Third Way's pleasure about AARP's stance on SS reform truly angers me.

[madfloridian]

In fact it scares me a lot. This is the think tank that appears to have taken over where the DLC left off....providing the policy for the Democrats. Here is what they said about the new revelations about AARP's stance on Social Security.

AARP Opens the Door to Social Security Changes – Offers more than “milk and cookies”

Start with a snide remark in the title of the press release and goes downhill from there.

WASHINGTON – “Today marks a watershed moment in American politics. For decades, AARP has stood against any substantial changes to Social Security. Now that they have opened the door to reform, it is time for lawmakers to walk through it.

“In January, Third Way became one of the only progressive organizations to put a real Social Security reform plan on the table. Our ‘savings-led’ proposal would actually increase Social Security’s progressivity. We don’t agree with AARP on all of the details of what reform would entail – they want to rely mostly on tax increases, while our plan would make about two dollars in benefit reductions for every one dollar of revenue increases. But we applaud John Rother and their Board for acknowledging that change is needed which will enable both parties to get serious about reforming Social Security.

“Two decades ago, I co-founded a group of young people, Lead…Or Leave, that demanded major changes in Social Security. I helped lead the first – and probably the only – protest in front of AARP’s building. With hundreds of young people shouting on the sidewalk, AARP’s leaders invited us in to talk. But when we saw the conference table was set with milk and cookies, we knew they weren’t serious. Now, at long last, they are.”

I do not think there will be any opposition from our president or the Democrats in Congress when the Republicans make their moves on this program that has given many seniors a way to live with respect and dignity after retirement. I do not believe they will do anything to stop it. I do not believe there will be a veto from President Obama on any changes these extreme Republicans want to make.

I would like to be wrong.

After all remember the guys Obama appointed as chairs of the deficit commission.

Just take a look if you doubt my words at the other policies of the Third Way that are front and center in this administration right now. They are definitely setting the agenda.

Third Way publications

One of the ideas put forth about how to handle the "culture wars" is for our side to put forth the "olive branch."

Well, we most certainly have done that over and over and over....and you know what they say about insanity? If you keep doing something over and over and it still doesn't work..it's insane.

Be sure to read Beyond the God Gap.

Others are:

Memo
Understanding the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"

Letter
Letter in Support of the Race to the Top Act of 2011

Policy Memo
The Korea Trade Agreement: A Good Deal for America

Memo
The Case for Taking Up Entitlement Reform

Idea Brief
Ramping Up Race to the Top

There are many more, and in most cases you can see the policy our government is following set out almost exactly.

So when I say the fact that the Third Way takes pleasure in AARP's stance on Social Security angers me...I might also add it thoroughly scares me.

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Aerows]

2. I'm very tired

of hearing Social Security and Medicare, things I've paid into all of my working life, being referred to as "entitlements". If I've paid for them, then you bet your ass I'm entitled to them.

[PoliticAverse]

5. If you are entitled to them then they are entitlements... n/t

[Aerows]

11. Let me clarify

Them being called "entitlements" like they are something dirty. Hell yes I'm entitled to SS and Medicare since I've paid into them.

Anyone in either party that thinks they are going to change the minds of people that have already paid into SS and Medicare for decades, and have us suddenly support changes to either are lunatics. I don't think I'm alone in saying that might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many, and I wouldn't be shocked in bankers on Wall Street got yanked out of their offices and guillotined in the streets.

[PoliticAverse]

15. Don't surrender in the semantic war...

Is 'entitlement' a dirty word?

How many times in your life have you said something like:
I'm entitled to 2 weeks vacation.
I'm entitled to be paid at my job this week.
I'm entitled to a refund.

If you you worked for or paid for and hence deserve something and someone calls it an 'entitlement' reply that they
are right. You are entitled to receive it because you worked and or paid for it.

BTW, as an aside the Supreme Court ruled that no one actually has a contractual entitlement to receive Social Security:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
But that was a legal decision not a moral one...

[AntiFascist]

47. I think the problem is....

that "entitlements" are often referred to together with programs such as farm subsidies and general welfare programs that are not paid into. Here's an article that does just that, even referring to the "entitlement industry":

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/17/pruning_farm_subsidies_108936.html

I agree with other posters who feel these should be treated as government sponsored insurance programs. Why not just raise the rates if the government is running short on funds? Surely that wouldn't directly affect the wealthy.

[JHB]

49. "entitlements" is a term they attach to anything they want to get rid of.

See another post of mine just below. Back in the 80s "entitlements" was aid-to-poor programs plus anything else they could lump with them to boost the numbers and create budget-outrage.

