Obama's Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled

The Social Security reforms enacted in 1983:

That package implements over many years changes that ultimately cut benefits about 19 percent. The biggest change, by far, is an increase in the age when full benefits are available, from 65 to 67 in 2022. At that point, benefits claimed at ages 65 or 66 will be about 13 percent lower than they would had the retirement age not been boosted.

Here's an example of what happens when the full retirement age rises. If you were born between 1943 and 1954, your full retirement age is 66. "If you decided to take benefits early at 65, you would no longer get a full benefit, but a fraction of a full benefit," explains Virginia Reno, vice president for income security at the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI). "On the other hand, by waiting until 66, you used to get more than a full benefit when the full retirement age was 65--now you don't."

The Obama commission calls for increasing Social Security's full and early retirement ages, "based on increases in life expectancy." The changes would effectively reset full retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075; the early retirement age would rise to 63 and 64 in those same years.

That approach may sound reasonable and gradual, but it's not if you're age 29 or younger. You'll bear the brunt not only of the 1983 cuts, but yet another round of reductions on the order of 20 percent.
About Mitt Romney 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled

Obama, DickDurbin, NancyPelosi, all have "embraced" SimpsonBowles.  

Obama's DeficitCommission was designed to be as anti-democratic and untransparent as possible.  Its work is done in total secrecy.  It's filled with behind-the-scenes political and corporate operatives who refused to talk to the public about what they're doing.  Its recommendations were released in December2010, right after the election, to ensure that its proposals are shielded from public anger.   And the House passed a non-binding resolution calling for an up-or-down/no-amendments vote on the Commission's recommendations, long considered the key tactic to ensuring its enactment. 

The whole point of the Commission is that the steps which Washington wants to take -- particularly cuts in popular social programs, such as SocialSecurity -- can occur only if they're removed as far as possible from democratic accountability.  As the economist JamesGalbraith put it when testifying before the Commission in July: 

Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. . . . First, most of your meetings are secret. There's no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. . . . 

Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in SocialSecurity and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public . . . 

Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission's accepted support from PetePeterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut SocialSecurity and Medicare, raises the most serious questions.

That's why Commission co-chair AlanSimpson -- with his blunt contempt for SocialSecurity and other benefit programs (such as aid to disabled veterans) and his acknowledged eagerness to slash them -- has done the country a serious favor.  His outbursts have unmasked this Commission and shed light on its true character.  Unlike his fellow Commission members, who imperiously dismiss public inquiries into what they're doing as though they're annoying and inappropriate, Simpson's been aggressively engaging critics, making it impossible to ignore what the Commission's really up to.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

Go ahead; I did (see link up at first posted comment - Are you supporting the real Obama or the idea of Obama?). ;-)
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled

Don't you think you ought to find out what he means, precisely, before assuming?

Obama has led us astray on just about everything that he campaigned on in 2008.  He has a bad habit of secretly negotiating behind our backs and then railroading his bad deals (for the 99%) through to law.  Whether it was that corporate giveaway to insurance and pharmaceutical industries' ACA or continuing the Bush tax cuts, Obama has sold the 99%'s interests out.  

Obama has said that he's using Simpson-Bowles as a template.  He said that he liked what Reagan did.  What he offered Republicans already were cuts to benefits.  

Wake up.  Stop allowing politicians to be vague.  You're killing us all.
About Mitt Romney 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled

 Obama is embracing Simpson-Bowles and is "favoring" what Reagan did.

What do you believe is in Simpson-Bowles?  What do you believe Reagan did?
About Mitt Romney 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

Romney: The Less Effective Evil (Making Obama The MORE Effective Evil):


“Austerity is killing the economy and causing terrible hardships, but [Democrats] didn’t make that case.”

“[Democrats] leapt upon the words which even Romney called “inelegantly stated” and in the process showed their own brand of evil. [Democrats] could have pointed out that Americans should expect decent housing and medical care. They could have noted that there are nations around the world who do provide for their citizens’ basic needs, and that they are more advanced as a result.”

“Instead of shooting fish in the barrel when even conservative pundits piled on the Romney condemnation, they could have advocated for a different conversation about the role of government in our lives. Austerity is killing the economy and causing terrible hardships, but [Democrats] didn’t make that case. Because there are enough Americans with some degree of need for government support, the Romney comments made for great political theater. But if [Democrats] were interested it could have been an opportunity for so much more.”


