When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

http://donnabrazile.com/?p=1345

Gosh, I thought he just didn't know.

Bernie IA rally boasts 2000 in a town of 8000.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-iowa-rally-brings-out-2000-people-in-town-of-8000/

At this point, I don't like anybody.

I like anybody who is going to keep Social Security and Medicare in something like their present form. That means Hillary, Bernie or O'Malley. All the Republicans have plans to end those programs as we know them.

Of the three I think Hillary has the best chance of winning in the general election, but I'll gladly support Bernie or O'Malley if they get the nod.

I know, and we have been wrangling and arguing and making prediction ever since Obama was sworn in for his first term. It's a goat rope, a dog and pony show and we need to pick the next President of this country and it all just "So you think you can dance" meets "the Gong show".

If Sanders wins the nomination, I will cast a vote for him in all likelihood, because I am a Democrat and will be at the polls to vote for local candidates who actually have a chance of winning, but as far as "supporting" that idiot goes, I see as much sense in wishing him victory as in wishing the sun wouldn't set at the end of the day.

The republicans are nuts. They support the very people who will work to take away the only income many live on. There must be many masochists in the Republican Party.

Great link, bethie!

And let's note that neither of those two men, nor Meese earlier, could sing. For that we have to turn to John Ashcroft.

Why I loves me some conservativism, chapter 416.


http://nyti.ms/1lKdIWf

Their Boss Stays on the Sideline, but Obama Aides Tilt to Clinton

WASHINGTON — The two leading Democratic contenders for president are competing to wrap President Obama in a tight embrace. He is hugging only one of them back.


With Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont locked in an increasingly taut battle in the final days before the Iowa caucuses, both are laying claim to Mr. Obama’s mantle, and to the young voters he turned out in 2008 and 2012. Mr. Sanders is selling himself as an insurgent in the spirit of Mr. Obama; Mrs. Clinton as the custodian of his legacy.

So far, legacy is winning out.

Mrs. Clinton’s eagerness to tie herself to her old boss — most conspicuously in last Sunday’s debate — has been gratifying to Mr. Obama’s aides, given the tangled history between the president and his onetime rival turned lieutenant. His aides still view Mrs. Clinton as more electable and better qualified to protect his record than Mr. Sanders, though they have been impressed by the senator’s recent performance and unsettled by hers.

Mr. Obama has said he will not endorse a candidate during the primaries; his advisers are careful not to root publicly for anyone. But the White House is working with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in ways large and small. Their two staffs consult on issues ranging from the campaign’s use of Mr. Obama’s image in advertisements to the positions she takes on his policy priorities, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which she pushed as secretary of state and then came out against as a candidate.

The president’s recent vow that he would not support any Democratic candidate who did not vote for “common-sense gun reform” was interpreted as a gift to Mrs. Clinton. She seized on it to portray Mr. Sanders, who has voted against some gun control measures, as being at odds with Mr. Obama. The perception was reinforced when the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, suggested that Mr. Sanders was among those lawmakers Mr. Obama had in mind when he made the vow in an article published in The New York Times on Jan. 7.

It’s hard to think they weren’t mindful of what the effect would be,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who is working for Priorities USA Action, a “super PAC” supporting Mrs. Clinton.

White House officials denied that Mr. Obama was targeting Mr. Sanders, noting that he had already shifted his position on background checks for gun buyers. The White House is sensitive to suggestions that it favors Mrs. Clinton. It does not want to alienate the young voters who are flocking to the Sanders campaign — voters who are critical for reassembling the coalition that vaulted Mr. Obama to victory.

There is no question that when it comes time, the president will be out there pounding the pavement for the nominee,” said Jennifer R. Psaki, the White House communications director. “But right now his focus, publicly and privately, is not on one candidate over another; it is on engaging the American people and about reminding them what is at stake.”

Mr. Sanders is eager to open his own channels to the White House. At a holiday party last month, Mr. Sanders told the president he wanted “to drop in and chat.” White House officials said they were trying to find a time for the two to sit down. “We have a very positive relationship,” Mr. Sanders said in an interview on Thursday. And yet, he is not blind to the institutional advantages Mrs. Clinton has in enlisting White House support.

“There are Clinton people in the White House who clearly would like to see Hillary Clinton nominated,” Mr. Sanders said. “I understand that, and I simply hope that they will be as fair-minded as they can be,” he said, adding, “I take President Obama and Vice President Biden at their word, they’re not going to be tipping the scales here.”

The relationship between Mrs. Clinton and the White House is not without its own baggage. Her about-face on the trade deal angered Mr. Obama’s aides, especially given her previous vocal support for it. Some still recall the bitterness of her campaign against Mr. Obama in 2008. The president himself reacted to the trade deal shift with resignation rather than anger, aides said, viewing it as an understandable, if opportunistic, move.

