengthening the system for seniors today, and preserving it for generations of seniors to come.

Please stand with me and the thousands of New Mexicans who have signed the petition to protect Social Security:

http://www.tomudall.com/...

Thank you for your support.

Tom Udall

You can sign Udall's petition here:

http://www.tomudall.com/...

Originally posted to pdc on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Pushing back at the Grand Bargain, New Mexico Kossaks, and The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:00:13 PM PDT

  •  It seems it would be really simple. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1

    Social Security is insurance that has already been paid for by Americans.

    Cutting Social Security is theft of the property of the American people by anyone involved in said cuts.

    Theft of the amount of money in reserve for Social Security payments constitutes a felony.

    Anyone attempting to cut Soc Sec is a criminal and risks fines, imprisonment and especially loss of his/her office.

    Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Gentle Giant on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:56:02 PM PDT

  •  Before signing the petition (0+ / 0-)

    People should ask for clarity on what he defines as a cut because there are a lot of lying liars out there who claim C-CPI is not a cut because it does not reduce the BASIC benefit for CURRENT retirees.  

    It is a very sad state of affairs but you cannot trust anyone in Congress these days without reading all the fine print, footnotes and reference citations.  

    I don't mean to pick on Udall.  He may be against C-CPI but I could not tell from the link and unfortunately many other Democrats are deliberately trying to deceive their constituents on this issue.  

    Again, very, very sad that you cannot trust Democrats these days without clarifying everything they say.  

    •  Define "many other Democrats". I want a specific (0+ / 0-)

      head count, I want the numbers and I want the evidence on who's deceiving who.  He is against any and all cuts to Social Security so if we keep emphasizing that the chained CPI is a cut, he won't vote for it.  Again, the big dilemma Democrats face is either agree to a Grand Bargain to end the sequester or keep the sequester going.  I'm sorry you don't trust any of the Democrats but if you are going to make the claim that "many of them are deceiving voters" than prove it and I want the specifics.  I haven't heard a lot from any of them about it.  And I don't want the whole "that's code for cuts" talk.  I want the clear language.

      Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

      by poopdogcomedy on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 02:37:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Amy Klobuchar for example (0+ / 0-)

        I've been trying to get clear language out of her for several years, but here is her weasel spin du jour.

        Protecting and strengthening Social Security. Since Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, this program has touched the lives of almost every American. Social Security serves as a foundation for millions of retired Americans and provides vital support for Americans with disabilities and the surviving spouses and children of deceased workers. Nearly two-thirds of all American seniors depend on Social Security as a safety net, and over the last three generations, Social Security has kept an estimated 40 percent of all senior citizens in America out of poverty. I will continue to fight against risky schemes that would privatize Social Security and turn it from a guarantee of a secure retirement into a gamble where only the big financial companies on Wall Street would be the sure winners. If these schemes had been in place during the previous several years, millions of Americans would have lost their Social Security in the stock market. I will also continue to push for sensible reforms that will extend the solvency of Social Security by decades.
        So we know Amy is against schemes.  Whoa, I'm so glad.  But Amy is also for "sensible reforms" and this is where we get into the problem of the clear language.  We have no clue what Amy means.  Since Amy usually does what she is told I assume that means she would go along with Obama who very definitely wants to cut Social Security but who knows?  Who knows?  Certainly not her constituents and you cannot get a straight answer.  

        I'm just saying if they will not say they oppose C-CPI then assume they are for it because it is in President's budget.  

        I'm just saying that Senators like Amy are DELIBERATELY trying to DECEIVE constituents on their position and if they are not why is it IMPOSSIBLE to get a straight answer?

        Anyway, I expect this will not satisfy you because you want clear language, but that is of course the problem.  There is no clear language when they are trying to deceive you so if you can't get clear language assume that's why.

        •  Well I thank you for at least having an example & (0+ / 0-)

          like I said before, they're stuck between ending the sequester and a grand bargain.  Now I think both Udall and his cousin Mark today both posted things about protecting Social Security and that's an encouraging sign.  Even Cory Booker said he wouldn't agree to Social Security cuts and actually said he's up for expanding it.  Of course I expect New Jersey voters to make sure he holds true to that promise.  I am also encouraged that Mark Udall has joined forces with Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley and Kay Hagan (all three of them have publicly stated their opposition to the chained CPI) in the call for protecting Social Security.  Rep. Gary Peters (D. MI-14), who is running for Carl Levin's seat, is also part of that coalition.  

          Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

          by poopdogcomedy on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:18:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm just saying (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poopdogcomedy

            We need to know if he opposes the President's budget,  because he is asking for our names on a petition.  Now, I know, he just wants a list of names but still.  

            Booker had to walk back his support for raising the retirement age.  That's an example of what I mean.  He was a little too clear for his own good and had to reverse what he'd said just a few days earlier.  But that's exactly what we need to know.

            And I think the pushback is having some impact.  So we have to hold their feet to the fire on this and let them know that we want specifics on their position.

            •  I hear ya. I think the fact that the Udall (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell

              cousins coming out and talking about protecting Social Security is an encouraging sign and I'm happy to hear the conversation about it starting to take off.  I did know that Booker had to walk back his past remarks but it's also a good sign that the pressure from groups like the PCCC is paying off.

              Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

              by poopdogcomedy on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:36:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site