“Obama proved that he has no more regard for people living on the margins than Romney has when he put Social Security and Medicare on the budget cutting table. He convened a budget deficit commission and packed it with pro-austerity conservatives without anyone in either party having asked him to do so. If he is re-elected he will waste no time in making another grand bargain with the Republicans which will come at the expense of the 47%.”
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument reeks of denial.  Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  
If Republican­s are such scvm (and I believe they are, and you must, too, as a democrat) and "so dangerous"­, why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g them?

Why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the greatest heist on the People in all history? 

Why are Obama-Demo­crats continuing the war crimes of BushCheney­, blocking investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns into their crimes?

How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminally corrupt administra­tion in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administra­tion. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the BushAdmini­stration). Instead of returning the democracy to the American people, Obama's AttorneyGe­neral has US attorneys going after legalized medicinal marijuana in the states and Bush-style obscenity prosecutio­ns: 

http://www­.pittsburg­hlive.com/­x/pittsbur­ghtrib/s_6­91667.html

How do Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain his putting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, et al, on the table for benefits' cuts?  

And then there's the escalation of wars, continued occupation of Afghanistan, NDAA, and Obama's atrocious environmental record.
 
You defend Obama at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporatio­ns and establishm­ent elites.

Why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republicans?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

The forces governing this country, under our system of Inverted Totalitarianism, aren’t afraid of elections, speeches, petitions on Facebook, and certainly not the media they control. They’re only afraid of what the American people could do if enough of us rise up and just plain refuse to work within the system any more. General strikes, peaceful civil disobedience in large numbers, removal of funds from major banks, filling the streets, that’s what might get their attention, not voting for a “green” candidate or one of the duopoly.

This election is merely a distraction. They’re counting on American’s propensity for magical thinking, and that most of us will vote and carry-on because we believe in the idea of America, and don’t look deeply enough to see the reality of what it’s become.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

I’m tired of hearing the argument that “Romney would be a disaster,” or “the Supreme Court would be more conservative.” Actually, if it were possible for Romney to win this election, it would probably be the best thing for the country in the long run. Why? Obama can get away with doing anything, as far as the left is concerned. After the election, he will “make a deal” on Social Security, lowering benefits and increasing the retirement age, in fact, he’s already said he supports it. The left will go along with it, because he’ll sell it as the “best deal he could get,” just like he sold the insurance company bonanza that is Obamacare. The left will go along with his approval of the northern half of the sludgepipe, and probably the bombing of Iran as well. Actually, there’s almost nothing he won’t be able to get away with.

Romney, on the other hand, won’t be able to get away with anything. He’ll do the exact same things Obama would have done, but the left won’t stand for it. Not for a moment! Romney doing the same things, might even put hundreds-of-thousands of people in the streets, which will be the only way this country might have a chance of surviving.

The system we’re living under is rotten to the core. Our government, all three branches, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of our banks and major corporations. We’ve run out of time for incremental changes and tweaks to the system, it must be replaced. The effects of climate change: the food and water shortages, relocations, and increasingly violent weather, are going to be combined with another major economic crash, and coming energy shortages due to the effects of peak oil, and upsets in the Middle East.

Our government is fully aware of these facts. Why, for goodness sake, has Homeland Security purchased and distributed millions of rounds of .40 hollow point ammunition, which is illegal under the Geneva Convention? Why have police forces all across the land been equipped to the point where some of them could defeat most countries armies? Why has our society become the most heavily surveiled in the entire world? Do you really think that voting for one candidate or the other is going to change where all this is headed? If you do, I’m afraid that you’re just engaging in more of that magical thinking I mentioned.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

Obamapoligists insist that those of us who see him for what he is are comparing our expectations to his performance, and ignoring the Republican obstructionism that seemingly thwarted his every effort. What they fail to realize is that, in most cases, Obama either capitulated to Republican demands, or compromised before negotiations even began, such as during the health care debate. We are not judging him upon the basis of his performance; we are weighing him by what should be universally accepted standards of truth, justice, and human decency, and finding him seriously wanting.

