"I'm a Democrat. I came to Congress to protect Social Security & Medicare, not dismantle it."

--Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-08/politics/congress.entitlements_1_social-security-entitlement-house-democrats

:applause:

What a message that would be.

K&R.

:toast:

Wouldn't this be a worthwhile cause for Democrats to haul themselves into the sunlight, assemble in front of cameras and raise their right hands and swear never to abandon?

Would that be too hokey?

Hokey or not, with all the shenanigans going on lately, I'd feel a lot better if the whole Democratic Caucus, House and Senate, would commit themselves in public to a statement like McGovern's. I think the leadership could show some leader like qualities, and validate the trust placed in them by arranging such a demonstration and by strongly encouraging the participation of all caucus members.

Might make Republicans mad and stuff. Can't do that! :sarcasm:

And oh so good for the party too! Obama left the Democrats out of discussions. He left them on principal. They should not follow his lead on this.

one I could get behind! :)

for bipartisanship.

You want me to believe that I will see a penny of my money that I put into social security? Then give me a balanced budget and start paying down the debt like Bill Clinton did. We all need to suck it up and pay more. Get rid of all the Bush cuts...all of them. Then maybe I will half believe you are serious about protecting more than today's recipients.

Millionaires first, thank you.

... the House just passed a $659 BILLION miltary budget this week. Cut that fucker in half, and eliminate even just the tax breaks for the Top ONE percent, and the rest of the domestic programs likely won't need to be touched.

Millionaires first my eyeball. That won't cut it I've looked at the numbers.

Do you honestly think I would be so enthused about paying more in taxes if I hadn't seen it is necessary?

I get no tax breaks...none. No kids no itemized deductions and single. I am already paying more than my fair share and I am the one saying I know I will have to pay more.

I want a government that works, that is sustainable, that makes sense and I'm not getting it. So please don't sell me the fairy tale of social security because I know what it takes to make it happen and I don't see it. It's just a freaking regressive tax until we shape up our budget.

surplus, he tweeted it

Bernie Sanders knows we didnt do anything good with those funds. We didn't buy gold or any hard asset that we can sell to recoup the funds. You owe that $2.6 trillion to the social security fund. If you recognize that as a hard and fast obligation then that is YOUR debt.

well doesn't mean they should be able to decide not to pay it back.

WTF kind of logic is that?

You owe yourself the money. Don't you get it?

in the loss of their jobs, value in their 401(K)s, low interest on their savings (if they are lucky enough to have any at all) and loss in the value of their homes as well as loss of pensions through leveraged buyouts that benefit the rich.

Look at the disparity in the incomes of the rich and poor and you will see who has benefited and who has lost in the economic and technological changes of the past 30 years (since Reagan). The reason we should start with the millionaires is that they have not yet paid their share of the failure of a succession of administrations to regulate the banks and watch out for ordinary Americans.

It's the millionaires' turn now. They need to pay now. The poor and middle class have already lost their share of wealth.

It must be so difficult trying to spend all that extra untaxed income.

Your attitude makes me ill.

Don't tell me the working class needs to suck it up and pay more. They've paid more than enough for a crisis they had nothing to do with. The rich can start paying. They caused this mess let's make them fix it. I'm sick of this "shared sacrifice" bullshit the working class in America and the world have sacrificed more than enough. It's time for the rich bastards who caused this mess to sacrifice to fix their mess, everything they own if required.

Every Democratic politician from the President down should stand up and say as McGovern said, I'm a Democratic and I am not going to cut Social Security or Medicare. We are not going to dismantle all of the protections for our citizens that have been put in place over the years. Never.

No one is paying the share they did when Bill Clinton was around. Not the rich, nor the middle class either. Not even the poor. That was what it takes to get a balanced budget and nothing less will work.

You need to spend money to get the economy going again. Taxes need to be raised on the wealthy, the MIC needs to be dismantled, and we need to use that money to fund job programs to rebuild our infrastructure.

Any disincentive to spend is not good if that is the orthodoxy you want to follow.

Raising taxes on the rich isn't meant to be a stimulus, it's meant for deficit reduction, just like raising taxes on everyone else. And these taxes won't be raised for 1 1/2 years, nobody is talking about raising taxes this month.

Before that, Bush tried to stimulate the economy through tax cuts.

