Obama: Social Security won't be privatized

[mike r]

Source: CNN

President Barack Obama pledged Wednesday that the Social Security system won't be privatized while he is in the White House.

In a town-hall style meeting with a few dozen residents of Columbus, Ohio, Obama said "modest" changes can keep the government pension system solvent for decades.

Republicans have called for transforming the government program to a private savings account as a way to help keep it going as America's aging population stresses its financial health.

"It will not be privatized as long as I'm president," Obama said to applause, noting that the economic recession and Wall Street collapse would have devastated the savings of retirees under a privatized Social Security system. He said Social Security needed adjustments, rather than a total overhaul.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/18/obama.ohio.jobs/?hpt=T1

[EFerrari]

1. That's encouraging. We have to keep working on the White House

and on our representatives. The privatizers won't let up, that's for sure.

[wordpix]

70. +1 no the corporate Wall St. profiteers will not let up & here's one for Obama!

:applause: :woohoo:

[Bluesbreaker]

165. "modest changes"

Here we go again. Set up the old "worst case" straw man (privatization) and then save us from it by doing something slightly less evil (raise age and cut benefits).

The fact is no changes are needed. Social security is in no danger whatsoever of running out funds anytime in the foreseeable future. The Social Security Administration calculates three scenarios every year: a highly favorable (low cost), a highly unfavorable (high cost) and a mid-level between the two (intermediate). You can go the SSA website and check it out (see The Trustees Report--Financial Outlook for Social Security, p. 7)

The intermediate scenario is the one that is used by the press and most politicians. When these are back tested,however, it turns out the worst one, high-cost, never happens, the intermediate sometimes happens, and the highly favorable scenario is the most common occurrence. Even under the middle course, social security can continue to be paid until 2037, with no loss of benefits. After that it doesn't run out of money or "go broke" as many on the president's debt commission claim. No, the payments drop to around 80 percent of the target payment for a long, long time.

The sensible thing to do is wait another 20 years and then look at the country's demographic profile and the balance in the social security fund and consider what steps might be called for then. We have a lot bigger and more pressing problems now, like funding Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention two wars. Those, like the president, who want to take action ("moderate changes") now, are following the will of their corporate masters, not seeking the country's financial well-being or economic stability. And they are playing politics with the lives all Americans, except the elite who will be just fine regardless.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[old mark]

2. Rec. Good! I want MORE CLARITY on the administration's position

on various issues...there is so much static, and so little real information right now, and it will get MUCH WORSE before the election...The MSMers will talk themselves into a frenzy over every possible nuance of every possible happening or position or concept...I think is it a great time to stock up on some good old movies and just ignore the "news"...I already know I am going to vote and who I am going to vote for, and anything said by any "expert" won't change any of that.
I don't want or need pointless chat.

Thank you Mr. Obama - I will take you at your word on this, and I hope for some more good news before November.

mark

[Vincardog]

3. Now pledge that it will not be reduced or have any ages raised.

[Me.]

9. There You Go

It won't be privatized but when the President's Catfood Commission gets done with it, it will be cut to shreds and there won't be much left to privatize much less live on.

[Vincardog]

13. Which is why we have to get EVERYONE who asks us for money or our time or our votes to state it for

the record. No Cut or age raising SSI.

[Lightning Count]

20. Impossible.

Given the large rise in average lifespan something will have to be done. Preferably that something will be a raise in SS taxes.

[Demeter]

24. THERE IS NO RISE IN THE AVERAGE LIFESPAN!!!

How many times must this lie be debunked on this site alone???

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/07/michael-hiltzik-social-security-and-the-life-expectancy-myth.html

Michael Hiltzik: Social Security and the life expectancy myth

...For one thing, longevity has hardly soared. The average life expectancy of someone who has reached age 65 was about 78 in 1940 and about 83 in 2005. In other words, a gain in the average length of retirement of about five years over six decades. And that's for the whole population. For black males, there has been a gain of just over 21/2 years, to an average of 80 for those reaching age 65 in 2005.

