Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???

[grahamhgreen]

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Seriously, does anyone have any facts coming out of the White House (not speculation from pundits) to dispute this?

Here are the offers, why is Social Security in there WHEN IT DOES NOT ADD ONE NICKEL TO THE DEFICIT???




SOURCE: WASHINGTON POST (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/21/the-incredible-shrinking-stimulus/)


Call the White House 202-456-1111 (opens WED 12/26), and your rep [phone] (opens TH 12/27)!

Tell them no cuts to Social Security, it does not add one nickel to the deficit!

[woo me with science]

1. Why indeed.

K&R

[factsarenotfair]

42. Thanks for that video. Obama thinks liberalism is a tired, old ideology that needs to be replaced??

Damn. I spent about half an hour on the site and it looks like a vehicle for neoliberalism.

[woo me with science]

69. Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938."

It's a chilling video, in his own words.

Also, defending a long-term strategy for cutting these safety nets: "This is not a bloodless process."

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315




Nothing will change until Americans look clearly at how the game is rigged from the start in every single negotiation, how the possible options are artificially narrowed from the start, and how every negotiation moves us rightward. Every. Single. One.

[byeya]

73. How can intelligent people fail to heed Obama's words and deeds: He is not a friend of Social

Security and those recipients who absolutely depend on it and know it's due them under contract?

Those of us who like SS, Medicare and Medicaid and admire the way the agency has administered these programs are in the vast majority and need to keep shoving back against this unwarranted attack.

[factsarenotfair]

102. The words "not a bloodless process" are indeed chilling.

Those words sound like something that you would hear in the boardroom of Bain Capital.

[sabrina 1]

2. Because the Third Way believes that SS needs to be privatized and that the

best first step towards that is it have a Dem President open the door by offering the Chained CPI to begin the process of cutting benefits for those who earned them and who own that Fund.

See their website for their opinion on the Chained CPI.

They apparently, according to them, have influence over the WH and over the Dems in Congress.

We now not only have to fight Republicans to protect SS, we also have to fight the right wing of the Dem Party apparently.

[democrattotheend]

5. I think the opposite argument could be made too

That chained CPI will reduce the cost of the program and thus push further out the date until which the system will be able to pay out 100% of promised benefits and thus less need to privatize.

[DrDan]

8. so to "reduce the cost of the program" by cutting future benefits is ok with you?

take future $$$$ from the seniors to protect defense costs and tax cuts for the wealthy is a satisfactory solution?

[democrattotheend]

9. I never said it's ok

Trust me, I am not happy about this. I think it's insane that struggling SS recipients are being asked to sacrifice so that people making between $250,000 and $400,000 don't have to. But I recognize that unfortunately, the Republicans control the House and they are going to have some leverage on the debt ceiling and they aren't going to raise it without doing something to screw someone. As bad as chained CPI is, it's not as bad as raising the Medicare age, which would have caused people to die while waiting for Medicare. I am also not convinced that a gradual decrease in COLA adjustments down the road is worse than having millions of people immediately cut off from the lifeline of unemployment benefits on January 1.

I wish these choices didn't have to be made, but that's what happens when the GOP wins the election right after the census. If we want to protect seniors and other people who are struggling, we will stop this crazy talk about sitting out the election if chained CPI happens and redouble our efforts to get rid of these Tea Party lunatics in the House, not to mention taking over more governors' mansions so we can follow Tom Delay's lead and redistrict mid-cycle.

[Freddie]

18. I have to agree with your reasoning

The very worst thing we Dems can do is what we did on 2010 and "punish" our side for not being progressive enough and sit home in mid-year elections. Repug governors and congress (thanks to gerrymandering) are destroying the nation despite our keeping the White House. The only way anything will get accomplished is by taking back the governors' mansions -- NOT by sitting home pouting because we didn't get our way.

[SunSeeker]

23. +1

[sabrina 1]

82. We democrats did NOT stay home in 2010. Independents stayed home.

Please do some research on this. Dems no matter how reluctantly voted in 2010 and as a result most of the Progressives remained in Congress. This is a DLC falsehood, to claim that Democrats stayed home. They did not.

Independents, who voted in 2008 for Dems, were the ones who stayed home in 2010 because of policies they did not vote for in 2008. The same will happen again, Dems cannot win without Independents and will lose them if they betray SS.

A majority of Americans support SS, Medicare and Medicaid and unless Dems show they will fight for those programs, they will lose crossover voters as they did in 2010..

[DrDan]

35. there are other options that do not seem to be pursued - for example raising the cap

chained CPI is not the lone solution to the problem.

(and I do agree that sitting out an election is not a good idea.)

[grahamhgreen]

37. Wait. Why is Social Security in the mix - WHEN IT DOES NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT?

[bvar22]

68. !!!!

It is a sad, SAD day when the Democratic Party Leadership lines up far to the RIGHT of Ronald Reagan.




[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]

[grahamhgreen]

70. Great photo!

Nice work!

[bvar22]

79. I was lucky enough to have lived in St Paul, Minnesota...

...while Paul was our Senator.
He was SUCH an inspiration.
That photo was taken at the LABOR DAY Picnic on Harriet Island in the Mississippi River
at St Paul on Monday, Sept 2, 2002.