Running as the “peace” candidate, then increasing our commitment in Afghanistan, trying to extend our occupation of Iraq, increasing murderous, illegal drone warfare, and extending it to additional countries, these things are deal-breakers for some of us, and should be for all progressives. He campaigned as an environmentalist and then sold us out to big oil at every turn. He made a show of “vetoing” the Canadian sludgepipe, then turned around and approved the southern half. He allowed drilling and fracking everywhere, and did virtually nothing to further the development of renewable resources. A Constitutional lawyer, he signed the NDAA with the provision allowing the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process. Even though he assured us that he would never use it, his Justice Department is vigorously appealing the decision of a Federal judge which declared the provision unconstitutional. This, coupled with his insistence that he can murder Americans without due process, so long as he declares them “enemies of the state” is another one of those pesky deal-breakers for some of us.

If you support Obama as a candidate, you are saying that you are in favor of these actions, and want these policies to continue. To believe he’s going to do anything differently in his second term is engaging in more of that magical thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

Are you supporting the real Obama or the idea of Obama?

A large number of Democratic voters (most of whom call themselves Liberals) want so much for the idea of Obama to be true that they are willing to forget or ignore most of his actions over the last four years. In a likewise manner, they want so much for theidea of America to be true that they still believe that elections can make a difference, and somehow, if Obama has another four years, he will stop the killing, bring the jobs back, restore the Bill of Rights, lessen the inequity in wealth distribution, take steps to mitigate the effects of global warming, and restore the “American Dream.” They can engage in such magical thinking because they have developed the skill of ignoring not only the current political reality, but also the reality of who Obama is, and who he’s working for. Their magical thinking allows them to accept behavior from Obama for which they would excoriate a Republican, such as murdering women and children by the hundreds in an illegal drone war waged over an entire region, and approving any scheme by the oil companies, no matter the cost to the environment.

They can see the reality of the Republican slate and platform well enough, and react with the appropriate disdain  but then, like an addict comparing their own insides to other people’s outsides, they compare that regressive platform with the idea of Obama, not the reality. If they were looking at the reality of Obama, they would see a President who toed the Wall Street, big oil, multi-national corporation line throughout his presidency, doing their bidding at every opportunity. They would see the man who appointed Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, signaling Wall Street that his administration would be conducting business as usual. They would see the man who cut a deal with the health insurers precluding single-payer, or even a public option before the negotiations even started in the House. They would see the man who abandoned card-check, and the union workers in Wisconsin, after running as pro-union.

A realistic look at the Nobel Peace Prize winner would reveal the man who tried every diplomatic trick in the book to keep us in Iraq past the expiration of the Status of Forces agreement, until we were finally thrown out kicking and screaming. And then there’s the escalation in Afghanistan, and the drones, always the drones. Without a doubt, they’re the finest creator of terrorists ever devised. I don’t intend to go into the whole extended litany of Obama’s actions; I think you get my drift.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

The low point for me was when President Obama stated that he agrees with Romney on Social Security.


When the Obama campaign called me for money, I asked if they knew of any Democrats who were running for President this year.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

Billionaire private equity mogul PeterPeterson is investing millions of dollars in a new Washington-based campaign for austerity, planning to blanket the airwaves after the election to bolster the case for a “grand bargain” in Congress’ lame-duck session that would slash Medicare and SocialSecurity spending in exchange for new tax revenue.

The new CampaignToFixTheDebt is chaired by former PennsylvaniaGovernorEdRendell, a Democrat, and former NewHampshireSenatorJuddGregg, a Republican. It’s priming for lame-duck negotiations over the expirations of the payroll tax cut and the BushTaxCuts, as well as scheduled cuts to defense and non-defense spending.

Peterson’s allies aren’t waiting for the election, however. In NewHampshire, the co-chairmen of the 2010 SimpsonBowles commission — former RepublicanSenatorAlanSimpson and former ClintonWhiteHouse official ErskineBowles — have endorsed incumbent RepublicanRepresentativeCharlieBass, who supported a budget bill with many of their austerity recommendations, over progressive DemocratAnnieKuster. Bowles and Simpson have become fashionable politically, so Bass is taking full advantage of their endorsement, running full-page ads in newspapers across the state [...]

