Brownshirts
The Clinton campaign has been strangely remiss in not publicizing the Trump campaign’s aggressive screening of journalists at Trump’s events—especially its denial of press credentials to several news media organizations, including the Washington Post and Politico.
But this report by Paul Farhi, the Washington Post’s media reporter, this morning, titled “Post reporter barred, patted down by police, at rally for Trump running mate,” but published in the Post’s Style section for whatever reason, is out of early 1930s Europe:
Donald Trump’s campaign has denied press credentials to a number of disfavored media organizations, including The Washington Post, but on Wednesday, the campaign of his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, went even further.
At Pence’s first public event since he was introduced as the Republican vice-presidential candidate two weeks ago, a Post reporter was barred from entering the venue after security staffers summoned local police to pat him down in a search for his cellphone.
Pence’s campaign expressed embarrassment and regret about the episode, which an official blamed on overzealous campaign volunteers.
Post reporter Jose A. DelReal sought to cover Pence’s rally at theWaukesha County Exposition Center outside Milwaukee, but he was turned down for a credential beforehand by volunteers at a press check-in table.
DelReal then tried to enter via the general-admission line, as Post reporters have done without incident since Trump last month banned the newspaper from his events. He was stopped there by a private security official who told him he couldn’t enter the building with his laptop and cellphone. When DelReal asked whether others attending the rally could enter with their cellphones, he said the unidentified official replied, “Not if they work for The Washington Post.”
Donald Trump’s running mate has been in public office since 2000, mostly in Congress, and is a favorite among social conservatives.
After placing his computer and phone in his car, DelReal returned to the line and was detained again by security personnel, who summoned two county sheriff’s deputies. The officers patted down DelReal’s legs and torso, seeking his phone, the reporter said.
When the officers — whom DelReal identified as Deputy John Lappley and Capt. Michelle Larsuel — verified that he wasn’t carrying a phone, the reporter asked to be admitted. The security person declined. “He said, ‘I don’t want you here. You have to go,’ ” DelReal said.
The security person wouldn’t give his name when DelReal asked him to identify himself. He also denied DelReal’s request to speak to a campaign press representative as he escorted the journalist out.
Officials of the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department were unavailable for comment Wednesday night.
Trump has banned nearly a dozen news organizations whose coverage has displeased him, but reporters have generally been able to cover his events by going through general admission lines.
The incident involving DelReal marks another in a series of run-ins between the news media and the campaign.
In June, Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger was ejected from a Trump event in San Jose by a campaign staffer and a private security guard after he tried to cover the rally without the campaign’s permission. In February, a photojournalist from Time magazine, Christopher Morris,was roughed up by a Secret Service agent as journalists rushed to cover a protest at one of his rallies. And Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, yanked and bruised the arm of a reporter for Breitbart News, Michelle Fields, when she tried to question Trump after a speech in March.
DelReal’s experience on Wednesday elicited a rebuke from Post Executive Editor Martin Baron.
“First, press credentials for The Washington Post were revoked by Donald Trump,” he said. “Now, law enforcement officers, in collusion with private security officials, subjected a reporter to bullying treatment that no ordinary citizen has to endure. All of this took place in a public facility no less. The harassment of an independent press isn’t coming to an end. It’s getting worse.”
Officials from the Pence campaign initially said they were unaware of the Waukesha incident when asked for comment Wednesday night. But after a cursory investigation, one official, who declined to speak on the record, said that no members of the campaign’s staff were involved. He said volunteers went too far.
“It sounds like they misinterpreted what they were supposed to be doing,” the official said. “This is not our policy.”
In a statement, Pence press secretary Marc Lotter said, “Our events are open to everyone, and we are looking into the alleged incident.”
“It sounds like they misinterpreted what they were supposed to be doing,” the official said? “This is not our policy?”
Some of them were doing what they were supposed to be doing—the volunteers at the press check-in table, for example. Others surely knew that they were doing something they weren’t supposed to be doing, because they are public law enforcement officials, yet they did it anyway.
And then there is that middle category—the private security people—whose interpretation of what they were supposed to be doing wasn’t mere happenstance.
I don’t know who other than Clinton and her daughter will be speaking tonight in the primetime hours. But I sure hope this night, with so many millions of people watching, will tell the public about this. Even maybe someone who isn’t scheduled to speak tonight, and who could just take the stage to do that and only that.