On October 11th, he voted "NO" on the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq
despite warnings from the consultants, advisers, and fellow Democrats that a NO vote would ruin his career.
He said, "Sometimes, you just have to do the right thing."
He surged ahead in the polls the next week.

Paul died in a plane crash on Oct 25th.
The NTSB found no evidence of sabotage.


Paul Wellstone was truly a Man of the People ,
and it was not uncommon to be sitting on the wet grass at a LABOR Day Picnic,
glance to the side,
and find Paul & his wife (Shiela) sitting on the grass next to you,
in cut-off jeans, running shoes without socks,
just like a regular Working Class person.

I wish we had 100 more like him.
Like most of the truly great, transformational leaders in our country,
he was taken from us way too soon.

[woo me with science]

76. Amen.

I so miss Paul Wellstone.

[grahamhgreen]

10. That's absurd. Simply having those who earn over $110,000/yr pay ito it will keep

it solvent forever.

The chained CPI is an obfuscatory, imprecise measure designed to confuse, distract, shock, and steal.

[reteachinwi]

27. and/or include capital gains and "carried interest"

as income subject to FICA taxes.

[democrattotheend]

108. That is a solution I could definitely get behind

One unnoticed but very positive provision of the ACA was extending the Medicare tax to unearned income. I would like to see them do the same for Social Security. But I don't see that happening as long as the GOP controls the House, which will probably be until 2022 unless Democrats take back some state legislatures and governor's mansions and decide to pull a Tom Delay.

[xtraxritical]

31. There is no reason to even mention SS in these negotiations and the Progressive Caucus

will certainly not vote for anything that touches SS. It can never pass the House or the Senate. I think the President knows this and wants to us go over the "cliff". You are absolutely right about raising the income cap. You can email whitehouse.gov .

[customerserviceguy]

80. I've never seen any figures on how raising the cap will raise sufficient sums of money

Perhaps you have a link to such? And do they calculate the damage that will be done to Social Security by raising the maximum benefit for those who most likely don't need it?

Cap raises, benefit growth restriction and tax increases are all needed to keep Social Security solvent. I agree with those here who say that it should not be merely a bone to throw to the GOP for taxing the top two percent of earners a little more. I do think that it should be part of a comprehensive reform to deal with the baby boomers retirement, and the baby bust lowered income expectations.

[grahamhgreen]

84. There's a bill introduced by Bernie Sanders that details all of it:

Sanders’ Bill (S. 1558) Guarantees Social Security for 75 Years

The Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act, S. 1558, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), truly strengthens Social Security for future generations. The bill closes Social Security’s 75-year funding gap by applying Social Security payroll tax contributions to covered earnings of $250,000 or more. Currently, only wages up to $106,800 are taxed.

S. 1558 will:

- Guarantee Social Security can pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 75 years. Currently, with no action, Social Security will have sufficient income and assets to pay all monthly benefits in full and on time until 2036.1 S. 1558 extends that through 2085, as estimated by the Social Security Administration.2

- Preserve currently scheduled benefits. Many proposals claiming to “strengthen” Social Security either undermine the program’s universal values, or the adequacy of its benefits. S. 1558 closes Social Security’s funding gap without doing either.

- Ensure everyone pays their fair share to Social Security. While nearly all Americans must make Social Security tax contributions on all of their wages, the wealthiest only do so on the first $106,800 of their annual earnings in 2011. S. 1558 rights this wrong by gradually lifting the cap on taxable wages so that all workers contribute on all of their wages. It applies the Social Security payroll tax to covered earnings of $250,000 or more right away, but maintains the current-law benefit base. Importantly, it leaves the current cap temporarily in place, creating a donut hole so that a person’s earnings between $106,800 and $250,000 are not subject to a precipitous one-year increase in their payroll tax contributions. The donut hole would close over time, since the $106,800 cap rises with average wage increases. Once the cap reaches $250,000, in approximately 25 years, all wages would be subject to the Social Security payroll tax contribution.3 Benefits would continue to be calculated on the basis of capped wages, as they are under current law.4

- Affect a small number of Americans. Few Americans would be affected by this change to the Social Security payroll tax cap. Just 1.2% of workers had earnings over $250,000 in 2009, including 0.4% of women, 0.3% of African American workers and 0.3% of Latino workers.5

- Follow the will of the public. Seven out of ten (71%) voters support enacting Social Security payroll tax contributions on wages above $106,800, according to a bipartisan poll by Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint.6


1 Social Security Trustees, 2011 Annual Trustees’ Report, p. 9, May 13, 2011. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2011/tr2011.pdf
2 Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT), “Estimated Financial Effects of the Proposed Bill to be Named ‘Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act,’ Requested by Senator Bernard Sanders,” p. 2, September 7, 2011. http://ssa.gov/oact/solvency/BSanders_20110907.pdf
3 Estimate assumes the Average Wage Index (AWI) will grow at a rate of 3.93%, which was the average rate from 1988 to 2008. Calculated using data from SSA, “Average Wage Index,” October 29, 2010. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html
4 SSA, OACT, Ibid., p.1.
5 Center for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR), Tables 1 & 2, Who’s Above the Social Security Payroll Tax Cap?, p. 2, September 2011. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/whos-above-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap
6 Lake Research partners and American Viewpoint, “Medicare, Social Security and the Deficit: Findings from a national survey of likely 2012 voters,” September 2011, p. 3. http://www.ncpssm.org/pdf/poll.pdf

If you want the numbers from the Chief Actuary of Social Security, they are available here: Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT), “Estimated Financial Effects of the Proposed Bill to be Named ‘Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act,’ Requested by Senator Bernard Sanders,” p. 2, September 7, 2011. http://ssa.gov/oact/solvency/BSanders_20110907.pdf

[customerserviceguy]

92. I see some pretty charts

But I don't see any numbers. Also, once you raise the wage base enough, the very well paid will figure out ways around it. I used to be a tax accountant from 1981-1990, enrolled to practice before the IRS. I've seen how loopholes are created and used.