That's not nothing, but it isn't 20 years, as some people, like former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming (a member of the deficit commission), seem to think. Also, it has been addressed by changes in Social Security taxes going back as far as 1983.

Raising the full retirement age is the equivalent of a benefit cut for all. Currently, you can start collecting Social Security as early as age 62. But you don't get your full monthly stipend unless you wait until 66, and you can get even more per month for every year you defer up to the age of 70. (The full benefit age already is set to rise to 67 for people born in 1960 or later.)

If your normal retirement age was 65 (that is, you were born in 1937 or before), you could have received 80% of your full monthly payment for life if you retired at 62 — if you were due $1,000 a month upon retiring at 65, that would be reduced to $800 if you started at 62.

Today's 50-year-olds will have to wait until age 67 to get that full $1,000; retiring at age 62 will get them only $700, and retiring at the old standard age of 65 will get them only $867.

Every year that the normal retirement age is raised translates into a 6.7% cut in benefits, observes Henry Aaron, a healthcare and retirement expert at the Brookings Institution. Raising the age to 70, in other words, would amount to an effective cut of 20% for everyone — no small change.

Moreover, not everybody has the same capacity to put off retirement until 65, much less 70. People in stressful occupations, such as auto workers, construction laborers or nurses, may have less flexibility to coast through to a late retirement than lawyers, university professors or those kings and queens of the plush lifestyle, members of Congress.

Surveys also have shown that many Americans would like to work to 65 but can't, often for health reasons, or because they are pushed into early retirement by their employers....

[Lightning Count]

29. Any reasonable study shows that people are living longer.

Of course this does not affect the age at which people are able to continue working.

[Demeter]

31. Please Read the Above Excerpt--In Fact, Read Entire Article at Link

Note that previous tax rate adjustments have already taken into account the SLIGHT increase in longevity.

And as for whatever statistic you are relying on:

When infants DON'T die of childhood infectious diseases, they grow up to work and pay taxes. The net result LOOKS like an increase in longevity, but it isn't. It is an increase in survival to work and pay taxes.

The two are not the same. Get some basic training in statistics (and how to lie with them).

[Lightning Count]

35. Maybe your blog posting has convinced me.

Or I could go with the facts.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/221694.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/obesity-drop-lifespans-21st-century/story?id=9232159

[Demeter]

37. This is your counter offer?

A report from the World Bank, which couldn't predict anything to save its life?

A 12 year old article from the BBC?

And a pop health article from ABC?

Welcome to the IGNORE LIST. Enjoy your stay.

[Lightning Count]

40. Sorry, I could not fit the billion studies supporting that lifespans are increasing in one post.

Not sure why you are so aggressive.

[kenfrequed]

57. Uhm...

That is an extremely modest increase in longevity. I don't think it requires a legislative ax to solve this. Simply raise the cap on taxable income for putting into social security and you solve the problems.

Personally I would be in favor of eliminating the income cap and have millionaires and billionaires have to pay to take care of the people whose pensions they loot.

[Lightning Count]

58. Agree totally.

It's a modest increase, but still a problem that needs to be recognized. I like your solution.

[Enthusiast]

80. You are taking a decidedly RW position.

Reason enough to get aggressive.

[Lightning Count]

83. Science does not have a wing. :) nt

[Enthusiast]

86. There has been only a modest gain

in life real expectancy. The statistical increase is due to child mortality differences. You appear to have an agenda. It is unrealistic to raise the retirement age.

[Lightning Count]

88. Depends on how you define modest.

The gain coupled with a growing aging population is a huge problem.

I never called for any such thing.

