Political Radar

`My side'

July 28th, 2014

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren sent out a fundraising appeal over the weekend on behalf of U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz to members of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Warren and the PCCC have both endorsed Schatz over U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa in the Democratic primary.

The Massachusetts Democrat stressed Schatz's support for expanding Social Security benefits:

Working families are getting crushed, squeezed and hammered – and too many people in Washington are working to make it even worse.

Since joining the Senate, I've done my best to fight back to hold Wall Street accountable, reduce student debt, and expand Social Security benefits.

One senator who has been my strong progressive ally is Brian Schatz of Hawaii.

Brian has fought by my side to expand Social Security benefits instead of cutting them. Now, he's being attacked for his work protecting our seniors and most vulnerable.

Hawaii’s primary is in just two weeks. Will you please donate $3 to help Brian win?

In Washington, there are some people I know I can count on during big fights like Social Security. Groups such as the PCCC, and senators like Brian Schatz, Tom Harkin, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, and Mark Begich have teamed up with me to take on powerful interests and stand up for people.

Protecting and even expanding Social Security benefits is building momentum -- with support growing stronger every month. With your help, Social Security cuts are off the table (for now).

Senators who stand strong for expanding Social Security benefits instead of cutting them should be applauded -- not attacked.

Please donate $3 to Brian Schatz today and fuel his victory in two weeks.

Brian's victory will send an important statement: that we keep the promises we make to our seniors so that after a lifetime of work, everyone can retire with dignity.

We can all do our part to make that happen.

12 Responses to “`My side'”

  1. Chicken Grease:

    At this time a Grease defers a regularly scheduled post to requote Mr. Shaun Campbell's information; from his earlier post:

    Shaun Campbell:
    July 25th, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    Here's where Hanabusa voted for Simpson-Bowles plan that would actually have cut back Social Security for our kupuna: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h36

    # # #

  2. ohiaforest3400:

    Anyone who claims that Hanabusa's 2013 vote was to cut Social Security (yes, you know who you are) is either stupid, lazy, or both. Just follow the link provided above.

    The vote referred to here was for an amendment that would have added findings reflecting the bipartisan approach of Simpson Bowles to a set of ridiculous Republican declarations regarding the President's budget (see below). The amendment having failed, Hanabusa voted AGAINST the entire bill, which, having been driven by tea party whack jobs, was never even brought up in the Senate. The CD2 rep, darling of the national media, was one of only eight not present to vote at all.

    I'm thankful that Hanabusa, on that occasion, voted to improve a bad bill and then voted to kill it when it was not so improved. The peanut gallery here needs to actually look at the bills, not just regurgitate someone else's simplistic description.



    Congress finds the following:

    (1)With this year’s expected failure to meet the statutory deadline for submission of his budget, as stated by the Office of Management and Budget, the President will have only met the statutory deadline in one of his five budget submissions.

    (2)Despite a promise to cut the deficit in half, the deficit doubled during the President’s first year in office and has exceeded $1 trillion for four years now.

    (3)Since taking office, the President has allowed the Federal debt to grow by nearly $6 trillion and total debt now exceeds the size of the entire economy of the United States.

    (4)Under the President’s most recent budget submission, the budget never achieves balance.

    (5)The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget submission includes the admission that under his own policies the Federal Government’s “fiscal position gradually deteriorates”.

  3. ohiaforest3400:

    To emphasize, the bill on which the vote referenced above was taken had NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIAL SECURITY.

  4. innocent observer:

    donate $3, hell I would not give him the time of day. he is insane to expand ss benefits, this will come on the backs of working middle class, to pay more SS taxes so his father in law can get more benefits. hell, why should he burden other people with is personal problems; if his father in law does not have enough money then it is his problem, not the taxpayers.

  5. Chicken Grease:

    OK, bloviators. Pay attention: HanaBuSa is LOSING on the social security front.

    Schatz is getting major "hero of social security" accolades; endorsements. MONEY. Okane ga aru, capiche?

    OK? SCHATZ is the one kupuna get daily exposure to as the guy who will maintain their social security. HanaBuSa doesn't look like much of social security warrior as Schatz is. And Schatz IS reinforcing social security.

    So, you can bloviate all you want -- HanaBuSa simply NEEDS to defend herself. She cannot count on the Star-Advertiser which -- oh, you wanna see a bunch of posts suddenly disappear, hahaah, at this a Grease will say, please DePlege and Political Radar, be objective to a Grease! Ehy a Grease buy you paper e'ry day -- isn't always correct.

    She needs to say she's a more powerful ally on social security (enough to, duh, get endorsements from the same powerful Left organizations upon which all Dem' candidates depend upon come election time.

    What do we get from her instead? "Oh. I'm a WONK." "Schatz dunno how to read bills." Stuff that leave the voter going, "OK. And?". She's too esoteric in her approach

    HanaBuSa is losing momentum going into the weekend.

    Besides that, she is NOT good for the future of social security.

    # # #

  6. ohiaforest3400:

    OK, Greasy Spoon, you surely took note of the gummint's report today that, while the Affordable Care Act has helped extend the lifespan of the Medicare trust fund to 2030, the Social Security trust fund is still set to run dry in 2033.