My preference would be Bernie Sanders. Or Elizabeth Warren. But really, almost anyone could do it effectively. It would take only about five minutes—and could be profoundly informative to so many people who don’t know about this.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but Bernie would be particularly effective, given his father’s family’s losses in the Holocaust. And Elizabeth Warren would be because she could note, with some authority notwithstanding that although a former Harvard law professor she did not teach constitutional law, that what we undoubtedly are looking at if Trump is elected is a series of profound constitutional crises.
This is stunningly important stuff, folks.
____
UPDATE: Can’t decide whether this is equally important, but it isn’t stunning. In the least.
Then again, New Jersey isn’t all that far from Virginia. And they both have to worry about hurricanes during the hurricane season!
Okay, I won’t make you click that link. Trump said on Twitter last night that Tim Kaine was a lousy governor of New Jersey. I presume Trump’s complaint is that Kaine didn’t show up much for work there.
Added 7/28 at 11:24 a.m.
It certainly looks churlish of Trump to bar selected news outfits, but I understand the impulse. Years ago I decided that if a space ship landed in my back yard, I’d allow anybody in except for the New York Times and Indianapolis Star. These days I’d add the Washington Post to the list.
Just an extension of what started with the Bush Cheney campaigning. Pushing that window, they are.
Bloomberg last night: Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy.
Made me laugh.
The public Trump is appealing to could not care less how badly Trump treata the press, especially not the snooty, EasternTimes and Post. For them, its a feature, not a bug.
How the Clinton campaign handles it requires a lot of thought.
urban
don’t count on it. a lot of people are not as well informed as you might think.
all you can do is tell them what is happening and hope the better angels of our nature…
I know Zachary Smith’s comment was tongue-in-cheek but it’s not a matter of simply being churlish; a major party candidate for President of the United States is punishing a news outlet for critical coverage – and the Washington Post isn’t Breitbart News. There’s a reason they call a free press the Fourth Estate. There’s a reason why freedom of the press was included in the very first Amendment protecting minority rights against the potential tyranny of the majority. It’s one thing for a businessman, a private but powerful citizen, to punish People mag., for example; it’s entirely something else for a candidate to do it. As he acts, so shall he govern.
At the news conference the other day he told one persistent reporter, I think with the NYT, to “be quiet.” He mocked a reporter with an excellent reputation for his disability. Throughout the primaries he penned the press into one small area segregated from the crowd – they were actually prohibited from mixing with the crowd – and constantly used the press as a target: “I hate them. I wouldn’t kill them, but I hate them.” The crowds would turn their attention to the press and all but attack them. One reporter was knocked to the ground when she was overly-persistent. He has talked of rewriting libel laws to make it easier to sue the press. In May Bob Woodward announced the Post was assigning 20 reporters to investigate Trump’s life, a public obligation regarding a candidate with a shady business history now running for the Presidency. Trump’s response was that, if elected, he would go after Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, for taxes (Nixon’s weaponized IRS) and anti-trust (Nixon’s weaponized Justice Dept.). As he acts, so shall he govern.
The other part of Zachary Smith’s tongue-in-cheek comment about understanding the “impulse” to bar news outlets actually demonstrates, when the humor is extracted, another alarming dark aspect of this human turd. A two-year old has impulse control problems, but Trump is a 70-year old with the same problem, one who would be given the nuclear codes. This is most definitely not hyperbole but a deadly serious personality deficiency.
When Trump met with GOP House members he was asked pointedly if he would defend Article I of the Constitution. “Not only will I stand up for Article One,” Trump enthusiastically stated, according to the member in the room. “I’ll stand up for Article Two, Article 12, you name it of the Constitution.” There only 7 Articles of the Constitution. It’s not just that he’s ignorant about the Constitution and has never read it; it’s not just that he’s willing to say anything and do anything, including lie more often than he passes gas; but given the demonstrable way he scorns First Amendment rights of a free press, he obviously scorns the Constitution. If elected and an objection was raised by staff about the constitutionality of one action or another, who can’t reasonably imagine him saying, “Fuck the Constitution?” I wouldn’t be surprised to see him actually re-brand the Constitution as “Trump Toilet Paper.”
