The Progressive: The GOP’s new ploy to destroy Social Security

[Scuba]

http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/01/187961/gop%E2%80%99s-new-ploy-destroy-social-security

The GOP has a fresh strategy to attack Social Security: pitting older Americans against people with disabilities. The Social Security trust fund supports retired workers, while the Disability Insurance Trust Fund provides for working people of all ages who become too disabled to work full time. According to the Social Security Administration, the trust fund has enough money to pay full benefits until 2034, but the disability insurance fund will need to be replenished next year in order to avoid cuts of approximately 20 percent for its 8.9 million recipients.

Congress can keep both funds solvent through 2033 by simply shifting a small percentage of money from the trust to the disability insurance fund, according to the Social Security Administration. It has done this type of reallocation routinely almost a dozen times to shore up both funds. But one of the first actions of the new House majority was to pass a rule change by a vote of 234-168 prohibiting any reallocation that isn’t accompanied by cuts to recipients or increases in revenue.

Rep. Sam Johnson, R- Texas, a chief proponent of the measure, said he is trying to keep the “fraud-plagued” disability program from “raiding” the retirement fund. This assertion is nonsense. Disability insurance fraud rates are miniscule. A 2013 Government Accountability Office report concluded that only about 0.4 percent of beneficiaries may receive payments they don’t deserve.

...

The GOP can only achieve its elusive dream of gutting and privatizing Social Security by first creating an imaginary crisis. Don’t fall for it.

[merrily]

1. Oh, for pity's sake. Lift the fucking cap already.

Stop sparing the richest people from making contributions to these programs in proportion to what they take out of society as a whole.

If you are a dishwasher, you pay into the fund a higher percentage of your earnings than Jamie pays of his. How the hell is that fair?

[Scuba]

3. Our nation only has one financial problem ....

An unwillingness to tax the people who have all the money.

[merrily]

4. Let's set the disabled contributors against the elderly contributors and leave the Jamies AlOOONE!

[Scuba]

5. That's their plan.

[merrily]

9. I know. I described it in my own words, rather than use the words of the article.

[Octafish]

6. Seems almost by design.

The Counter-Revolution of 1776

Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America

Gerald Horne
363 pages
April, 2014
ISBN: 9781479893409

The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.

In the prelude to 1776, more and more Africans were joining the British military, and anti-slavery sentiments were deepening throughout Britain. And in the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were chasing Europeans to the mainland. Unlike their counterparts in London, the European colonists overwhelmingly associated enslaved Africans with subversion and hostility to the status quo. For European colonists, the major threat to security in North America was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. And as 1776 approached, London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility—a possibility the founding fathers feared could bring the slave rebellions of Jamaica and Antigua to the thirteen colonies. To forestall it, they went to war.

The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others—and which today takes the form of a racialized conservatism and a persistent racism targeting the descendants of the enslaved. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 drives us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States.

SOURCE: http://nyupress.org/books/9781479893409/

Definitely not the whole story, but a big part of how the humanity as property mindset continues.

[merrily]

10. John Quincy Adams and the Amistad case

http://www.npg.si.edu/col/amistad/

His oral argument before the Supreme Court

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/amistad_002.asp

The real "Adams family" always seemed pretty cool to me. John tried to convince people that the nation should be founded without slavery, but he failed. Still, he tried for the good thing.

Abigail tried to convince John that he should not forget the women when participating in the Constitutional Convention, but she failed. Still, she tried for the good thing.

John Quincy went from being a son of the first family to being President to running for the House, where he was when he took this case, all good things to have done.

[happyslug]

33. The real key to that case was the finding by the Trial Judge.

While Admiralty law (which is what they were tried under) does NOT restrict courts of appeals from reviewing errors of FACT, the traditional Common Law Rule was Courts of Appeal can only rule on findings of LAW not Facts (Facts are reserved to the Jury and Judges MUST defer to juries on issue of Fact). Thus the US Supreme Court Justices, being a Court of Appeals, has to accept the finding of facts of the Trial Judge. As I said above, this rule is less fixed in Admiralty cases then in other areas of the law but it is still done by courts of appeals.

