kgblogz

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Wednesday, 14 November 2012 09:36

(Video) Kent Conrad Endorses 3 Cuts To Social Security At The Wall Street Journal CEO Council [01:00]

By:  Comfortably Numb

This is as good as it gets, when it comes to having the Bowles-Simpson “recommendations” for cutting Social Security articulated in a public forum.

[Conrad says that "he is speaking for himself."]

Here’s the transcript:

TIMELINE

00:00:00 THE SOLVENCY OF SOCIAL SECURITY ITSELF.

00:00:05 >> THAT IS DONEHOW?

00:00:07 >> IT WILL BE DONE IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS TO EARN ONE OF THE WAYS IT IS WE WILL EXTEND THE CAP IN TERMS OF WHAT INCOME IS EXPOSED FOR FUNDING SOCIAL SECURITY.

00:00:22 THE AGE WILL BE EXTENDED OVER AN EXTENDED A PERIOD OF TIME.

00:00:28 AND A TECHNICAL WAY OF DETERMINING WHAT SOCIAL SECURITY PAYOUTS ARE. [My Words: The Big Kahuna: “Means Testing.”]

00:00:33 AND THERE WILL BE AN INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.

00:00:38 CURRENTLY, THE INFLATION ADJUSTMENT IS DONE AND WITH THAT MOST ECONOMISTS SAY IS NOT FULLY ACCURATE.

00:00:45 >> ADJUSTMENT TO THE ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT?

00:00:48 >> CORRECT.

00:00:49 I THINK ALL OF THOSE WOULD BE FACTORS.

Last modified on Wednesday, 22 January 2014 01:51

Related Video

comments  

 
0
[-] OldFatGuy 2012-11-14 10:17   (permalink)
Everybody that voted for Obama should be proud. They are going to OWN all of this.

Cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid. Republicans dreams, and democrats OWN it.

So fucking stupid words can't describe. "Yeah, we voted for Obama cause Rmoney would've cut it more." Or my favorite, "we voted for Obama for the Supreme Court choices."

Yeah, cause we most definitely want the guy that fought for and signed a bill saying President's can arrest and detain anyone, anywhere, including US citizens in the US, without charges or right to counsel, indefinitely and who claims the right to also assassinate anyone anywhere as the guy picking Supreme Court justices. Yep, he's the one we want picking judges.

Wear all this well Obama voters. You own it all and should be proud.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] kgb999 2012-11-14 12:00   (permalink)
Replying to: OldFatGuy
Didn't the Obama campaign very specifically and explicitly promise not to cut Social Security?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] OldFatGuy 2012-11-14 12:24   (permalink)
Replying to: kgb999
Joe Biden did.

I'm not sure Joe Biden saying anything gets taken serious anymore though.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-15 13:52   (permalink)
Replying to: OldFatGuy
Hey, OFG--

Reference Joe Biden's "promise" on Social Security, take a gander at the following two articles:

Washington Post editorial piece entitled, "Mr. Biden's Social Security Promise."

and

this AP piece with the "walk back" of Biden's statement, that didn't make it into the mainstream news "noise machine." It's entitled (of all things) "Dems Slam Ryan Over Social Security Privatization."

Here's an excerpt:
  • "I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security," Biden told the customer, according to a White House pool report. "I flat guarantee you."

    A Biden adviser said later the vice president was merely reassuring the woman that her benefits would not be changed. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue.

    Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher said the president "has put forward a set of principles to guide bipartisan action to strengthen it for future generations. Rather than laying the groundwork for a bipartisan approach as the president has done, Mitt Romney's only solution would mean deep benefit cuts for future retirees. His running mate, Paul Ryan was an architect of privatization."


Talk about Kabuki Theater. ;-)|
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] OldFatGuy 2012-11-14 11:20   (permalink)
What we need is a significant enough contingency of Democrats (HA!) in Congress to get together, and come up with a realistic and thought out, complete with numbers, proposal to increase Social Security benefits and lowering it's age, along with increases to Medicaid and Medicare, with paying for it by strictly taxing the rich.

Then maybe the end result might at least be what we have now.

The Republicans do this all the time. Start out way to the right of where they want to be, then get to somewhere they were ok with from the start. While Obama (and Democrats in general) always respond by moving towards them. Just ONCE, just ONCE I would like to see it work the other way around.

So come on "progressive caucus" in the House. Get yourselves together, grab 8 or 10 Senators to go with you, and seriously propose lowering the Social Security age to 60 immediately (as a way of clearing open new jobs), increasing slowly back up to say 65 (to show this is a one time thing to help the economy), and increase the size of the benefits. Do this by completely doing away with the cap on income subject to social security AND implementing a cap on benefits (that is obviously much higher than today's).

You do this right, I guarantee you the American public will side with you and maybe, just maybe, you'll at least avoid further cuts to the damn program. And who knows, maybe you'll even win a bit of increase...... you idiots should actually try fighting for something, you might find you win once in awhile.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-14 12:03   (permalink)
Replying to: OldFatGuy
OFG--

Thanks for your replies. I'm in a major time crunch now, but will share my thoughts later.

