Heads-Up !!! - 'Why Democrats Might Cave On Social Security Cuts' - HuffPo

[WillyT]

Why Democrats Might Cave On Social Security Cuts
Zach Carter - HuffPo
Posted: 10/20/2013 11:19 am EDT | Updated: 10/20/2013 11:24 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Sunday opened the door to Social Security cuts as part of a budget deal with congressional Republicans. But Durbin pushed back against GOP calls for entitlement cuts as the negotiating price to curb or extinguish the economically damaging sequester cuts.

"If this is the bargain that the Republicans are now pushing for, that we have to cut Medicare to avoid cuts at the Department of Defense, they need to take a step back," Durbin said on "Fox News Sunday."

Congress is currently negotiating a new budget, with a December deadline. The talks were mandated by last week's deal to raise the debt ceiling and end the government shutdown.

And...

Durbin said that Republicans had to put tax revenue on the table to get entitlement cuts. Fox host Chris Wallace noted that Durbin has previously supported entitlement cuts, and asked why Republicans should have to give up tax increases to get something that many Democrats support. President Barack Obama has repeatedly endorsed Social Security cuts as part of budget deals, and Durbin acknowledged that he did support Social Security reforms.

"Social Security is gonna run out of money in 20 years," Durbin said. "The Baby Boom generation is gonna blow away our future. We don't wanna see that happen."

Social Security will not run out of money in 20 years. The program currently enjoys a surplus of more than $2 trillion. Social Security will, however, be unable to pay all benefits at current levels if nothing is changed. If a 25 percent benefit cut were implemented in 20 years, the program would be solvent into the 2080s.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/democrats-social-security-cuts_n_4132087.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. Et tu Dick Durbin?

[libdem4life]

2. No. Raise the cap on payments. It's called Fair Share. No cuts. Expand the funding base.

[dobleremolque]

30. This! n/t

[Cryptoad]

103. It need a step more thatn removing the caps

FICA tax needs to be a progressive tax! More you make the greater your rate!

[FogerRox]

172. SO the richest 100 people might be eligible for 260k annual retirement benefits

I'm very certain thats not the purpose of SS, to insure people who make money from capital.

Social Security is wage insurance.

And if you put a cap on the top SS benefits you have now changed SS fore ever into a welfare program.

[eridani]

257. You don't need a cap--just a very slowly increasing upward slope n/t

[FogerRox]

276. Does that sound like a means test?

[eridani]

288. No-it already exists

Lower income people get a boost in the initial benefits calculations right now. The benefits slope is different (flatter) for medium and higher income individuals. The slopes can always be tweaked further.

[FogerRox]

292. Bend points are not considered a means test

At least 99% of the SS defenders group doesnt consider bend points a means test since SS benefits are not legally capped.

[FogerRox]

121. return to the 90% cap, or create 23 million jobs @36k

the increase in FICA would be about 90 billion a year, enough to see SS solvent thru 2090.

[libdem4life]

179. $90 Billion...had no idea. That would probably be easier (?) than SS changes.

[FogerRox]

201. I thought the same thing when I did the math....

to correct my post above 20 million jobs at 36k each equals 89.2 billion more in FICA annually. I used 36k because in the 2010 Census report, the median wage for a male working full time year round is 36k. SO 36k is a very realistic number. In 2011 the CBO scored the SS shortfall thru 2090 as .6% of GDP, GDP for last year was 15 trillion, whats .6% of 15 trillion? Its 90 billion a year.

If we raise the min wage to say $10/hr thats more FICA, if we see real wage growth over 10 yrs, that 36k mentioned above might become 40k, again thats more FICA.

Remember there are about 25 million under or unemployed. SO creating 20 million jobs is not terribly unrealistic.

I want to create jobs now, and maybe 12-15 years from now revisit the issue of making a change to SS if needed.

Please feel free to share this:

[libdem4life]

206. That makes sense. Because once you open up the SS conversation, kind of like a genie in a bottle.

Thanks for doing the numbers.

[Alkene]

167. Raise the cap. n/t

[libdem4life]

181. Has anyone done figures on this at various levels?

[FogerRox]

211. CBO

Using this chart find .6% of GDP (savings}, raising the SS cap to 90%, like it was in 1984, is equal to about .2% of GDP.

Remember removing the cap creates a 260k annual benefit for some uber rich person while raising the SS cap to 90% only raises benefits about 4 thousand a yr. I dont advocate removing the cap, but returning the cap to 90% of wages keeps SS as a wage insurance program and that has a historical basis.

Creating 20 million jobs equals .6% of GDP, raising the min wage to 12 bucks might equal .1%. Immigration reform means more legal workers paying FICA, I havent seen any decent numbers for Immigration reform but it might be another .1%.

[libdem4life]

219. Now I remember why I wasn't an accountant...appreciate the explanation. Put in minimum wage

and Immigration reform...makes too much sense. Poor Republicans have to oppose all of that because they'd never get voted in again.

[emsimon33]

250. The government has treated SS as a revenue stream to avoid raising taxes so raise the cap or,

better yet, eliminate it!

[Autumn]

3. It almost seems hopeless when a battle has to be fought on all fronts.

rec

[99th_Monkey]

4. When a prominent Democrat like Durbin LIES through his teeth to the detriment of poor people

it's high time he got his gold watch, and moved to Palm Springs.

[L0oniX]

8. He's a fucking dino.

[99th_Monkey]

11. He's also a Dick. nt

[Enthusiast]

85. He's both.

And a little weasel too.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. Durbin is not welcome in Palm Springs he voted for DOMA so he should stay among

his own in Illinois. That worthless bigoted old right winger should not try to come live anywhere in the west.

[Enthusiast]

84. I quit donating to Durbin when he first expressed his support for cuts to social security.

Durbin is dead to me. As is any Democrat that even entertains the idea of Chained CPI. It isn't their money to bargain away. Hear that, Mr. President?

Advocating Chained CPI demonstrates how out of touch these office holder are. I guess they won't understand that until they lose their job.

[sabrina 1]

173. And he IS lying. SS is NOT in trouble, and the Baby Boomers, contrary to his false claims are the

generation that contributed the MOST to SS. They not only took care of their OWN retirement, they took care of their parents' retirement also.

They contributed to the largest surplus ever in the SS Fund which is at the moment over two Trillion Dollars, more than enough to cover 100% of SS obligations for the next 50 years combined with the contributions that are currently being paid in to the Fund.

Even in these bad economic times, SS has shown a SURPLUS despite the unemployment rates due to the fact that they have other sources of income. The Interest on the Borrowed Trillions now backed by bonds eg.

It's bad enough when Republicans lie about SS, but it really is sad to see a Democrat doing it. What IS his purpose??

They want to cut benefits so that they don't have to pay back what they borrowed. They KNOW the surplus will cover SS obligations for a long time, but that would mean having to pay it back. It would mean having to stop spending on Wars and Weapons and Wall St. Bailouts when they screw up again, and on Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.

No Democrat should enable this reprehesnible behavior. Shame on him for helping the continued Right Wing attacks on and lies about SS.

[99th_Monkey]

200. Thank you sabrina 1

you have summarized the situation brilliantly, as usual.

What ever happened to "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"?

[WillyT]

203. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - And Thank You !!!

[idwiyo]

238. k&r

[tularetom]

5. Cut 50% from the biggest entitlement program of all - the Defense Dept budget

And use the savings to prop up SS and Medicare. If they still can't be supported at current levels then we can talk about cuts.

I don't like it when I hear Democrats talking like this.

[Heather MC]

71. I agree with you however

the first thing they would could cut would be Soldiers pay and their benefits
before they would cut defense contract money to build more useless bombs


We need someone willing to make intelligent decisions and not political ones. Unfortunately I don't think we have enough intelligent people in office right now.
And we may never get that

[JDPriestly]

158. Support Elizabeth Warren. I bet she knows how to make the right cuts. She is good at math.

[Enthusiast]

93. A US military 50% of its present size is still too large.

There is no enemy except those of our own making. And they are not the sophisticated Soviet Union. The peace dividend should be enormous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Actually the size of the military personnel wise is small

Personnel is not the issue, it's weapons systems.

[Enthusiast]

105. Whatever we throw the money at is what should be cut.

Weapon systems and weapons that the military even says we don't want or need.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Agreed

But the navy is trying to run ships with just enough personnel to barely run systems, for example. There are not enough for damage control. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

We should curtail certain programs, the F-35 is an extremely good example, as well as the Osprey. Will not happen with current congress.

[JDPriestly]

162. We should close some of our overseas bases to start with.

It will save some, and we can move on from there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

168. The costs are not in the bases

though it would be symbolic.

We are building aircraft that are going straight to the boneyard. for example.

Personnel, including bases are truly a small part of DOD spending. If people knew the waste and abuse in programs. Some of it is to keep dark programs well dark, some of it is criminal.

[littlewolf]

224. many times the host countries pay the operating costs of

overseas bases, esp. in Japan.

[AlbertCat]

151. Cut 50% from the biggest entitlement program of all - the Defense Dept budget

Tah Dah!!!

Of course cutting a third would probably do the trick.

And reinstate a mandatory minimum corporation tax like Clinton had. I believe his was around the corporate tax in Europe...16%? 17%? Mandatory.


We'd probably have enough money to, like, support the arts or something!

[dawg]

6. A chained CPI would be a really great way ...

of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Going along with, or even ... shudder .... proposing a cut in Social Security benefits, would do far more damage to the Democratic brand than the Republicans did for their brand with the shutdown.

I'm feeling a little Green right now, just thinking about it.

[LuvNewcastle]

55. That's right.

The Democrats are enjoying a little bit of popularity right now, at least compared to the GOP. If they vote to cut Social Security and Medicare, you can watch that popularity go down the drain. This should be the party of the common people.

The Democrats could be poised for a big win next year, but they can forget about it if they compromise about this. Honestly, what good are they if they give in at the very time when they're needed the most? We saw them stand against the shutdown, so we know they can do this. The question is, do they want to stand up against it? There are some Democrats who apparently WANT to cut those programs; it's pretty obvious to me. They either need to see the light, or they need to join the Republicans. There should be no place for them in the Democratic Party if they're in favor of this.