The Trial Judge had found, as a finding of fact, that the Africans who took over the Amistad had NEVER been slaves under even Cuban law and as such as Free Men illegally enslaved had the right to free themselves from their unlawful detainer. Thus the only issue in fought of the US Supreme Court was the issue of Cuban law, but it was an issue that was clear on its face. Cuba had FORBIDDEN importation of Slaves, thus the mere fact that it was admitted that these Africans had been shipped to Cuba from Africa showed that they were free men NOT slaves.

Amistad is a classic example of the importance of getting the right Trial Judge. The Trial Judge refused to rule that because they were Africans and could NOT prove their were freemen, that they were slaves (That was the American Rule south of the Mason-Dixon Line, i.e any African living in the American South was presumed to be a slave UNLESS there was clear evidence he or she was not).

Thus the Supreme COurt ruling in that case was a mere after thought, the key was the trial judge, something people miss for they want the Supreme Court to be the Court that made the right call not the Trial Judge.

[merrily]

35. My point was more that JQ Adams made the right call.

(In taking the case and in the ways he represented his clients.)

Haven't read the history of the case. Good to know.

[dhill926]

13. looks very interesting and provocative….

hmmm….wonder why this book hasn't been publicized more. Let me guess…at any rate, will be purchasing. Thanks for the heads up.

[happyslug]

31. In 1776 the biggest concern of London was the Sugar Plantation in the West Indies

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2015, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Which was also the main concern of the French, thus when the French intervened in the American Revolution, they sent their ships and troops to the West Indies NOT the American Colonies.

Now, this was also the days BEFORE Satellite images, thus it was impossible to know where a Hurricane was forming, if a Hurricane was active, or where it was headed. Thus from June through October Europeans of the 1700s kept their fleets out of the Caribbean/West Indies to avoid losing them to a hurricane. The British kept their Fleet either in Charleston South Carolina or New York City between June and October, the French, when they had Canada, kept their fleet in Quebec. Come October both fleets would sail to the West Indies, via Europe and Africa (for that is how the currents AND wind ran).

During the Revolution the British taking of Charleston was to get a port close to the West Indies but out of most Hurricanes (and If one was headed for Charleston, you could tell by the movement of the clouds that indicated a hurricane was in the West Indies and then take the Gulf Stream up to New York City or even London to get away from the Hurricane). Those clouds would indicate a Hurricane was present, but not where. In the West Indies if you stayed in a harbor which was hit by a Hurricane you lost your ship. If you sailed out of the harbor you had a good chance of sailing right into a Hurricane and these losing your ship. If your ship was in the American Colonies you knew that Hurricanes always came from the West Indies, thus by sailing out and catching the Gulf Stream (an option NOT really available south of Carolina) you could out sail any Hurricane, if you left early enough. Florida was dangerous for a Hurricane could survive passing over Florida and hit a ship sailing outward. A Hurricane could also come from the Bahamas and wreck a ship on Florida or the Bahamas. The Gulf Stream does flow through the Bahamas, but for a quick safe getaway starts as the Gulf Stream "starts" as it leaves the Bahamas (and thus the Carolinas).

Thus in the 1700s you had soldiers and ships to fight in North America mostly between June and October, the Hurricane season. Once the Hurricane Season ended, the Fleets and any soldiers they could take with them went to the West Indies to fight (Thus Yorktown occurred in September 1781, just before both the British and French Fleet were set to return to the West Indies).

In the West Indies itself the biggest fear of the Plantation owners was that the local white and freed slave population would fight any invasion and in that fight destroy they investments in sugar refining. Thus if a Fleet and Troops would show up, the Ruling Elite wanted to quickly surrender so to preserve their investments. The invading force generally knew this and thus show no need to work to get the slaves on their side, for they wanted those plantations and their Slaves. Thus the biggest concern was the white population that was NOT tied in with the Plantation and the freed slave population, who would fight to preserve their connection with what little their had.