Peterson isn't new to the austerity scene. From 2007 to 2011, he personally contributed at least $458 million to the PeterG.PetersonFoundation, which portrays all government spending as in crisis, desperately needing dramatic cuts. Peterson’s millions have done next to nothing to change public opinion: In survey after survey, Americans reject the idea of cutting SocialSecurity and Medicare. A recent national tour largely funded by the foundation met with audiences who rebuffed its proposals.

It doesn’t matter if the public won’t buy the dog food. The politicians have. They’ve been positioning themselves to get this done for over two years. Only tax-averse Republicans who wouldn’t provide the cover needed for all the cuts stopped the deal the first time. And they have this massive machine to contend with from the BigMoneyBoys. These are people who want politicians to quit whining about poor people. They'd rather keep them marginalized.

Obama had an opportunity to defend social insurance programs last night, and he started with a dodge to give himself maximum political maneuverability before moving (not very convincingly) to a set of animating values about the people who need these benefits (without commenting on whether current benefits are adequate). This was pretty transparently discomforting.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

NOT a disconnect – an expression of both candidates’ shared view of the importance of deficits and budget-balancing over our needs. Keynes is dead; long live Pinochet/Friedmanomics.

====================================

Reminds me of the phrase “shared psychosis” – known as “bipartisanship” for those still playing the Kabuki Theater home edition. Of course, it doesn’t really need to be said that the 'lesser of two evils' is still evil, shared psychosis is still psychosis, and sprinkling parsley and green onions on a pile of dog**it does not change the fact that the dish being served is still dog**it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

Obama poor performance last night reflects his poor performance (tack to the right) of the past 4 years. Dismal performance by a “Democrat” on both scores. Not amazing how much they agree with each other as much as they said. I wonder if that’s becoming apparent to the “progressive” Obama supporters, finally? They’re two quasi-Republicans with altogether too similar approaches.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

Not that it's relevant (funny how ObamaZombies try to misdirect from the subject at hand), but I'll go one round with you.

I've not heard Charles Pierce "take back" something that he's said, but if he "always" does it as you claim, then you disagree when Pierce says of Obama, "The fact is that the president is a cool and rational man", or that, "Romney got to bullshit his way to the next topic because the president couldn't rein him in, and because moderator Jim Lehrer was in a hurry to get back to that hillside on Easter Island", and expect Pierce will be "taking it back"?

If what Charlie Pierce said is something that you disagree with, then explain why.  

As I share the opinion he expressed (and I'm not taking it back), that's the topic up for discussion.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

Obama's not, and never has been, a liberal.

He was raised by a midwestern white banker, and ideologically he's a Republican white guy Harvard-trained corporate lawyer and corporate-shill hiding inside the perfect disguise a black man with a 'D' after his name.  He’s the perfect Manchurian candidate and last night made that clear.  If re-elected he intends to put it to the 99%.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

Obama’s Second Term Goal: Cut Social Security
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

Obama didn't debate Romney because on most issues he agrees with him.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

Peterson is not new to the austerity scene. From 2007 to 2011, he personally contributed at least $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which portrays all government spending as in crisis, desperately needing dramatic cuts. Peterson’s millions have done next to nothing to change public opinion: In survey after survey, Americans reject the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare. A recent national tour largely funded by the foundation met with audiences who rebuffed its proposals.

It doesn’t matter if the public won’t buy the dog food. The politicians have. They’ve been positioning themselves to get this done for over two years. Only tax-averse Republicans who wouldn’t provide the cover needed for all the cuts stopped the deal the first time. And they have this massive machine to contend with from the Big Money Boys. These are people who want politicians to quit whining about poor people. They would rather keep them marginalized.

The President had an opportunity to defend social insurance programs last night, and he started with a dodge to give himself maximum political maneuverability before moving (not very convincingly) to a set of animating values about the people who need these benefits (without commenting on whether current benefits are adequate). This was pretty transparently discomforting.

I actually thought there was a decent enough debate about Medicare on both sides, but in the end it comes down to someone who wants to radically transform the system and someone who wants to, in his words, “tweak” it. And that means both sides are playing on the same side of the field.

Last night's debate was an expression of both candidates’ shared view of the importance of deficits and budget-balancing over our needs. Keynes is dead; long live Pinochet/Friedmanomics.