[okaawhatever]

80. I think this is political chess. The Repubs want SS cuts, but none of them campaign on it with

their senior base. I would love a vote to cut ss in the house. I want to get every Repub who is against it to o on record. SS has been one of those things that the repubs promise to their business/tea party wing and then deny to their huge block of senior voters. I'm wondering if this isn't a move by the dems to either get a vote against it by the repubs, or get a cut in place that was clearly orchestrated by the repubs so that the seniors will switch parties in 2014. The senior citizens have largely voted Republican and the democrats are fighting this battle. Why give up our political capital to protect someone who won't vote for us? Use the political capital on climate change or a jobs bill. I've thought for some time the real reason Republicans are stalling things and refusing to vote on anything (like the gun bill in the house) is that they're trying to serve two masters and they don't want anyone to know what they're really doing. A vote on this will only hurt them and bring SS back into the limelight. I have noticed Obama and the dems seem to be willing to cave on things that won't take effect immediately, like SS. We have time to fix that before it hurts us.

[LuvNewcastle]

109. That's why we must stand against it.

We have to make it clear to the people that it's the Republicans who want it. When Democrats support those cuts, they are giving the Republicans cover, and they should have to own that shit. Democrats who favor the cuts need to be silenced. They don't believe in Democratic values if they favor it, and if they can't stand against those cuts, they deserve to get what Lieberman got.

[gtar100]

81. Based on his actions, I would say that it's Durbin's mission to derail Democratic victories.

Seriously, this guy is plague to our party. He doesn't hold any of our ideals and it would be difficult to even sell him as a moderate republican.

[LuvNewcastle]

98. It figures that the talk shows would have Durbin on there to

give the Democratic point of view, since he stands for cutting SS and Medicare. That is very bad for the party to have someone like that representing the Democrats. All he's doing is giving the GOP cover and making it seem like the cuts are inevitable. The Democrats will deserve to lose if they support this bullshit.

[Enthusiast]

99. But it would only defeat those of us that don't count.

The President needs to hear from all of us. The Democrats holding office in both houses of congress need to hear from all of us.

[JDPriestly]

164. Any change in Social Security benefits that results in a decrease is a DEFAULT

ON A MAJOR CREDITOR -- the Social Security Trust Fund. And yes. The Trust Fund exists. It is written into the statute. Google it and statute. It's right there. It is managed by the Department of the Treasury.

The general fund borrows from the Social Security Trust Fund. Cutting Social Security benefits whether coined as a chained CPI or in other language is a DEFAULT on seniors and on US government obligations. It sends a really bad message to other creditors. It's dangerous. It is no solution at all.

[LuvNewcastle]

185. I hadn't looked at it that way. It's certainly true, though.

If China and all the other creditors are getting paid, they definitely should be paying our own citizens. I hope the Dems use that in their arguments against cuts.

[dreamnightwind]

236. Sadly the other creditors like it

It shows they will get priority over our own citizens.

[Marr]

244. I'd bet you cash money that's what's coming. Obama has been maneuvering for SS cuts

since he took office, beginning with the rigged Catfood Commission and his adoption of what were at one time exclusively right-wing talking points on the subject of SS and the deficit.

Having achieved a bit of political capital, I have little doubt where it will be spent.

[truedelphi]

280. But democrats being democrats, we all have to worry about their lack of a spine.

The elected Democratic officials know that the only other viable party is the Bat Shit crazy republicans.

[L0oniX]

7. Raise the cap and cut the military. Stop blaming the boomers ya fuckin sociopaths!

[Enthusiast]

101. PLUS! this one....nt

[polichick]

117. Well said.

[AtomicKitten]

9. The push should be to contact every Democrat in Congress

and tell them to VOTE NO! on anything that cuts the so-called entitlements in any way. The president and allies can negotiate cuts, but the Democrats in Congress don't have to vote for it. Just say no!

[jsr]

10. Perfect timing. This will revitalize the GOP. It's nothing but a gift to Republicans.

[okaawhatever]

96. Do you think so? If the Repubs push SS cuts what will happen to their large senior base? I think

the Democrats know the seniors won't vote in 2014 for repubs who have cut ss. The key is to put this in the lap of the republicans and campaign on overturning the cuts in the 2014 election.
Think about it, we are always fighting for SS and the senior citizens as a block vote Republican (often times for social issues). If this gets the seniors to vote democratic and in their best interest, I support the plan. It's about knowing the end game, and Obama's pretty good at keeping his cards close to his vest.

[tularetom]

135. How are we putting it in the lap of the republicans when a senior Democratic senator

goes on Fox for chrissakes, and proposes a cut in SS without even being asked to?

The president has already made enough statements about chained CPI's, etc. that the republicans will have no problem hanging them around the neck of 2014 congressional candidates. Now Senator Durbin goes on a republican propaganda outlet and gives them even more ammunition.

It will be very hard to portray the republicans as the party that wants to slash SS when these kinds of video clips are floating around out there.

[okaawhatever]

187. It's not lost on me that the person who spoke on Fox has one of the safest Senate seats. Not

only did he win by 65% last time, he won't be up again in 2014. Let the individual congresspeople vote for or against and blame Durbin. It's the same reason all the solid seat Repubs are the ones who talk all the trash on tv. They let McCain do a lot of the crazy talk for that very reason. Why do you think Rubio's been AWOL lately? They don't want him to be forced to voice opinions and go on record.
The repubs say they're for "entitlement" cuts. Been screaming it or years. The majority of Americans don't know SS, VA Benefits, Medicare are all entitlement programs. Wait until they realize what the repubs are really saying.

[Leontius]

165. Why would seniors vote Democratic when the biggest push to screw with SS

comes from the so called Democratic President Barack Obama. even if we can get through the rest of his term without letting him destroy SS he has given cover to all by being the one to link it to the Federal debt and deficit.

[sabrina 1]

247. Are you seriously suggesting letting cuts to seniors to go through just so 'we can get their votes'?

Is it just me, or does anyone else find this kind of 'politics' to be reprehensible?


And we are not talking about Republicans here. We are talking about DEMOCRATS, Durbin in NOT a Republican.

Obama has included SS cuts in his budget for crying out loud! Obama is a Democrat.

Close to his vest?? He has written it into his budget. That's pretty blatant imho.


SS Benefits should be RAISED. THAT is what Dems need to suggest and then let Repubs do the fighting, AGAINST raises for seniors!!

Now that we have Democrats proposing cuts to Seniors' SS, how do you think they will vote in 2014, those who normally vote Democratic.

[damnedifIknow]

12. From April 10th 2013

"President Obama today outlined a $3.77 trillion budget that aims to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and cutting popular entitlement programs, saying “we’ve got to get smarter about our priorities as a nation.”

we’ve got to get smarter about our priorities as a nation.”

That we do....

[senseandsensibility]

15. My definition of smarter must

be different than the President's.

[Doctor_J]

18. Don't forget, "Some in my party are too tied to entitlements"

Can't wait for the BOG to tell us how this is a good thing.

[cui bono]

33. First they'll have to get out of denial. When he offered it up before some kept telling me it didn't

happen, even after I posted links to press conferences where it was clearly stated.

[pangaia]

52. Me too.

[Enthusiast]

111. Well, if the President wants it, it is something good, something we should all embrace.

When will you learn!? [url=http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php][img][/img][/url]

[JDPriestly]

171. Hillary will agree to those cuts. Support Elizabeth Warren.

We can draft her if she doesn't announce. It has happened. A draft is a possibility. We do not need the DLC machine. They are paid and represent the Pete Petersons and other greedy billionaires. We have to find a people's candidate. Elizabeth Warren has a wonderful gift. She can explain complex ideas in simple language. She is adorable and electable.

[dionysus]

240. don't jinx warren. your support for smoove johnny was enough. nt

[JDPriestly]

246. John Edwards was the only candidate who had the right take on the economy.

He knew it was falling apart early on. Obama seemed to be taken unawares. So did most of the other candidates including Hillary.

Edwards warned about it on his website very, very early on. Most people did not notice it. He was the only one who fought the outsourcing and exportation of jobs.

It's a shame he became such a fool over a woman.

But then Clinton made a similar mistake, just got caught earlier in the game.

Hillary has so many problems. I do not want Hillary. On economics she is just another dupe of Wall Street.

[joshcryer]

253. Ironically, Hillary took SS off the table.

Obama:

Stephanopolous: You've also said that with Social Security everything should be on the table.

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising the retirement age?

Obama: Yes.

Stephanopolous: Raising payroll taxes?

Obama: Everything should be on the table.

Stephanopolous: Partial privatization?

Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider.

Hillary:

Russert: But you would not take lifting the cap at $97,500 off the table?

Clinton: Well, I'd take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.

Russert: So, Senator, a simple question, a simple question: What do you put on the table? What are you willing to look at to say, "We're not going to double the taxes, we're not going to cut benefits in half; I'm willing to put everything on the table, some things on the table, nothing on the table"?

Clinton: I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility. I think it's a mistake to do that.

More Hillary:

But I am not going to balance Social Security on the backs of seniors and hardworking middle-class Americans. Let's start taking the tax cuts away from the wealthy. Let's take away the no-bid contracts from Halliburton before we start imposing a trillion-dollar tax increase on the elderly and on middle-class workers. I don't think that's necessary.

Yes, it happened. Yes, Hillary Clinton was to the left of Obama. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of people got duped by Obama's brilliant campaign. But what's done is done and hopefully we can "hold his feet to the fire" and it will turn out OK.

[JDPriestly]

254. As I recall the debates, Obama suggested raising the cap, and Hillary disagreed.

Hillary wobbles on Social Security and avoids taking a stance. Essentially, in 2004, she said she wanted to make Social Security safe, but refused to say what she would do. She wanted a "bipartisan committee." As we now know, that means she wanted to cut Social Security but just didn't want to take responsibility for doing it or advocating for it. Same as Obama and Durbin.

Bipartisan commission, like in 1983, to address crisis
OBAMA: [to Clinton]: I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to stabilize the Social Security system and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.

CLINTON: I am totally committed to making sure Social Security is solvent. You’ve got to begin to reign in the budget, pay as you go, to try to replenish our Social Security Trust Fund. And with all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security wa 1983. Pres. Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do. And I will say, #1, don’t cut benefits on current beneficiaries they’re already having a hard enough time. And #2, do not impose additional tax burdens on middle-class families.

OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, and also raised the payroll tax. So Sen. Clinton can’t have it both ways.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Of course, in 1983, they agreed that the baby boomers would create problems for Social Security. They raised the amount of money that people (meaning a lot of baby boomers and those younger than they) would have to pay into the Social Security Trust Fund on the promise that those payments would be saved, lent to the general fund and then repaid to the Social Security Trust Fund to pay Social Security benefits to the baby boomers.

And of course, Bush fought two wars without paying for them with new taxes and instead of raising taxes to pay for his wars, lowered taxes on the rich. That is where the money went -- into the pockets of the rich. With it, the rich created a housing boom which impoverished those of us in the middle class, and so here we are with the threat that a bipartisan committee will lower Social Security benefits.

Hillary is not being honest about her stance on Social Security. Never was. Bipartisan committee is another euphemism for lowering benefits.

We need a straight answer from Hillary. I suspect the plan is for Obama to take the blame for lowering the benefits in his second term (hence the bipartisan committee in Congress to consider balancing the budget) so that the hot potato will be cooled off by the time Hillary runs. If you think that sounds like a conspiracy theory, why do they hire political strategists if not to think up schemes like that?

[joshcryer]

255. Clinton was trying to shed the "partisan" image that she had.

She was competing with Obama who sold himself as the most ultra-bipartisan person in history. And who has lived up to that.

"everything on the table" vs "bipartisan commission"

The "commission" Obama refers to in your quote are those under past Presidencies. She never said what she would accept under said "commission."

There's no "stance" on Social Security that Hillary Clinton has ever taken. Those saying she would gut it have no evidence to those ends. If anything she has put little concern on the issue, as by right, it won't become an "issue" for another 20 years, if then (raising the cap would make it irrelevant). That's an issue so far beyond the 2008-2020 Presidential timeframe that it's a joke. Why it is even brought up in elections now is insane. It shouldn't even be an issue until 2030, at minimum (the Social Security fund isn't sustainable as it stands, but it's still several decades from being an issue, bringing it up in current politics is mere gamesmanship, and Obama should've been ashamed for that).

Obama was the one who ran on cutting the deficit, it was right there in his nomination speech. He laments, indeed, that if the deficit was reduced by his legislation he wouldn't "get credit" for it.

[JDPriestly]

258. Clinton suggested a bipartisan commission.

That lets her personally off the hook. She knows what the political price will be for the people who cut Social Security benefits. Of course, if Obama does it now, he won't pay any price since the Republicans are so low in public esteem. And that will let Hillary off the hook. She will be able to slide into the White House without having clarified her stance on Social Security. But I will consider her to be pro-cuts unless she does take a clear stance. Recommending that a bipartisan commission consider the issue is a cop-out.

[joshcryer]

259. Precisely.

She was playing politics. And she'll continue to do so. And it's bullshit. Take a stance, Hillary! I'm merely saying we don't know what she'll do. It's likely she backs something like Chained-CPI. Who knows. We don't know. In fact, her failure to take a stance on Social Security is seen as evidence by many that she plans to run. Keep her opinion to herself. "Adapt" as the situation desires. Don't take a stance and keep a low profile (we saw what a trainwreck being "high profile" was in her last campaign, trumpeting BS that never happened, like the sniper fiasco).

Obama's preferred position on Social Security is raising the cap. But he still insists on putting everything else on the table. He should state, outright, that he won't accept anything other than raising the cap. He should make it clear. There are no veto-proof majorities. If he made this abundantly clear then we could get a solution that is simple, that Bernie Sanders advocates, that every progressive policy center supports. Just raise the cap, no big deal. It's so trivial it's a joke. It would only affect the top 5%-10% or so (a tax hike on them). It's not a losing strategy. The voting population wouldn't even feel it or care.

I personally hope the shutdown and debt ceiling crisis makes him realize fighting and taking a strong stance is a good idea. I'm actually concerned about a Hillary Clinton presidency for the exact opposite reason. She's been Secretary of State for so long and she's been bipartisan for so long she might have shed her earlier partisan views. She might even be more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare than Obama! It's insane, how this could turn out.

If Obama takes a stance, here, now, on Social Security, if he insists on raising the cap, he will leave office with a legacy never before seen in our history. Social Security is unsustainable in the long run without raising the cap (even Chained-CPI is unsustainable, it kicks the can down the road for awhile, but eventually it'll come up again). It's not really an issue that needs to even be addressed for 20-25 more years, but since it's been brought up, take the correct stance!

Obama and the Democrats have gained a tiny bit of capital. Capitalize on it!

[JDPriestly]

260. In 2004, Obama suggested raising the cap.

Hillary responded that would increase the taxes on the middle class. (I remember that primary debate.) Obama said that only 6% of the population would be affected. I think the percentage would be higher than that, but not very high. We should raise the cap. It would amount to a small amount of money for the very highly paid.

[joshcryer]

261. He's suggested it all the way up until September of 2012!

It's his preferred solution, I think. His personal conviction. He just needs to make it abundantly clear. Fight for it.

Ironically in the very debate you quote, Obama accuses Hillary of possibly "raising taxes" with her "commission."

It's hilarious how two sided politicians can be.

It still remains that Hillary hasn't taken a stance one way or another and to be honest there needn't be a "fix" for 20 more years.

[KoKo]

266. Good Fact Check! Thank for posting this and the strategy that could

be the goal.

[joshcryer]

252. "Everything is on the table." - Obama ... 2008.

Before being elected.

[ruffburr]

13. Too say-

That this type of bargaining is giving in to the republican dreams of destroying the safety net that actually makes this country stronger,Is the understatement of the century, The Conservatives have been fighting this battle since the inception of soc. sec. along with every other social support for seniors, disabled and impoverished people. How these people live with themselves is amazing to me , No guilt No compassion,No moral compass,just greed and avarice. Sick .

I just sent a copy of this to the whitehouse , I hope you feel the need to do the same.

[cui bono]

32. To say that is being too generous. Dems have to want this too or they wouldn't be offering it up

like this. Why aren't they fighting for it? There is a reason. They all know if Dems offer it there won't be as much of an outcry. Look at all the other things Bush did that Obama escalated with nary a peep from the Dem Party, because he's a Dem. When Bush did the same things you couldn't hear enough about it from Dems, now... crickets.

[Tigress DEM]

57. Better plan, solve this on SEVERAL FRONTS.

Raise the CAP to 2 million.

Raise tax on 1% to 40%.

Raise minimum wage to $10hr.

Incentives to companies providing a LIVING WAGE of $15hr or more.

[cui bono]

65. I believe you nailed it with just the first one, raising the cap.

That's the money that goes directly into the SS fund. It would be funded for at least 75 years, which is what is looked at. The rest could go to say... dare I say it... education or something like that. Oh the horror!

Also, tax stock trades 25 cents each transaction.

Tax corporations by closing the loopholes. When Exxon makes $25bn+ in profits and use our military to protect their oil fields and pay ZERO in taxes, well it doesn't take a fifth grader to figure out something is rotten.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. In 2008 Obama ran on raising the cap, this won my vote and he never mentioned it

again. Of course.

[cui bono]

91. And now he wants to have a Chained CPI.

Surprise, surprise.

Remember the NAFTA is bad line? But don't worry, TPP is gonna kick NAFTA's ass!

[okaawhatever]

104. No, but he got unlimited income on 3% hike for medicare. That's a huge increase. nt

[Enthusiast]

116. Something is rotten, alright.

They continue to play dumb hoping we won't notice their true nature.

Like you say, there are many better solutions than cuts to entitlements. Funny that they never mention these better solutions.

[FogerRox]

136. Raising the cap to 90% of taxable income covers 1/3rd of the projected shortfall, from the CBO:

Meanwhile back at the ranch...........

[cui bono]

144. Thanks for the info!

[FogerRox]

161. thanks, just doing my job as a DU Social Security Defender

[Hoyt]

155. That's a good chart that puts some things in perspective.

[FogerRox]

170. Yes it is. Some back ground:

The CBO used the SS Trustees Intermediate scenario, which says SS trust fund will be broke by IIRC 2032. The CBO came up with the 75 year shortfall equaling .6% of GDP. SO you can look at the chart and find .6% of savings, for example raising the cap to 90% equals .2%, or about 1/3rd the shortfall.

And remember in general terms healthy job creation is what ails SS.

[Hoyt]

175. Jobs are clearly the key, but those projections are based on employment levels,

that may well be too optimistic. That is what worries me.

Frankly, I don't care how we got here, who is at fault, whether SS impacts debt, etc.

I care about a plan going forward that solves this issue, employment for the young (who are going to tire of contributing to cover us old folks, when their future looks like crud), protecting those on lower end of scale, etc. Raising the cap is part of the solution, as is raising some tax rates, cutting defense, and the like. But anyone who thinks this is simple to resolve, or that we can wait another 20 years (when conservatives might be in control), really aren't thinking this through. Folks don't want to face it, but the sooner the better.

[FogerRox]

199. 4 different projections by the SS Trustees

Trust Fund depletion projections: Low cost (2090), Intermediate cost (2032), high cost (2029) and a stochastic model (2048).

These projections are based on more than employments levels. Take for instance workforce growth projections, the SS Actuaries use numbers such as .5% thru 2030, no one projects less than 7% thru 2050. These sorts of workforce growth projections are incredibly conservative, and unrealistic. Current workforce growth is at about 1.1% and is expected to decline thru 2050, on a chart it looks like a slope downward, the .5% thru 2030 number requires a drop from 1.1% to .5% by 2020 and from 2020 thru 2030 .5% each year.

And remember by 2048 we Boomers are statistically dead, we wont get paid benefits.

Life expectancy projections, GDP projections, they even figure in the effect of Obamacare, a lot goes into these projections. The most important thing to remember is that the SS Actuaries have a legal responsibility to publish conservative projections, and to believe SS will go broke by 2032 requires a recession that lasts thru 2032.... which quite frankly is very unrealistic.

So if by some combination of Wage growth, GDP, inflation, workforce growth and employment (the 5 major order factors) we get thru 2048 or so, its clear that solvency thru 2090 becomes a cakewalk.

