Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Oh Crap!!! "Social Security Cuts Still ‘on the Table’ but Not in Obama’s Budget"!!!
The decision to drop so-called “chained CPI” came after Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and 15 other senators wrote Obama a letter Feb. 14 urging Social Security to be spared in the president’s budget blueprint.
......
Obama had included the proposal, which would shrink the inflation rate used to calculate a host of benefits and tax breaks, as part of an attempted grand bargain on the budget, but Republicans refused White House demands for new revenue to go along with cuts in entitlements.
However, while the proposal will not be in his budget blueprint, Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that the president’s proposal remains “on the table,” but only as part of a larger package that would shrink tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.
“It’s a principle of fairness,” Earnest said.
“The offer to Speaker Boehner remains on the table for whenever the Republicans decide they want to engage in a serious discussion about a balanced plan to deal with our long-term fiscal challenges that includes closing loopholes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations,” a White House official said in a separate background memo.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/sanders-applauds-obama-for-dropping-social-security-cuts-from-budget/
......
Obama had included the proposal, which would shrink the inflation rate used to calculate a host of benefits and tax breaks, as part of an attempted grand bargain on the budget, but Republicans refused White House demands for new revenue to go along with cuts in entitlements.
However, while the proposal will not be in his budget blueprint, Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that the president’s proposal remains “on the table,” but only as part of a larger package that would shrink tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.
“It’s a principle of fairness,” Earnest said.
“The offer to Speaker Boehner remains on the table for whenever the Republicans decide they want to engage in a serious discussion about a balanced plan to deal with our long-term fiscal challenges that includes closing loopholes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations,” a White House official said in a separate background memo.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/sanders-applauds-obama-for-dropping-social-security-cuts-from-budget/
It is not "a principle of fairness" because social security does not add one nickel to the deficit!!!
Taxes on the wealthiest need to be increased to the levels of the greatest generation in order to add to the general fund so that they can pay off the debt and deficit, etc....
Social Security is solvent for 20 years and simply needs the cap raised so that those making over $110,000/year continue to pay into it to make it solvent forever.
The deficit and Social Security are two separate pools of money that come from two separate funding sources. We pay into SS as an insurance policy. Cutting it is not an option.
Chained CPI means grannies will starve, as will children.
The continued conflating of these two issues by the administration is very disturbing.... Just when I though they might be getting a clue!
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
So why go there? 
What gives this Administration the right to use SS as a bargaining chip?
if we don't, we may have to cut it in the *future!*
Economy-starving austerity is *designed* to eliminate the social contract. Any politician genuinely concerned about rescuing SS would be focused on jobs and stimulus and reversing the pattern of theft and inequality-spawning policy of recent decades....NOT on passing predatory "trade" agreements that will lower wages across the board and *cutting* the safety net.
What shameless liars and thieves our politicians become in this sick, corrupt political system the One Percent have created.
_____________________________________
*Remember when they doubled the contribution to FICA in the 80's and told us that would take care of the approaching Baby Boom retirement?
Before that, we stopped war with Syria.
In the meantime we just wasted another 2 billion this week on Afghanistan - for what???
It was Democratic caving on the farm bill that cut food stamps, in my view. That cut represent 5 short weeks in Afghanistan fighting a war that is creating terrorists. You're entire line of argument is posited from the republican talking point of view, in my opinion.
Republicans respond to strenght, not weakness and compromise. They want to be told what to do, it's in their DNA. So get on board before you get left behind, lol!!!
Predictable diversionary commercial from you, though.
with running our country ...
play around with social security like this.
It makes me want to 
“It’s a principle of fairness,” Earnest said.
...that comment was about the President's position of asking the rich to pay their fair share.
Q You said, Josh, earlier that chained CPI -- it’s still on the table. Does the White House view chained CPI as worth taking up only in some kind of transaction for something out of the Republicans? Or is the deficit reduction the chained CPI would give you worth doing on its own?
MR. EARNEST: It’s a really good question. I’m glad that you asked, and here’s why: This is a really important principle for the President not just because it’s good policy, but because it’s simple fairness.
The President is not going to be in a position where he is going to ask senior citizens and middle-class families to make sacrifices in pursuit of reducing the deficit and not ask the wealthy and well-connected to make some sacrifices, too; that it’s just not fair and it’s not good policy.
So if Republicans -- and Republicans thus far have refused to even consider closing any loophole that would cost a corporation or a wealthy individual one penny; that the second you bring up the prospect of closing tax loopholes, Republicans want to walk away. And why they think that it’s good policymaking to ask senior citizens and veterans and middle-class families to make sacrifices, but say that corporations and wealthy individuals and well-connected individuals shouldn’t have to bear any of that responsibility or make any of those sacrifices, it doesn’t make sense. It’s not fair and it’s not good policy.