Abandoning the word has been tried elsewhere (liberal), and they just use the abandonment to proclaim how even their opposition "knows" they are right.

Take the word back and bludgeon them with it: hammer them about this dishonest tactic.

[Aerows]

50. All I know

Is that I have paid into SS and Medicare for over 2.5 decades (and I'm barely 39 - I've worked since I was 14) and i've paid into Medicare and SS. If you think I'm going to just smile and let that shit go, you are out of your fucking mind.

I AM entitled to that at 65, because that was what I paid into. Fuck either party that tries to raise the age, trim the benefits or hem and haw about how we don't deserve it. My parents own a small business and couldn't get by without SS, simply because taxes and insurance have made them nearly poor, despite both of them working into their fucking 70's and 80's.

They can't get by and have groceries without also running a business on the side. Is this the plan from both parties for the elderly - fucking find something else to do, run a garden like a business, and pray you don't have an emergency, because then you are fucked? Hi, I'm 79 and still working my fucking ass off, only 5 days a week, because the husband decided he couldn't do it 7 days a week, either.

My mother would never say the "f" word, but that is what she thinks too. I don't know what I'm going to do when they are unable to continue running the business.

[PoliticAverse]

58. Republicans and Democrats joined together to raise the retirement age in 1983

See: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ageincrease.htm
to check your full-payment retirement age.

[JHB]

48. That started long ago, when they used it to attack Welfare

Conservative propaganda factories think tanks would issue reports, which would then make the rounds along the budding Conservative Spin Machine, decrying the enormous portion of the Federal budget going to "entitlements". Of course, it was a bait-and-switch: they were trying to drum up outrage about how much was spent on "welfare queens", but to do so they mixed Social Security and Medicare in with food stamps, WIC, and other aid programs.

Conflating the numbers as a doubleplusgood for wealthy & ideological conservatives: It made attacking poor-end safety net programs easier by having a big chunk on the pie chart rather than a little sliver. And they didn't have to lie to do it, because frankly they considered SS and Medicare as being no different from "welfare".

[Cleita]

34. I think it's time to start calling them what they are,

medical insurance and retirement insurance, which is offered by the state instead of the private sector. Calling them entitlements, even though it may be technically correct, really doesn't explain what they actually are and gives the RW something to bitch about.

[customerserviceguy]

14. The taxes you paid into all your working life for Medicare and Social Security

are just as gone as the taxes you paid for wars, welfare, and education.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. That doesn't mean we are any less entitled to what we were promised. nt

[customerserviceguy]

27. In theory, yes

But unless there are changes, those programs are going to dry up. We simply cannot pretend that they will go on as they have for the decades they've been in existence.

The chief reason is that the baby boomers who kept them afloat for the last 40 years are now starting to come in for benefits, and there's no larger generation behind them to sustain the kind of payouts they've been able to make during that time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. I see. You've bought into the 'pyramid scheme' meme of the

republicans.

The baby boomers did not keep them afloat for the last 40 years. The baby boomers have paid far more in than was being drawn out - enough that SS is 100% solvent for the nest 26 years, and Medicare is solvent for the next 11 years, minimum. Even the half-assed reforms of Obama's health insurance reform are projected to expand that solvency; if we get our shit together and make REAL reform, in the form of single-payer, health care no longer will be an issue.

As for SS, the projection of solvency until 2038 is based on the most conservative, earliest possible insolvency date. If that date is adjusted to actual growth rates over the past 60 years, that insolvency date is pushed back to NEVER, or to 75+ years from now which is, in statistical terms, never.

BTW, if you look at the numbers you'll see an interesting tidbit. When that dreaded 2038 date comes around, the average earliest boomers will have been dead for 18 years. The last of the boomers, born in 63/64, will be 75 - one and a half years short of the average death age. IOW, MOST of the boomers will be long gone, and no longer drawing on SS, so, that being the case, HOW are they going to drive it into insolvency?

[customerserviceguy]

32. It's just simple mathematics

When you have each generation being supported by the generation or two after it, it takes greater and greater numbers of payors to support that system.

Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years ONLY if the trustees are right (I think they're overly optimistic) and there are budget surpluses to enable our country to redeem the specialized Treasury securities that are the ONLY assets that the Trust Fund holds.

Right now, more is being paid out than is being taken in. That's just simply a fact. IF (and that's a big if) we have a recovery that looks like the kind of recoveries we've had after other recessions, then maybe that will change. But if permanent damage to the American economy has been done, and good paying jobs don't come back, then I cannot see any situation where we will ever have more going in from FICA taxes than we have going out. Early retirements from people who are 62 to full retirement age for their birth year will guarantee that, if they cannot find employment for their last few productive years.