[Hoyt]

221. Once again, assuming things go as planned. We might have an unemployment rate double today's by

then.

Most of the projects used are based upon historical averages, which we haven't seen for at least 5 years, maybe longer. And there is no guarantee we'll ever see them again.

However, the fact us baby boomers will be dead by 2048 is encouraging, . . . . . I guess. If the economy does not improve, death panels will be a reality, or we may wish we could go appeal to a death panel for large does of some of the that stuff they give you before a colonoscopy (stuff Michael Jackson took).

[FogerRox]

230. wrong, they are not based in historical averages

They'd used 4.6% for GDP instead of 2-3%

They use life expectancy of 71 years instead of 75 years.

[Hoyt]

233. So projections are quite optimistic - GDP growth greater than we've seen in awhile, and

Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 07:16 PM - Edit history (2)

millions of SS recipients are going to croak sooner than we are. In other words, better do something sooner than projections in Trustee's Report indicate, unless we want to believe the rosey scenarios because the truth is too frightening.

[FogerRox]

275. No, the SS Trustees projections are based on conservative estimates.

[Hoyt]

281. That's the point, we haven't met those projections in awhile. Yet

we are supposed to believe we will at some point in the future.

[FogerRox]

282. Whats a awhile? 5-10 years?

Are we supposed to believe there will be 20 more years of recession? Something thats never happened since the Black Plague......

[Hoyt]

283. Where are all those jobs coming from? Ask the Japanese how things have

been for them since 1980s.

[FogerRox]

285. Please answer the question

For now I'll answer yours, return to normal infrastructure spending levels, 5% to 6% of GDP spent on infrastructure would create 19 to 23 million jobs.

The infrastructure deficit equals the jobs deficit which equals the so called SS deficit.

[Hoyt]

287. Do you see any sign that is about to happen?

Again, wishful/hopeful sentiments won't change a thing, probably makes it worse.

Again ask the Japanese how all that hoping worked for them during 20+ years of severe recession.

[JDPriestly]

176. You are right. Nothing wrong with Social Security that more jobs and a higher minimum

wage wouldn't fix. But Hillary and Obama continue to support visas for overseas short-term workers who do jobs for low pay that would command decent pay if done by Americans who pay into Social Security over the long term and get raises for a job well done.

We can't throw our jobs to low-wage workers in other countries and expect to support our American lifestyle.

When the Soviet Union was a threat, the greediest of the "successful" capitalists (not all successful capitalists are that greedy, please, please, many are very generous and normal) supported good wages and a high standard of living for Americans. They were afraid that American workers would become Communists. Oh, dear!

The minute that they knew the Soviet Union was on its last, wobbling legs (around 1985) they came out of the closet with their free trade talk.

That was how they planned to finish the job on unions (begun by Reagan with Patco around 1981) and the American way of life. This housing crisis in 2008 was a big attack on the old fashioned view that ordinary Americans should own property, if not farming land (Jefferson's hope for America), then a home (thank you, FDR and the federal programs to help people buy homes). But now, the banks, in other words, wealthy bankers and their investors, are buying all the real estate they possibly can at the low prices that resulted from the 2008 crash.

And so, now, Social Security, the pillar of the American Middle and working class, is on the block. To be sold like the slaves to the likes of Dick Durbin and John Boehner (see his interview on Stephanopoulus on ABC this past Sunday. I think it was October 12, 2013.

[FogerRox]

208. Yes, well said, when it was clear the USSR would fall, things did change

BTW the CIA studied this circa 1973 and predicted the USSR would fall within (IIRC) 25 yrs. Under Reagan the tax burden was shifted from the uber wealthy to the working and middle classes, while tax breaks for outsourcing started and the PATCO union was busted. SO this was really the start of a multi front war on the working and middle classes during Reagans first term.

[JDPriestly]

213. Thanks.

[Tigress DEM]

159. Certainly that is a direct fix for social security but....

We might as well go with guns blazing and ask for everything. We just might get it and if not now then in 2014 when we purge the House of "do nothings".

Raising minimum wage means there is more money going in from individuals AND it means they can pay their bills and contribute more to the economy which will create a supply side demand for labor.

Incentives to companies to provide a living wage means at least SOME will be able to and be rewarded for being good corporate citizens and/or business owners. Same basic results as raising minimum wage.

40% tax on the top 5% isn't a big deal and closing the loopholes so they actually pay it is a good idea too.

Here is another idea THE 150 rule - CEOs can not make more than 150% of their lowest paid worker. That way if they can afford to give themselves a raise they can give their employees one too. It's STILL a huge divide, but that is so that they don't feel too deprived. It's great when the owner of a company is rewarded for the initiative to start something up, but reward those who DO the actual work as well.

[FogerRox]

216. Your not counting the Unearned Income Medicare Contribution Tax of 3.8%

makes the top rate 43.4%.

http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Income-Taxes/qt/Tax-Rates-For-The-2013-Tax-Year.htm

[Tigress DEM]

222. OK, but if we can close some loopholes so they actually PAY 40% I'll be happy. nt

[FogerRox]

228. We're at a historically low point for loopholes.

Since Reagan 60% of loopholes for income tax have been removed. We used to give huge breaks for domestic investment, when the top rate was 70% the effective rate was 22% for the top 1%.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

[senseandsensibility]

14. I am very disappointed in Durbin

to say the least.

[Doctor_J]

16. It wouldn't really be a cave-in since the president himself suggested them

and he is at least nominally a Dem

[cui bono]

31. Yep. And would you believe I got attacked for saying that now that Obama opened up SS

to negotiations it would be open season for anyone to do so, even the Repubs. Of course our great Dem leaders never wait for it to be the Repubs fault, they're so damn eager to please.

[Enthusiast]

118. They're so damn eager to please their true masters......nt

[JDPriestly]

189. Cave-in is not the right wording. The word is default. It would be a default.

The Social Security Trust Fund is a huge creditor of the US. Delaying paying the debt owed to Social Security would be a default by another name. The US government would not be meeting its obligation to seniors. That's a default. That money is loaned to the general fund.

The percentages taken out of paychecks was increased in the 1980s under Reagan. The claim then was that mathematically that would cover the increased demand for Social Security payments when the baby boomers retired.

Baby boomers have paid the extra sums INTO the Social Security trust fund all these years. (Yes, the Social Security Trust Fund exists. It was created by statute. It is still in the statute.)

George W. Bush borrowed the money from the Trust Fund rather than raise taxes to fund his wars. Just to make sure we would have the crisis right now, George W. Bush not only did not raise taxes to fund his nasty little wars, but he gave tax breaks to cover up his other economic problems.

And now, the seniors, the most needy and helpless in the country, are to pay for George W. Bush's dirty tricks.

No. We seniors will not accept this default by the government on its obligations to us that lightly. No. Our work, our taxes, our incomes helped make this country great. We brought the country back from the debt and obligations of WWII. We will not allow our government to default on us. No way.

If we stopped importing so much from China and India and Japan and brought the jobs and paychecks home, we would not be in such a financial bind. Stop the free trade. Tax imports and all will be well.

[Doctor_J]

190. Good point. The president made much political hay during the shutdown about

making good on debts we'd already committed to. This would be another example of that same thing.

I agree with the post down thread - Dems proposal should be to reduce the eligibility age to 55. Then the "compromise" would be leave it alone or lower it to 60.

[duffyduff]

205. The government can't go broke anyway. n/t

[JDPriestly]

210. But it can refuse to pay a debt, such as the debt it owes to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Bring jobs back to America.

Social Security payments create jobs in America.

Seniors hire Americans to work in their homes, in hospitals, in nursing homes. Seniors spend their Social Security checks in America, paying Americans. Seniors buy food with their checks. Made in the USA food.

The percentage of seniors with I-Pads and I-Phones and other electronic devices is lower than the percentage of younger working Americans with those items.

Seniors buy garden supplies "grown in America" and sold in America. (Garden stores are full of seniors.)

Seniors' Social Security checks help our GDP because seniors probably (I'm guessing but sure it is true) a lower percentage of their money on goods made in other countries than do younger citizens. Think of it. Seniors buy fewer clothes, fewer new cars made in other countries, fewer electronic devices made in other countries. Seniors spend their benefit checks right here in the USA.

It does not make good economic sense to cut Social Security. It will lower our GDP and raise our unemployment rates. It's bad public policy, and it will really hurt seniors.

The average Social Security benefit barely keeps a person above the poverty level. That's before chained CPI.

And prices are rising and will rise more as we see global warming affecting our food supply.

Don't default on Social Security or Medicare. Those programs aren't just good for seniors. They are good for America.

[tavernier]

17. The Baby Boom generation?

Oh, you mean the people who put money into social security every single day of our working lives?? How ENTITLED of us to want to collect, now that politicians like you have spent it on something else.

[littlewolf]

20. ding ding ding ... thread winner!

I am 57 have been paying into SS since I was 14 picking asparagus
and it is MY fault. I have blown through this exactly how

[Enthusiast]

123. You started two unnecessary counterproductive wars.

And gave $100,000 dollar tax cuts to the already filthy rich. Why did you do that? [url=http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php][img][/img][/url]

[FogerRox]

140. Exactly. Statistically speaking in 20 years 50% of Boomers will be dead

thats a lot of us that wont be collecting SS benefits.

[JDPriestly]

191. Right. My sister and I delivered ads door to door. I was maybe 7-9 at the time.

We weren't paid enough to contribute to Social Security, but I got my Social Security card as soon as I turned 14 and immediately worked that summer.

Our generation worked early and long hours. Entitled to Social Security. You bet. We paid for it.

If the government does not pay us the same kinds of benefits we paid for our parents and grandparents, it's just a DEFAULT by another name. Chained CPI, my eye. It's a default if it decreases our benefit dollars. We get little enough as it is. Just enough to be above the poverty level on average. That means that if they lower our benefits we will, on average, be below the poverty level and entitled to other assistance like food stamps, rent subsidies, etc.

The government will not save money by cutting Social Security and Medicare. It will just steal from the children of the baby boomers because mom and dad will have been unfairly pushed into bankruptcy before death. No money or property to pass on to the next generation. Most seniors don't have much, if any, to pass on anyway.

Tax inheritances. Tax trust funds for the children of the super-rich. Don't cut benefits for seniors. Our Medicare deductibles increased considerably this year. Don't hurt us any more.