So that’s why the President has insisted that if we’re going to ask seniors and others to make sacrifices by changing entitlement programs, then we’re also going to ask corporations and well-connected individuals to give up some of their tax loopholes.
Q So you’re saying that chained CPI, while it would reduce the deficit, either doesn’t do it enough or doesn’t do it in a significant way that would make it worth doing on its own?
MR. EARNEST: I’m saying that it would not be fair to just ask seniors to make a sacrifice in support of reducing the deficit without also asking the wealthy and well-connected to give up some of their tax loopholes. That is an important principle. It’s a principle of fairness. It’s also a principle of good policy.
So if Republicans hearing this exchange are thinking to themselves, well, you know what, that makes a lot of sense, maybe I should call the White House and say, hey, look, I’m willing to close some tax loopholes if you’re willing to put some entitlement reform changes on the table -- then I would encourage those Republicans to call the White House right now. I’m sure we can set up a meeting and we can have a conversation about that.
But that offer has been on the table for more than a year and we have not seen any constructive engagement from the other side. Now, I’m not really sure why that is. Is that because Republicans are interested in protecting the tax benefits enjoyed by the people who are funding their campaigns? Is it because Republicans have a philosophical objection to entitlement programs? You’d have to ask them why this isn’t a reasonable proposal.
But the President thinks it is a common-sense proposal. People all across the country think that this approach to reducing our deficit makes a lot of sense. We just haven’t seen a willingness from the other side to engage in a constructive conversation about that. But, again, if the fact of this conversation is going to change that and cause more Republicans to reconsider their position, then we’re standing by and ready to have that conversation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/20/press-briefing-principal-deputy-press-secretary-josh-earnest-2202014
MR. EARNEST: It’s a really good question. I’m glad that you asked, and here’s why: This is a really important principle for the President not just because it’s good policy, but because it’s simple fairness.
The President is not going to be in a position where he is going to ask senior citizens and middle-class families to make sacrifices in pursuit of reducing the deficit and not ask the wealthy and well-connected to make some sacrifices, too; that it’s just not fair and it’s not good policy.
So if Republicans -- and Republicans thus far have refused to even consider closing any loophole that would cost a corporation or a wealthy individual one penny; that the second you bring up the prospect of closing tax loopholes, Republicans want to walk away. And why they think that it’s good policymaking to ask senior citizens and veterans and middle-class families to make sacrifices, but say that corporations and wealthy individuals and well-connected individuals shouldn’t have to bear any of that responsibility or make any of those sacrifices, it doesn’t make sense. It’s not fair and it’s not good policy.
So that’s why the President has insisted that if we’re going to ask seniors and others to make sacrifices by changing entitlement programs, then we’re also going to ask corporations and well-connected individuals to give up some of their tax loopholes.
Q So you’re saying that chained CPI, while it would reduce the deficit, either doesn’t do it enough or doesn’t do it in a significant way that would make it worth doing on its own?
MR. EARNEST: I’m saying that it would not be fair to just ask seniors to make a sacrifice in support of reducing the deficit without also asking the wealthy and well-connected to give up some of their tax loopholes. That is an important principle. It’s a principle of fairness. It’s also a principle of good policy.
So if Republicans hearing this exchange are thinking to themselves, well, you know what, that makes a lot of sense, maybe I should call the White House and say, hey, look, I’m willing to close some tax loopholes if you’re willing to put some entitlement reform changes on the table -- then I would encourage those Republicans to call the White House right now. I’m sure we can set up a meeting and we can have a conversation about that.
But that offer has been on the table for more than a year and we have not seen any constructive engagement from the other side. Now, I’m not really sure why that is. Is that because Republicans are interested in protecting the tax benefits enjoyed by the people who are funding their campaigns? Is it because Republicans have a philosophical objection to entitlement programs? You’d have to ask them why this isn’t a reasonable proposal.
But the President thinks it is a common-sense proposal. People all across the country think that this approach to reducing our deficit makes a lot of sense. We just haven’t seen a willingness from the other side to engage in a constructive conversation about that. But, again, if the fact of this conversation is going to change that and cause more Republicans to reconsider their position, then we’re standing by and ready to have that conversation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/20/press-briefing-principal-deputy-press-secretary-josh-earnest-2202014
While he made it clear that this is a Republican request, what he should have done was make it clear that it has nothing to do with deficit reduction.