Later--

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-15 20:25   (permalink)
Replying to: OldFatGuy
KGB--

You may have seen my quick reply to OFG.

What remains when I click on the hyperlink to the "clip" that I created, it no longer opens.

Are you okay with this post remaining up?

I made this link from the 3-hour C-Span [morning call-in] program called Washington Journal.

Saw on C-Span earlier today, that the entire 2-day conference was posted online.

Please advise, when you get a chance. Hope I've not made a problem for anyone.

Thanks--

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-15 20:41   (permalink)
Replying to: OldFatGuy
OFG--

Here's the thing about the Congressional Progressive Caucus--they've sort of sold out. From what I saw on a blog, they didn't even want to see the question of Bowles-Simpson brought up during the election debates.

My guess is, they knew that the Dem candidates wouldn't repudiate Bowles-Simpson, or Simpson-Bowles, whatever. There was an article in Politico about this, if I remember correctly.

So, somehow I don't expect them to do anything that goes against the Administration. [But maybe your comments were a bit of snark. ;-)| ]

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] OldFatGuy 2012-11-16 14:17   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
Sort of sold out? Isn't that like saying someone is sort of pregnant? :-)|

Yeah, I know most of the PC has sold out, but damn there should be at least a handful who could come up with a good counter proposal.

But they never do, so the debate is always between the status quo and something worse. And therefore the outcome is always at best the status quo and usually something worse.

The second one of these right wing assholes comes up with an idea to make something worse, someone should come up with another that makes it better, so that the debate can be between something better and something worse.

That they never do this is more proof that they've sold out, but for some strange reason D voters either don't grasp that or don't care, and I'm not sure which is worse.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-16 14:41   (permalink)
Replying to: OldFatGuy
There should be. But as far as I can tell, all the major organizations (including AARP--they inviited the likes of former CBO Director David Walker to a meeting sometime this past summer) are led by "phoney liberals," and only use the members to rally behind corrupt Democratic politicians.

Schultz is beyond disgusting, IMO. Can't even figure out how he fools so many people.

Sorry if I sound very negative. It's only because I have truly given up on the Democratic Party. They're beyond redemption.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Lazy KGB 2012-11-14 11:52   (permalink)
Kent Conrad gives Kents the world over a bad name. For this, and so many other things, he truly is a first-rate asshole.

Conrad has always served as one of Obama's primary tools used to undermine Reid and the legislative caucus - he's the president's personal filibusterer.

After a bit of posturing, we can assume Conrad's stance will be the President's ultimate position .... but, then we kind of already knew that. Obama has been trying to ram this exact prescription through since the 2010 lame-duck session.

I think the only prayer we have is if the congressional caucus balks again ... they're the ones who are most vulnerable to voter backlash, and they know damn well how politically toxic it is to be viewed as dismantling the programs.

Lindsey Graham laid it out months ago ... they want to ram this stuff through in the post-election session when many former members will be heading home (and looking for that next "consulting" gig) with everyone else at least far enough from election to feel there will be time for anger to fade. He even clearly stated that both parties have tried to cultivate candidates who are on board - for the specifically stated reason to ensure the voters would ultimately have no choice but to vote for someone supporting the policy.

As far as this fight goes ... between now and the holiday recess is the period when all of these programs face a long-planned assault.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] OldFatGuy 2012-11-14 12:00   (permalink)
Replying to: Lazy KGB
Quote:
he truly is a first-rate asshole.


I would like to second that emotion.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-14 12:11   (permalink)
Replying to: Lazy KGB
KGB--

You may have seen my quick reply to OFG.

What remains when I click on the hyperlink to the "clip" that I created, is this message:

THIS PROGRAM IS NOT AVAILABLE TO VIEW OR PURCHASE

Are you okay with this post remaining up?

I made this link from the 3-hour C-Span [morning call-in] program called Washington Journal.

Saw on C-Span earlier today, that the entire 2-day conference was posted online.

Please advise, when you get a chance. Hope I've not made a problem for anyone.

Thanks--

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] kgb999 2012-11-14 12:22   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
Oh, heck yeah leave it up. As of right now, your embed (on this page) still works and I've verified that your transcription is 100% accurate. (and took the liberty of making a quick capture of the audio on my cell phone. ;-). I guess they just broke the links but haven't really removed the video from their server ... yet.

{NOTE: Watch it while you can folks!}

If they really are taking the video offline (and they've done it a few times before) this may be one of the few records of that asshole being so clear about the Democrats' intent.

If anything, I'd encourage you to do a complete transcript so it includes the part about "bend points" ... because ... holy crap. That sucks.

Good catch.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-14 13:16   (permalink)
Replying to: kgb999
I'll try to get that done, kgb. And, thanks.

I actually "clipped" the 1:00 segment out of C-span's own call-in show video (not the original video).

The original is still up (and there were numerous segments, other than Senator Conrad's, which are still up).

My thought is that I should try to Tweet this short version, and then attempt to see if several progressive websites would be interested in also posting the Tweet.

Thanks--

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-14 13:21   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
KGB--

Would it be "risky" technically to try to even copy and paste this embed code to a Tweet?

IOW, could copying the embed code, make this site's video inoperable somehow?