Don't get me wrong, raising the cap is part of the solution, but it's not the only answer to the problem. All we need is a half decade or so of the ruinous inflation of the 1960's or 70's, and most middle income people will be at the cap.

[grahamhgreen]

98. Here are the core numbers in the PDF from the Social Security Chief Actuary:

"The proposal would modify the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to subject a worker’s OASDI covered earnings in excess of $250,000 in any calendar year after 2011 to the combined OASDI payroll tax rate of 12.4 percent. This is the same tax rate that is applied, under current law, to OASDI covered earnings up to the contribution and benefit base ($106,800 for 2011).....

For the 75-year long-range period as a whole, the present-law unfunded obligation of $6.5 trillion in present value is replaced with a positive trust fund balance of $0.04 trillion in present value through the end of the period. This change is the combination of the following:

• A $6.5 trillion increase in revenue from applying the payroll tax to covered earnings above the present-law contribution and benefit base, less
• A $0.1 trillion reduction in cost from the behavioral response to additional payroll tax, causing a small decrease in the share of employee compensation that is received in wages, and thus a small decrease in total benefits.

We hope these estimates will be helpful. Please let me know if we may provide further assistance.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Goss Chief Actuary"

[truedelphi]

53. But the whole reason this "cut" is being proposed is

Because deficit hawks, including Dem leadership, think that some 4+ trillions of dollars needs to be chopped out of the federal Budget over the next 10 years. So here is the best proposal - GET IT FROM THE DAMN BANKERS and FINANCIAL PEOPLE.

We know, ever since Bernie Sanders' insisted upon audit of the Fed went through, that Paulson/Bernanke lent some 14 to 16 trillions of dollars to their friends in high positions in banking across the globe.

As far as I am concerned that is a terrorist act.

But Bernanke told "Sixty Minutes' it wasn't real money - just digitized money that he created and nothing for anyone to worry about.

The experts tell us that some 4.7 trillions of dollars of these "loans" will never be paid back.

So have the President sign and Executive Order recapturing that money - in the same way the nation recaptures the accounts of Libya, Bin Laden et al.

As far as whether or not it should come out of Social security - hey - the American people, many of them in retirement, or nearing retirement, lost nine trillions of dollars when the Housing bubble burst. Let this "recapture of loaned monies" help to reduce the pain so many of us felt.

If that is not a good idea, then quit the crap and extend the cap! It is the affluent who live long enough to see retirement. Poorer people, especially those of us in our fifties and early sixties who don't have decent medical care, have much poorer odds of getting Social Security.

[grahamhgreen]

86. "have the President sign and Executive Order recapturing that money" -

Great idea!

[sabrina 1]

63. If only that were true. But the opposite is true. First of all SS is not in trouble

so you are starting from a false premise. Second, the Chained CPI will cut benefits for Seniors, the disabled, dependent children and veterans.

Most importantly it will make NO DIFFERENCE to the Fed Budget's Deficit since the SS fund has zero to do with the Deficit, it didn't cause it, it is a separate fund, it is not funded by the Fed Budget, so how on earth can cutting benefits from a totally separate fund that is completely solvent right now, do anything OTHER than cause hardship, which is totally unnecessary, to the most vulnerable Americans who actually OWN that fund.

The SS fund can meet all of its obligations 100%, based on the worst economy and highest unemployment rates until 2022 at least. There is zero problem doing this for over one decade. And that is assuming that the economy will not improve or unemployment go down. Those numbers stretch further into the future when the economy improves.

All that needs to be done is to raise the cap and provide jobs and SS can pay all of its obligations for the next 40 years.

Iow, there is no reason even with the worst scenario, to even be talking about SS right now. UNLESS you are an anti-SS republican who wants to privatize the fund to use to gamble on Wall St.

Otherwise we should be hearing nothing about SS right now.

[grahamhgreen]

87. Hear Hear! Well said!

"Most importantly it will make NO DIFFERENCE to the Fed Budget's Deficit since the SS fund has zero to do with the Deficit, it didn't cause it, it is a separate fund, it is not funded by the Fed Budget, so how on earth can cutting benefits from a totally separate fund that is completely solvent right now, do anything OTHER than cause hardship, which is totally unnecessary, to the most vulnerable Americans who actually OWN that fund. "

It is so simple, yet it seems we must repeat it over and over.

[truedelphi]

100. I think YOU MIS READ WHAT I POSTED.

Read it again. Think it through. All the way through.
No where do I endorse the notion of cutting bennies for the normal citizen.

I said to get it out of the butt ends of the Big Financial people.

[sabrina 1]

105. I'm sorry, I was trying to agree with you but didn't do it very well.

Sorry about that, typing too fast and trying to do more than one thing at a time.

I DO agree with what you said.