By the way, I don't know what numbers you're looking at, but when I check IRS Publication 590, it shows a life expectancy of 37 years for people who are 47 (born in 1964) now. That means that statistically, half of them will be dead in 2048, ten years after the date you project SS to hit the wall. If we can push the date of Social Security insolvency out about another 15 years or so, then you're right, the baby boomers won't have too much effect on the system.

The question is, how do we push it out that long, when events are conspiring to shove it even earlier?

[arakis8]

36. simple mathematics?

hi customerserviceguy, I just want to say that you didn't add well in your quote about the life expectancy of the last of the boomers. 47+ 37 =84 and I know of no statistic that projects life expectancy for anyone to age 84. I think the person you were responding to was therefore probably correct in that the average life expectancy is to age 74 and therefore social security's solvency will outlast the last of the boomers. Also, social security was always meant to be paid for by the next generation. That is how it was set up. It was I believe, the republican's icon Ronald Reagan, who changed it to where it has generated a surplus. Just a side. you do realize that the alternative is to have each person invest in the stock market (risky) as attested by my own mother who was trying to be fugal and add to her social security, only to see it vanish under the republican crash of 2008. The other alternative is for people to save on their own. Unless you make $250,000 a year from age 16, that's unlikely to yield you much. I think it's time for us as a society to decide if we are barbarians, willing to let our old wither and die, eating out of trash cans, at the mercy of children who may be no better or worse off than they, or a true Enlightened? society, willing to sacrifice and take care of the least of us, this means the elderly and the poor. I mean everyone should Scarface, not just the working class (now days referred to as the middle class). And how much of a sacrifice is it really? To have our elders live in dignity. to have those who for what ever reason just can't make ends meet to have a decent life. We should also have a minimum, truly livable minimum wage, but I digress.

[customerserviceguy]

52. Ok for starters, something I learned in writing class would help you, too

And that's the use of paragraphs.

Yes, 47 plus 37 does equal 84. You used the example of people born in 1963 or 1964 (most demographers consider '64 to be the end of the baby boom), and I figured them to be 47 years old today. Did you even look at Publication 590? Here's a link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf
Go to the tables at the end, and indeed, you'll see that the life expectance for a person who has already reached 47 is indeed 37 years.

You know how life expectancy works, don't you? Most citations of it refer to life expectancy at birth, and you're right, it's not 84 years of age at birth. By the time you've hit 47, you didn't get killed by infant mortality, childhood diseases, and stupid things you did in high school and college. You actually have a 50-50 chance of living 37 more years.

Yes, Social Security was indeed designed to be paid for by the next generation. When crooked multi-marketing companies do that, we call it a pyramid scheme, but if a congresscritter slips up and says that at a town hall meeting, we all go into denial mode. Yes, Reagan and the Congresses that he worked with did set up a surplus-building program, because for the first several decades of Social Security, the amounts being taken in from taxes were very, very low. When the government added COLA's in the 1970's, the system became wildly out of balance, and even with the baby boomers entering their productive years, something had to be done to put the system on a more solid footing.

Instead of investing that money in fully negotiable Treasury securities, the funds were given something that even Bernie Sanders calls IOU's. Perhaps if individuals had their own funds, they might have lost them in the stock market, but they'd be no less gone than they are now. I could envision a partial privatization plan where the first $100K of someone's money has to be in money market funds or T-bills, the next $100K in blue chip mutual funds, and only anything after that in anything riskier. It would not be impossible to design a system that keeps money relatively safe.

I share your desire to have older folks live in dignity, and the AARP hasn't put its blessing on anything that takes away from current or near-term retirees. Even they must realize that the system is going broke, and that something needs to be done to fix it.

I talk to a lot of younger people that I work with who have zero confidence that Social Security will be there for them when they get old. I encourage them to put money in our company's 401K, at least enough to get the 50% match, and go for one of the safer funds in the portfolio of possible investments. I tell them that they have lots of time, and that's their best ally when it ocmes to being prepared for retirement. I had to drain what little I had saved up six years ago, and I'm scrambling my butt off to make sure there's something for me besides a partial Social Security check.

[sulphurdunn]

60. You miss the point.

Social Security is a debt owed in repayment of an investment in the US by its citizens. It is no different than any other obligation to a creditor. Social Security "reform" will be a legislative attempt to default on the Government's obligations to its citizens, something it would never consider doing to a any other creditor, foreign or domestic.