The surrealism of his campaign has surreally insulated him from normality. But, in fact, he is a direct threat to the Republic and the Constitutional order. I lived through Watergate. Trump would spend his entire term litigating before the Supreme Court and denigrating the Court for whatever reason he happened to stumble upon in that split second in time of what passes for Trump’s thought process. He is a direct threat to the Republic and all Constitutional order the likes of which we’ve never seen in American History.
As he acts, so shall he govern.
Ms 57, I could not agree with you more and you did not even mention his overt pleas to the racists and white supremacists. I have a number of Republican friends who have determined they will not vote for Trump. I have not yet convinced them to vote for Hillary but if you genuinely see Trump as a threat to the Constitution, I do not see how you can avoid that conclusion. I certainly defend your and all of the protestors during the DNC to object to Hillary and to testify that you will not vote for her, but you should recognize that it undercuts the effectiveness of your critique of Trump.
Well, this is certainly going to be interesting, because of $$$. Trump/Pence is the official Presidential campaign of the Republican Party. Have they decided to eschew any and all funding from the Presidential election funding which the Federal government makes available. I haven’t heard they’ve decided to go that route, especially since Trump and the RNC seem to be hurting financially. That makes ALL events like this one not just Trump private events like they were BEFORE the convention, but public events open to all, everyone, funded by every damned tax payer of any sort in the US. They might be able to refuse the reporter the right to take his equipment in for some fabricated reason, but his person they can’t deny, so long as it will be safe for the candidate. Make the Trump campaign surrender another source of funding for disseminating their propaganda and make them cry.
This could have been so damning regarding trump except for the significant beam(s) in the DNCs eyes. Do I have to point to examples of delegates being denied credentials and access because of opposition to TPP or support for Palestinian human rights? Or the way the chair of the committee has been acknowledged to manipulate the media and process in favor of the nominee, only to be rewarded with an honorary chairmanship of her campaign? Okay I won’t bother then.
“As she acts so shall she govern” Let the gravy train of elite privilege roll on!
The New Jersey governor comment is somewhat disturbing. Tom Kean served as governor from 1982 to 1990. For Trump to confuse Kean with Kaine may be signs of early dementia, or at the least, a very disorganized brain.
On the other hand, Trump does belong to the political party that can’t tell the difference between the Honduras flag and the pin worn by families of American military service members.
With friends like these…..
“The Clinton campaign has been strangely remiss ‘
“What Bill and Hillary Clinton Don’t Get: ”
“Throughout Clinton’s campaign pundits and ordinary voters alike have wondered what exactly her justification is for running for president.”
“And Hillary Clinton’s decision to choose Kaine suggests what I, and I know many other progressives, fear: that she is manipulated by her husband to an unnerving extent.”
“She’s clueless. Downright hopeless.”
There are many, many more.
Just frightening.
Nothing shows the duplicitous of the present democratic party as the convention this year. Not only was the agenda for what the party would represent, was denied a floor vote and was decided behind closed doors and even the normal nominating process was denied a floor vote.
I hope everyone is as angry as I am about sending funds to support the travel to the convention of Bernie delegates.
40 years of “we’re not progressives but vote for us because were are not so bad as ……….
I stopped!
Beene
at the extreme risk of being misunderstood:
“nothing shows…” that the person speaking can’t remember or imagine “other” evidence, contratictory or supportive, better than the expression “nothing shows…”
i think the problem with the dem convention is that we can’t be sure they meant a word of it. we’ll find out. i hope that they did.
meanwhile, while i lost hope for the democrats about the time Obama appointed a committee headed by Alan Simpson to look into ways to destroy Social Security
but i never found a solid reason to hope the supporters of Bernie were capable of actually governing,… much less understanding why “Social Security works.” (hint: it ain’t paid for by “the rich.”)
just a lot of brown-shirtedism going around these days
the folks who wrote the Constitution understood the dangers of simple democracy and tried to devise a system of checks and balances that would allow democracy to work by slowing it down a bit.
as far as I could see the “progressives” got a hearing, certainly got their “demands” expressed in prime time by the Candidate, and even reminded by Obama that what they needed to do next was to organize and work for the reforms they believe in. a very hard task, but i don’t think he was being cynical.
it’s I who am cynical about the left even understanding the need to respect the feelings and rights of those they don’t agree with. no different from the right, actually.