Given this situation no one in POWER in Paris, London or elsewhere were talking about abolishment of slavery anywhere. Till the Sugar Beat became a competitive source of Sugar (while the Sugar beat was known by 1747, the first factory to produce sugar from Sugar Beats was NOT created till 1801, in what was then Prussia, and that was result of the British Blockade of Europe which included sugar from the West Indies, this lead to Napoleon adopting and expanding Sugar Beat production and even banning importing care Sugar in 1813). This desire for sugar was so important that Abolishment groups advocated adopting beat sugar in the 1830s as one method to end slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet#Creation

By the 1830s, Sugar was no longer the high profit item it had been in the 1700s do to the competition form Beat Sugar (France and Germany had both switched to beat Sugar by the 1830, thus cutting back severely on demand for cane sugar). This reduction in price and reduction in profit (for Britain and the US stayed with using exclusively Cane Sugar longer then any other country, for even Russia was switching to beat sugar by the 1850s) lead to a drop in price and a drop in the power of the sugar plantation (and thus the ability of Britain to abolish slavery in 1837, through it is unclear how many of those "Freed" Slaves ended up in the American South where the demand for slaves to pick cotton was increasing tremendously at that time period, it was done but no records for technically it was illegal, but the huge increase in Slaves in the American South had to come from some place).

Except for Haiti, no slave revolt has EVER been successful. Haiti was successful for France was fearful of losing it to the British and Spanish thus under the first slave revolt 1791-1794 the French freed the slaves so the slaves would fight for France against the invading British. Thus from 1794 to 1801 there was NO slavery in Haiti. The Former Slaves even defeated a British invasion in 1798. Then in 1801 Napoleon decided Haiti would be a slave colony. This was during a time of peace between Britain and France. It is believed Josephine, whose family was a white slave owning family from Haiti, convinced Napoleon to do so (and may be the reason Napoleon later divorced her). That army was defeated in 1804, but after the war with Britain had resumed, thus the French Army in Haiti was in effect abandoned by Napoleon do to the fact the French Fleet was that much weaker then the British Fleet. In simple terms the Haitian revolt was successful do to the fact the slave owners had to give the slaves freedom to stop a foreign invasion and then when that invasion had been defeated the ability to re-enslave the slaves could NOT be done do to the actions of that same foreign invaders (who themselves would have kept the slaves enslaved for their wanted the sugar from the sugar plantations and that included use of the slaves as slaves).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

Now, slaves did join the British Army during the American Revolution and they were some of the most effective forces on the British side. Slavery existed in all of the Colonies but north of Delaware and Maryland in very low numbers. On the other hand South of Pennsylvania the number of slaves increase tremendously. When the war was being fought in the North (1775 through 1777) you had SOME slaves joining the British but few, for the number of slaves norht of Maryland were few. On the other hand when the War shifted to the South, you had a hufe increase in the numbers of slaves fighting for the British, with some 18,000 left with the British when they evacuated Charleston in 1783.

Now, the Quakers had for a long time opposed slavery but do to their stealing lands from the Native Americans, then selling it to the Scot Irish, and then abandoning the Scot-Irish to the Native Americans in the Subsequent Wars (The French and Indian wars), they has little influence by 1780s (and the Quakers had overwhelmingly back the crown in 1775-1782 so another factor against their influence). Thus it was Puritan Massachusetts NOT Pennsylvania that was the First State to Abolish Slavery. One of the reasons for this is it was seen during the American Revolution that Slaves were an internal security problem in times of war and the best way to handle them was to free them. This movement was strongest in the South till the late 1790s and slavery was about to be abolished in the US by 1808 (A date set in the Constitution for Congress to be able to forbid the importation of Slaves).

Then the Cotton Gin was invented which permitted High Land Cotton to be used like low land cotton in the growing cotton mills in England. High Land Cotton was a crop that could be grown south of Virginia and the boom in Cotton lead to an increase demand for slaves and the Anti-Slavery movement moved back north.