[customerserviceguy]

99. As you can see

Trying to do math here when it comes to Social Security is met with disbelief. I've said the same things that you have, but I get met with the following answers:

1) There's no real problem.
2) There are enough rich people out there that we can raise the cap, and that will pay for absolutely everything, even after their maximum benefits raise, as well.
3) We can cut the military budget to the point where all we can do is grow flowers to stuff in the rifle barrels of our enemies.
4) We can dig out those dusty old IOU's that Congress wrote to the Social Security Trust fund, and turn them into real money.
5) Social Security is solvent through 20XX, and we really don't need to worry about anything after that.

Challenge those assumptions, and people get hostile. My bet is that we will do too little of anything, because of political reluctance to do enough, and we'll simply inflate our way out of paying the baby boom generation its Social Security payments. Since there will always be a COLA, the whole thing will work like Argentina in the bad old days.

[mbperrin]

105. Perhaps the report from the trustees of SS would be of interest.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr10.pdf

Long-Range Results
Under the intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost generally increases more
rapidly than tax income through 2035 because the retirement of the babyboom
generation increases the number of beneficiaries much faster than subsequent
relatively low-birth-rate generations increase the labor force. From
2035 to 2050, the cost rate declines somewhat due principally to the aging of
the already retired baby-boom generation. Thereafter, increases in life expectancy
generally cause OASDI cost to again increase relative to tax income,
but more slowly than prior to 2035. Annual cost is projected to exceed tax
income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014,
then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder
of the long-range period. Interest earnings on trust fund assets alone will
be sufficient to cover the annual difference between cost and tax revenue
until 2025. The dollar level of the Trust Funds is projected to be drawn down
beginning in 2025 until assets are exhausted in 2037.

[customerserviceguy]

108. Economic planning is notoriously hard to do the further you get out there

If we didn't have the current recession/depression, the day of reckoning would have just come a few years down the road, that's all.

I advocate a multi-pronged approach to this, and raising the full retirement age for non-strenous occupations would be one of them. Raising the cap might help, but I figure that a raise in the tax rate might also be needed. Moving disability over to the general budget might be warranted, as well.

[mbperrin]

116. Didn't read the whole report, did you?

All that's needed is a raise in the cap on income subject to tax.

Look, we knew this was coming - this is why the boomers doubled their own taxes in the early 80s - to accumulate a surplus to see us through. Now everyone agrees there are no problems until 2037, when the oldest boomers will be 89, and most likely, dead. Even the youngest will be 73, with about 7 years left to live, a rather short period (don't think it's short? Visualize your doctor: you've got 7 years to live. See?)

If we do the increase in the cap now, nothing at all will happen - it's good for as far as the numbers are.

A system which has consistently paid its benefits for 78 years, come hell or high water, is pretty damn good. That's what SS has done. Ask native Americans if they'd have liked the same kind of performance from the Bureau for Indian Affairs.

This is all about Wall Street wanting to get their hands on the surplus, since they have burned through everything else given to them. You know, if Wall Street was really all about RAISING capital, instead of stealing it, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

[customerserviceguy]

119. Yeah, I read it

but I don't believe it. To me, the Social Security trustees are only a little less reliable than Bernie Madoff. Of course, that's not what you want to believe, so let me take up your other points.

The baby boomers didn't raise taxes on themselves, the height of the baby boom was 1957. Jimmy Carter pushed through raising the cap and the rates, and by the time he was voted out of office in 1980, those boomers were 23. Hmm, I guess they were only 17 when Carter got elected. Maybe that's one of the reasons that Ronnie Raygun won.

The only reason that the system has survived for this long is the existence of those baby boomers. They swelled the workforce at a time when their taxes for FICA were going up, and that piper is standing at the door waiting to be paid. The very first baby boomers born in 1946 turn 65 in less than five months from now.

We don't have much of an echo boom out there waiting to do enough CPR on Social Security to keep it alive. We now have three taxpayers supporting one beneficiary, when it gets to two taxpayers, then push comes to shove.