[Nite Owl]

24. Exactly

they have no right to touch that money, we earned it.
Most seniors can't go back to work and there was no plan for this. There's plenty of areas to cut, like defense, oil subsidies, corporate welfare.

It's outright theft!

[B Calm]

44. I remember them raising the retirement age for us baby boomers,

and we're to blame?

[Nay]

78. They also raised our payroll taxes, supposedly to fund SS in perpetuity. Looks

like they raised it just to have more to steal in the end.

[FogerRox]

157. Actually it was going to fund SS in perpetuity

until they accelerated jobs outsourcing. In fact reasonable job creation means SS is good thru 2090.

[CrispyQ]

47. This. ^^^

They've spent it & they don't want to pay it back. They also want access to our future deposits. The rich are sucking the country dry. Soon we'll be an empty husk.

[Tigress DEM]

59. + 1000 SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT nt

[RebelOne]

68. Social Security IS AN ENTITLEMENT.

I worked and paid into SS for almost 50 years. I am collecting now and I AM ENTITLED TO THAT MONEY.

[Tigress DEM]

76. Not the way the rethugs use it. The money IS yours no doubt about that.

But "they" look at entitlements and talk about them as if this is the government's money and you "think" you are entitled to it for no good reason.

[cui bono]

92. Exactly. Entitlement is NOT a bad word. n/t

[FogerRox]

229. legally its an entitlement, the original 1935 law has the word

entitled in it 9 times.

SS is wage insurance, and when you are paid in you are entitled to benefits.

But hey, dont let some fact get in your way.

[G_j]

69. +1

[dkf]

77. When the trust fund has been spent all the $ you contributed is gone to pay others.

Then recipients need to rely on younger workers to fund 100% of their check.

Will we raise payroll taxes 25% at that time? Or will recipients get cut 25% at that time?

[tavernier]

89. If "pay it forward" was the reason it was depleted

I wouldn't be as pissed. But the game was called "pay it forward to Bush's war and Cheney's Halliburton profits."

[dkf]

90. The general fund "borrowed" that money. That is the trust fund that will deplete.

[tavernier]

106. Oh, cool!

I'm a little short this week. Guess I'll "borrow" a few bucks from my employer's till tomorrow.

[dkf]

129. Yeah we the tax payer pay interest for the general fund's borrowing from our social security fund.

And then we pay interest on the treasuries we issue to pay for the general funds excess expenses. Funny right?

[FogerRox]

152. All the SSTF money is there. Always has been.

Its the jobs that got taken away, and thats what can ensure SS solvency thru 2090, job creation.

[magical thyme]

108. not only did we put money in every day of our working lives, we put *extra* money in because

we were an extra large group.

And we accepted having our full retirement age raised, again because were were going to be such an extra large drain on the fund.

Why stop there, assholes? Why not just shoot us and take it fucking all?!?

[BelgianMadCow]

207. That's the whole game, isn't it? Divide & conquer

playing generations against each other, "because there isn't enough money" whilst pissing away trillions via banks, the MIC and corporate loopholes.

Nothing to see here, keep fighting.

I will fight. For my parents' generation pension & social security.

[KoKo]

267. !!!!! Exactly!

[Dalai_1]

19. K&R n/t

[leveymg]

21. They're counting on our fatigue to push through SS and Medicaid cuts instead of raising 1% taxes

and reindexing the SS cap upwards. That's what this is all about. Right, Dick?

[Nay]

112. The point is, though,

why are Democrats of any stripe talking about cuts to SS, and putting forward the same lies about SS that the hated Republicans have been using as talking points for years???? Why? Why?

The answer is bone-chilling.

[leveymg]

148. The answer is:

competitive disadvantage.

When Obama first ran for President, it was widely acknowledged that the United States has the most expensive health care system in the world, and that is viewed as a competitive disadvantage in trade. It made our exports more expensive and less likely that global corporations would expand employment here. So, initially, the Obama Administration set about to reform it by offering a public option -- like most of the rest of the world -- but that got sidetracked politically by Senate conservatives and industry lobbyists, and we ended up with a poor Plan B: mandatory universal private coverage that puts more of the costs onto the middle-class. That policy outcome was an object lesson, so they've basically given up on the public route to benefits reform.

We now see an abandonment by the same "pragmatists" of a commitment to present levels of SS and Medicare coverage. They're cutting costs in the deluded view that they have to in order to keep what's left of US-based multinationals operations (and investment) in the U.S. The policy chosen is deluded because this is not nearly strong enough incentive or deterrence to keep capital here.

[Cleita]

22. Democrats are mentioning it, very covertly and cleverly, on the

talk shows today. They are saying that part of negotiating is neither party coming away with everything they want. The stage is being set for the rape of Social Security and Medicare. Brace yourselves seniors, that big old ugly and hairy conservative penis is coming to get you.

[Doctor_J]

35. And of course after next year's midterm disaster, it will be the liberals fault

for expecting too much.

[Enthusiast]

127. We will hear exactly that meme right here on the DU.

Just as before.

[leveymg]

178. We're supposed to believe (again) that the Ponies frightened away undecided voters?

Geez.

[pangaia]

60. I don't think that conservative penis is so big

That's the problem.

[Enthusiast]

128. Yes. They are compensating.

[url=http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php][img][/img][/url]

[pangaia]

147. Many of those wackos have small feet.

[Zorra]

23. OK, Dick, the People demand that Congress return every cent of the money it stole from our Social

Security fund immediately, or you should expect us to begin foreclosure proceedings on the office building that we allow you to work in immediately.

We're calling in your "loan", Senator, effective exactly one minute any cuts to Social Security are approved.

Expect us.

US Holders of Debt
42.1 % -- US Individuals and Institutions
17.9 % -- Social Security Trust Fund
6.0 % -- US Civil Service Retirement Fund
2.1 % -- US Military Retirement Fund

Foreign Holders of Debt
11.7 % -- Oil Exporting Countries
9.5 % -- China and Hong Kong
6.3 % -- Japan
1.4 % -- United Kingdom (
1.3 % -- Brazil
1.6 % -- All other foreign countries

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html

[CrispyQ]

56. That is great info to put in a letter to our senators/reps.

Everyone needs to write to their three today, especially if any of your three are dems. Throw these stats at them & Zorra's great idea of calling the loan due.

I've sent two emails to my three this morning & two this week on SS. I've decided, instead of spending so much time posting on DU, I'll trawl for info & write my angst, about the current state of affairs, to my three. It will probably be as effective as posting on DU.

Thanks for the stats. They are going into at lease one letter!

[Zorra]

67. You're welcome. It is what it is, and what it is is OUR money.

Unfortunately, the aides for my three republicans would toss anything they saw my name on in the trash at first glance.

[CrispyQ]

75. That's why it's so important for those of us with dem reps to keep on them.

I use to never write, but then I realized that as a dem who might vote for them, I should put pressure on them & let them know, they cannot just count on my vote anymore, like they could in the past.

My three are ok. Udall & Polis are better than Bennet. But with pressure from dem constituents, maybe we can make these types of dems better dems. ~crosses fingers.

[fredamae]

25. Fuck The Corp Wing of the Dem Party

They talk as if there are No Other Reasonable Alternatives as they convince America--that all this is Our fault that they borrowed the money and Now make bullshit excuses why they're NOT going to Pay This Debt!

2014 won't be kind to the Dem Party as a whole because this Will become the Democrats Austerity and will spread like wildfire and bite them All...imo
And we gotta watch that they don't try kick this can down the road until After the election....

[Dustlawyer]

26. Most Democrats are cast members, along with all of the Republicans in this distracting, but sad tale

"How to convince Americans that giving everything to the Rich is the patriotic thing to do!" They will cave and cut the benefits that we have EARNED because that it is what they have to do to keep the money, power, and privilege bestowed upon them by the Plutocracy!

[Bobcat]

27. Income Cap

Have you noticed that in the discussions over the solvency of Social Security none of the "players" ever mentions raising the income cap. The OBVIOUS - and equitable - solution is to tax every dollar of ALL earned income. I paid into Social Security for 50+ years and paid the full tax on every single dollar I earned. Surely, the well-to-do high income earners can afford to do the same. Not a word about this from the "fix the debt" millionaires, the politicians (R&D), or the "journalists". Crickets......

[Laelth]

37. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[handmade34]

38. it is considered a tax

therefore anathema to all righteous republicans and timid democrats...

I vote for eliminating the cap altogether... and why settle for just on earned income??

[airplaneman]

45. social security would be extremely easy to fix.

Its not particularly generous in the first place.
Fixes-
Raise the minimum wage to a living wages.
Improve employment by bringing jobs back to the USA.
Raise the cap as you say.
Tax stock and derivative trades, more fair taxes for individuals and corporations.
Cut the military.
The list goes on and on.
-Airplane

[WinkyDink]

51. If you tax stocks, you tax pension plans.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. If you tax stock transactions, you tax transactions made by pension plans. So what?

The tax is on the transaction, pension plans should not be doing day trader style mass transactions at all. Stability is the key for them.

[WinkyDink]

215. "Day trader" was not mentioned in the post to which I replied.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27328426/

[Dragonfli]

263. Taxing stocks was not mentioned in that post either, but you made that assumption

Taxing transactions was what was mentioned, it was merely pointed out to you that such a tax affects day traders, not long holders of stocks. All proposals I have seen for taxing transactions have been ridiculously small amounts and appear meant to impose a slight brake on the behavior of day traders and bots that buy and sell every minute to every nanosecond profiting off of minute changes and ofttimes skewing the market in the process. Such a tax would not harm pensions, it would strengthen the market by adding some slight protections against erratic trades and thus actually help pensions.

[Enthusiast]

130. Obviously they do not want to fix it.

They want to cut it.

[FogerRox]

149. There is no problem with Social Security

WE do, however have a jobs problem.

[Oilwellian]

28. If anyone finds the video clip of this little exchange

I'd like to add it to my collection for a video I'm making about all of the Dems who support SS cuts. Don't you just love how Durbin attacked the Boomers as though congress spending the $2.6 trillion surplus is OUR goddamned fault? Fucker.