I don't want to risk that.

Also, would you be concerned about sharing this (through Twitter). Obviously, I won't, if you think it would not be a good idea. Just thought I'd ask. Don't know anytihing at all about "technical stuff."

Thanks--

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] kgb999 2012-11-14 19:09   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
I don't think you want to put the embed code in a tweet, necessarily. Not that it would do anything wrong per-se, it's just that it would be difficult for anyone on the other end to make the code "work" ... you kind of need a web page in which to embed embed code in order to see the video, if that makes sense.

But no, doing that wouldn't make it stop working here.

I'm not at all familiar with the C-Span tools (they sound pretty cool though), but it's starting to seem like you may just be having tech trouble with your C-Span account in general. When C-Span removes something, usually the video just disappears and there's a blank spot on the page where it should be. The fact that the video's still up and the embed code works, makes me wonder.

Do they have a support email where you can ask them WTF?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] kgb999 2012-11-14 19:28   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
You seem concerned about doing something wrong, or even illegal. Just curious, what are you worried about in terms of laws? What has you all freaked out to the point of near self-censorship?

There's nothing illegal about spreading around a link to a specific bit of video ... especially if it's even hosted on the content creator's own site.

And there is certainly nothing illegal about transcribing as much of a conversation as you want to for the purpose of political discussion, education, etc. Same with copying quotes from articles (or, in some cases, even full articles). Or making video snippets. All of that is fair use. For example, people put snippets of the folks of Fox news being stupid on YouTube all the time... I don't see any reason CSpan should be any different.

Any way it goes, unless you start full-on pirating stuff, the worst penalty you're looking at is someone files a DMCA notice and whatever it is being contested must be taken down (until you respond with a "Oh HELL no! FAIR USE FAIR USE FAIR USE!" in a challenge). I imagine C-Span is one of the less likely places to pursue copyright on minute-long snippets.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-14 19:43   (permalink)
Replying to: kgb999
Hey, KGB--

Am I beginning to sound like I'm wearing a "tin foil hat?" :lol: Sorry, if I am.

Oh, I have found a "comment form," sort of like an internal message system.

Oh, one thing I haven't tried today, is going back to the source, and just making another clip like this one.

If it is just a glitch, it would probably work, no problem.

Thanks a bunch for answering my concerns. I hope to post a video of Grover Norquist on tax reform, soon.

I'll let you know in a couple of days if I was able to remake a clip. You're probably right that it's a technical glitch.

Thanks.

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-15 09:54   (permalink)
Replying to: kgb999
KGB--

Would it bother you if I create a Tweet with a link to the post above?

Please let me know when you get a chance. I think that I'll create a Tweet, to see if I can incorporate the actual post link (maybe I can't--I do know). It may not work--I don't know.

But I won't "send" Tweet until you let me know what you think about the idea.

Thanks.

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Lazy KGB 2012-11-15 10:06   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
Of course there is no problem with promoting your diary through twitter (or any other means).

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about wanting to highlight an elected official's public statements. Nothing. That is why we have the 1st Amendment.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-15 10:09   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Lazy KGB 2012-11-15 10:55   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
I don't know enough about the C-Span system to speculate.

If I get a bit of free time, I'll sign up to try playing with the tools and see what happens.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-15 11:45   (permalink)
Replying to: Lazy KGB
Thanks so much, kgb.

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-14 13:29   (permalink)
KGB--

One more
last thing (hah!).

I used the "clipping tool" that C-Span provides for that purpose. Anyway, that's what this account allows you to do. Make clips, and save them and full programs for your reference.

Just thought that I'd clarify this.

Oh, and no, Obama and the Dems only promised to protect and strengthen Social Security, and TO NOT PRIVATIZE IT!!

They said nothing about not "slashing" it. :sad:

CN
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] kgb999 2012-11-14 19:33   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
Soooo .... in Obamaland, protecting = slashing?

Interesting interpretation of language hath the modern Politicrat.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-14 19:50   (permalink)
Replying to: kgb999
Yeah, it's very interesting.

Honestly, almost all the Republican and Democratic leadership is now talking about "austerity" as though it is a jobs package!! The gall.

True, their intention is to use some of this money for projects, but undoubtedly, it will depress demand. So how on earth can it help create jobs?

Remember, the Brits (and the Greeks) at least told their populace what they were going to do.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Comfortably Numb 2012-11-14 19:51   (permalink)
Replying to: Comfortably Numb
BTW, the email notification works great. Thanks.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0
[-] Coster 2014-09-08 15:25   (permalink)
When someone writes an piece of writing he/she keeps the image
of a user in his/her mind that how a user can understand it.

So that's why this piece of writing is great. Thanks!


Once they have got already practice this beautiful art of writing
it'll eventually utilize something they can make money
from whenever they want. There are numerous guidelines, books and sources for the internet to learn regarding the specifics
of each one type. Car games online here: http://shinaat.net/xe/?document_srl=2408659 Think of
an time within the recent past when something changed inside your life and you also
were unsure concerning the consequences of the might follow.
Add an intro sentence along with a conclusion, and also you've likely got a 300 word article.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

English

Latest Comments