If the government can raise the Pentagon budgets by 4% annually, it can damn well fund Social Security.

Entitlements aren't just for corporations anymore. :smoke:

[customerserviceguy]

68. Some obligations to creditors don't get repaid in the way that was anticipated

when the loan was taken out. Yes, I've argued long and hard with people here about how it's owed, but that there are a number of ways of dealing with that which are less than satisfactory.

So, which method is going to be used to deal with this obligation? Budgets that run surpluses, refinancing the debt on the open market, printing money, or raising FICA taxes and/or lowering benefits? Pentagon budgets are funded by borrowing with securities that are freely negotiable. Should Social Security and Medicare be paid for in that fashion?

There are no other options.

[sulphurdunn]

71. Perhaps

SS and Medicare debt should be let out to bid on the open market. I don't know for sure, but at least then it would be backed by the full faith and credit of the government. Since inflation is not an issue, printing money works. Rather than raise FICA taxes, they could be applied at a much lower rate than they are now if they were assessed against 100% of all income from all sources and corporate revenues from both domestic and foreign sources. Taxing financial trades at some fraction of a percent would also be a good idea too. And of course, eliminating all Bush era tax cuts for all income brackets would balance the federal budget in short order, possibly generate a surplus that could be partially used to reduce federal debt and lower the cost of borrowing, which would save even more money.

The problem is not with productivity or money. The American people are the most productive on earth and their is plenty of money. It merely needs to be reallocated.

[customerserviceguy]

73. Ok, so you're for refinancing

I guess that would be offering fully tradeable T-bills and notes to replace the non-negotiable IOU's that the Trust Fund owns. Do we do all $2.5 trillion at once, or do we stagger this out over a decade or so? The interest rates would soar preciptiously overnight if we did the former, and they would do the same thing at a slower rate if the markets knew that so much debt on top of debt was going to be sold if we did the latter.

Inflation is not an issue as long as we have a very weak economy. If we ever get to 6% unemployment, it will take off. Many people under the age of 40 don't remember a highly inflationary economy, but I'm 55, and I damn well remember the late 1970's. I know that high inflation often follows a recovery.

I'm with you on eliminating the Bush tax cuts, I was deeply disappointed in the President and the lame-duck Democratic Congress for renewing them after the election. But I see the new Congress as being likely to extend the 2% cut in FICA taxes (which undermines Social Security) and I further see an extension for the Bush tax cuts for 2013, since the economy will still be in the crapper. The only thing is, if they get done in January 2013, a Republicon President might well be there to sign them.

I think tax increases are the way out of this, too, we need to start paying off the money we've borrowed, but if we get a Repuke Senate, the chances of that seem very slim.

[sulphurdunn]

75. Like I said

I'm not sure about refinancing. It's a complex issue I haven't given much thought too, although were it done it would have to be done slowly. Balancing the federal budget would reduce the interest rate on the securities. Most of them would probably be purchased by pension funds, which might not be a bad idea. Selling them to foreign governments might not be a good idea, but I'm not certain about that.

The structural unemployment rate was 5% for most of the last 30 years. I think we could return to that without triggering inflation. Besides, reducing our national public and private debt might be worth a little inflation.

[customerserviceguy]

76. We'd better hope that inflation doesn't come back

It goes hand in hand with higher interest rates. In fact, most recessions of the middle part of the 20th Century have occurred because inflation drove interest rates up to the point where borrowing throttled back business investment. The recession we're in now did not have that feature, it was caused by the popping of asset bubbles.

We recovered from the 1981-82 recession as interest rates came back down again, we don't have that possibility to get out of this recession. In fact, as inflation and interest rates rise, they threaten to choke the economy even more, preventing any chance of a fairly quick return to the pre-2008 normalcy.

One large truth about the last thirty years is that they were probably the very most productive time of the largest generation of Americans ever. Now that the boomers are heading for the exits, they're not doing the spending that their childhood taught them was their birthright. Boomers that needed multi-bedroom housing thirty years ago pulled the real estate market out of the fire. Today, empty nesters don't need more than a couple of bedrooms, tops. They're fine and dandy with a one BR place that has enough other living space.

[U4ikLefty]

63. Privatize SS? Yeah that will work.

BTW, SS is NOT a retirement account.

How about raising the ceiling?

[customerserviceguy]

69. Well, unless you're disabled, you get it in retirement

But, you're fundamentally right, it's not like my 401K which is a retirement account, if I don't spend it all before I die, my kids get it.

