That'd be great!

By the way, "centrist" is not a curse word. In fact, that word has many definitions, depending on where you happen to be on the political spectrum. Centrist Democrats are actual Democrats. They just look at some things differently than you do, but they vote for Democrats. Leftist Democrats, too, are actual Democrats. The Democratic Party is open to all manner of Democrats - not just the ones you like.

of the Republicans' views. Not all Democrats have the same views as you have. That does not make them not Democrats, however. They simply disagree with you in some ways.

You seem to be pointing toward people who support other candidates than Bernie Sanders. A lot of Democrats don't prefer Bernie Sanders, who, himself, is only a Democrat some of the time. Mainly when it is necessary to run for some office. Many Democrats don't feel that Sanders is a Democrat at all, and he has said as much a number of times.

There are centrist Democrats and leftist democrats an all sorts of other Democrats with different labels people attach to them. Those labels mean different things to different people.

Here's how I feel: I will support the Democratic nominee in November, wherever on the spectrum that nominee is located. However, I find it very difficult to support a Democrat who only takes that label when he is required to by the rules of the Democratic Party. I am a Democrat. I am a lifelong Democrat. I really prefer Democrats like myself when choosing candidates to support. I'm a little hinky about Democrats who are only sometimes Democrats.

I'm sure you'll understand.

I do think a line is crossed when Dem-aligned groups take money from wealthy Republican donors and use that money to advocate for things like Social Security cuts. I'm not challenging that they are still Democrats, I'm just saying that I don't think that's a good thing to have wealthy Republican donors participate in our internal Dem debate about where the party should go.

And I think that other people, too, should be aware, when they read something by Third Way, that they are reading something by a person getting paid in order to attack progressive policies and goals. If they didn't attack progressives, those people would get fired. It's their job.

Anyone can make up their own mind as to whether they want to listen to people dedicated to cutting Social Security about primary choices. I'm aware that some Dems want to cut Social Security, and I don't want to purity-test them out of the party.

Just that everyone should know who is who.

Good day to you.

but when you politely reply both logically and calmly with the reasons why it's in Dems' best interests to do as you suggest, the response is a curt few words. So much for having a meaningful conversation.

proven so by his overwhelmingly +1 voting record to the Democratic caucus. If your point is that you'll support 1990s third-way behavior in 2019 no matter what as long as it's Sanders doing it, you've made it.

Btw, I won't. Third Way was a faction in the Democratic Party who advocating keeping the party relevant by finding a middle ground during the 1990s when America's electorate had shifted so much more conservative that media were asking if liberalism was dead. That's 2 decades ago, and yes, Sanders was also voting to keep from being replaced by a Republican then himself.

One guess how, DanTex. One standard for all. If it's okay for Sanders, it's okay for the people he was and is voting with way over 90% of the time.

Obviously, he's not, because he doesn't want to cut Social Security. You can check if you want.

were Third Way?

What's this thread about then? That group has long been practically moribund because long ago now our party moved left to its normal strongly liberal average, even a bit more. Your throwing this term around like mud at everyone who votes like Sanders is more than slightly inconsistent.

One standard for all. Despise Democrats for voting what you call too far right as an insult, you need to despise the Real Senator Sanders. Because legislators are all their voting records, and all the denial in the world by Sanders followers won't change his.

I think you know that calling Sanders centrist or Third Way is inaccurate, but that's because calling the caucus he votes with Third Way is...also profoundly inaccurate.

That's what this thread is about. The group is not moribund, it is alive and well and publishing anti-Bernie hit pieces. See the links to the two in the OP.

I mean, OK, it's "moribund" in the sense that almost no Democratic voters support their agenda of Social Security cuts. But it's still in existence, and even supposedly respectable journals like the Washington Post give them slots to write editorials.

And people have posted articles written by Third Way staff members, right here on DU. A lot of the anti-Bernie stuff going is written either by Republicans or by people who work for Third Way. Just thought everyone should know who's opinion they are getting.

I've even provided you with data proving it's wrong and a very reliable site to look up caucus and individual voting records. There's no truth to repeated claims that Sanders, along with those he votes with, are centrist and third way in ideology. In fact, it's downright silly.

Btw, I'm not only a proud liberal, I'm proud to be someone who despises lies. If a person's talk wasn't supported by his walk, I wouldn't vote for him to keep the schedule for my book club.

I mean what am I supposed to call them?
https://www.thirdway.org/

those between 65 and 67?

Regardless whether YOU like them or not!

Last edited Thu Jan 30, 2020, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Could you restate it, please.

and is--in fact--a way to smear liberal Democrats while retaining "plausible deniability."

Between totalitarian fascism on one extreme and totalitarian communism on the other, those who believe in liberalism and in liberal democracy are in the "center."

But that's not what those who call liberal Democrats "centrists" are trying to imply.

Nah, it is "re-framing" and gaslighting. A way to insult loyal members of the Democratic coalition and to foster divisions. Should be stopped.