[truedelphi]

106. all I know is that I am headachy and grouchy now that not a

single carton of eggnog happens to exist in my rural area.

Wish you could walk over and have some - i am about to make it from scratch! (A little Captain Morgan's to make it even smoother!)

[sabrina 1]

107. Lol, I haven't had any egg nog either, so I wish I could join you also.

It sounds wonderful! I hope it cures your headache.

There is an old Irish saying that I'll probably get wrong but I think this is it:

"Whiskey when you're sick makes you well, whiskey makes you sick when you're well"

I am there in spirit!

[daa]

66. Do you even know what a chained CPI is?

It is called the substitution effect. As butter gets expensive people switch to margarine so the hery gets. Number one, the CPI already does not cover the items that seniors are stuck with. Secondly these is no substitution for medicine or doctors.

So it's a stupid idea to cost shift seniors who have no wy to make it up

[grahamhgreen]

110. Sorry, but that makes no sense...

You say "
That chained CPI will reduce the cost of the program and thus push further out the date until which the system will be able to pay out 100% of promised benefits and thus less need to privatize."

But what the ccpi does is make sure that the system fails to pay out 100% of promised payments SOONER!

[kenny blankenship]

12. Yep they first have to degrade and denature it

so it becomes A) Something that no longer has a stable, familiar shape which the little people are sure they understand, and B) it becomes something that does not look sustainable (cutting the payroll tax tied SS to the general fund deficit and erodes the program's previously well understood self-funding characteristic) and C) it becomes something that is less than adequate to the purpose which it was originally designed for. A deliberately degraded cost of living adjustment that cuts the benefits weakens the utility of the program and just as predictably lowers the attachment of the little people to their formerly beloved social insurance. By making it weak and useless, they can make it hated instead of loved and thus prime the people for the big sell-off of SS to Wall St.

Neoliberalism, both as economics and political economy, has been proved a fraud a dozen times over, theoretically, practically and historically, and yet the gangstas don't care. It enables their looting. Why should they care? They've got wiretaps on everyone, drones, tanks, pain rays, all the money, and 40 channels of slick corporate produced state sanctioned McPravda on their side.

[duffyduff]

28. Neo-liberalism is a failure as policy

The fact politicians still pursue such a reckless course proves that we have gangsters running the show, with the politicians as their puppets.

[byeya]

74. Yes, Neo-liberaliam has been tried in several places throughout the world and has been proved to

be a failure. Often, Neo-liberalism succeeds in allowing mafia-type RWers take charge of the economies to loot and leave.

[On the Road]

3. Certainly Social Security is Self-Funded,

but if your negotiating partner brings something to the table, it's part of the negotiations.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. That's absurd. No one has to negotiate that which is simply not in play.

And you see, my negotiating partner is on my side. The Republicans are our negotiating rivals, opponents, not partners. That's the entire problem, thinking they are partners AND that this gives them the right to bring bullshit to the table and have it treated like a prime rib dinner.

[TheKentuckian]

6. No excuse for adopting what they bring to our proposals.

There is a simple little word, many learn it first. It is called "NO". Which punts from the table.

What do we say? We say no!

What do we do when they set the frame? We deny the claim.

[sabrina 1]

7. If you are in control of negotiations, if your party wins an election, you get to

call the shots.

The President needs now to remove the Chained CPI from the discussions especially since Republicans have rejected his offer.

There is absolutely no reason why SS is part of these discussions.

If Republicans do not understand that SS had zero to do with the deficit and mistakenly included it in the Deficit discussions, then Democrats need to enlighten them. It's easy, you do it like this:

'We are returning your offer as there is an error in the paperwork which needs to be corrected.

We note that you have mistakenly included SS as part of these deficit discussions. You might as well have included Santa Claus who had as much to do with this issues as SS.

Please see the correction (we have removed any references to SS).

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward now to proceeding to address the actual issues that pertain to Deficit Reduction. (see attached list)

[grahamhgreen]

11. Look at OBAMA'S offers, not BOHNERS. Why did OBAMA put it on the table?

You can't reduce the deficit by cutting Social Security.

[Wellstone ruled]

13. Mr. Obama is a long way from

being a FDR or Henry Wallace,more like Harry Truman. Our President is a conservative much like Clinton,don't look to him for major Progressive moves. Notice the little subtleties is the guys messaging. If we change the House in 2014,then and only then will you see big sweeping moves toward a progressive agenda.

Don't forget the mans working career,major law firms out of Chi town. His social circle of friends and acquaintances,mostly 1%ers,yes I know,the man worked the mean streets,but he did the American Dream. People tend to drift away from beginnings when success accrues. Hope I'am totally wrong,but,there is a trend here.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

17. He's "more like Harry Truman"? You must have a sense of humor. He's the exact opposite of Truman.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Right now, SS is self-funding. However, this will not be the case starting in 2033.

According to the Social Security Trustees, who oversee the program and report on its financial condition, program costs are expected to exceed non-interest income from 2011 onward. However, due to interest (earned at a 4.4% rate in 2011) the program will run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021. Under current law, the securities in the fund represent a legal obligation the government must honor when program revenues are no longer sufficient to fully fund benefit payments. However, when the trust fund is used to cover program deficits in a given year, the Trust Fund balance is reduced. By 2033, the fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 75% of program obligations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

So while it is true that right now, SS adds nothing to the deficit, this will not always be the case. What is going on is forward planning.