This also lead to a change in attitude of Britain, first, except in the American, South Britain NEVER freed Slaves when the slaves had switched sides to fight for them (See the above on Haiti for an example of that). Britain wanted to take over areas when it could make a profit and that was Sugar prior to about 1830 and then Cotton after 1800. When push came to shove, Britain was even willing to supply troops to the American South except Britain did not know where it would look to replace the wheat it imported from the US North at that time period. .

Britain's main alternatives for wheat imports was Russia but that option was NOT available for Britain was opposing the Russians as the Tsar was putting down a Polish Revolt that the British was supporting. Yes, Britain was more then ready to fight FOR SLAVERY in 1862, but the fear of an internal revolt do to a massive increase in the price of Bread in London prevented them. Russia control grain exports from not only Russia in 1862, but also what is today the Ukraine and Poland. Britains leaders remembered that Wellington's Army in Spain during the Napoleonic War had been feed on New England Wheat and that dependence on the US for Wheat had increased NOT decreased since 1815.

Thus Britain NEVER suppressed Slavery when it was to Britain's economic benefit to preserve it. Yes, Britain abolished Slavery in its Colonies in 1837, but by then the market for Sugar had collapsed and the West Indies were going from one of the Richest areas of the World in the 1700s to one of the poorest in the 1900s. Thus it is wishful thinking that Slavery was on its way out by 1776 and Britain would lead the way to its abolishment. Yes, Slaves did back the British in the subsequent invasion of the US (and the British military moves of 1774-1776 were nothing but a full scale invasion) and Britain used such slaves but Britain had no intention of freeing any slave that did NOT fight for them (The same offer of freedom was made the the Confederate Congress, over President Davis objections, in March of 1865, but by then it was to late and that offer included payment to the owner for the lost of his slave).

Americans were NOT afraid of abolishment of Slavery by Britain in 1775 but the take over of the colonies away from the people then controlling those colonies (and that included slave holders, especially in the south). On the other had slaves would fight on the side that offered them freedom and as the war shifted to the South that became the British. The North, after the Revolution, took this fact and decided the best way to end such an internal security hazard was to abolish slavery and the North then adopted various laws to end slavery over a time period (States also did NOT want elderly slaves "Freed" so they would become wards of the States AND wanted to NOT be taking "Property" without compensation, thus it was a gradual abolishment, Pennsylvania said it had no slaves after 1848, New Jersey had about 8 slaves left in 1866 when Slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment.

The South and the rest of the colonies thought they could handle any Slave Revolt and did so up to and including the US Civil War. Slaves were feared but also seen as a money making machine. With the high return on an investment in slaves after 1795 slavery boomed in the South even during the period the South was subject to British Naval Raids (1813-1815). During the War of 1812, the British took 3000 American Slaves out of the US but paid for them after the war:

http://facts.randomhistory.com/war-of-1812-facts.html

Thus slavery was a factor in the HOW wars were fought, but except for the later years of the Revolution no concentrated effort was made by the British to recruit slaves. In many ways the slaves were intended to be used and then discarded but Britain needed loyal subjects in both Canada and the West Indies in 1783 and these Freed Slaves were perfect for they freedom was tied in with they loyalty to Britain.

Just a comment that Slavery was a factor in the Revolution but NOT in why it happened but how it was fought. No one thought of the Slaves till they showed up and offered to fight and then they were used and valued. And as far as Slave owners were concerned, they found out how "Loyal" their slaves were to them, and made sure the slaves knew what would happen to them if their escaped and were caught. Punishment increased after 1795 as the South demand for slaves increased AND the North headed to abolishment of slavery.

My favorite topic in Britain and Slavery was when Britain abolished slavery in Britain in 1807. There had been no slaves on Britain for centuries EXCEPT those brought back from the West Indies or America to live with their masters while the master was in Britain for some other reason. Thus the abolishment was more words than reality:

https://books.google.com/books?id=T_fT06fyMwsC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=1813+Attack+on+Washington+slave&source=bl&ots=7XB5k2GWGk&sig=PbCvRGpHQ5FhPM8nQrPzhA_xd9I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RL62VKCkJPb7sASr1ICgBQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=1813%20Attack%20on%20Washington%20slave&f=false

[daleanime]

7. Amen....

[merrily]

18. A defender of the wealthy joining DU to fight Social Security? LOL!

[Scuba]

19. Tapped out? Bwahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

We need to tax them and tax them and tax them until they're only fabulously wealthy.