That poster appears to have a very narrow view of what a Democrat actually is.

Clyburn, waters, HRC, Feinstein, Durban to name just a few we’re writing progressive legislation and passing bills long b4 the “left” decided to say it’s their term. Give me a break!!

"Centrists" is the new war word, replacing "corporatists", but you nailed it also with "neoliberals".

Then throw in the 10-year old articles on "third way" and phony scares about social security -- it's quite a stew!

for the past 85 years.

For some to suggest that there are Democrats who are looking to undermine Social Security is gaslighting of the worst sort.

There certainly does seemed to be a coordinated effort to "re-frame" reality.

Resist bothers and sisters. Resist!

Save the gaslighting of the Democratic coalition for someone who cares.

There are no Democrats who seek to cut Social Security.

You continue to intentionally misrepresent this article as a current publication and that it somehow represents something that any of our current candidates support. You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Third Way is, how it is (not) related to any of our current candidates, and when it was relevant as an organization (here's a clue: the answer to the latter is "not anymore". Welcome to 2010.)

None of your insinuated assertions are true, a fact of which you're fully aware, yet you insist on falsely claiming otherwise. You're not fooling anyone.

This undermining narrative is nothing but gaslighting.

A Möbius strip quasi-epithet created, apparently, by Professor Irwin Corey.

Regardless of who I support, we can probably all agree that we shouldn't be spreading propaganda pieces by Third Way staffers who get paid by Republican donors to attack progressives because they want to see Social Security get cut.

Like a whole new script.

The war on "centrists" has replaced "corporatists" as the hip go-to slam to really show Democrats that you mean business.

And spamming about social security with 10-year old articles kind of shows you've been off the grid for awhile but, hey, it's still a good scare tactic. Also, Wall Street!

Thank you!! The voice of sanity

Watch them find a boogeyman (any boogeyman will do) that is, for all practical purposes irrelevant to the here and now, and throw it at the wall as though it's a valid or rational argument in the vain hope it sticks.

Asking for a friend.

Before 2015, people would normally label me as a liberal. Very left of center. Some people even said I was a far left wacko. Since I don't support Bernie, I am now called a centrist. So, to me... anyone who does not buy into what Bernie is selling is a centrist.

Just because they seem to be new to you doesn't indicate otherwise.

The landslide 1984 Presidential election defeat spurred centrist Democrats to action, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed. The DLC, an unofficial party organization, played a critical role in moving the Democratic Party's policies to the center of the American political spectrum. Prominent Democratic politicians such as Senators Al Gore and Joe Biden (both future Vice Presidents) participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacy for the 1988 Democratic Party nomination.

The DLC espoused policies that moved the Democratic Party to the centre. However, the DLC did not want the Democratic Party to be "simply posturing in the middle." Thus, the DLC declared their ideas to be “progressive,” and a third way to address the problems of the 1990s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

Thanks for the thread DanTex.

HRC is certainly left of Obama and further left of Biden. So, how do you define her? Because in the past the far left of the party was stating she was third way, corporate, war monger.

The people who are Third Way are the ones who work there. You can see who they are by going to their web page.

Those guys?

for Obama's victory, particularly since he didn't support their SS cuts during his campaign.

I'm not talking about the metaphorical "small-t" third way, I mean the actual organization called Third Way.

From the link you provided, there are four main Third Way proposals that make the Social Security Fund last longer, increasing the chances of young people to actually benefit from the program in their old age. The plan says NOTHING about cutting Social Security BENEFITS for anyone. The "cutting social security" in your post is just plain inaccurate.

The proposals I am talking about are:

- index retirement age to longevity, reaching 70 by 2077. This is already being done, perhaps not as per the Third Way schedule, but with or without their input in the matter. There seem to be no rationally based objections to this coming from the left.

- switch to chained CPI for COLAs. This doesn't "cut" Social Security by one penny. At worst, it reduces, but does not eliminate, the cost adjustment increases to Social Security checks, and at best, it keeps up more accurate chain cost of living increases which may turn out to be greater than standard cost of living expenses.

- increase payroll tax for high-income workers (with or without a FICA "donut hole" payment). How is this different from "millionaires paying their fair share"?

- fully tax benefits for high-income seniors. See above.

And you see any of this objectionable... why?

BTW, these proposals were made 8 years ago. How influential was Third Way in seeing them through?

As far as I am concerned, third way is just another label used by the extreme left to derogate the mainstream of the Democratic Party, in most cases without taking steps to understand or accurately representing what the term actually means. Also see "neo-liberal", "establishment" and "behind the times". And, yes, a new one: "centrist".

And, yes, those things are cuts to Social Security. Reducing COLA, for example, is clearly a cut because it means people get smaller SS checks than they would otherwise. That's the very definition of a cut. The only people that define "cut" as something other than "getting less money" are lobbyists.