From Robert Reich: Seven legacies from Bernie’s campaign.
“First, Bernie has helped open America’s eyes to the power of big money corrupting our democracy and thereby rigging our economy to its advantage and everyone else’s disadvantage.
Polls now show huge majorities of Americans think moneyed interests have too much sway in Washington. And thanks, in large part, to Bernie’s campaign, progressives on Capitol Hill are readying a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and bills requiring full disclosure of donors, ending gerrymandering, and providing automatic voter registration.
None of these will get anywhere in a Republican-controlled Congress, but they will give progressives a powerful theme for the upcoming election. It’s called democracy.
Second, Bernie has shown that it’s possible to win elections without depending on big money from corporations, Wall Street, and billionaires. He came close to winning the Democratic nomination on the basis of millions of small donations from average working people. No longer can a candidate pretend to believe in campaign finance reform but say they have to take big money because their opponent does.
Third, Bernie has educated millions of Americans about why we must have a single-payer health-care system and free tuition at public universities, and why we must resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act and bust up the biggest banks. These issues will be front and center in every progressive campaign from here out, at all levels of American politics.
Fourth, the Sanders campaign has brought millions of young people into politics, ignited their energy and enthusiasm and idealism.
Fifth, the movement Bernie ignited has pushed Hillary Clinton to take more progressive positions on issues ranging from the minimum wage to the Trans Pacific Partnership, the XL Pipeline, Wall Street, and Social Security.
Sixth, he’s taught Americans how undemocratic the Democratic Party’s system for picking candidates really is. Before Bernie’s candidacy, not many people were paying attention to so-called “super-delegates” or whether independents could vote, or how primary elections and caucuses were run. From now on, people will pay attention. And the Democratic National Committee will be under pressure to make fundamental changes.
Seventh is the real possibility Bernie has inspired of a third party – if the Democratic Party doesn’t respond to the necessity of getting big money out of politics and reversing widening inequality, if it doesn’t begin to advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, or push hard for higher taxes on the wealthy – including a wealth tax – to pay for better education and better opportunities for everyone else, if it doesn’t expand Social Security and lift the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax, if it doesn’t bust up the biggest banks and strengthen antitrust laws, and expand voting rights.
If it doesn’t act on these critical issues. the Democratic Party will become irrelevant to the future of America, and a third party will emerge to address them.”
That’s something to be proud of. It is a surging tide destined to strike back at Republican reactionaries across the board.
All of that will wither on the vine if Trump is elected. There is only one choice to stop that from happening. That’s just the way it is. Stop Trump first, fall back, reorganize with “Our Revolution,” resume the offensive.
No third party. We’ve taken over the Democratic Party. We–the Sanders supporters–have lost the battle but won the war.
On domestic policy. Not on foreign policy, I do understand.
MS
perhaps
but when you call for raising the cap on SS, or “expanding” it with a tax on the rich
you are calling for the destruction of Social Security, which works precisely because it is not a tax on the rich.
and it’s not necessary: Social Security can pay for itself… that is the workers can pay for it themselves by increasing their conttibution to their own retirement fund (called the payroll tax) by about a dollar per week.
given that the bad guys already call SS “welfare” and pretend that it is a tax on “the young”, and the democrats put their fingers in their ears and refuse to hear that the workers do now and can always pay for it themselves, i am not so sure that it really adds to the tragedy that the “progressives” are trying to destroy Social Security by demanding that the rich pay for it. but i can always hope for a day when the people who demand policy changes actually know what they are talking about.
Social Security is a national program equally available to all citizens. The responsibility to maintain the Social Security System — or the military or maintaining the Interstate highway system or port security or a thousand other programs — ought to be borne equally by all citizens.
As all legislation, from speed bumps to tax policy, is social engineering, the very fact that a cap on contributions exists in the first place is self-evidently a measure to protect the rich from their responsibility to bear equally the burden of maintaining the government.