Raising the cap on taxed wages is a good thing to do, but unless we change the benefit calculation formula, it will raise the maximum benefit as well. I find a telling lack of enthusiasm for my oft-stated idea of raising the cap modestly on workers, but making the sky the limit on the employer's share. If a megabank wants to pay a CEO $10 million to run the thing into the ground in hopes of another bailout, then they can afford to pay the employer's share of FICA tax on all ten mil, just like they do with the employer's share of Medicare taxes.

Why would that be a bad idea?

[madrchsod]

33. really.......care to back that up with facts?

[customerserviceguy]

56. Certainly

We just got the news last month that Medicare's trust fund will run dry in 2024:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54933.html

I know this is from Politico, which is not a highly regarded source around here, but since it was at a press briefing held in public, I doubt that a more progressive source is going to say that Geithner said anything significantly different.

One thing this article does say is that the Administration is counting on HCR to lengthen the "go broke" date from 2017 to that 2024, but I think they're being overly optimistic. I really believe there are significant flaws in the HCR law with regard to cost containment, and that just like when Medicare was first founded, the costs will go through the roof. HCR as it was passed did nothing to stem the systemic causes of medical inflation, all it did was try to change who pays for it.

We've already seen stories about how Social Security is paying out more than it takes in with FICA taxes, if you need another one, here's a good one: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

According to that article, the Trustees didn't project that tipping point until 2016. As you know, that situation is still going on this year, and I don't see it reversing until unemployment drops to about 6 percent. Also, the jobs that come back need to be paying something close to the jobs that have been lost.

There's a problem with trying to predict economic activity more than six months in the future, when I hear Social Security Trustees trying to figure out what's going to happen two and a half decades into the future, then I know that sometimes, they're just pulling figures out of the air for their assumptions. As that article states, Greenspan said they projected we'd be out of the most recent recession already, and only the other funny-numbers people in other parts of government believe that.

I used to be a tax accountant, I know how people use projections, assumptions, and just plain BS to convince somebody else of almost anything. You'd think that it was a science, but it was really an art.

Let's also not forget that the specialized Treasury securities that the Trust Fund holds can only be paid off by general budget surpluses, refinancing, or inflation (quantitative easing, they call it these days). Right now, they're doing a few accounting tricks to deal with the imbalance between the FICA taxes and the Social Security outflows, but that's only because the problem is relatively small now, and interest rates are historically very low. We won't be able to do that as the number of SS beneficiaries rises, and as interest rates go up, which will be inevitable in a healthier economy.

Social Security and Medicare are caught between the twin pincers of recession and inflation, and I see both sides having pressure applied. This is all happening as the baby boomers head for the exits of retirement, and that's a wave thats going to crash with harder force on the system for the next dozen years, and won't begin to ebb until the youngest baby boomers (born in 1964) start to die off in sufficent numbers.

[U4ikLefty]

64. irrelevant facts & opinions don't count.

try harder

[customerserviceguy]

67. What's irrelevant about the fact that both are going broke?

If you choose to label anything I show you as irrelevant, then I guess it's absolutely impossible to show you why I've come to the conclusions I've arrived at regarding Social Security and Medicare.

Can you come up with proof to refute my contention that you are just in denial about the true state of the finances of these programs?

[RB TexLa]

3. You can not have anything "off the table"

[DJ13]

6. ..... except wars & military spending

[RB TexLa]

7. No, you can not have anything off the table. Remember we are talking about stealing money

from people who have not even been born yet.

[DJ13]

10. Sorry, you know how it will be

Everything never includes the largest discretionary expense in our budget, the military.

The poor, the elderly, the disabled, the hungry...... none of them will escape the cuts, but the military will.

[Aerows]

12. What do you think

Endless defense spending that we don't have is? That's stealing money from people who haven't been born yet. Changing SS and Medicare is stealing money from people that have already paid into it.

Anyone that thinks they are going to be able to spin that any other way is out of their minds. Cut the defense budget and then we'll see where we can go from there. Robbing pensions and SS/Medicare to pay for adventures in MENA isn't going to fly. People are not stupid. They are more than aware that these wars are what is draining our treasury.

[Fumesucker]

45. Impeachment of Republicans is always off the table..

GW Bush, Clarence Thomas.

[alsame]

4. "Progressive organization" - see how they keep moving the

goalposts further and further to the right?

[Divernan]

9. If it doesn't walk progressive & it doesn't talk progressive, it is not progressive.

[SusanaMontana41]

53. Yup. Corporatist is corporatist, regardless of "party" affiliation. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

8. Politicians are not entitled to pensions and health care

time to stop all congressional pensions and health care

[Aerows]

13. Exactly

LONG before we discuss robbing the pensions, SS and Medicare of people who have either paid into them, or are by contract due them, we need to discuss Congressional pay cuts, pension cuts and benefits. Hell, they can start with not spending so damn much in travel costs. Cut the damn defense budget.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. They're the same people - of course they have the same policies.