Same goes for increasing retirement age. That's a cut because it means less people get Social Security than otherwise would.

And so on down the line. This is a plan to cut Social Security, and everyone knows it, and everyone describes it that way. It's not a secret.

Should I go on to explain how a potentially (but not necessarily) smaller increase is different from a cut?

Ok, if you insist. Let's say your social security check was $100 a month last year. You get a $5 per month increase this year. And you get an additional $4 per month increase next year. Which increase would you call a cut?

I guess I should count every person who knows how to add as lobbyists.

But tell this to a 30 year old who is paying into SS now. If the Social Security fund dries out by the time they are 67, guess what their monthly social security check will be? Zero. That's 100 bucks LESS than it was last year. But that's not a cut, right?

Right now there is a legally binding schedule of what every senior must be paid by the US government. Reducing COLA would be changing that law, so that those obligations become lower than current law says. A senior who had planned a retirement using Social Security's legal obligations as written today would find themselves not being able to afford things.

Most Dems, and most Reps also, oppose Social Security cuts like this.

It doesn't mean you have to. You can argue in favor of that if you want.

It's a thankless task to argue with a dictionary.

And I am not advocating in favor or against chain-weighted CPI, I am arguing against derogatory labeling that misrepresents reality.

It doesn't cut the social security checks that go out this year, but it does cuts the size of the checks that go out next year, and for the rest of eternity. For people that haven't retired yet, that means every single social security check will be smaller than they would have gotten otherwise.

You work your whole life, paying the government at a certain rate, knowing that when you retire, in exchange, the government is going to pay you benefits at a specific legally binding formula that everyone has agreed to. Then you get to retirement age and, bam, the government changes its mind and decides to use a new formula that results in you getting less money.

That's a cut. Social Security is a legal obligation, it's not some willy-nilly thing. Those future social security checks are written into law. Changing the law to make them lower is, obviously, a cut.

What you are arguing is that if you sell me something, and I tell you I'll pay in two installments, $100 this year, and $200 next year. And then I decide to change my mind and only pay you $150 next year, is that a "cut" in the amount I pay you. Of course it is. It doesn't matter that it's still more than I paid you this year. I agreed to pay $200 next year. If I pay you less than that, I am "making less" the amount that I pay you.

Both standard weighted CPI and chain-weighted CPI will, by definition, will make SS payments MORE than they are now. The only difference is by how much. And, as I mentioned before, there is nothing to prevent chain weighted CPI to be more than standard CPI. This is not a cut by any stretch of imagination.

And it's totally ridiculous to argue that the amount on your SS check, past, present or future, is written into law. In fact, the way I understand it, the law clearly states that the SS Fund trustees have significant flexibility in disbursing SS benefits, based on a number of scenarios. And that includes actually CUTTING SS benefits if the trust fund becomes insolvent. But perhaps you know better. I am looking forward to a link to the law that the amount of your SS check is written into.

Chained CPI would link them to another formula. The second formula is lower. That means "less".

The government says "in 10 years I'll pay you a hundred bucks." I say great. Then the government says "actually it's going to be fifty bucks". Then I say "why did you cut my benefit." You can't seriously argue that it's anything else. And it's exactly the same with Social Security.

The fact that next year's check isn't smaller than this year's check is totally irrelevant. It's a cut to the benefit. The benefit isn't just one check, it's the entire stream of Social Security checks that every American is currently legally entitled to. I mean, try that with like a loan from a bank, with say a teaser rate. Tell the bank that you're going to lower the interest rate on them, but no worries, each month's payment is still going to be just as big as last month's payment, so really who cares whether it's less than what we agreed to. See how far that goes.

This is why everyone considers reductions to COLA as cuts. I mean, even people who favor this stuff consider it a cut, like CRFB that I linked to above...

There were three years with no COLA. Your argument that a reduced COLA is a "cut" was litigated years ago. It's not.

There's also, BTW, no guarantee that Medicare costs will not increase (or decrease). Is an increase in Part B - which effectively (in isolation) amounts to a reduction in Social Security benefits - a "cut"?

working class?

How about that stance?

How does this work for you?

It is only rational in absolute terms: that age 70 is worse than age 67. But if you tie the ratio of longevity vs the age of of SS eligibility, people living today are faring better than probably at any time since the SS inception.

As well as a rationalization used to justify reducing the size of the Big Tent at the expense of people we may not believe are pure enough to be Democrats.

As that's *their* job.

“'Curiouser and curiouser!' Cried Alice..."

Whatever name they go by - DLC, third way - doesn't matter. The goal is the same.

I want to beat trump and sanders is a very weak candidate who will lose 45+ states to trump. In addition, sanders would kill down ballot candidates and help Kevin McCarthy become Speaker

hit pieces.

Like conservatives, "progressives" need their boogeyman.

~Wyldwolf, who, according to several sources, has a corner office next to Al From's at DLC Headquarters and was part of the paid shill invasion of DU in 2003...