The rich are not a special class of citizens to be exempted from their responsibilities as citizens.
ms
i am sorry that you allow your ideology to trump actually bothering to find out what social security is, how it works, and why it was designed to work that way.
but here is a hint for you: for generations american workers have been proud to be able to say “i paid for it myself” about their social security.
and when Franklin Roosevelt insisted that SS be worker paid, and not the dole, he said “so no damn politician can take it away from them.
he did not reckon with the persistence of damn politicians or the stupidity of those who think they are defending the workers.
Coberly,
I actually live on Social Security Disability, and every time I face down some reactionary creep about being “a drag on society” or a “freeloader,” the first thing I mention is that I paid into the system for 34 years.
I don’t need a condescending lecture from you about how “generations of American workers have been proud to be able to say ‘I paid for it myself’.”
Ms
you don’t need a condescending lecture. but you do need some education.
you are collecting an insurance benefit. you talk like you’d rather be getting welfare.
those reactionary creeps think you are getting welfare… and there’d be nothing wrong with that if that was all there was. but there is worker paid insurance, and that is much much better. the “rich” actually do pay their fair share… they pay for exactly as much insurance as they get. the fact that they end up “rich” (that is they didn’t have the fire) means that they don’t get the insurance benefit… but oddly enough, they do get all their money back adjusted for inflation, and most of them get at least a little bit more.
the people who have the fire…. end up poor after a lifetime of work, or disabled, or die with dependents… get the insurance benefit which is a lot more than they paid in… the extra coming mostly from the “interest” that those who end up rich don’t get quite as much of.
when you call for raising the cap, or expanding SS by taxing the rich, you are callling for turning SS into welfare, and i guarantee those reactionary creeps will see to it that you collect less, and are made to suffer before you can collect it.
but hey, it sounds so good to say “make the rich pay their fair share” without knowing a damn thing about it.
You say “I don’t need a condescending lecture,” then immediately proceed to condescend to educate me.
You say I talk like I’d rather be on welfare, even though I said nothing about welfare and nothing about what I’d prefer to be. What I would prefer to be, since you asked, is healthy and earning a living.
I say “the rich,” I’m ideological. You say “worker,” you’re not ideological. If I were to propose exempting those who make less than $120,000 from FICA tax, you would say ideological. You endorse exempting those who make more than $120,00 from the 6.7% tax rate, but that’s not ideological.
And just how is it that your definition of “worker” ceases to apply when one who is gainfully employed reaches the totally arbitrary income level of $120,000. Are they not also workers, or do they thereafter become “a special class of citizens to be exempted from their responsibilities as citizens?”
62% of SS recipients are the young, the old and the disabled. From where is that child supposed to derive the pride to say “I paid into that program?” For the widow of the farmworker who receives $700 a month and finds herself scraping together her last $18.72 and trying to decide between buying meds., buying gas or buying food, any notion of pride is a ridiculous, alien absurdity.
The exemption of those who make more than $120,000 from the 6.7% tax on income is pure – and purely indefensible – ideology.
Well I have to agree that was despicable behavior.
But then Ol Hill stated that she wanted to amend the first amendment, just sayin’
Ms
I’ve invested a lot in Social Security (i’m not talking about my payroll taxes) and I get tired of people who talk about it without knowing what they are talking about. If you feel condescended to because someone who knows about something tell you that you don’t, there isn’t much they can do about it except leave you to your ignorance.
You don’t have to say anything about welfare to sound like you would rather be on welfare.
Your ideology appears to be “make the rich pay, it’s only fair.”
I use the word “worker” to mean, well, the workers who work and pay their social security contribution … it is a mandatory insurance and savings contribution, but you can call it a tax if you like. The difference though is that a “tax” goes to pay for “government expenses.” The workers get their FICA contributions back, with interest, and a bonus if they have the “insured event” which in your case is disability, in some cases is dying with dependents, and in most cases is reaching retirement age without having made enough to have saved enough to provide for basic living expenses when they can no longer work.
i can’t follow all the free associations that you think is thinking. I have tried to start some thoughts, or some reasons for thinking, but you’d rather feel like i owe you something because i hurt your feelings because i think you don’t know enough about Social Security to be saying the things you say about it.
but you’re not the only one.
This topic brings to mind…
“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it’s nothing but wires and lights in a box.”
We have a lot of wires and light.
Coberly, was very polite and instructive.
Yes Bernie’s’ delegates were only heard as they refused to be silenced, and there were too many to be forced. Still many did walk out of the convention, and some did force themselves on the media tent at the convention; so yes they were heard in a fashion.
