My sense is that you're not a RWNJ troll, but rather a left-wing uncompromising extremist, or an overzealous advocate for the elderly. Being elderly myself, I appreciate your concern. However, uncompromising fanaticism is not a governing strategy, as we've seen all too vividly. Right-wing fanaticism has brought nothing but grief to our government and our country.

Fanaticism, right wing or left, is a psychological strategy for the fanatic, a self-induced rapture of sanctimony that, while maintained, dulls self-doubts and uncertainties, inducing a legal high that parallels the high induced by prohibited substances. Unfortunately, it leads to equally parallel addictive behaviors that are required to prevent reality from seeping in and crashing the fantasy.

Very well said, Sofferclese.

Extremists have a distinct sort of shrill anger when they express their opinions. For the most part, this not being 1970 anymore, the typical extremist is Conservative. So it's always a shock when reminded that this behavior isn't owned by any political ideology, it's just more common in one over the other these days.

As to disparaging Rachel Maddow for her supposed income... that was weird. Her and Steve Benen are providing a fantastic public service disseminating the news of the day. It's not like they're Bain Capital, or something equally dishonorable.

What difference does it matter what they are getting paid? They care about facts and people other than the rich. Why, did you know there are even rich people that don't see people receiving benefits from the government as "takers" and/or "leeches"?

Re: #1.4

You are assuming that the average working class senior made enough over their working careers to "fund a comfortable retirement". What about ones whose retirement funds were used up because of medical expenses, or was tied up in home value that was lost in the Great Recession?

But they ALL paid into SS and then are entitled to receive payments back. Nobody is sending you their bills. They earned those payments.

We didn't have the sense to pay down the debt and plan ahead (remember the budget surplus we used to have). We should not place the burden of balancing the budget on people who have very little.

#1.5

The original poster at #1 only mentioned Rachel and Ezra. Schultz wasn't mentioned.

And as for #1.4, you obviously don't know people that are collecting SS and why they are receiving less than enough to live on. You need to stop listening to Lumpbrains and Faux.

So, now it's being "extremist" to oppose reductions in EARNED benefits that millions of people have been promised all their lives and that they need to survive? It's "extremist" to point out that Obama deliberately lied when he said in speeches that he would not punish seniors for a deficit they did not cause, while all the time he was planning to do exactly that? And because I object to the fact that Maddow and Klein are frauds in claiming progressive credentials, since they are not calling Obama out on this, I am an "extremist"?

skylark

The answer is yes. It's a matter of tone. You're being hyper-emotional and strident. This does your argument no good. In fact it lessens it. They way your talking it puts people off. In other words Chill!

Never mind

Unfortunately, it was also one of the least accurate.