If you have "no place to go," come here!

"Progressive" bankster lackeys prepare to help The Big O shaft the elders on the Cat Food Commission

Consider this a Netroots Nation special!

* * *

No, they're not stupid. This is what they want. Lord Eschaton:

Was at Social Security panel, as people are gearing up for the inevitable fight against the catfood commission. Good panel on the whole, but was rather distressed with the chosen messaging by the coalition which was "Don't cut it, strengthen it." As we knew last time we dealt with this crap, once you concede something has to be done you ensure some sort of horrible "compromise" will happen. When pushed on this by Sam Seder, there wasn't much more than spluttering in response.

That's because they have no response.

And that argument was exactly the argument that Atrios made -- and won -- back in the day, when the left prevailed on Social Security, and beat the crap out of Bush (and stopped the 2004 Bush administration cold*, and probably won the 2006 mid-terms because of it).

So, why are "progressives" not adopting tactics that succeeded?

The answer really couldn't be more obvious, could it?

NOTE * Remember, "I have political capital, and I intend to spend it"? (IIRC, RL demands mean I can't go find the quote).

No votes yet


stuart_zechman's picture
Submitted by stuart_zechman on

Would you mind spelling that out for me (and some other folks)?

Why are "progressives" not adopting tactics that succeeded?

I'm being sincere, here.

jjmtacoma's picture
Submitted by jjmtacoma on

screwing up conservatives who wanted to gut SS - with the emphasis on screwing up conservatives.

When Obama does it, it becomes progressive because he is the embodiment of progressive.

Yeah, I think it goes something like that...

al_schumann's picture
Submitted by al_schumann on

Definitely. It's the same with them as with the banksters, who will destroy value in both the long and short run in order to wind up more powerful relative to the rest of society. It's not about how much they have in absolute terms, but rather how many people they can put under the bus.

Submitted by lambert on

First, why not use the tactics that are proven to work? How is that that tactics that worked, when Ds didn't have the Presidency, are being used when the Ds have control over all the branches of government -- and yet weaker tactics are being adopted?

Second, the tactics are contrary to fact. There is no SS crisis, contrary to the Peterson commission and all that. (Econoblogger Angry Bear has a lot of really great material on this.) Solvent to 2039 is a crisis? Ye gods. All this is about getting Wall Street commissions to make up for what they lost in the financial collapse. It's all about the fees!

Third, letsgetidone has a long piece on that question today, here.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

so-called "collapse" (it was our collapse, not theirs) fact, the profits and bonuses are even larger than before! No, this is about completing the corporate takeover of our economic policy, and designing it to do away with, once and for all, any safety nets in existence. But yes, it's also about fees, however, once they've "skimmed" the rents, then they can go in for the kill, since SS will then become truly bankrupt (a self-fulfilling prophecy).

warren mosler's picture
Submitted by warren mosler on

Krugman conceded the point that it's about inflation (way down the road) and not solvency probably because he and the other doves realized they had lost the battle by previously not denying and implicitly conceding that longer term deficits were a solvency issue.

Faced with 'cut social security or go broke, with China dictating terms to us like the IMF does to Greece, etc.' the deficit hawks had won the hearts and minds of the American public and their representatives in Congress.

Faced with 'cut social security or there may be bad inflation 20 years from now' they'd hardly have gotten a second look.

Hopefully with the Krugman recent 'support' (albeit he's fear mongering about certain doom from future inflation that he's not the least bit qualified to discuss and gets ridiculed from all sides on his 'maths'- but that's another story) that ability to pay is never in question for the issuer of the currency, the doves will gravitate towards what should be an easily winnable stance.

And if they do subsequent policy should restore employment and prosperity, and the stock market should at least double, to most everyone's delight.

And I'll declare victory and fade away in blissful retirement on my social security benefits.