I am mostly a two issue person, trade and currency creation; pay little attention to anything else. Had not thought or paid much attention to policies that might affect or threaten SS. I am surprised at the number of people who are not aware it’s a simple insurance program that each worker pays his own way. Plus if those who want to end SS would be able to make a better argument if it was a welfare program.
Yes, we have a bill of rights that does protect us all from the mob; forcing change to take more time.
But, regardless even the mob understands our trade deals have been bad and getting worse. So to have Hillary as our candidate is not slow change; it’s no change at all. Hillary is no different than Bill who would not fight for programs that he knew would hurt the people who put him in office.
We can grade Hillary on most anything and find her wanting in duty to office or charity to others.
“We can grade Hillary on most anything and find her wanting in duty to office or charity to others.”
Um, not if your IQ is above single digits.
So I came back to this and have to weigh in on the social security issue. It is my understanding, perhaps mistaken, that if the cap was raised again, it would men that the folks who paid in at the higher level would see an increase in the benefits they received when they drew on social security. In other words raising the cap, without changing the basic system that you get back what you paid in with a little interest kicker if you die at the right time, has little to do with changing the long term actuarial solvency of the system. Now perhaps Ms. 57 does want to change the basic system and have the rich subsidize the program. Nothing wrong with that, but it would be a much harder sell as the Sanders supporters found
Beene
i couldn’t tell if you were being ironic about my being polite.
funny thing is i agree with most of what you and even Ms are saying.
but when i disagree what usually happens is i get a condescending lecture about being condescending
for some reason that makes me less polite. although even there i strive to be kind more than you might realize.
i have not noticed that “polite” and “kind” are reliable features of blog-talk, and i have found that no matter how much i try to be “polite” i almost always fail in the end. it is not only a character flaw, it is counterproductive. but i think it’s funny as hell to get lectured about my failure to be polite by people who don’t even know that they are failing to be polite.
Terry
raising the cap without raising the benefits of the rich would reduce the SS “deficit” by about a third. So instead of needing to raise the workers “tax” (savings for his own retirement) by a dollar a week, you would only have to raise it by sixty cents a week.
i think it is beyond laughable, it’s a kind of insanity, to risk Social Security in order to save “the poor” sixty cents a week.
of course there are other ways to “fix” the SS “deficit” (not to be confused with the Federal deficit… though people do like to confuse them.. or you) but even saving “the poor” (actually the poor would only see their “tax” increase about half a dollar a week because the tax is bases on how much they earn)… but even saving the poor a dollar a week, or saving them from having to pay anything at all for Social Security would make NO practical difference in their standard of living but would expose them to what the bad guys would turn SS into if they were paying for all of it, or even merely a lot more than they are paying now…. welfare is an ugly business.
maybe they do it better in Europe, but we are not Europe and the history of politics in America doesn’t suggest any reason to believe we will become like Europe in the forseeable future.
and anyone who thinks my manners are bad needs to see the emails i get from the people claiming to be “for” the poor.
Coberly,
The tone of superiority in your comments to me on this subject is astounding.
The inference you draw that I would rather be on welfare is based on your own opinions on the subject – the workings of your own mind – rather than on anything I actually said or think on the subject. The inference is incorrect.
You say to me that I “need some education,” the clear implication being that you are the one to provide it. For the record: I understand the history of SS, why it was passed, what it was intended to do and how it is funded; I have read the reports released by the Trustees as well as the reports of the CBO on the need to address the crisis that looms beyond 2034 regarding the Trust Fund’s future solvency; I keenly follow the reactionaries’ sustained attacks on the program; I paid into the program for 34 years; and I now receive SS benefits, and have actually had four separate interviews at three different field offices in three separate states where questions I had about my case were discussed. Taken as a whole, my “education” comes from an understanding of the historical, the systemic, the political and the personal. It is reasonable to conclude that I know something about the subject. If you would like to send me your doctoral dissertation on SS, I’d be glad to read it, too, in order to deepen my own understanding and perhaps attain the same level of universal understanding you currently possess.