[bluesbassman]

20. LOL. "tapped out".

Do you perform your comedy routine live or strictly on the Internet?

[Veilex]

28. Obvious troll is obvious

Wojtyla - Member since: Wed Jan 14, 2015, 08:14 AM
Number of posts: 5

Enjoy your stay.

[Veilex]

29. Thank you MIRT!!!

[merrily]

37. +1

[merrily]

15. Yep. And that is the direction in which our entire society has been heading for some time now.

[merrily]

26. Why on earth are you supposedly agreeing with me? I said nothing like what your post says.

[daleanime]

8. K&R....

[sammy750]

11. OMG the list of bills from the GOP goes on and on, how they are taking away from the people.

The GOP only mission is to destroy our nation and people. We see it in the DHS, IRS bills, We see what they are doing to the USPS. They will get rid the postal service this year.
Where are the Democrats fighting for the rights of the people. There is NO FIGHT from Democrats. Many are turncoats now. When will the voters wake up to what is going on with the Republican controlled nation.

[merrily]

17. If it were only the Republicans, we'd be much better off. Problem is, it's a collaboration.

The Post Office is a good example of that collaboration. If you want the truth, do some googling. Check the votes in the House and the procedure in the Senate. Check who wrote that 2006 bill that is destroying the Post Office, who shut down the vote in the Senate and who Obama appointed to the Postal Commission.


Sorry, but blaming only Republicans might help Democratic politicians, but it is not helping the 99%.

[merrily]

24. If you understood my post, you would not have asked me that question.

[merrily]

27. I believe that was the high school nickname of the POTUS

who who beat Dick Mitt Romney in 2012.

My guess is this poster was on the side of the loser that year.

[SheilaT]

12. The really sad thing is how they are successful in pitting

people against each other, and how successful they've been at convincing voters that those other unworthy people don't deserve SSDI, or Medicaid, or good public school, or decent roads, or anything at all that governments fund.

Yeah, there is a problem with fraud in the disability system. But the way to address it is not to cut it for everyone, but to be careful in the verification process. People here have complained bitterly about how hard it is to qualify, and there's good reason for that. As it is, I've personally known some people who think that they could qualify for SSDI without having an understanding of what the government actually considers disabled.

[YoungDemCA]

39. +1

It's infinitely frustrating.

[KamaAina]

30. As usual, those of us with disabilities are first on the chopping block.

[Robbins]

34. I am right there with you

of course we get screwed.Who is out there looking out ofr disabled people.

[WillyT]

32. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[sabrina 1]

36. It's their old lie. But Dems can stop them by being united on any attempt to touch SS.

Remember how powerful the 'minority' was for years now, they stopped Dems from implementing their agenda. So I'm hopeful now to see the power of the Minority in action, especially on SS.

[KamaAina]

38. White House Weighs In On House GOP's New Social Security Ploy

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/white-house-house-gop-social-security-rule

The White House has weighed in publicly for the first time on a House Republican move that could precipitate a fight over Social Security in the next two years.

The House voted last week to block a routine transfer of tax revenue between Social Security's retirement and disability funds; the latter is projected to start being unable to pay full benefits in late 2016, sparking a crisis that advocates warn the GOP could use as leverage to push changes to the program. The rule says a transfer, which had been done 11 times previously under Democratic and Republican administrations, can be done only if there are cost-saving measures attached to it.

In a statement to TPM, the White House said that it generally opposes measures that limit Congress's ability to transfer revenue between the Social Security funds, as the House rule does.

"Generally speaking, the Administration strongly opposes any efforts to undermine Congress’ ability to reallocate funds between the Social Security retirement and disability trust funds," a White House spokesperson told TPM, "as they have done with bipartisan support numerous times in the past in both directions."