If you have "no place to go," come here!

REVISED--Senator Kent Conrad (Video) Personally Endorses Three Cuts To Social Security, Wall Street Journal CEO Council [01:00]

Alexa's picture

[Hat Tip to for allowing me to link to my blog post there.]

Apparently, the link to this video clip is no longer working at C-Span, so it rendered the link in my previous diary here, inoperable. Here's a new version:

If this doesn't work, here is a link to a working embedded version of this 1 minute clip.

Also, here is the C-Span link to the entire Conrad interview at the CEO Council.

Senator Conrad ticks off the Bowles-Simpson prescription for Social Security reform. One revenue change, adjusting the cap on wages up several thousand dollars over many years, and of course, the three (3) recommended "cuts" to Social Security.

REVISION: Please take a moment to view this video. And please Retweet the "Tweet" below, which links to the kgblogz post and video.

Conrad outlines the very worst scenario. And, unfortunately, the most likely one.

“If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

There is a grey "share" button.

I clicked that. Then clicked the "Copy Embed Code" in the right hand column.

Then I pasted that code into the post (and tweaked your wording a little).


(That clipping technology is pretty keen.)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

know about copying the code, but I couldn't get it to work. I experienced the same weird problem that I described to you and CMike in the "chat room," the other night. (i.e., a Mitt Romney video shows up in the top portion, when I do a preview--it's wild!)

Anyhoo, I much appreciate it. It is now in a much more readable and palatable format for both regular users (commenters), and for guest readers at Corrente. And after all, that's the goal. :)

I attempted to embed another Norquist clip tonight--it did the Romney bit again. Tried both browsers (Firefox and Google Chrome). Finally gave up. (I routinely clean my cache every morning now, and of course, again, when this problem crops up.)

Thanks for the NPR podcast, too. I'm also very concerned about any Medicare "fixes" that are coming down the pike.

Submitted by lambert on

And is it always the same Romney clip?

And even it it's bad in preview, does is persist for the real post?

Honestly, I've never heard of such a thing1

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

It could be tomorrow before I can get to this (but I'll try to by late evening).

But again, what is the procedure for doing a screen dump? (Sorry, I warned you all that I'm computer illiterate. :D )

Submitted by lambert on

Different machines will have different procedures. The general principle is that pressing a key or key combination will copy an image of the screen. You can then paste the image into a Paint program and Save it as a file. Then you can send the file to others.

It's actually a useful minor skill. If you want to document an appalling comment thread, or a blooper headline, take a screen dump of it...

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on


Must make out-of-state trip unexpectedly, so will do my best to do this before leaving.

I'll try the Norquist tax video first (since it's one that I'd still like to put up, if the problem can be resolved).

Thanks much.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

"It's about cuts, revenue, growth (GDP), and has to be about the future."

Meaning Boomers are about to "get their a**es handed to them." That's what this entire exercise is about.

The 35% cut in Social Security benefits is intended to keep tens of millions of poor and low income seniors in the workforce, in order to complete with China and India.

Think young people have it hard now finding work--JUST WAIT!! Which, then, further depresses wages for everyone, of all ages.

And, of course, the "savings" from the evisceration of the social safety net will pay for all the wonderful "projects" that the President touts (and ran on), without ever explaining his intended revenue source or funding. But which should have been obvious to anyone who was listening carefully.

WILL TRY TO POST THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PETE PETERSON CONFERENCE. It was every bit as "frank" as Kent Conrad the other day.

"The President wants 'his legacy' to be fixing this problem, and Congress doesn't want to be the impediment to his doing this." [According to Alice Rivlin, the first CBO Director under Clinton.]

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

from the Reuters piece entitled, "The Sham Of Simpson-Bowles." Here's a key excerpt:

"For future retirees, all these changes taken together would reduce the average annual benefit for middle-income workers – those with annual earnings of $43,000 to $69,000 – by up to 35 percent."

On my now defunct desktop, I've had bookmarks of Nancy Pelosi saying the same (soon after the 2010 Bowles-Simpson Commission recommendations were put forth in "The Moment of Truth."

I also heard the statistics from an expert from "Strengthen Social Security," and in a 2011 interview of James Galbraith (economist) with Sam Seder. Luckily, I ran across this piece in The Guardian the other day, trying to find Pelosi's remarks to back up this assertion for a post I was working on.

The PtB all know this. Pelosi was on record saying it within days after the Commission report was issued. IOW, back when she said that their proposals were "simply unacceptable."

But, they've clearly sold out. If Schakowsky votes against it, it'll simply be because they have the votes, without her. Otherwise, she's a tool of this Administration. Remember the post about her and the Congressional Progressive Caucus trying to stop the discussion of Bowles-Simpson in the Presidential/Vice-Presidential debates?

Truthfully, I'm "debating" (with myself) whether to put my efforts toward pushing for investigations into the Benghazi/Petraeus debacle, in hopes of derailing the entire Lame Duck Session. I have a feeling that only a huge scandal (like Lewinsky's) can stop this train now.

There's definitely not time to mobilize a force to fight the Peterson Foundation and the CEO's who are pushing this agenda.

That, coupled with the fact that most Americans have no idea how draconian these cuts will be, the only hope for progressives is that this Administration is steeped in scandal to delay this process, so there might be time to mobilize against this legislation.

Other than that, we may as well forget it. The intention is to put the "framework" through, that calls for all the cuts. That's clever. Because then these draconian cuts will be done much more quietly in the various committees, below the radar. I seriously doubt that we'll even hear anymore about this.

Every so-called progressive lawmaker that I hear since the election, says let's get this done during the Lame Duck, and "move on to a jobs agenda." Yeah--bet they'd like to do that.

Sorry, if this sounds very negative. I listen to these people all day and night. A logical person could hardly reach a different conclusion, IMO.

The experts that I've shown on tape here, say $14,000 is the average annual income for a Social Security beneficiary (in 2010 was the panel discussion).

If my math is correct, that would reduce the average Soc Sec beneficiaries' benefit to $9,100--below the pathetically low FPL (Federal Poverty Level).

The face of America will change, if literally tens and tens of millions of Baby Boomers (just under 80 million) are thrown into abject poverty almost over night (upon their retirement, that is).

And of course, it will mean that tens of millions of Boomers will simply be forced to work until they die.

This was all going to be part of the post I was working on, but it will have to be delayed now. As a matter of fact, it's probably a moot point now.

Alice Rivlin said today that this will not be the usual legislative procedure. Expedited. Will probably be rammed through in 2-3 days max, after an agreement is announced. (That was the plan of the Super Committee, also.)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

a Petraeus scandal--the corporatist media (and pundits if you watched or listened to the Sunday talk shows) have all made it clear--this is not an important matter.

If they found that one of the Command issued the order for the attack on the Embassy, since they (The Press) are a central part of propaganda, this story will be played only enough to "distract" from giving decent coverage of "the cliff" and the "framework legislation."

We'll not see a replay of the hyperventilating coverage that we got regarding the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. The press will go out of its way to make sure that the Lame Duck is NOT derailed.

And, if millions in the streets (Iraq War) don't change the course of the PtB, I can't imagine that millions (if we could muster that) protesting now, would derail this 'fiscal cliff machine.'

Submitted by lambert on

Super link.