You wrote that when I call for “’expanding” it with a tax on the rich [I am] calling for the destruction of Social Security, which works precisely because it is not a tax on the rich’.” There is only one problem with that: not only did I not call for the expansion of SS in my comments, I never called for expanding it with a tax on the rich. I’ve never considered expanding it with a tax on the rich as the program is self-funding. Raising the cap on contributions does not the standard tax rate in the least. If you want to criticize me on what I write or think, fine. But do not criticize me for what I do not think and do not write.
And in an “aha” moment, I now see why you took the tone of superiority in the first place, which is entirely due to your misreading of what I actually wrote. You thought I was arguing for a special tax on the rich, for which thought there is no evidence in my comments. That was your jumping off point, the source of your incorrect inference when you wrote that I “talk like [I’d] rather be getting welfare’.” It seems fair to conclude that the real problem all along was not my need to be educated by you but your own faulty reading skills.
You wrote that when I “call for raising the cap on SS… [I am] calling for the destruction of Social Security…” Where precisely is the logic in that statement? The cap on contributions has been raised many times in the past, yet SS was not destroyed. The cap will be raised again precisely to ensure the ongoing health and solvency of the system, and not to destroy it. So where exactly is your proof that raising the cap will destroy the system?
If I am in “need of an education” on the subject, it is self-evident you’re not the one to provide it. Thanks, Coberly, but no thanks.
Ms
I am sorry I hurt your feelings. It is apparent to me… because I think I know what I am talking about…. that you do not understand the implications of what you are saying. Indeed you do not seem to understand that there is even such a thing as implications.
The cap has been raised…. that is true. And it is in fact regularly raised to keep up with inflation and the general rise in real wages.
But that is not what “raise the cap” means in today’s “debate.” The “demand” to raise the cap has meant to tax heavily those above the existing cap, beyond the point where SS represents a reasonable cost of the insurance it provides. This “raise the cap” will provoke not only the intense hatred of those who hate Social Security, but the intense hatred of those who currently do not hate Social Security because they are not paying more than their “fair share” for the insurance.
And this is occuring at a time when the enemies of SS have been claiming that it was “broke” and that it will be “a crushing burden…”
These are lies by the enemies of SS. Raising the tax beyond the point where SS is paid for by the people for whom it is a reasonable cost will turn the lies into truths and recruit millions of “rich” who are not naturally the insane enemies of SS.
As for my thinking I know more than you, get over it. Lots of people know more than I do about things I wish I knew more about, and lots of people know more than you do about things you think you know more about. It’s a fact of life. I could be wrong about you, in theory, but everything you have written so far tells me you don’t understand even what you think you know.
I am indeed sorry about that. I wish I knew how to put it more nicely. But I broke my heart trying to teach mathematics to people who hadn’t a clue about “thinking.” They expected me to put the subject into a pill they could take the night before the exam and suddenly “know” without thinking. It doesn’t work that way.
Coberly, I did appreciate the instruction and was not offended.
If we want to improve SS payout to a livable wage we need to pay attention to the CPI as this is the means that politicians use to cut SS benefits.
But we also need to stop bankrupting the country with free trade deals, so we can afford to make the lives of our citizens better.
I don’t know you well enough for you have to hurt my feelings. Your condescension is insulting, as in “indeed you do not seem to understand that there is even such a thing as implications.” Piss off with your gratuitous insults, pal.
“Raise the cap,” in today’s debate or any other, means precisely what it says, raise the cap – it literally does not mean raise the tax rate. If people meant to actually raise the tax rate, they would say raise the tax rate. As the SS tax rate, if raised, applies equally to all those who pay into the system, it would mean raising the tax rate for all workers, which the vast majority of them can’t afford. I don’t know how much more plainly I can explain it to you: No one is calling to raise the tax rate on Social Security.
Despite your continuing insistence to the contrary, which is now taking on ridiculous proportions, the ‘demand’ to raise the cap is NOT meant “to tax heavily those above the existing cap.” That is willful ignorance, and there’s nothing theoretical about it. If the tax rate of 6.7% does not increase, how can it be reasonably said that raising the cap on contributions is intended to tax heavily those above the cap: The same tax rate would apply; the tax rate would not change. Only the arbitrary number of $120,000 would change.