[Dragonfli]

20. Projections can change, it still has nothing to do with the current deficit

Even if one takes these projections to be the word of God himself and not just a guess based on a worst case economic scenario, it would have nothing to do with the deficit during any of the ten years being talked about.

In fact, even then it would be against the law to pay for it from the general fund.

Assuming even the "sky will fall" in twenty years scenario, would it not make sense to negotiate any changes to the program at a more appropriate time, when we have all three branches rather than arbitrarily mixing it in with a separate discussion on an entirely different problem at a time when teabaggers still have some power?

Also if one simply were thinking forward with our best interests in mind, wouldn't one offer a "raise the cap Democratic type solution" rather than using a CPI that lies about the inflation faced by seniors simply to steal 10% from their retirement accounts? This simply makes no sense.

Rationalization fail.

[reteachinwi]

30. Exactly right

Since 1983 SS surpluses were used to mask the size of budget deficits created by tax cuts that benefitted mostly the well to do. The contract has reached it's term, and time has come for the beneficiaries of the SS surpluses to pay us back.

[hypergrove]

45. Bingo, spot-on, you've nailed it.

I am a bit amazed people don't see that the issue is minimizing future outlays, ie cash flow. The Fund will redeem its bonds, the Treasury will need to come up with the cash and has nowhere else to turn other than the private credit market where interest costs are higher.

So while SS does not contribute to PRESENT deficits, its preposterous to say that SS doesn't indirectly contribute to FUTURE deficits, for eaxctly the reason stated: "The contract has reached it's term, and (the) time has come for the beneficiaries of the SS surpluses to pay us back."

In my narrow view of reality, if I had a lotta money, I'd be worried about my taxes increasing to pay for past expenditures for foreign wars & drug wars & tax breaks & "gangland security" that clearly were poorly invested, to be as kind about it as I can. THOSE CRAVEN INVESTMENTS ARE EQUALLY THE FAULT OF BOTH DEMOCRATICS & REPUBLICANS. DON'T EVER FORGET THAT -- the politicians all know this but, in their mutual protection racket, have vowed a code of silence.

[grahamhgreen]

38. Rationalization fail. Logic fail. High probability of administration deception detected.

[grahamhgreen]

32. All we need do is have those who make over $110,000/yr pay into SS!

The easiest and best soulution!

[sabrina 1]

64. Those numbers are based on the worst economy and the high enemployment

caused by the Criminals on Wall St. So even with that, SS is still solvent into the future.

We should not ever speak about SS and the Deficit in the same conversation. One has nothing to do with the other.

Anyone doing that is attempting to deceive the population into tying the two together.

Fortunately people are now far more informed than they were a decade ago regarding these deceptions being perpetrated for decades by Wall St's puppets.

[customerserviceguy]

81. If by self-funding

you mean that hand-to-mouth existence it's been on, ever since day one, with any surplus borrowed by Congress to finance wars and tax cuts with non-negotiable securities, then you're right.

The only problem is, since the Great Recession started, transfers from the general fund have been needed, including those specifically appropriated for the "payroll tax holiday" that was the President's bright idea, not the GOP's. Interest paid to the system has kept it afloat during the recession, and that comes from the same general fund that has one out of every three dollars borrowed.

The crisis is coming well before 2033. If you've been paying attention, the SSA has lowered the day of reckoning by three years for every passing year since we went into recession. It doesn't take a mathematics wizard to see where that's going.

[freshwest]

15. The media has spun the demographics to make it appear half the population is not working, thus they

fail to see that money was paid in previously.

It has to do with a lack of comprehension of time in a populace that lives in the moment as defined by electronics, perhaps.

People are allowing the work of generations and the tax money they paid in to create the commons to be surrendered without a whimper. Americans have the attention span of a dayfly and the memory of a gnat.

They simply don't grasp this and vote in a boat load of clowns who are there to pillage us on every level. I see this in my 'blue' state, where many are only looking for the quick buck by devouring everything for capitalism. It ain't Obama, he's just the scapegoat. it's us.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

16. Obama is not doing this alone.

Senator Durbin, for example, is behind this as well.

So is Congresswoman Pelosi, and certain others in Congress.

He and they are not doing this without a reason. And it is not to cut the deficit.

Can any of us be faulted for wondering whether being a let's-undermine-SS Democrat is more profitable than being an FDR-type Democrat?

[indepat]

19. The appointer of Simpson & Bowles knew exactly where these two right-wingers stood. Their answer

to our national deficit woes was comically criminal and farcical, protecting the 1% at the expense of the 99% by allowing the most affluent and large corporations to slop mightily at the public welfare trough at the expense of the old, frail, and poor.

[earcandle]

21. Take the cap off of wage limits on SSI. Not fair that poor and middle class only pay this in.

And further, not fair they used our money for wars and don't want to give it back.

F_ck them.

Don't touch our savings and if you did, put it back asap. Not the opposite.
Newspeak dumbf_cks.

[earcandle]

22. or maybe it was used to bribe senators and house? Put it back and audit SSI NOW

We are not that stupid.

We can do the math.
No way this money should be short.
And we need more, so you want to see rich wages go down.
FICA them now!

[sulphurdunn]

24. The ruling class

maintain unwavering support for empire. The US is just another exploitable colony to them.