[cui bono]

29. Durbin needs a little lesson on how SS does not contribute to the deficit.

Asshole. I will contribute against him asap.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Maybe he has a point, if people would THINK about it.

Thanks to people like Cruz, we Democrats can do almost any favor for the Predator Class and still look good by comparison. Then the Predators give us more money for campaigns to @#%& the 99%. It's called a symbiotic relationship, as we smart types know.

This is just good politics.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[dreamnightwind]

239. That's it exactly - eom

[WinkyDink]

36. HOW can these men be such abject LIARS?? Do they think we cannot access the real truth in numbers??

[djean111]

256. Winky, they do not care if we can access the truth.

They are going to do whatever they want, and if it affects the 2014 elections, they can comfortably blame the Crazy Left, and that will be that.
Fait accompli, I'm afraid.

[WinkyDink]

268. Your point makes me want to cry. I'll be 64 soon, and that, God willing, leads to sixty-five. I've

been a die-hard Democrat since JFK ( I liked Ike, hee) and it's because of our Party's heretofore unchangeable tenets.

Dubya got it only partially right: Money trumps peace, yes, but it trumps principles, too.

[dawnie51]

39. This baby boomer and husband....

has paid double SS taxes since the 80s when it was decided that we not only had to pay for the seniors of that time, but pre-pay our own retirement! Thirty years of paying double, so they could steal it and spend it on bullshit, and then deny us what we are due. And unlike a lot of these idiots, I have children who, though I won't be here, I should like to have a decent life and not have to work until they die!

[CrispyQ]

40. My letter to my three:

Honestly, what is wrong with you democrats? Dick Durbin is out there pushing right wing lies!

Why Democrats Might Cave On Social Security Cuts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/democrats-social-security-cuts_n_4132087.html

snip...

"Social Security is gonna run out of money in 20 years," Durbin said. "The Baby Boom generation is gonna blow away our future. We don't wanna see that happen."

Social Security will not run out of money in 20 years. The program currently enjoys a surplus of more than $2 trillion. Social Security will, however, be unable to pay all benefits at current levels if nothing is changed. If a 25 percent benefit cut were implemented in 20 years, the program would be solvent into the 2080s.

=====
What the hell? Our own party is out there spreading right wing lies? Dem leadership needs to take him to task! You can't tell me Mr. Durbin is not aware that SS is not going to run out of money, & if he is, shame on him!

If the dems cut SS, you're going to see an exodus from the party like you cannot imagine. You've got the repubs on the run. Don't f*ck it up by pissing off your base.

RAISE THE DAMNED CAP!!! Problem solved.

A very pissed off constituent!!

[lostincalifornia]

41. Social Security is a separately funded program. what is their

Problem?

After coming strong off the last c fight do they really want to piss off not only Democrats but independents?

What the should do if they must is raise the cap, otherwise don't mess with our social security

[Tigress DEM]

62. They want to raid the SS fund. IT needs to be in a LOCK BOX.

Raise the cap.

After all the way they are running things even people earning 2 mil a year won't be able to save enough to live on without government intervention.

[lostincalifornia]

131. Gore was right, and the msm laughed

[Tigress DEM]

141. Yeah but they laugh about a lot of stuff that isn't funny.

Know what I mean?

[lostincalifornia]

192. I sure do

[RC]

42. Get our Living Wage Jobs back into this country would extend Social Security for at least forever.

Cutting our so-called "Defense Budget" in half, then in half again, would still leave an insane amount for making new enemies to bomb in the middle of the night.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. One thing my centrist senator Mark Begich has done right

is proposing to raise the social security cap. I hope he can convince the rest of those knuckleheads.

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/05/02/begich-to-introduce-social-security-legislation/

[Bluenorthwest]

102. Centrists say anything that works that day. Obama has proposed raising the cap

as well, in detail. However the moment the election is won the Centrists run over to the Republican side and ask what they can do to serve their bipartisan counterparts and forget raising the cap along with the public option and other bits of shiny rhetoric. Words spoken by Centrists are without value of any kind, only their actions matter.

[Blue_In_AK]

115. I think you may be being a little harsh on Mark,

but I take your point. He was, in my opinion, a very good, people-centered mayor of Anchorage and has been doing a good job of representing this state's varied interests in the senate. It's not all that easy to be a Democratic politician in Alaska ... they walk a fine line.

It's kind of funny because the republicans in Alaska have the same complaints against Lisa Murkowski ... she's just not pure enough for them.

[DeSwiss]

46. K&R

[center][font size=10]TAX
THE
RICH
GODDAMMIT!!![/font][/center]

[WinkyDink]

48. Going after BY NAME the "BBG" is a shameless attempt to get the "YOUTH VOTE." Rule for the 14-yr-old

boys, just like the makers of block-buster movies.

NOTHING TO DO WITH FACTS, FIGURES, LAW, ETHICS, REALITY, OR TRUTH.

It's a pathetic pandering to "Gen-X" and "Millennials" in the guise of "bi-partisanship fairness."

And let me be even more frank (tm Jack Woltz): As for Obama, he's an IDIOT if he thinks ANY tax increase on ANYBODY can somehow magically offset the HARDSHIP caused to Senior Citizens with a CPI and/or cuts to SS/Med.

A TRILLION raised from taxes on the wealthy cannot help a widow if her Social Security and Medicare benefits are cut.

IS THAT not G**D*** CLEAR to these men??????????

Oh, well; at least Obama is on record as saying he "won't pull the plug on Granny."

[Oilwellian]

95. You're wrong

I've collected several video clips of Obama supporting SS cuts. He even put it in his 2014 Budget.

[WinkyDink]

214. And that makes my comments wrong how?

[Oilwellian]

226. Your last sentence left me with the impression...

that you believe Obama won't cut SS benefits. If I misunderstood you, my apologies in advance.

[Curmudgeoness]

49. If they would worry more about getting jobs back to the US

and increasing the middle class again, we would no longer have to be having this discussion. People working for a decent pay would be paying into Social Security and the disasters that they speak of will no longer be an issue.

To all the politicians who are thinking that cuts in the program will solve the problems in this country: You are barking up the wrong tree.

[CrispyQ]

70. We would also be paying all sorts of other taxes!

Payroll taxes, sales taxes. They are so greedy they don't see that they are killing the Golden Goose.

[FogerRox]

145. Correct. creating 20 million jobs @ 36k each adds about 89 billion in additional FICA

each year. In 2011 the CBO projected the SS shortfall over 75 years @.6% of GDP. 90 billion is .6% of a 15 trillion dollar economy.

So the jobs deficit nearly equals the SS shortfall, somehow I'm guessing you arent surprised by these numbers.

[Enthusiast]

138. Maybe they should stop the push for TPP.

So we could keep some of our jobs here.

[Curmudgeoness]

146. I have always been of the opinion that these trade agreements

would be harmful to the middle and working classes. I have been against them since the NAFTA "sucking sound" warnings. But that boat, apparently, has already sailed.

I keep hearing that we have benefitted from all the trade agreements that we have entered into, but one look at the labels in the stores tells me that someone else has been the real beneficiary.

[Enthusiast]

154. The investment class has been the one and only real beneficiary.

The trade deals were a betrayal.

[Tigress DEM]

150. Right? Give Durbin a piece of your mind. I did.

http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Esteemed Senator,

Have you lost your mind or just your spine?

Retract your offer to put Social Security on the bargaining table or prepare to be put out to pasture.

After this Shutdown fiasco have you learned NOTHING? We can not bargain in good faith with the Tea Party. Give them NOTHING and tell them to like it and shut up.

Raise the cap, bring minimum wage up to at least $10hr, incentives for companies providing LIVING WAGES to their employees and 40% tax on the top 5%.

This isn't brain surgery, but it takes brains and cajhones to stand up for the people of America. If you've lost your nerve, it's time for you to go home and leave the fighting to people willing to take it on and win.

[Curmudgeoness]

166. Bravo!

I especially like the part about going home and leaving the fight to those willing to fight if he has lost his nerve.

The biggest problem that I saw with the recent shutdown debacle was that we had not asked for the moon and the stars, giving the Republicans a way to do a little face-saving when we relented on some of our demands. As it was, we did not give them an easy out. This is like shopping in Mexico...they ask for $10, you offer $2, they counter with $7, you counter with $4, they counter with $6, you walk away, they give you $5. And that is what you wanted to pay all along, and that is what they expected to get from the beginning. Everyone is able to say they won.

I like how you want to include a lot of demands that could be negotiated, although asking for a $15 minimum wage would give more wiggle room.

[Tigress DEM]

174. I've BEEN to Mexico and it's true!! Barter is part of the fun of shopping there.

But the thing is - no more negotiating. Just get it done.

$15 is a start for a Living Wage I think. Not everywhere, maybe, but it's a step up and it won't break the economy.

[Curmudgeoness]

180. I see it differently.

I have to agree that the GOP is unwilling to negotiate and that we should not be negotiating with them on important issues. But I do think that if they had some wiggle room in this shutdown threat, we would not have gone as far as we did. And that hurt the country. Yes, it was their fault and I am glad to see it laid at their feet by a majority of the people. But I think that if they would have had something, anything, to negotiate on, they might have. They were just trying to save face when they were embarrassingly painted into a corner. I think it would have been better to have had things on the table that we didn't even want, just so that they could say we backed down too. Then we all could have gotten out of it without the fiasco that we had.

It's called politics.

[Tigress DEM]

184. Yeah, like divorce court - ask for 10x what you need to get what you do need.

[libdude]

50. I had a sign

in my office for many years, What Part Of No Don't You Understand? I would put that to the President or anyone else looking to make cuts in Social Security or Medicare. In addition, no cuts to entitlements. Cut defense spending by 50%, raise taxes on the 1-2% of the top income bracket, eliminate tax loopholes. Stop Corporate Welfare. Do all of that and still no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or entitlements.
Republicans/ Tea Party crowd want to crush the working/ middle class, it seems some Democrats have the same mentality. No compromise and no negotiations on these earned benefit and safety net programs.

[Tigress DEM]

223. Yeah, what part of "NO" don't you understand? is a good one.

With 80% of the population struggling to share 7% of the income, we can't cut the safety net. UNTIL things are more equitible, it's just murder.