Still, not only is this a moot issue for this year, but also for the future. Republicans are never going to accept the offer.
How Tea Party Absolutism Cost The GOP A Huge Win On Entitlements
The GOP's long-held dream of slashing the retirement safety net faded this week.
Back in the summer of 2011, Republicans had it within their grasp. A dejected President Barack Obama placed the crown jewels of liberalism on the chopping block, offering Republicans hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits.
House Speaker John Boehner wanted to seal the so-called grand bargain, and was willing to reciprocate with the $800 billion in new tax revenues that the president sought in return. Democratic leaders were grudgingly willing to support Obama on what they feared was a lopsided deal for conservatives.
But the Ohio Republican, facing a tea party mutiny that threatened his Speakership, and loyalty issues within his own leadership team, was forced to walk away from the table. By many accounts, he was eager to make it happen, but the pressure from the anti-tax tea party movement was too strong to overcome. And so the deal was dead, never to be resurrected.
Nearly three years later, history suggests Boehner was right and the tea party was wrong. Republicans had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capture their Great White Whale if they just acquiesced to $800 billion in taxes. It turns out they were forced to soak up $650 billion in taxes anyway in the end-of-2012 fiscal cliff deal. Only they got nothing in return on entitlements.
As of this week, Obama has rescinded his proposals to chop Medicare and Social Security benefits. The political landscape has changed, and the dream is over.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-tea-party-absolutism-cost-republicans-a-huge-win-on-entitlements
The GOP's long-held dream of slashing the retirement safety net faded this week.
Back in the summer of 2011, Republicans had it within their grasp. A dejected President Barack Obama placed the crown jewels of liberalism on the chopping block, offering Republicans hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits.
House Speaker John Boehner wanted to seal the so-called grand bargain, and was willing to reciprocate with the $800 billion in new tax revenues that the president sought in return. Democratic leaders were grudgingly willing to support Obama on what they feared was a lopsided deal for conservatives.
But the Ohio Republican, facing a tea party mutiny that threatened his Speakership, and loyalty issues within his own leadership team, was forced to walk away from the table. By many accounts, he was eager to make it happen, but the pressure from the anti-tax tea party movement was too strong to overcome. And so the deal was dead, never to be resurrected.
Nearly three years later, history suggests Boehner was right and the tea party was wrong. Republicans had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capture their Great White Whale if they just acquiesced to $800 billion in taxes. It turns out they were forced to soak up $650 billion in taxes anyway in the end-of-2012 fiscal cliff deal. Only they got nothing in return on entitlements.
As of this week, Obama has rescinded his proposals to chop Medicare and Social Security benefits. The political landscape has changed, and the dream is over.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-tea-party-absolutism-cost-republicans-a-huge-win-on-entitlements
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/21/1279265/-Abbreviated-pundit-roundup-Rejecting-austerity
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024540032
Era, I would mention hierarchies. I liked particularly to list the 7 Vices and 7 Virtues, for I would let them know that Charity ranked #1 for the latter, and that it means to give until it hurts, story of the Widow's Mite included.
I threw that old Liberal stuff in whenever I could!
And I would venture to guess that even the most voluminous, link-spangled, predictable talking points convince no one. No one at all. Not here.
The time for changing minds and smothering criticism (at least here at DU) with rhetoric, is long gone. IMO.
The continued conflating of these two issues by the administration is very disturbing.... Just when I though they might be getting a clue!
Oh, in some quarters, Conflation of Disparate Issues'R'us is the first line of offensive defense.
Methinks that doesn't work very well here, either. But it is amusing, the predictability of it.
All we want is for Chained-CPI to be off the table permanently, and equivocally.
It's in the best interest of the President!!!!
Social Security
Harris Interactive. February 6-13, 2012.
“Only 12% of the public want to see a cut in Social Security payments”.
KPC Poll. March 9, 2012.
“Over two thirds of Americans agree that the government has a role in providing a safety net for their personal financial security, including Social Security, Medicare, and protection from fraud.”
CNN/ORC Poll. September 23-25, 2011.
“Would you say that the Social Security system has been good for the country, has been bad for the country, or has had no effect on the country?” 79% answered good.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Health Care. Sept 8-11, 2011.
Voters overwhelmingly approve of raising the cap on Social Security wages above $106,000 (71% in favor, 21% oppose).
Raising retirement age is opposed (65% oppose, 30% in favor).
The Washington Post/Bloomberg News Poll, October 6-9, 2011
83% oppose reducing Social Security benefits in order to reduce the nation’s budget deficit.
Pew Research Center, June 15-19, 2011
60% support keeping benefits as they are under Social Security as being more important than reducing the budget deficit.