[soryang]

25. Same reason he is lowering corporate taxes, and...

...secretly giving away the farm in secret TPP negotiations. He's a Pete Petersen corporatist.

[UCmeNdc]

26. President Obama has already taken Social Security off the table

[grahamhgreen]

89. If you have any proof of that, I would love to see it, unfortunately his latest statement,

"As of today, I am still ready and willing to get a comprehensive package done." - President Obama 12/21/2012, says otherwise.

[pasto76]

29. because he knew the radical right would never go for a tax increase. He looks like a goddamn hero

which is why. And why are you still screaming about it when it has been off the table, from the president's own statements, since friday.

[Dragonfli]

33. How does offering up our SS fund to vultures make him look like a "goddamn hero"?

A hero like John Galt you mean?

[grahamhgreen]

39. Wait. You have a link for that? I would love it if he said he took SS off

the table. Really, I would sing it to the high moons of Saturn!

Unfortunately, this is what he really said:

"As of today, I am still ready and willing to get a comprehensive package done." - President Obama 12/21/2012

Seems to me, Social Security is on the table.

Full transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-remarks-on-the-fiscal-cliff--delivered-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/2411fcc4-4bb6-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

[rustydad]

34. It is simple.......

The government borrows to pay a part of it's bills. It "borrows" all Social Security payments, every penny. As SS costs go up there is less money to borrow. How they [plan (they don't) on paying back the borrowed money is another question.

[NCarolinawoman]

43. ....and that is why Al Gore wanted a "lock box".

But of course no one wanted to have a beer with Al, so Dimson Bush won the election.

Voters were as stupid as Bush.

[MisterP]

111. well, Gore did win--and they've formally admitted that since *2001*

it's not a matter of "myths are enduring" it's more a matter of "myths are profitable to the media and so they paper over the truth once they've admitted it" ...

[Igel]

36. Because "deficit" isn't the only thing that matters.

Oh, incidentally--it does add to the deficit. We're currently taking money from the general fund to buy out the loss of revenue from the FICA tax deduction. Back to the point, however.


Cash flow matters. Who you owe matters.

Currently there's a mess of money owed by the US government to the branch of the US government called "Social Security." We pay interest on it, but it's all in house and the interest is mostly just accruing on the books and not being paid.

As soon as we start having to pay interest and the loan capital we have to start either using general tax revenue OR we have to issue public debt. (Yeah, the SS debt is considered public, but it's special public debt--all held by Treasury as opposed to the domestic US public or overseas agents. It's also special in that altering the terms of the special debt would have little effect on the other forms of US debt.)

Of course, this entails actually paying back the debt without cutting benefits. It's also possible to just tax people more and never pay it back.

As soon as the "trust fund" is drained and a trillion dollars or more added to the debt held in private hands, then the choice is again to cut benefits, raise taxes, or fund SS out of general revenues.

[grahamhgreen]

41. So, you don't want to pay back the money you borrowed from the elderly...

instead, you want to take food, medicine and shelter from them.

Well, we borrowed money from the Chinese and Saudi's and banksters - why don't we stiff them first before you start starving the elderly???

Think about the priorities.

Why attack the elderly, when so many better solutions are available (like raising the cap and bolstering SS)???

[TreasonousBastard]

40. SS is not under attack and the deficit has nothing to so with SS...

the simple fact is that all revenue measures must originate in the House, according to the Constitution, so all Obama can do is suggest things or threaten a veto.

So, this is one of his suggestions, for the House to accept or reject. He's throwing lots of stuff out there to bribe them to do something, anything, to get us out of this mess.

Last I heard, he's offering chained CPI across the board for all Federal programs with a COLA, so it's not specific to SS and will affect the deficit.

And, anything agreed to now can be changed in the future. Everyone forgets those two years when Pelosi ran the house and a lot got done.

(Oh, wait-- Pelosi didn't get everything we want done, so she's another useless, neo-Republican piece of shit.)

[Iggy]

44. "Odd" That Obama "Throws Out Suggestions" Regarding SS

but not defense spending. nothing much gets said regarding that bloated sacred cow-- other than of course, defense spending must go on-- even increase.

[TreasonousBastard]

54. That's not how it works...

in any negotiation we throw out our concessions and they throw out theirs. The Pentagon is their concession to offer. Obama could demand it, but that would go nowhere.

[woo me with science]

90. No, that's wrong. Both sides throw out an entire offer,

which does not consist of only concessions.

And it is very telling that, across multiple offers, Obama repeatedly suggests that Social Security be cut, but *never* suggests cuts in the military budget or corporate welfare.

[grahamhgreen]

46. You state, "SS is not under attack", yet you admit that

"this is one of his suggestions... offering chained CPI" [cutting Social Security],

therefore, it is under attack.

Please tell him stealing from the elderly is done only by lowest form of con-artist on the planet.

[TreasonousBastard]

52. he hasn't stolen fom anyone yet, and...

perhaps it's best to remember who the real enemy is here.

[grahamhgreen]

61. Of course, but historically Obama has had to be pushed hard to do the right thing.

[TreasonousBastard]

65. Look back at his first two years and say that.

[NCarolinawoman]

47. "can be changed in the future"?

After the Obama Healthcare bill passed, Harry Reed said "It will be changed in the future to add the Public Option". "We will GET BACK TO THAT."