[Nuh Uh]

53. Why Democrats Might Cave On Social Security Cuts

I believe Dick Durbin is up for re-election in 2014, there is the opportunity to apply a lot of pressure to bring him in line with Democratic ideals. If that fails...

[Tigress DEM]

73. @ Dick Durbin, Esteemed Senator, Have you lost your mind or just your spine?

http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Esteemed Senator,

Have you lost your mind or just your spine?

Retract your offer to put Social Security on the bargaining table or prepare to be put out to pasture.

After this Shutdown fiasco have you learned NOTHING? We can not bargain in good faith with the Tea Party. Give them NOTHING and tell them to like it and shut up.

Raise the cap, bring minimum wage up to at least $10hr, incentives for companies providing LIVING WAGES to their employees and 40% tax on the top 5%.

This isn't brain surgery, but it takes brains and cajhones to stand up for the people of America. If you've lost your nerve, it's time for you to go home and leave the fighting to people willing to take it on and win.

[aintitfunny]

54. Should we not Primary the Democratic Party Traitors

Like Dick Durbin?

I expect Democrats to protect Social Security, not assist the tea baggers in destroying it.

[dreamnightwind]

241. What about campaign escrow accounts?

Not sure about the terminology, but what if we could set up campaign donation funds targeted to specific politicians, with a written description of terms the politician cannot violate in order to receive the funds?

Then, we could donate to Durbin's fund, which he could receive if and only if he didn't cooperate with any efforts to cut entitlement programs, or however it is worded?

Would this be legal? Seems like a good way to get some leverage on these people.

[avaistheone1]

58. Mind-blowing!!!

Let's melt down the phone lines and the computers with our calls and emails.

This is not going to stand.

[CK_John]

61. We need a counter bill to lower SS to at least age 50yrs. This will generate a lot of

support and generate a lot of fear in the GOP. Besides we need it and it will happen eventually.

A good offense is better than sitting on the pot.

[progressoid]

63. Now now now, let's not get our undies in a bunch.

How about we wait until the bill passes and THEN politely show our disapproval.

[jsr]

72. Better yet, wait until the president signs it.

It is not for real until the president signs it.

[Brigid]

86. But why just sit back and let it get that far?

We may not be able to stop it then.

[cui bono]

97. That's the point of the sarcasm.

The BOGGERS on here, the ones who just can't bear to hear one negative word about what Obama might do, always come back with the same useless retort that it hasn't happened yet and how about we wait to see what he actually does before we criticize him. Of course by then it will be too late, but that doesn't stop them from saying it over and over even after it is explained to them it will be too late then and this is how democracy is supposed to work. You know, will of the people and all that silly stuff.

[socialist_n_TN]

217. Yep. The "hair on fire" meme....

nm

[Nay]

107. Yeah, and we shouldn't be getting our panties in a bunch about stuff

that hasn't even happened yet...that would be disrespecting our wonderful leaders, who would never pull the rug out from under us!!!

[progressoid]

195. Of course if he signs it, then it must be good. So there won't be any reason to complain.

It will be a win/win/win for retirees, Democrats and America!

{as I don my rose colored glasses}

[jsr]

197. Yep. It's time for the elderly and disabled to sacrifice for the greater good

- of the 1%.

[uponit7771]

160. Like the last 1342;2nou4123n times nothing happened? regards

[progressoid]

198. Or like the time he abandoned plans to bomb Syria due to public pressure.

Or postpone approval of Keystone XL.

Or the way Larry Summers withdrew his consideration for the Fed because of public outcry.

Sometimes bitching works.

[msongs]

64. so dems are back to bending over for repubs? well that "spine" didnt last long lol nt

[colsohlibgal]

66. Durbin Has Been Going DINO For Some Time

He and Schumer, buddy buddy both of them to Wall Street. We need more people like Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, true progressives, true democrats, pro everyday people and not fat cats. That democratic wing of the democratic party (imagine that) pushed back hard when Barry unbelievably wanted to put Larry Summers in as head of the FED, and put enough pressure on Obama to relent. That was encouraging though Obama floating a toxic name like Summers in the first place troubles me mainly because it doesn't surprise me - this guy is mostly pure neo liberal - equating to a republican pre Reagan.

[uponit7771]

74. *****NOT THIS HOF SHIT AGAIN !!! ******

[grahamhgreen]

83. SS DOES NOT ADD ONE NICKEL TO THE DEFICIT!

[morningfog]

120. ***WHAT DOES HOF MEAN???****

[cui bono]

122. ****I DON'T HOF KNOW*****

So I'm not sure if I just used it correctly.

[uponit7771]

156. Hair On Fire, basically bringing up negative speculative narrative that 9.5 out of 10 fails. The ...

... next negative speculative narrative will be Obama supports putting Baby goats in high heels or something else stupid and false and will get the masses hair on fire

[Dragonfli]

183. Obama's budget is not speculation. Nor are his words in favor of cuts, or Durbin's which are the

the topic of the OP.

You really should pay attention to actual statements and written budgets and stop claiming the facts of such things do not exist simply because you are ignorant of such statements and budgets, other people keep up with facts and pay attention to what is said publically. Try it some time. It is better than just "pretending" such things do not exist and denying reality.

Or are you aware rather than ignorant and uninformed, but saying Obama and other Democrats like Durbin have lied on several occasions? That perhaps someone hacked Obama's most recent budget proposal and put cuts in there that he was and remains unaware of?

That would be speculation if that is what you are claiming.

[Skeeter Barnes]

143. ****PATHETIC ATTEMPT ON YOUR PART TO DISTRACT****

[uponit7771]

163. +++++++************---------NO IT'S NOT*****////////////+++++++++++++

[Dragonfli]

169. what is HOF?

[Tigress DEM]

177. Hair On Fire --- GOP perpetuated crises

[Dragonfli]

188. How is that supposed to apply to Durbin's view that we should cut SS, because Baby Boomers?

His facts are wrong and his proposal appears absurd to me but pointing that out is not a GOP thing. They have no interest at all in protecting our earned benefits.

The poster should learn to use that accusation correctly rather than just "because it sounds cool".

[ljm2002]

82. We, the Baby Boomers, paid extra...

...for years and years, specifically to account for our increased numbers that were projected to take a toll on the system as we retired.

What happened to that money? Did they miscalculate?

And why the hell can't we just lift the cap and have done with it?

Grrrrr...

[Nay]

125. Because the idea is to STEAL the money, not fix the SS system. The fixes are

so easy, but they want to steal it, not fix it. That's why Pubs and Dems alike seem to be so blind to the easy fixes that are out there. Fixing it is not their objective. They want the money, plus the lowered benefits would keep us all in slavery until we die and cannot collect SS. Problem solved.

[ljm2002]

132. Exactly right! n/t

[marlakay]

220. How much of it have they already borrowed?

I wonder if the real problem is they spent our money!

[global1]

88. Lift The Cap

Please check out this link. There is an easy fix. Get this link and it's content to Sen. Bernie Sanders and the Dems



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023871310

[Bluenorthwest]

110. Durbin is worthless as a Democrat, so far to the right that he wants to slash

Social Security and of course he was thrilled beyond measure to vote for DOMA to makes sure those damn homosexuals were denied rights, God Bless America we must defend marriage while sacrificing Granny to the Moloch of the Mic.
Fuck Dick Durbin.

[spanone]

114. hey asshole, most of us boomers have been paying into ss for 40/50 years

and i have many friends who will never see a penny because of death

[polichick]

119. One corporate party, two faces. Wake up people.

[cui bono]

124. And only a few pimples fighting for us.

[polichick]

126. Ha! True dat.

[winter is coming]

133. I guess they want to lose the midterm elections. n/t

[indepat]

134. National security dictates millions of seniors be thrown into poverty by cutting social security

benefits rather than, for example, eliminating unconstitutional infringement of our liberties through interception of our private communications (papers), i.e., the Federal corporatist government is not in the business of promoting the general welfare, but rather building a fully secure national security state wherein bidness flourishes at the expense of all else.

[Lifelong Protester]

137. Both of my parents paid in and NEVER collected a cent

Last edited Sun Oct 20, 2013, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm a 'boomer' who has paid in for 50 years. Hell yes, I expect and am ENTITLED to SS.

I hope that all the folks who wrote here do not mind my borrowing of facts, figures, and text to write my three- Senator Johnson (Ignoramous-WI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Ron Kind ( Not sure-WI).

[on point]

139. BS! Raise the ceiling on SS. Problem solved. Raise taxes on wealthy to balance biudget

[JDPriestly]

142. The baby boomers paid extra into the Social Security Trust Fund since the 1980s to cover their

retirement needs. Nothing has changed except "free" trade that cost us our jobs.

The Social Security Trust Fund is one of the federal government's biggest creditors. Cutting Social Security and Medicare is a default. It is a default at the expense of the baby boomers.

Cuts in Social Security a reduction in increases calculated based on the CPI which is what the Durbin and Obama plans are equals DEFAULT BY ANOTHER NAME.

Write your members of Congress. Cuts to Social Security and Medicare are defaults against the generations that made this country so rich after WWII.

Tax the billionaires. Don't DEFAULT on seniors.

[leveymg]

182. Shhh! There's a loyalty check roadblock just up the thread.

You'll get all of us into trouble, man!

[FogerRox]

204. The 1983 Tip O'neil/Ronald Reagan SS deal.

[George II]

153. That headline isn't confirmed anywhere in the article.

[leveymg]

186. This is GD not LBN.

OP can take away what he wants. Unless, you mean that Durbin didn't say what was quoted?

[George II]

193. Bingo! More assumptions than I could imagine to get to that "conclusion" about what he said

[leveymg]

194. Durbin seems clear enough in this statement: ""Social Security is gonna run out of money in 20 years

"The Baby Boom generation is gonna blow away our future. We don't wanna see that happen."

It seems entirely appropriate to spank him for that one. Ill-considered thing to say by the Number 2 Senate Democrat, unless he means it. If he's opposed to cuts ("reindexing&quot , I haven't that from him lately.

[duffyduff]

202. Durbin is full of shit.

With "Democrats" like him, who needs Republicans.

Both political parties are so infiltrated by neoliberal bullshit they are both becoming the enemies of the American people.

I suppose Peter J. Peterson has been contributing to a slew of Democrats.

