General Discussion

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)

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

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:14 AM

Dec 2012

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

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

Right?

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit??? [View all] grahamhgreen Dec 2012 OP

Why indeed. woo me with science Dec 2012 #1

Thanks for that video. Obama thinks liberalism is a tired, old ideology that needs to be replaced?? factsarenotfair Dec 2012 #42

Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938." woo me with science Dec 2012 #69

How can intelligent people fail to heed Obama's words and deeds: He is not a friend of Social byeya Dec 2012 #73

The words "not a bloodless process" are indeed chilling. factsarenotfair Dec 2012 #102

This message was self-deleted by its author woo me with science Dec 2012 #104

Because the Third Way believes that SS needs to be privatized and that the sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #2

I think the opposite argument could be made too democrattotheend Dec 2012 #5

so to "reduce the cost of the program" by cutting future benefits is ok with you? DrDan Dec 2012 #8

I never said it's ok democrattotheend Dec 2012 #9

I have to agree with your reasoning Freddie Dec 2012 #18

+1 SunSeeker Dec 2012 #23

We democrats did NOT stay home in 2010. Independents stayed home. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #82

there are other options that do not seem to be pursued - for example raising the cap DrDan Dec 2012 #35

Wait. Why is Social Security in the mix - WHEN IT DOES NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT? grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #37

!!!! bvar22 Dec 2012 #68

Great photo! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #70

I was lucky enough to have lived in St Paul, Minnesota... bvar22 Dec 2012 #79

Amen. woo me with science Dec 2012 #76

That's absurd. Simply having those who earn over $110,000/yr pay ito it will keep grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #10

and/or include capital gains and "carried interest" reteachinwi Dec 2012 #27

That is a solution I could definitely get behind democrattotheend Dec 2012 #108

There is no reason to even mention SS in these negotiations and the Progressive Caucus xtraxritical Dec 2012 #31

I've never seen any figures on how raising the cap will raise sufficient sums of money customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #80

There's a bill introduced by Bernie Sanders that details all of it: grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #84

I see some pretty charts customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #92

Here are the core numbers in the PDF from the Social Security Chief Actuary: grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #98

But the whole reason this "cut" is being proposed is truedelphi Dec 2012 #53

"have the President sign and Executive Order recapturing that money" - grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #86

If only that were true. But the opposite is true. First of all SS is not in trouble sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #63

Hear Hear! Well said! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #87

I think YOU MIS READ WHAT I POSTED. truedelphi Dec 2012 #100

I'm sorry, I was trying to agree with you but didn't do it very well. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #105

all I know is that I am headachy and grouchy now that not a truedelphi Dec 2012 #106

Lol, I haven't had any egg nog either, so I wish I could join you also. sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #107

Do you even know what a chained CPI is? daa Dec 2012 #66

Sorry, but that makes no sense... grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #110

Yep they first have to degrade and denature it kenny blankenship Dec 2012 #12

Neo-liberalism is a failure as policy duffyduff Dec 2012 #28

Yes, Neo-liberaliam has been tried in several places throughout the world and has been proved to byeya Dec 2012 #74

Certainly Social Security is Self-Funded, On the Road Dec 2012 #3

That's absurd. No one has to negotiate that which is simply not in play. Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #4

No excuse for adopting what they bring to our proposals. TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #6

If you are in control of negotiations, if your party wins an election, you get to sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #7

Look at OBAMA'S offers, not BOHNERS. Why did OBAMA put it on the table? grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #11

Mr. Obama is a long way from Wellstone ruled Dec 2012 #13

He's "more like Harry Truman"? You must have a sense of humor. He's the exact opposite of Truman. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #17

Right now, SS is self-funding. However, this will not be the case starting in 2033. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #14

Projections can change, it still has nothing to do with the current deficit Dragonfli Dec 2012 #20

Exactly right reteachinwi Dec 2012 #30

Bingo, spot-on, you've nailed it. hypergrove Dec 2012 #45

Rationalization fail. Logic fail. High probability of administration deception detected. grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #38

All we need do is have those who make over $110,000/yr pay into SS! grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #32