In the last couple years the fucking DLC has become a bit toxic (I do my humble best by never posting about the fucking DLC without the adjective) so they locked the door, shuttered the windows and re-opened next door as the Third Way (now to be known as the fucking Third Way).

[mmonk]

18. Yes, the poison pill is very much alive and well.

The DLC closed its doors but the Third Way coalition and the PPI are running strong and in control. It's why the hand writing is on the wall for me after 36 years of working within the party.

[madfloridian]

19. It's kind of like....

a rose by any other name smells about the same. :-(

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

39. Please see your PMs

message for you

[slipslidingaway]

20. Third Way - Heath Care Reform - Do not say universal HC - We need a uniquely American solution...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6289091&mesg_id=6289091

Some talking points from the Herndon Alliance and published on the Third Way site...

• Don’t say “universal” health care. Talk about “quality, affordable health care for
all.” (But remember—quality, affordable health care for all is largely a message
about access.)

• Don’t compare the U.S. to other countries, or assert that America does not
provide quality health care. (i.e. Do not cite statistics that say the U.S. is 37th in
the world in health outcomes).

FISA, Telecom Immunity, Senator Rockefeller, Third Way

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3586367&mesg_id=3586805

[mmonk]

21. And uniquely American is what we have always had.

And there is a reason for that.

[slipslidingaway]

22. Yes, profits and campaign contributions :( n/t

[madfloridian]

23. Everyone should peruse that site and follow some links.

That think tank shows exactly what our party is doing right now in policy.

[slipslidingaway]

24. Yes as they have in the past ...

More from DU'er mod mom ...

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4498250&mesg_id=4498250

Edited on Sat Feb-09-08 10:37 AM by mod mom

"Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party..."

[madfloridian]

25. I remember when Third Way was founded by the Clintons and Tony Blair...

and the party's favorite words were "Blair Democrats." Well, look where that got us.

Tony Blair, the New Dems and the Third Way Wonkfest 1998.

After Bill Clinton and Tony Blair finish with the elegant dinners and toasts at the G-8 summit this week in England, the real fun begins: the two leaders will lock themselves in a room with a clutch of top officials to talk about government policy for four or five hours. The Sunday meeting at Chequers, the Prime Minister's country mansion north of London, will be the third such bilateral seminar, following one at the White House, when Blair visited in February, and the inaugural 12-hr. "wonkathon" at Chequers in November, when Hillary Clinton sat in for her husband.

The lofty chatfests symbolize the intimate political relationship between Clinton, a "new Democrat," and Blair, creator of new Labour. Each claims to embody a type of politics that is not just a poll-driven centrism but a "third way," a favorite Blair slogan and a phrase that Clinton highlighted in this year's State of the Union message. "Both governments have to react to challenges like globalization and better education for workers, and we have similar perspectives on what's needed," says White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, who organizes the meetings with his British counterpart, David Miliband, Blair's policy chief.

On the agenda for Chequers are social security, welfare, crime, health policy and education, with eight to 10 participants from each side.

[slipslidingaway]

28. We need to pay more attention, but too many are easily distracted...

or just tryinfg to get by :(

:hi:

FWIW ...

http://mydd.com/2007/5/26/third-way-and-branding

Third Way and Branding
by Matt Stoller, Sat May 26, 2007 at 04:23:08 AM EDT

"So Chris has been doing a series of posts on the think tank Third Way, a group that offers policy ideas and talking points to centrist Democratic Senators. I have conflicting information on how influential they really are, but it is instructive to watch the moderates and the centrists in the Democratic Party try to modify their branding. So I'm going to wade into the intra-party debate..."

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Just as the 'Tea Party' is just rebranded Republicans

Third Way is just rebranded DLC, which in turn were rebranded Reagan Democrats....never ends.....

[peace4ever]

29. thats the plan... cuts will be made, the only permitted topic for debate is how deep

and how many tax cuts for the wealthy.

and we will have to endure the kabuki drama of dems and repubs fighting it out to get the best deal for we the people.

:crazy:

[madfloridian]

35. Will debate even be permitted?

I wonder.

[Jakes Progress]

30. aarp is an insurance corporation giving cover to neocons in both parties.

[russspeakeasy]

37. Hi Mad....this is professional wrestling...the outcome is already

known.....all the rest is for show...