[George II]

234. Okay, where did he say "so we need to cut benefits"?

[FogerRox]

212. So what, ask me if I care.....

I'll save you the time, I dont care. And as noted by my astute friend, this is not LBN.

[George II]

235. Ah, I see the admission is that Democrats are NOT going to have to "cave on SS cuts". Excellent!

[mc51tc]

196. Time for more like minded Independents like Bernie Sanders

to be elected. Both the Democratic party and the Republicans are in the pockets of the big corporations, who are demanding these changes to "earned benefits". It will take a general strike to get their attention before anything changes; ie the early 1900`s in the USA.

[DCBob]

209. No one should be surprised about this. Dem leadership has been discussing this for years.

SS is on the table as well as Medicare and Medicaid. The question is how much and where the programs are cut.

[NorthCarolina]

218. Just Raise the Friggin Cap! Problem solved. Sheesh. nt

[nashville_brook]

225. well, at least we've demonstrated that we're able to resist this crap

game on.

[Samantha]

227. The Social Security Trust Fund is invested in Treasury Bonds and the problem is

for every withdrawal the government would make from that fund to pay for the Baby Boomers retirement, it would have to sell the equivalent amount to other investors. In this economy, that is really hard if not impossible to do. I got this information from a talk Geithner had on the subject. So the essence of it is that all of the funds for years flowed in from the Baby Boomers overpaying their retirement, the Governments spent those funds on wars and other things, 9/11 happened, the 2008 catastrophe happened, Uncle Sam also started borrowing from the Federal Employees Pension Fund, and now there is a huge problem.

The Baby Boomers are retiring en masse and the monies represented by that Trust Fund are not available for the reason stated above. It is true that the largest debt holders of Federal Government debt is its domestic bond holders, and the Social and Medicare Trust Funds (don't hear much about that Medicare Trust Fund do we, but there is one) is a huge part of that. Two years ago when I first researched this, it was listed as #1 chunk of debt owed by the Federal Government.

Cutting part of that expense, payment to participants, would therefore RELIEVE the government of part of the repayment. Dollars to donuts I am thinking that is the way they would surreptiously write the legislation. I also believe that is why we hear so much about Federal employees pensions being too high. Uncle Sam owes them a lot of money as well. And here is a question I have never been able to find the answer to: where is all of the money the USPO was forced to prefund for 75 future years for employees pension and health care? And has any money been borrowed from that source?

Sam

[sabrina 1]

237. The American people are Creditors of the Fed Govt, along with China, Japan and whoever else

the Fed Gov has borrowed from in order to pay for their Wars and Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.

Any Cuts to SS, Chained CPIs or whatever other deceptive terms they use to do so, is a DEFAULT on the Fed Govt's Creditors.

Let them try to do this to their other Creditors. They Can't and they Can't do it to the American people either.

They are telling LIES.

The SS fund did NOT contribute in any way to the Deficit. Cutting benefits will do ZERO to cut the Deficit.

End the Bush Tax cuts and start taxing the wealthy the same way we tax everyone else.

Create JOBS HERE not in China. Let China take care of their own job problems.

Stop giving subsidies and tax breaks to Corps that take jobs OUT of this country. Let them do it on their own.

The SS Fund has enough money, paid by the American people, to pay out its obligation 100% for the next 50 years without doing anything.

The only problem SS has is that those who borrowed from the Fund, now do not want to pay it back.

They also want surpluses to pile up again so they can borrow more money from the fund. AND they want to privatize it.

Lies like these need to be slapped down quickly and efficiently. No cuts to SS, period.

Geithner is a liar also, so be careful about anything he has to say. Elizabeth Warren tried to squeeze the truth out of him a number of times, regarding the fund set aside to keep Americans in their homes in return for the Bail Outs. He refused to answer her questions as to why that money was NOT used for the purpose it was meant for.

[Samantha]

243. I agree that the failure of the Government to fulfill its obligations to the SS Trust Fund would be

a default. I have written about that before here at DU. I also said if the Government thought the people would quietly take a hit, and not call it a default to the world, it was mistaken. For sure, many people here would be among the first to stand up and cry foul far and wide.

There are many things we need to be concerned about and one thing in particular that I still try to keep in front of me is a statement Ben Bernanke made in a hearing about 3 or so years ago. When questioned about "the entitlements" driving the Federal Government's debt (no mention of the wars...), he blurted out "Social Security can be repealed." I am sure he caught a lot of heat after that hearing about that unexpected utterance. I took it as an indication some people must truly be thinking about that possibility. It would not surprise me at all if a Republican president in the future, especially one funded by the Koch Brothers or Pete Peterson, would not hesitate to try to do just that.

The point is we need to stay alert and we need to be vocal.

Sam

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

249. Another great post, Sabrina. Thank goodness

there are still some liberals here on DU!

[DesertFlower]

231. there will be a revolution if they do. remember the

"grey panthers"? seniors vote.

[4bucksagallon]

232. That makes no sense to me.....

"Durbin said that Republicans had to put tax revenue on the table to get entitlement cuts. Fox host Chris Wallace noted that Durbin has previously supported entitlement cuts, and asked why Republicans should have to give up tax increases to get something that many Democrats support.
Since when do the Republicans favor tax increases? Did I miss the news? Or did they propose taxing homeless people?

[dreamnightwind]

242. He's saying

since many Democrats support cuts to SS (in reality they don't, but that's what he is saying), there is no concession in that, so there is no reason Republicans should make a concession by agreeing to tax increases in order to get something many Democrats already want, SS cuts.

A very twisted reasoning, which is a great example of the kind of spin that gets enabled when Dems publicly make statements such as what Durbin is doing. It's why third way or corporate Democrats do us great harm, far beyond the poor votes they make, the entire ideological framework shifts around such betrayals.

[Warren DeMontague]

245. Uh, wait.. a "25% benefit cut in 20 years".. yeah, who cares if SS is cut then instead of now, huh?

Oh, I'm sorry, Gen X is on the phone. We said "Fuck That".

[Rex]

248. Like most things in life and politics - I will believe it when I see it.

So far, I don't believe they will touch the locked box. They need to put BACK 2.4 trillion dollars FIRST.

[joshcryer]

251. Chained-CPI has always been on the table thanks to our President.

But it won't come without a poverty exemption and a whole host of other measures.

So you can be assured it will never pass. Republicans would never pass legislation keeping millions out of poverty. Not in a million years.

[ProSense]

262. Senate/House Negotiators Give Up On Grand Bargain

Senate/House Negotiators Give Up On Grand Bargain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023878080

We'll see.

[L0oniX]

264. No REAL Democrat will ever offer or give in to a reduction in SS. I won't vote for anyone who does.

[rhett o rick]

265. Sen Durbin is proof that all Democrats are not friends of the 99%. No cuts is the line we draw. nm

[woo me with science]

274. We should be fighting for increases.

I am damned tired of being expected to show gratitude for not being bludgeoned as hard as they threatened to bludgeon us.

It's past time to start expecting our own party to actually HELP.

Block a Grand Bargain With Bold Progressive Solutions to Social Security and Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023899218

[Warren DeMontague]

270. I'm still waiting to find out why it would be hunky dory to do a 25% benefit cut in 20 years.

[Hekate]

271. I've lost track of the number of times Obama has been predicted to cave....

... And has failed to cave (or spelunk, if you prefer). I would expect the disappointment to be palpable, but the prognosticators bravely soldier on. My hat's off to them, but I fear they are in for another severe disappointment this time.

[WillyT]

272. For Those That Missed This...

[woo me with science]

273. K&R

[Horizens]

277. If

a congressman or senator wants to cut SS or Medicare he/she should make it the the center piece of their campaign when he/she next is up for election.

[whistler162]

278. If at first you don't succeed POST it again

what is this the 15th or so time "Democrats" CAVE ON Social Security.

[WillyT]

289. LOL !!! - You Funny !!!

And thanx for the kick.

[AndyA]

279. WHY is Social Security being discussed in the first place?

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or debt. SS is not an entitlement. Raising the unrealistic cap would greatly improve the long and short term viability of SS.

Cutting SS or Medicare will harm those who can least afford it, while raising the cap will have zero impact on the people who have will live very comfortably either way.

[FogerRox]

284. Why is there nothing in this comment about the effect of serious job creation on the SS Trust Fund

As I have noted numerous times before the cao is at 86%, raising to its historically normal level of 90% only improves the claimed SS shortfall by 1/3.

But creating 20 million jobs at a median $36,000 ensures SS solvency thru 2090.

Legally SS is an entitlement. Reading the 1935 law might enlighten one a bit.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html

I suggest Title I, Section 202, Old Age Benefits......

while raising the cap will have zero impact on the people who have will live very comfortably either way.

The above quote is not true, raising the cap from 86% to 90% would increase the benefit a retired uber millionaire would receive by nearly $5,000, eliminating the cap would give that millionaire a SS retirement benefit of over $160,000 a year.

....thats not zero impact.....

[AndyA]

290. I have discussed the impact of new jobs on social security in other threads in the past

It's not a foreign concept to me.

The manner in which entitlement is being framed right now is: entitlement = government handout.
Which it is not since Social Security is funded by workers.

I was discussing the impact of raising the cap right now, not years down the road. Millionaires won't be impacted at all by having additional SS funds taken out of their earnings, yet many who cannot afford it will be harmed if SS is cut.

Obviously, SS needs to be addressed. From what I've heard, nothing needs to be done right this second, as it is solvent for many years and can fully meet all financial obligations.

[FogerRox]

291. You are quite correct, SS is quite solvent, yes we can wait, IMHO 10-12 yrs before taking action.

The CBO scored the 75 year shortfall as .6% of GDP, thats 90 billion a year in a 15 trillion dollar economy. 20 million jobs at 36k each is 89.2 billion in additional FICA. Job creation and wage growth are the 2 largest factors impacting the SSTF.

In laymens terms, the SS shortfall equals the jobs deficit which equals the infrastructure deficit.

DU now has a SS group, it would be good to see a knowledgeable person such as yourself over there once in a while.

A pleasure.

[ProSense]

286. Remember this:

As it is the plan is to cut social security benefits by 25% when the trust funds are spent.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023907606

Good thing that's not Harry Reid's position.

Ryan wants entitlement cuts, Reid says 'NO WAY'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023915052