Those numbers are based on the worst economy and the high enemployment sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #64

If by self-funding customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #81

The media has spun the demographics to make it appear half the population is not working, thus they freshwest Dec 2012 #15

Obama is not doing this alone. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #16

The appointer of Simpson & Bowles knew exactly where these two right-wingers stood. Their answer indepat Dec 2012 #19

Take the cap off of wage limits on SSI. Not fair that poor and middle class only pay this in. earcandle Dec 2012 #21

or maybe it was used to bribe senators and house? Put it back and audit SSI NOW earcandle Dec 2012 #22

The ruling class sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #24

Same reason he is lowering corporate taxes, and... soryang Dec 2012 #25

President Obama has already taken Social Security off the table UCmeNdc Dec 2012 #26

If you have any proof of that, I would love to see it, unfortunately his latest statement, grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #89

because he knew the radical right would never go for a tax increase. He looks like a goddamn hero pasto76 Dec 2012 #29

How does offering up our SS fund to vultures make him look like a "goddamn hero"? Dragonfli Dec 2012 #33

Wait. You have a link for that? I would love it if he said he took SS off grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #39

It is simple....... rustydad Dec 2012 #34

....and that is why Al Gore wanted a "lock box". NCarolinawoman Dec 2012 #43

well, Gore did win--and they've formally admitted that since *2001* MisterP Apr 2013 #111

Because "deficit" isn't the only thing that matters. Igel Dec 2012 #36

So, you don't want to pay back the money you borrowed from the elderly... grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #41

SS is not under attack and the deficit has nothing to so with SS... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #40

"Odd" That Obama "Throws Out Suggestions" Regarding SS Iggy Dec 2012 #44

That's not how it works... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #54

No, that's wrong. Both sides throw out an entire offer, woo me with science Dec 2012 #90

You state, "SS is not under attack", yet you admit that grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #46

he hasn't stolen fom anyone yet, and... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #52

Of course, but historically Obama has had to be pushed hard to do the right thing. grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #61

Look back at his first two years and say that. TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #65

"can be changed in the future"? NCarolinawoman Dec 2012 #47

We are finished with shadow governments and guns and fake facts. earcandle Dec 2012 #48

Every body knows. earcandle Dec 2012 #49

Quite possibly, when there is a less toxic House... TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #51

Because Obama is a Republican. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #50

Oh bullshit. I know the reason: ProSense Dec 2012 #55

. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #56

Ah, ProSense Dec 2012 #57

Advantage: Prosense Number23 Dec 2012 #59

Thank you.... Bobbie Jo Dec 2012 #94

Don't you wish that just once he would pander to the left Doctor_J Dec 2012 #60

Because the banksters who own the government WANT IT Doctor_J Dec 2012 #58

When negotiating, you must offer the other side something they want. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #62

Just say someone wants to buy your car, but, heck, they'd like your house too; grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #67

I don't think it should have ever been offered...but I still understand why he went there. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #72

I read nothing in that article about Obama attacking or cutting Social Security. And he hasn't. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #71

All the red areas comprise cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #75

The CPI is only in Obama's last proposal, which he has withdrawn. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #95

I would very much appreciate a link to the administration stating that chained cpi and grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #96

Bullshit. You declare defeat before anything even happens. MjolnirTime Dec 2012 #77

I had to laugh out loud at your response Oilwellian Dec 2012 #83

What are you talkin about? This is a call to action, asking that we all call grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #85

Don't cut SS, cut corporate welfare! commenter8 Dec 2012 #78

Because this is what the professors are telling him to do Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #88

Bernake is only interested in stuffing our hard earned money into his obesely rich grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #91

Corzine was never prosecuted Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #93

Because SS is unsustainable in its current form- it's going to need some tweaking if people my age cecilfirefox Dec 2012 #97

Then it should be adressed seperately from the the deficit reduction talks. Especially grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #99

Last year Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #101

Wall St. JReed Dec 2012 #103

But Obama magically *knew* his offer(s) wouldn't be accepted! DirkGently Dec 2012 #109