The whole premise of that opening, endless exchange about taxes turned on the fact that BOTH of these cruds care more about the deficit than about creating jobs or programs to help people in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

In the end both of the candidates agreed on the issues that were most important to the ruling class, and Romney won because he did it all with more passion and surprising fluency.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

At one point, Romney was able to trap the President on the subject of deficits (“You’ve been president four years. You said you’d cut the deficit in half. It’s now four years later. We still have trillion-dollar deficits.”), which is only possible because of the way a Democratic President holds deficit-cutting as a virtue and refuses to point out that this is precisely the wrong thing to do in the midst of mass unemployment.

And this discourse gets narrowed, frankly, because there’s a massive political machine dedicated to narrowing it. These things don’t just happen by accident. Someone has to pay the bills to promote the rise of austerity economics:

Billionaire private equity mogul Peter Peterson is investing millions of dollars in a new Washington-based campaign for austerity, planning to blanket the airwaves after the election to bolster the case for a “grand bargain” in Congress’ lame-duck session that would slash Medicare and Social Security spending in exchange for new tax revenue.


The new Campaign to Fix the Debt is chaired by former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, and former New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican. It’s priming for lame-duck negotiations over the expirations of the payroll tax cut and the Bush tax cuts, as well as scheduled cuts to defense and non-defense spending.


Peterson’s allies aren’t waiting for the election, however. In New Hampshire, the co-chairmen of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles commission — former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson and former Clinton White House official Erskine Bowles — have endorsed incumbent Republican Rep. Charlie Bass, who supported a budget bill with many of their austerity recommendations, over progressive Democrat Annie Kuster. Bowles and Simpson have become fashionable politically, so Bass is taking full advantage of their endorsement, running full-page ads in newspapers across the state [...]

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

Obama's Second Term Goal: Cut Social Security:
If Obama's behavior on the issue of Social Security and his willingness to offer up cuts to Social Security as part of a deficit deal left any doubt about his personal intentions for the program, last night’s debate should put those doubts to bed. One of the most telling moments regarding what Obama’s second term would be like was his answer to the question on entitlements. From CNN debate transcript:

21:39:56: LEHRER: All right? All right. This is segment three, the economy. Entitlements. First — first answer goes to you, two minutes, Mr. President. Do you see a major difference between the two of you on Social Security?

21:40:15: OBAMA: You know, I suspect that, on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But it is — the basic structure is sound.

This could have been a moment for Obama to try a sharp contrast with Romney and make a powerful appeal to swing voters. Obama could have made a simple and popular promise to protect the program from cuts. He could have said something like, “I consider Social Security benefits to already be incredibly modest. I promise to protect them as they are for all current future Americans. A small increase in revenue will be enough to make the trust fund stable for another 75 years.”

The president didn’t do this. Obama actively choose to pass up this chance to score political points in the middle of a contested election. Instead, Obama decided to use a vague term like “tweaked” to give himself maximum flexibility in the future. The reason a candidate does this is because they want to do something and they don’t want campaign statements getting in the way.

If Obama wasn’t planning to cut Social Security as part of “tweaking” it in a grand bargain, last night he would have promised not to do so.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'

Charlie Pierce’s big line about the debate mirrored my thoughts about how the discourse has been so narrowed by a combination of DC establishment insulation from the actual problems of ordinary Americans, and Democrats becoming the face of New Austerity:


What you saw, I think, anyway, was the end product of the president’s consuming naivete as regards the American political process, as well as the end product of thirty years of a Democratic Party that has slid so far to the center-right that a Democratic president found himself arguing with a “severely conservative” Republican candidate over the issues of how much the Democratic president had cut out of the budget, how many regulations he’d trimmed, how much more devoted to the middle-class-kick-in-the-balls Simpson-Bowles “plan” he is, and how he would “reform” Social Security and Medicare — and, frankly, a Democratic president losing some of those arguments to his left. A Democratic president got through an entire debate and didn’t mention unions at all, even though the fact that our teachers are unionized here in Massachusetts is a big part of the reason why Romney got to brag on how good our education system is [...] somewhere, Al From, that greasy corporatist lackey, was smiling. He’s got the political process of his dreams. Of course, it is also the case that The Great Sellout is already under way, so what the hell does it matter.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...