[earcandle]

48. We are finished with shadow governments and guns and fake facts.

[earcandle]

49. Every body knows.

[TreasonousBastard]

51. Quite possibly, when there is a less toxic House...

and you were perhaps really expecting miracles with a House leadership that publicly claimed its primary goal was ousting the Presidnet?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

50. Because Obama is a Republican.

He said so himself.

[ProSense]

55. Oh bullshit. I know the reason:

the end times. Most people didn't make it beyond December 18.

Still, if he's a Republican, maybe we need to focus on this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2061371

That maybe our only hope, right?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

56. .

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." - Barack Obama

[ProSense]

57. Ah,

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." - Barack Obama

...context is everything.

AMA: One issue that Cuban-Americans are worried about is, they believe that you favor a socialist model for our country. Cubans and Venezuelans especially because of what they have gone through. What do you think of that?

PBO: I don't know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that. The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican. I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair. I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure. I do believe that it makes sense that everyone in America, as rich as this country is, shouldn't go bankrupt because someone gets sick, so the things I believe in are essentially the same things your viewers believe in.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

President Obama was redefining the right to emphasize how crazy the Republican Party has become.

It curious how excited people are over this statement in the context of defining the President versus what he actually said, which was related to policies. Republicans today are extremists. The President is saying his policy proposals are mainstream.

The President's health care law:

Expands Medicaid: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022047642

Increases taxes on the rich: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2059710

Includes a federal-control clause: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021978966

That doesn't include eliminating the middle man from federal student loans, expanding Pell Grants and strengthening Medicare, to name a few.

If he's "Republican," he's one I can live with.

As for the past, let's not let rhetoric get the best of reality. Republicans sucked in the 1980s, and there were a lot of Democrats over the last 40 years who also sucked.

Phil Gramm:

In 1976, Gramm unsuccessfully challenged Texas Democratic Senator Lloyd M. Bentsen, in the party's senatorial primary. Then in 1978 Gramm successfully ran as a Democrat for Representative from Texas's 6th congressional district, which stretched from the Fort Worth suburbs to College Station. He was reelected to his House seat as a Democrat in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#United_States_House_of_Representatives

Richard Shelby:

Originally elected as a Democrat, Shelby switched to the Republican Party in 1994 when Republicans gained the majority in Congress midway through President Bill Clinton's first term. He was re-elected by a large margin in 1998 and has faced no significant electoral opposition since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby

Zell Miller:

Miller crossed party lines and backed Republican President George W. Bush over Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Miller

The dynamics are not new, and the struggle is ongoing.

A Democratic President enacted the COLA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022045787

[Number23]

59. Advantage: Prosense

Still wiping the floor, the walls and the ceilings with the haters, I see.

[Bobbie Jo]

94. Thank you....

He's been plastering that tripe all over the place like it's supposed to be clever, or something.

[Doctor_J]

60. Don't you wish that just once he would pander to the left

the way he does to the right? Just once before he leaves office, on some negligible issue (come out for gun control, pardon Don Siegelmann, take a stand against destroying public schools, say that he'll go to political grave before he'll cut SS benefits....anything??)

[Doctor_J]

58. Because the banksters who own the government WANT IT

and they tend to get what they want, even when the president is a D(INO)

[Agnosticsherbet]

62. When negotiating, you must offer the other side something they want.

Cutting what they call entitlements is the biggest thing on the Conservative agenda. It doesn't matter if it does not add the the national debt.

Personally, I think President Obama should have said will negotiate on a comprehensive tax plan in January. Republicans passed this set of tax cuts and wrote a sunset into the provision on purpose. They should be given what they want. After January 20, we can begin to discuss taxes.

Yes, I understand why he is offering Social Security cuts. That is what the other side wants. As long as he is negotiating, he seems to feel he needs to do so in a way that gives the other side something for what they will give back.

Its wrong, and we should not selll the elderly and poor down the river for the sake of a negotiation. But the reasons are pretty clear.

[grahamhgreen]

67. Just say someone wants to buy your car, but, heck, they'd like your house too;

you don't offer up the house just because it's something the other side wants!!!

The house ain't on the table. The house ain't got nothin' to do with the car purchase!

We're negotiating a deficit deal. SS does not add one nickel to the deficit, therefore it is nonsensical to include it in the negotiations.

SS should be a separate negotiation. Just like the car is separate from the house, SS is a separate negotiation from the deficit.

Here is some advice from Take It Or Leave It: The Only Guide to Negotiating You Will Ever Need: "Think through your alternatives. The more options you feel you have, the better a negotiating position you'll be in."

Surely we all must agree that there are a thousand other things to offer up before we get to taking food from the mouths of the elderly, orphaned, and disabled? Particularly, when it has nothing to do with the deficit!

The reasons for including SS in a deficit deal are far from clear - they are mired in blackness, back room deals, and, possibly, corruption, IMHO.

[Agnosticsherbet]

72. I don't think it should have ever been offered...but I still understand why he went there.

For the same reason the level of income tax has been changed from $250,000.00 to $400,000.00.

First, there are things that Republicans want and a lot they don't give a damn about. Should they have been offered an end to school lunches, or Obamacare?

Could you post a list of offers to the Republican Party of what they want that would negotiate for.

There, of course, is also the other reason for making that offer that has less to do with what they want, but comes out of political tradition.