The Washington Post/ABC News Poll, March 10-13, 2011
53% support Collecting Social Security taxes on all the money a worker earns, rather than taxing only up to about $107,000 of annual income.
57% oppose raising the retirement age from 66 to 67.
52% oppose further reducing the benefits paid to people who retire early. For instance, people who retire at age 62 would get 63% of their full benefits, rather than the current 70%
66% oppose reducing benefits for future enrollees.
Gallup Poll, January 14-16, 2011
64% oppose spending cuts to Social Security.
Pulse Opinion Research for The Hill Poll – Social Security, February 9, 2011
48% oppose raising the Social Security age for people born after 1960.
67% believe Social Security taxes should be paid on all or most worker income
Lake Research Partners, October 31 to November 2, 2010
82% oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the debt.
67% oppose cutting Social Security to make the program more solvent in the long term.
63% oppose reducing Social Security benefits for people earning more than $60,000 or more when they retire.
69% oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 69.
66% support enacting Social Security taxes on wages about $106,800 (the Pay Roll Tax Cap) to make the program more solvent.
The Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, February 24-28, 2011
49% believe it will not be necessary to cut spending on Social Security to reduce the national deficit. (22% said Yes and 27% had no opinion).
77% believe cutting Social Security to help reduce the budget deficit is mostly or totally unacceptable.
Bloomberg News Poll, March 4-7, 2011
54% oppose raising the age of eligibility for Social Security to 69.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2011
58% want tax increases on the wealthy as part of a deficit solution vs 36%.
Pew Research Poll, June 15-19
60% say Keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are vs 32% say change them to reduce deficits.
Associated Press-GfK Poll, March 5-9, 2011
54% believe it is possible to balance the budget without cutting spending on Social Security
Harris Interactive. February 6-13, 2012.
“Only 12% of the public want to see a cut in Social Security payments”.
KPC Poll. March 9, 2012.
“Over two thirds of Americans agree that the government has a role in providing a safety net for their personal financial security, including Social Security, Medicare, and protection from fraud.”
CNN/ORC Poll. September 23-25, 2011.
“Would you say that the Social Security system has been good for the country, has been bad for the country, or has had no effect on the country?” 79% answered good.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Health Care. Sept 8-11, 2011.
Voters overwhelmingly approve of raising the cap on Social Security wages above $106,000 (71% in favor, 21% oppose).
Raising retirement age is opposed (65% oppose, 30% in favor).
The Washington Post/Bloomberg News Poll, October 6-9, 2011
83% oppose reducing Social Security benefits in order to reduce the nation’s budget deficit.
Pew Research Center, June 15-19, 2011
60% support keeping benefits as they are under Social Security as being more important than reducing the budget deficit.
The Washington Post/ABC News Poll, March 10-13, 2011
53% support Collecting Social Security taxes on all the money a worker earns, rather than taxing only up to about $107,000 of annual income.
57% oppose raising the retirement age from 66 to 67.
52% oppose further reducing the benefits paid to people who retire early. For instance, people who retire at age 62 would get 63% of their full benefits, rather than the current 70%
66% oppose reducing benefits for future enrollees.
Gallup Poll, January 14-16, 2011
64% oppose spending cuts to Social Security.
Pulse Opinion Research for The Hill Poll – Social Security, February 9, 2011
48% oppose raising the Social Security age for people born after 1960.
67% believe Social Security taxes should be paid on all or most worker income
Lake Research Partners, October 31 to November 2, 2010
82% oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the debt.
67% oppose cutting Social Security to make the program more solvent in the long term.
63% oppose reducing Social Security benefits for people earning more than $60,000 or more when they retire.
69% oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 69.
66% support enacting Social Security taxes on wages about $106,800 (the Pay Roll Tax Cap) to make the program more solvent.
The Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, February 24-28, 2011
49% believe it will not be necessary to cut spending on Social Security to reduce the national deficit. (22% said Yes and 27% had no opinion).
77% believe cutting Social Security to help reduce the budget deficit is mostly or totally unacceptable.
Bloomberg News Poll, March 4-7, 2011
54% oppose raising the age of eligibility for Social Security to 69.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2011
58% want tax increases on the wealthy as part of a deficit solution vs 36%.
Pew Research Poll, June 15-19
60% say Keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are vs 32% say change them to reduce deficits.
Associated Press-GfK Poll, March 5-9, 2011
54% believe it is possible to balance the budget without cutting spending on Social Security
if not myopic.
You would say "No" to changes that strengthen and extend the purpose of SS, just to say "No."