[w4rma]

62. This is NOT a foregone conclusion. And even if it happens, it can be reversed.

But, these DLCers must be purged from the Democratic Party to do it.

[Overseas]

38. I prefer The First Way -- Democratic core values --

Economic justice and political liberty for all.

I disliked The Third Way junk when the "New Democrats" (who were old fashioned back in the 90's already) first presented it.

We don't need any other way. We need stronger Democratic reforms to continue fighting against the plutocracy that has gradually increased over the past few decades already.

We are way out of balance following The Second Way-- Republican Supply Side (Transfer Wealth To The Rich) Economics. It crashed our economy. Enough already.

Return to The First Way-- a strong fight against Mutlinational Corporations to protect our country.

[chervilant]

40. Unbelievable...

55 years old, skilled teacher, enthusiastic worker, and can't even get FACE TIME to interview for a teaching contract. Haven't had full employment in over three years. Haven't earned a living wage in over three years. Unemployment runs out in a few weeks. Probably just in time for me to have sold most of my belongings to prepare for homelessness (I hope to have sufficient final resources to be in Freedom Plaza in October).

Don't suggest that I go 'live with family,' because I have no children and I grew up in an alcoholic family rife with physical, mental, and sexual abuse (..oh, for which I am blamed, ironically). I am hopeful that Bobbolink can help me prepare myself for the loneliness, the isolation, the abject fear that is part and parcel of being homeless and POOR in this 'great country.' I am pretty sure I have the anger part down pat...

At least my elderly cat has died, so she won't be an additional worry in determining just where I can 'lay low like Brer Rabbit' during the remainder of my time on this planet.

Have to figure out how to keep and feed my 13 YO dog...

Have to find a way to cling desperately to the last shreds of my now elusive joie de vivre...

So many decisions, so little time...

[madfloridian]

41. Lanny Davis: Obama's approach a direct line from DLC, Third Way

"In 2000, President Bill Clinton summarized From’s impact on his country in a speech at Franklin Roosevelt’s home in Hyde Park, New York: “It would be hard to think of a single American citizen who, as a private citizen, has had more positive impact on the progress of American life in the past 25 years than Al From.”

In May 2003, the DLC published a list of the 100 most important Democrats to watch in future years in public service. Immediately after the name Martin O’Malley, then the mayor of Baltimore, Maryland, and now in his second term as governor, came the name “Barack Obama, State Senator, Illinois.”

Obama’s appearance on that DLC future star list shouldn’t surprise anyone — other than, perhaps, the strident sanctimonious voices on the blogosphere and on nightly cable TV, those who regard any deviation from their own dogmatic definition of liberalism as heresy. In fact, Obama’s approach to issues and government, and especially, his rejection of the simplistic “red” vs. “blue” state, left vs. right divisions, are a direct line from Al From, the DLC’s “Third Way,” and Bill Clinton’s remarkable winning combination of social liberalism, cultural moderation, and fiscal responsibility.

It may be sad that the DLC won’t continue as the precious new idea machine that created the new Democratic Party. But not to worry: President Obama and the other 99 DLC political stars listed in 2003 are mostly still in public service, many of them in Congress . . . and Al From and Bill Clinton are just a phone call away.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/the-dlcs-ideas-live-on/#ixzz1Pjp1ZHqf

The president denied a connection, said that list was a mistake...but his actions lately belie his words.

[Mimosa]

66. Lanny Davis is a Skull & Boners.

At the top they are mostly connected, sad to say.

[ooglymoogly]

42. This is the way Dino's and Bluedogs work

They set up or take over Democratic and progressive organizations (as in AARP and DLC) then bounce off each other what the right wingers want to hear, then the far right grudgingly agrees with them and passes legislation against the very people these duplicitous organizations i. e. AARP and DLC (now known as third way, because folks are on to them) are pretending to represent.

These folks put Machiavelli to shame. Neither AARP (an insurance corp. whore) nor The Third Way (formerly the DLC and obliquely calling itself progressive) is working for Democratic ideals or interests and certainly not for progressive ones.

Very sinister and dishonorable folks are at work subverting this democracy and Democrats better catch on fast or our once great democracy, now badly wounded will be finished.

[madfloridian]

43. Remember this picture. We will cave just as AARP did.

Social Security Advocates Deplore AARP Decision To Put Social Security On Chopping Block

"board, has already sent shock waves through the Beltway's large and influential entitlement reform community. It's prompted calls from lawmakers and centrist and conservative groups for Congress to seize the initiative and agree to cut benefits. It's mobilized Social Security's strongest advocates against AARP, and it's prompted AARP to initiate a partial walk back -- a statement calling the story "misleading, but reiterating that the group could support Social Security reforms if they don't cause future retirees too much pain.