From these negotiations, it is traditional to give both sides something they can take home and say, look what I won. These political decisions are most easily passed when the perception is win win, not win lose. Win lose requires domination by one side or the other.

Equally, I think the biggest impediment to negotiation is the fact that many on the right won't negotiate at all. To them Obama is an evil spawn of Satan and they are the defenders of Gods bath chamber, and they won't negotiate with evil.

[Honeycombe8]

71. I read nothing in that article about Obama attacking or cutting Social Security. And he hasn't.

So....wtf? Are you just making this up?

The entitlement cuts in Obama's proposals are to Medicare/Medicaid (and I think they wre actually more than that chart indicates).

[grahamhgreen]

75. All the red areas comprise cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,

and others. As you can see, Obama has proposed up to 725 billion in cuts to these programs.

This includes "Chained CPI", which is an attack on Social Security.




It is not in dispute that Obama that Obama has attacked Social Security benefits for the elderly. 96 Congressional members have signed a letter to prevent this (http://boldprogressives.org/a-majority-of-house-democrats-have-said-they-would-vote-against-a-bill-with-chained-cpi/). It states, "Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) are standing up against a proposal to cut Social Security benefits by changing the way we calculate inflation…Tying Social Security to chained CPI is a benefit cut and members of the CPC will not vote for a deal that cuts the benefits that millions of Americans rely on."



It's an easy phone call to make tomorrow, don't let him cut SS, especially as it does not add one nickel to the deficit!

[Honeycombe8]

95. The CPI is only in Obama's last proposal, which he has withdrawn.

So I guess you're talking about if he decides to propose it again?

[grahamhgreen]

96. I would very much appreciate a link to the administration stating that chained cpi and

Social Security is off the table.

I am not aware that he has withdrawn it.

[MjolnirTime]

77. Bullshit. You declare defeat before anything even happens.

We all know what your agenda is here.

[Oilwellian]

83. I had to laugh out loud at your response

Are you suggesting we say nothing until after it happens? Because that's the only alternative. What do you suppose my agenda is since I agree with the OP, and have been a member of DU for the past twelve years?

[grahamhgreen]

85. What are you talkin about? This is a call to action, asking that we all call

our reps, and Obama, and tell them "No cuts to Social Security, No Chained CPI, Social Security does not add one nickel to the deficit, so it is absurd that it is part of the deficit reduction discussion".

White house opens tomorrow, congress Thursday.

Please call.

[commenter8]

78. Don't cut SS, cut corporate welfare!

White House petition to end corporate welfare here: http://wh.gov/Qa6f

[Yo_Mama]

88. Because this is what the professors are telling him to do

I think they're wrong, but Bernanke and the Fed Heads have been wandering all year, telling Capitol Hill not to raise taxes strongly now but to cut future entitlements. Yap, yap, yap. All year long.

Not that they just started it this year, here's Bernanke from 2010:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bernanke-things-will-come-apart-if-entitlements-are-not-reformed-and-spending
But this year Bernanke basically came out and said not to let taxes go back up in 2013, but to take it out later in the form of reduced entitlements:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/272611-bernanke-fiscal-cliff-standoff-already-taking-economic-toll

The "contractionary fiscal policy" is mostly scheduled tax increases.

The Prez listens to the professors too much.

Social Security does add to the cash flow deficit, which is all the creditors care about.

[grahamhgreen]

91. Bernake is only interested in stuffing our hard earned money into his obesely rich

buddies pockets.

Obama's gonna fracture the party if he keeps attacking the elderly.

[Yo_Mama]

93. Corzine was never prosecuted

This should have been a clue to us all.

I don't think Obama is attacking the elderly, but he should be defending them and he is not.

He needs to hear from us.

[cecilfirefox]

97. Because SS is unsustainable in its current form- it's going to need some tweaking if people my age

ever hope to be able to draw from it.

It has nothing to do with the deficit, and no one with any sense is really insinuating that it does.

[grahamhgreen]

99. Then it should be adressed seperately from the the deficit reduction talks. Especially

when the President refers to enactment of the "Budget Control Act of 2011" as a "fiscal cliff", and says we must not let the Act take effect on Jan 1 2013.

Since Social Security is still solvent for the next 22 years, obviously we do not need to address it in panic mode in the next 5 days!!!

Right?



(And when we do deal with it, raising the cap is the best way to go: "The Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act, S. 1558, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), truly strengthens Social Security for future generations. The bill closes Social Security’s 75-year funding gap by applying Social Security payroll tax contributions to covered earnings of $250,000 or more. Currently, only wages up to $106,800 are taxed." http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/media/blog/2011/sanders%E2%80%99-bill-s-1558-guarantees-social-security-for-75-years)

[Sekhmets Daughter]

101. Last year

The Treasury had to borrow $103 billion to cover the shortfall created by the payroll tax cut. While asking for SS to be taken off of the table, be sure to ask for the reinstatement of the regular FICA tax rates.

What no one is saying is that the desire for a Chained CPI is based on the expectation of ever lower wages. You should be ignoring the damned Chained CPI and demanding higher wages for workers.

[JReed]

103. Wall St.

Wall St. wants everything.

[DirkGently]

109. But Obama magically *knew* his offer(s) wouldn't be accepted!

Because ... magic! Or Jedi mind tricks! And also, how dare you point this out!