You say “this “raise the cap” will provoke not only the intense hatred of those who hate Social Security, but the intense hatred of those who currently do not hate Social Security because they are not paying more than their “fair share” for the insurance.” 1) I don’t give a damn about provoking the hatred of those who want to destroy SS – as if it’s even possible to provoke them even more than they are already. It’s is an ongoing conflict played out in the political arena where courage and conviction in what is right and fair is required, not a cowardly fear that someone might be provoked. 2) Fair share? For every dollar someone makes above $120,000, the percentage of income they contribute to the SS system decreases. Exactly where is the fairness in that? And noticeably absent in any of your comments is the presence of the vast majority of Americans who see clearly that the rich are not carrying their fair share, either regarding SS or the regular business of government, and who in poll after poll by very large numbers support an increase in both the income tax for the wealthy and the cap on contributions for SS. What is most to be feared is not the hatred of those who make more than $120,000 but the seething resentment of all those who make less. Without that resentment there would be no Trump.
If you have a problem understanding everything I’ve written, in clear prose and logical progression, then you have a reading comprehension problem. If you want to continue to insist that this is about raising taxes, then your arguments aren’t reasonable, they more closely represent an irrational obstinacy in insisting you’re right. You ought to dig up one of those magic pills and take one yourself.
It isn’t about raising tax rates! It is about raising the cap on contributions! There is a distinction; there is a difference. I can’t make it clearer.
And if your students had no grasp of math when it came time to take the exam, perhaps the fault wasn’t that of the students but of the teacher.
Ms
there really is no point in my trying to talk to you. but for the benefit of anyone else who may be listening.
social security was carefully designed NOT to be a “tax” on the general population, NOT to be the “dole.”
it was designed to be a way for workers to save part of their own money very very safely so they’d have enough to retire on. aside from protecting their money from inflation and market losses, they were protected even from a lifetime of low earnings by the way benefits would be paid out during retirement. those who ended up at the high end of the life-time income curve would get back all of what they paid in adjusted for inflation, and generally a small “real” return bases on the growth in the economy. those at the middle of the curve would get back what they paid adjusted for inflation and about 3% real, made possible by the growth in the economy. those at the lower end would get back not only what they paid in but a very significant boost… drawn from the “interest” on what those who had the higher incomes had paid in. it’s this boost that insures against a lifetime of low earnings. the program is a work of genius. which may be why so few people understand it.
some people can only think in terms of “welfare” or “return on investment.” SS is not welfare, nor is it “investment.” it is insurance. unfortunately it has to be mandatory insurance because most people won’t buy insurance… they think they are either too smart to need it or too poor to afford it.
but they are always glad to get the benefits when they get old. or disabled. or are survivors of a worker who died.
because the future looks like we will be living longer and so need more money to get through retirement, and because wages are not expected to grow as fast as they have in the past, social security faces an “actuarial deficit.” that means that without changing either the tax rate or the benefit schedule, there won’t be enough money to balance the books. there are a number of ways to fix that. one is to cut benefits. that’s what all the politicians want to do. another is to change ss from being insurance for workers paid for by workers into welfare… that’s what MS wants to do , even though he doesn’t understand that is what he wants to do. and the third way is so easy it’s laughable: just raise the “tax” about a dollar a week each year. no sane person would miss the money, and anyway the money is not gone… they get it back with interest when they need it most.
and it has worked for eighty years. it will stop working if they turn it into welfare… making the rich pay for it.
Ms can’t seem to understand that raising the tax (savings) of the workers a dollar a week (a tenth of one percent) is much less cost to the worker… in fact it is no cost at all since he gets the money back. but keeping the tax rate the same, only applying it to money that is currently above the cap…. actually raises the taxes paid by those above the cap by 12% (they pay both the worker and the employer share) on every dollar they make over the cap.
and the point of the cap in the first place was to make SS a “fair” price for the insurance.
I have no desire to insult MS or to hurt his feelings, but i don’t know how to tell him he doesn’t understand what he is talking about without making him feel like he is being insulted.
What you dont seem to get, Ms 57, is that if you want to keep Social Security as a separate entity funded by workers, if you raise the cap you would also need to raise the benefits for those paying above the cap. If you dont raise the benefits to match their contribution, they are paying a tax. That would change the attitude of too many influential people against the program. Its exactly what FDR and Francis Perkins intended to avoid.