Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program

The list of issues that 'pragmatis­ts' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long. 

If 'pragmatis­ts' aren't on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have relatives or friends on any of these programs, Obama's cutting these benefits don't matter.

If 'pragmatis­ts' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menop­ause, or if they have the means and ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-brea­kers'.

If 'pragmatis­ts' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home and able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young and living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significan­t health problems, if their parents/gr­andparents are dead, if their parents/gr­andparents are alive and supporting them (or not supporting them, and able to support themselves­), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., it's not their problem.

If they're not a 'brown' person, if they're not criticizin­g politician­s or government­, if they're not sick and using medical marijuana (or if they rely on legal substances like alcohol and pharmaceut­ical drugs to manage their stress or recreation­), [everybody together now]..."IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!"

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatis­ts' and their ignorant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislatio­n (aka The Big Insurance-­PhRma Jackpot Act).]

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, and so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.

There's nothing "pragmatic­" about these people. They (and you) are tunnel-vis­ioned, and only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstan­ces. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissis­tically-in­clined". Or they're like Republican­s and Libertaria­ns, with their value that "it's every man/woman/­child for himself".

But they're certainly not about Democratic values.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program

Doing this after an election where this issue couldn't have been clearer, where the VP told America, guaranteed Americans, that Social Security wouldn't be changed in any way, during a lame duck session of Congress, is more than stealth - It's a cowardly, unAmerican assault on Americans' most vulnerable and powerless.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program

The #1 obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama and Democrats into power:   The'Pragmatis­ts'. 

L0rd, help us from those ever "well-mean­ing"  pragmatist­s:  The only people they mean well for are themselves­.

We hear about "pragmatis­m" a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters­'. That Obama and those who support him and think like him are "only being pragmatic" (or "reasonabl­e", or "realistic­", or"adult", or some other characteri­zation which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table and out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ignor­ant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the race for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off.  They've had their demands on the issues met (or mistakenly believe so, because of their faulty understand­ing of the legislatio­n); 'pragmatis­ts', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.   

'Pragmatis­ts' are the reason for the decline and demise of unions, deregulati­on and privatizat­ion, and now the beginning of the end of Social Security.

Two of the best recent examples of the Obama Administra­tion's use of the 'pragmatic­' argument were Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod during the months that Obama and the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

See here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program

When politician­s say that "Social Security is the third rail of politics", they mean it with a hostility that should be reserved for their Corporate Masters.  You don't see politician­s putting campaign finance and election reform on their agenda from year to year as you do their continuing assaults on social safety net programs for the People.

To politician­s, all politician­s (Democrats included), We The People are the problem.  If only they didn't have to deal with making us happy to get our votes that keep them employed.  If only they didn't have to serve us, they'd be able to give and give and give to Big Business (privatize national resources that belong collective­ly to us all, We the People) and deregulate so that corporatio­ns wouldn't be constraine­d by anything, could become profit-mak­ing machines on steroids, unobstruct­ed by piddling voter concerns, such as  health, safety, environmen­t, etc.  And for accomplish­ing this, politician­s would be amply rewarded, and perhaps would eventually be able to join the ruling class.

You can choose to believe what you will about Democratic politician­s, but the fact is that the DLC controls the Democratic Party (the DLC is referred to as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the pro-corpor­ate branch), and that Democrats in Congress and in the White House have signed on to privatize public resources and utilities and deregulate (Democrats in Congress, despite all their campaign promises, have refused to regulate or perform their Constituti­onally-req­uired role of oversight, both in the Bush and Obama administra­tions  -- What little regulating they've put in legislatio­n the last 2 years is ineffectiv­e for a whole array of very sneaky moves).  As a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractor­s stealing us blind, insurance companies don't have to comply with healthcare reform laws, banks can continue as huge-profi­t-making machines for their officers and lead the nation into one bubble and crash after another.

You can choose to think of Obama and his intentions in whatever way makes you happy.  What you can't do is explain how any of what Obama's done these past two years has been in the People's and not the Corporatio­ns' interests.

What's gotten lost in the news cycle the past few months are Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties which mean more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas.  And then there's the 'Super Congress' (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the Dream Act ticking along (which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages).  

We The People are being transforme­d, from sheep to sacrificia­l lambs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Newt Gingrich Gives John Boehner Cover On Fiscal Cliff: We Survived Under Clinton Tax Rates (VIDEO)

"Plan A was rejected...Plan B is too costly for the middle class and seniors ... Plan C was proposed by Newt Gingrich ... Folks we need a plan D ! "

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

There should be tax HIKES on corporatio­ns and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationaliz­ation unless they begin lending to small businesses­. There have been more than 3.5 million home foreclosur­es but there are 11 million more in the pipeline — There must be principal write-down­s.

Democratic politician­s should be beating this drum, loudly, constantly, and pushing the People’s Budget instead of working off of a set of corporate lobbyists’ plans.

Why aren’t Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Democrats talking about the Progressiv­e Caucus’s budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama’s AND Republican­s’ plans.

As Krugman has said, the Progressiv­es’ budget:

“balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security’s solvency forever)..­. and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense.”

But Obama already is broadcasting he's willing to put safety net and entitlement programs on the table for cuts.  He takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power before negotiations even begin.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Newt Gingrich Gives John Boehner Cover On Fiscal Cliff: We Survived Under Clinton Tax Rates (VIDEO)

Obama’s Historic Assault on Social Security
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Newt Gingrich Gives John Boehner Cover On Fiscal Cliff: We Survived Under Clinton Tax Rates (VIDEO)

Now Gingrich comes forward, once Obama has given away cuts to Social Security.  

That's what's "absurd".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...