Tax cuts improve the economy temporarily. You get a boom but it is always followed by a bust -- unless the basic imbalance between the wealth of the upper and lower percentages of the population in the economy in terms of wealth is brought into balance.

Increasing taxes on the rich to help balance the disparity in wages and wealth would help get our economy going for the long term again.

You can say whatever you want. But if you want a healthy economy, you will agree with me. If you follow the conservative economic theories, you will end up with an economy that gets worse and worse until it just breaks down. We have been here and seen this progression before.

deficit. Both programs are self sustaining and will continue to be until at least 2037.

lets apply the FICA tax to "All" income.

Can we START from a more even playing field, please? You moved the middle to the right and pretended you've split the distance.

I refuse to put Medicare on the chopping block while the "Defense" Dept is getting 650,000,000,000 a year in taxpayer's money*. It's OBSCENE, and any "Democrat" that goes along with that is my enemy.

*that's not including hundreds of billions more in weapons spending hidden under Dept of Energy budgets and VA expenses.

WRITE THANKING THEM!

.

:kick:

Thank you, Rep McGovern, and Bluebear for bringing this to our attention.

K&R

Which is what, We the People?

What FDR did was as pragmatic as it comes.

when you mean them?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

OBAMA NEEDS TO SAY IT!!

for any Democrats who sacrifice the security of our seniors, disabled, and most vulnerable on the alter of tax cuts for the wealthy, all in the name of helping the economy "grow." That's bull. And there will be hell to pay for the Democrats who allow it. (I mean "hell" in the sense of verbal and written anger directed toward them, and huge numbers of lost votes.)

McGovern's comment makes me proud to be living in Massachusetts......however some folks here apparently voted for Scott Brown. :/

Yes, yes it does. Being a democrat means something which is far different than being a republican.

George McGovern? God, I wish we had more like him!

"In junior high school, he first became involved in politics by campaigning for Democratic U.S. Senator George McGovern (to whom he is not related) in his unsuccessful 1972 presidential bid."

So no, no relation, but a similar history to yours.

I would've voted for McGovern too if I existed back then.

"if you existed". That was when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 and I was able to vote because of that. I was really excited about the McGovern campaign and about him. Sigh. My first vote, my first disappointment.

But my favorite book is Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72. Hunter Thompson blamed it on the Eagleton Affair. What do you think, was it that, or was it just a pipe dream to begin with like they'd have us believe real progressive candidates are today?

but having Eagleton quoted as saying that he was the candidate for abortion, amnesty, and legalizing pot did not help matters. But then again, he was liberal. And that is why I loved him. We all did, and the young people were voting, but I think that we were the only ones (bar a few like my mom) who were enthusiastic about him.

You have to remember that at that time, we were the unwashed, amoral hippies lying in wait to shoot up little kids with drugs. And we loved him. But we were not exactly loved by mainstream America---the heartland, as it is called. So many looked at McGovern as the hippie candidate. I guess we were his "base". We probably should not have shown so much enthusiasm.

Sadly, I still believe that a true liberal will not be able to win the presidency in this country. And it seems that the pendulum has swung right now to a point where it is nigh impossible. But I still keep hoping that I am wrong. I have been pleasantly surprised in the past.

why can't a real one? The right's already openly declaring him a Marxist, so how could it possibly be worse for someone who really is liberal?

did not believe the "Marxist" label. Obama was different in that he was talking a lot in the campaign about breaking the cycle of bickering between the parties, and his demeanor seemed to show that he was the right personality to do it. IMO, the people wanted unity more than anything else. Besides, Palin was scaring the shit out of every sane person in the US and with McCain's age, she was a significant factor.

Anyways, that is how I see it. You have any opinions on it?

but who is strong about it at the same time would do well. I mean, bipartisanship isn't why the Republicans won so many seats in 2010. I think people want strong leadership. Not necessarily being mean about it, but not giving in on everything in the name of bipartisanship either. I think rather than focusing on "liberal" or "conservative" values, we need someone that just goes with the numbers. Don't even talk about whether it's free-market capitalism or sharing the wealth, just say look, here's what works, here are the numbers, that's what we're doing, and I won't take any crap from people who won't listen to reason. I think someone like that might do surprisingly well, especially if they were never caught in a lie.

What Would Rahmn Call Him????
Something about retards?