The Clinton campaign is trying to smooth out future bumps by maintaining contacts at multiple levels, including high-level calls on policy between the campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the White House chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, and routine check-in calls about public statements between the campaign’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, and her White House counterparts, Ms. Psaki and Mr. Earnest.

“If we’re going to do something we think we need to give them a heads-up on, Jennifer or I will call our former colleagues and let them know,” said Mr. Podesta, who was a senior Obama adviser before joining the Clinton campaign. “If we’re out on the campaign trail and rolling out a new policy, building on something he’s done or taking a position different than his, we’ll let him know we’re going to do it.”

Not ONE Republican has suggested ANYTHING about taking away SS and Medicare.

Any reasonable person knows those programs have been abused by both Democrats and Republicans over the years and now they need help to stay afloat.

Christie has the best idea on how to restore those programs so everyone can rely on them in the future.

Does Clinton have any idea except raising the taxes?

Today's winner in the esteeemed "Duh. Well, yeah." category...

http://bit.ly/1lKkJ9F

Quote Woiyo:

What you said is NOT true at all. As it stands now, Social Security is a time-honored insurance program that everyone pays into and everyone receives when they retire. This has gone on since the 1930s. Christie said that he would start "means testing" Social Security, which would make it a welfare program. Many of the other Republicans say the same thing. Although the limit Christie proposed to not allow people to receive their Social Security is set fairly high now, the whole purpose of introducing the "means test" is to gradually turn Social Security into a welfare program.

Once the Republicans have made Social Security into a welfare program, not a retirement program, it will be a short step to simply merge people whose means are low enough to qualify for Social Security into the welfare system, essentially eliminating the program entirely. No Republican is presently proposing that at this time, but it clearly is where their logic leads.

Social Security must NOT be "means tested", for that turns it into a welfare system which can later merged into other welfare systems. If you paid into Social Security, you should get Social Security. It's yours, you paid for it, and you musn't have to be broke to collect it.

PS: Christie said the same thing about Medicare, too.
Quote Christie:


So here we go again. Since the 1960s, once you got your Medicare, 80% of your bills were paid for. Now they are turning that into a welfare system, where only the poorest will receive the full Medicare benefit and the more you make the less "help" you get. Just like Food Stamps. I'm disappointed that Christie and the other Republicans don't just call their program Health Stamps because that is exactly what they are trying to replace Medicare with.

Wow. This is interesting.
http://nym.ag/1lKoonQ
There's nothing novel in pointing out that conservatism is mainly a reactionary response to change where existing arrangements of privilege and "order" are perceived as being threatened - "standing astride history and shouting "Stop", as Buckley put it. Nor is it in any way original to point out that the sixties posed a number of such threats and conservatism reacted typically.

SS is and always has been a form of Social Welfare Program. Those early recipients did not "pay into the system" and received benefits that were means tested, as they are today.

SS was never taxed until legislation was passed to place earnings caps. Normal retirement ages have been increased over they years. So to extend the means testing, is not alien to me nor distasteful when you look at one total income.

The same philosophy exists as it relates to the Federal Estate Tax. Those who have been extremely successful have done so due to the blessing of liberty provided by this Nation and have an obligation to repay it so future generations can have the same opportunity. (Paraphrasing Jefferson/Teddy Roosevelt)

As far as Medicare goes, I get the feeling this Nation is going to a single payer health care system which really comes down to Medicare for all. So I would think that a basic plan for all is coming with supplemental plans available.

I think Christie has it right in this area. Tax increases will not "save" SS by itself.

Who do you imagine on the right side of the aisle will support a single payer healthcare system, if, as you say this nation is going that direction?

Quote Woiyo:

Even if the part about the first generation is true, that was the 1930s and the first generation only. Each generation since then has paid into Social Security which took care of the preceding generation, and in turn received benefits paid for by the subsequent working generation. It has NOT been a Social Welfare program for the lifetime of almost everyone reading this. "Means testing" will make it so.

If you pay for car insurance and you get into an accident, imagine the insurance company saying, "We looked into your finances and found you can afford to pay for that accident yourself, so we won't issue any checks." That's what the Republicans want to do with Social Security and Medicare. They want to make it a system similar to Food Stamps, where the indigent who can't afford to eat go and get their allotment, which is scaled down the more they make until it disappears entirely. That's why, if they are going to be honest, the Republicans should tell the people that they want to replace Social Security and Medicare with "means tested" Health Care Stamps and Old Age Stamps. Because that is what their plan amounts to.