    If the Social Security trust fund is on life support under the current benefit schedule, what EXACTLY do you propose to do to stave off the earlier demise that will of necessity result from the pandering BS plan to expand those benefits?

    Other than, of course, taxing the crap out of the youngsters coming up behind us.

    Careful you don't slip in the grease as you contort yourself into the position necessary to answer that one!

  7. Chicken Grease:

    July 28th, 2014 at 8:59 pm

    OK, Greasy Spoon, you surely took note of the gummint's report today that, while the Affordable Care Act has helped extend the lifespan of the Medicare trust fund to 2030, the Social Security trust fund is still set to run dry in 2033 . . .

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, the forest that is o'hea. First of all, you have to stop using only the Bill Maher's 'I have no chance in hell of keeping a televison show if I don't cater to the Left' talking points. "2033" is the key year Leftist LOVE to use to scare baby boomers.

    In fact it is through 2086 that benfefits will stiil be around, so, we got one fib from you, intended or not [yes, "intended or not" because I feel sorry for all Lefties who have their CCCP den mother refer them only to the "Dear Leader Newsletter" of the day].

    And don't shock yourself, additonally, when you see that the following source, supporting "2086" also makes a reference to equivalent of "holy water and cross against vampires" in a big, big crossing of the aisles here (GASP!!!! COULD IT BE!?! Yes. President Obama working with . . . Republicans?]


    All there.

    And let's not forget -- Republicans and tea party members already have taken seats are poised to take more. This ACA can easily become outlawed in such a milieu (even some of the smarter ones on the Left are beginning t see ACA as a loose tooth in its final days) and it would be the hootiest hoot for a Republican president to borrow Obama's "I have a pen and a phone" quip and single-handedly outlaw ACA on his own (and, uh, we HAVE SEEN the president do things on his own w/out a majority vote. It's OK when a Democrat president does that, but, when a Republican preisdent does the same, it's "murder" -- any of you keeping score, Bush Jr affectuated deserved "do not pass go, do not EVEN go to jail" to the duduheads who deserved it -- Saddam Hussein, Quaddafi Duck, and -- yes, this was Bush jr's ultimate doing as good as president Obama phoning the former to tell him the great was done -- the Ace of Spades himself, Osama Bihhhhhhhhhhb LADEN, come on down to hell, Binny!).

    Here's the point -- the Left almost NEVER looks toward the future. They implement their Dear Leaders and the re-education camps stay the same until they propose to volley a rusted missile toward Democracy.

    You're saying the young would be taxed to hell after your (we know this now) fictitious 2033 because you want them to be taxed that way. That's the Left's only solution: taxes. So. Ohia . . . answer THIS for you and your fellow Lefties -- why such an aversion to raising taxes when it comes to social security? You should be PROUD that that happens.

    2033 is so far ahead. Yet, you Lefties have it already set in stone that the young will be taxed to hell. Hmmm. You know why that is? BECAUSE you want to happen.

    Government will do things to correct for the greater good. If you don't think this can happen, look at something like eminent domain.

  8. innocent observer:

    greasy chicken - you are a dummy. shatz is similar to you, you cannot use SS to pay for all of the financial problems of the kupuna. it was meant only to be a supplement to their real retirement income, not to provide them unlimited income on the backs of the younger middle class workers. shatz will never be able to expand ss benefits, no matter how long he tries. he was a dud in the state legislature fighting for women's benefits, and he will be a dud in the us senate trying to expand ss benefits for his father-in-law. he is a follower, not a leader, cannot convince others of his silly plan to expand ss benefits. that Is why he quit the state legislature after 8 years, he was a total failure, while hanabusa had a distinguished career in the state legislature, rising to senate president. in terms of ability, there is no comparison, shatz cannot even match half of hanabusa's ability.

  9. Chicken Grease:

    innocent observer:
    July 29th, 2014 at 8:14 am
    greasy chicken . . . hanabusa had a distinguished career in the state legislature, rising to senate president.

    Ooooooh, "state . . . senate president" vs. U.S. Senator (Schatz), oooooooooh! Nice to see you're so easily impressed, i.o. You probably get giddy at the toys at Big City Diner, yeah (leave 'em alone; those are for kids, by the way). You probably drive a Hyundai, or worse. Hahhaha, "rising to senate president." Oooooh. Trip to the supermarket must be your equivalent to a Vegas trip, no?

  10. ohiaforest3400:

    Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

    In the Senate race, Hanabusa's past behavior is not all good, and certainly not all bad, so we can expect more of the same. Schatz's past behavior is . . . . . oh, that's right, he hasn't done squat so we have no idea what he can or will do in the future.

    Seems like a case of "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't."

    Except for certain bloviating, blowhard blog trolls who we wish we didn't know but who will keep acting consistent with their past behavior..

  11. ohiaforest3400:

    "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

  12. Chicken Grease:

    These are your only comebacks to a Grease's brilliant response to your # 6 question? That's just e.I.-level. Glad to know I schooled ya. 2033. Tch. Yeah, you keep that date.

Leave a Reply

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Star-Advertiser's TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.