"It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries," says AARP CEO A. Barry Rand -- in other words, the group could support some cuts, so long as they only impact people many years away from retirement.

But conversations with insiders suggest the Journal story, while mostly on point, underplays a key part of the story. What AARP decided doesn't necessarily constitute a change in policy, but rather a major strategic decision to announce their acceptance of those cuts now, while the legislative zeitgeist is about "fiscal responsibility", instead of later.

"It's terrible timing," says Roger Hickey, Co-Director of the Campaign for America's Future, and one of DC's veteran Social Security warriors."


Note the two men standing beside Obama in the picture. They were chosen by him to lead the deficit commission. They want to cut Social Security, plain and simple. He knew it, he chose them.

Our party should be standing up for the elderly, not scaring the hell out of them.

[russspeakeasy]

72. I think the caving is already done...the fight is as phoney as

professional wrestling.

[ooglymoogly]

44. KR for enlightening post. nt

[madfloridian]

46. Their policies are selling out the middle class and seniors on pretense...

of being for them.

It's sickening, and it is time we quit enabling all of this destruction of our middle class.

[StarburstClock]

51. Our country is full of criminals, it's a criminal society now

We should all be scared. I've read numerous articles over the last 2 weeks saying our system of government is broken beyond repair and it's a fact. The only 2 possible steps remaining are creating a peaceful new way of doing things which includes the regulations we used to enforce or, as I read in the numerous articles "blood in the streets".

[WinkyDink]

54. So this guy got a group of fellow young punks to fight my, and their own, future. Thanks, b*****ds.

Obama will definitely not veto, or even threaten to veto, drastic alterations of SS.

OTHERWISE, HE WOULD NEVER HAVE FORMED A COMMISSION, LET ALONE APPOINTED BOWLES AND SIMPSON.

[madfloridian]

70. I would love to know the name of the group he formed. Did some research...

Might be referring to Generation X...here's a link about him. He's a deficit hawk.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-11/news/we-7554_1_older-generation

Interesting article.

[white_wolf]

55. I'd like to point out that the term Third Way used to be a term for Fascism.

Ironically enough that is exactly where these polices will lead us.

[Faygo Kid]

57. Sounds to me like one guy at AARP went off the reservation.

I am always skeptical when one person speaks on behalf of a whole organization. How do we know this is AARP policy? I would be cautious about one guy speaking in one article about the whole organization.

[madfloridian]

59. Remember Bill Novelli in 2003? AARP denied their support then....

for the Medicare privatization plans. They denied and denied, but Novelli was in a position of trust and sold seniors out. There was a lot on all that then here at DU.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/4008

Novelli wrote a glowing preface to Gingrich's book:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=735750&mesg_id=739669

He didn't resign until 2009:

http://www.atlantaunfiltered.com/2010/02/19/william-d-novelli-ex-ceo-of-aarp-1005380/

Then he was on the fiscal commission and Obama addressed at a conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56uxiLpZ9qc

AARP simply said they had ALWAYS had that position of going along with SS cuts. They really did not deny it.

[TheKentuckian]

61. Isn't the AARP to United Health Care like Mountain Dew os to Pepsi?

I know they sure as hell have a lot of policies both supplements to Parts A&B and Part D running through UHC.

Regardless of the ownership, they seem to be partnered with the industry.

I think for the past several decades they have been propping up the industry by keeping expensive customers out of their pools, leading to a soft subsidy to the industry but now they are growing greedy for numbers and more direct government subsidies created by the Wealth Care and Profit Protection Act and they figure between 10% of everyone's incomes and a key to the treasury with no caps that now is the time to take on all but the very most undesirable customers.

This thing will turn into one of the most hard core raw deals in history.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

74. In 2008 AARP Services received $652,000,000 in royalties from insurance companies

they get more money from royalties for helping United Health and Aetna sell health insurance (and Hartford Life, Auto and Home owners) then selling memberships.

See page 5 (insuance royalties) and remember increments are in thousands.
$656,975 actually is $656,975,000 thats nearly $657 MILLION

http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/cs/misc/2009_aarp_consolidated_financial_statements_12_31_09.pdf

[Mimosa]

65. Thank you for the news, MadFloridian

If it weren't for your topics... I sometimes think D.U. would be a 'conservative' board. We need reminding of what policies we should be fighting for. The democratic party isn't a fan club to elect the 'popular kids.' We are fighting for our lives!