I agree that Wall Street needs to keep its mitts off Social Security, but I also think that we should have tax-advantaged self-administered IRA-type plans for people who choose to plan for the day when the checks stop coming. I dump 18% of my pay into my 401K, even though I only get a match of 3%. That's a 16% safe return on my investment (I keep it all in money market funds), and even if I doubled that to 36% (which I intend to do) that's still an 8% return on my investment, way better than anything the stock market or interest-bearing securities will pay.

I'm lucky, I have a good company that provides the vehicle for me to save for myself, I worry about those who don't have this advantage.

[mbperrin]

163. Nope. 1980. Read it from a source, rather than your assertion.

Of course, the expansions of Social Security and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid required additional tax revenues, and thus the basic payroll tax was repeatedly increased over the years. Between 1949 and 1962 the payroll tax rate climbed steadily from its initial rate of 2 percent to 6 percent. The expansions in 1965 led to further rate increases, with the combined payroll tax rate climbing to 12.3 percent in 1980. Thus, in 31 years the maximum Social Security tax burden rose from a mere $60 in 1949 to $3,175 in 1980.

from: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

There is a multitrillion dollar surplus to pay everything with no changes at all until 2037. That's a fact, sourced by me and doubted by you.

Unlike you, I am a boomer, and I was 28 in 1980, so I know exactly when these changes occurred and why. You're now allowing for inflation in your IRA - you're putting in current dollars and taking out cheap dollars later. Good luck making that work.

I'll wish you the best, and I sincerely hope everything works out for you. Bye.

[customerserviceguy]

167. Do you not know who was President for all of 1980?

I'll be 55 this year. Reagan didn't assume the Presidency until January, 1981. As for a source, try this one:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918946,00.html

Jimmy Carter made it his mission early on to shore up a system that was already looking bankrupt by 1977. The oldest baby boomers became 31 that year, and were starting to get into their most productive part of their working careers, if they had jobs. Those from the peak year of 1957 were just starting to enter the workforce full-time at 20 (again, assuming they were able to find work), and the baby boom was seen as the way to keep the system going with massive tax increases on America's largest generation.

The wage base subject to FICA taxation essentially doubled during his one term in office, after seeing another doubling during the Nixon-Ford years. The changes put into effect at that time would further double the wage base.

Your supposed multitrillion dollar surplus is nothing but a stack of IOU's sitting in some dusty drawers in a Social Security administration building. The only possible ways to pay them off are raising income taxes, cutting spending, a combination of the two, or "printing" money to redeem them. All of the above choices are politically dangerous, but if we don't do anything, the last one is the default method.

Or, there is keep the Ponzi scheme going. If we never have to redeem them, then we can still pretend that they're real money. That's what all this is about, coming up with a way of reducing outflows, certainly, but its my bet they will increase inflows as well. Only this time, they don't have a large cohort of Americans to be the next level in the pyramid.

I was there, too, why would you assume that I wasn't? Yes, inflation is going to have some effect on my 401K, but there will be rises in interest to attempt to keep pace with it, if I don't put it into the casino (stock market). Right now, it's imperative to save everything I possibly can for that retirement, I might have enough as I approach 70.

[eridani]

112. Life expectancy form birth is FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!

90% of increase in life expectancy form birth is due to eliminating most infant mortality. If you never become an adult, you never pay into SS and you never collect from it. You are irrelevant.

The only relevant question is: If someone manages to get to age 65 in the first place, how many extra years do they have? That hasn't changed much in 60 years. Various estimates are 3 to 5 years.

[Recursion]

183. Life *expectancy* is increasing, not lifespans

Someone who makes it to 70 is as likely make it to 80 as a 70-year-old was 100 years ago. Or a thousand years ago, for that matter.

Hint: babies don't die of preventable infectious diseases anymore.

[newspeak]

184. I actually was employed by SSA

I have seen claims where the claimant only received the lump sum death payment--had no family to receive benefits. I have done more than one claim where an immigrant had used someone's number and actually paid into the system never to receive the benefit--the claimant who's number was used doesn't receive the immigrant's money either (if caught by the rep).

There are other factors to consider besides longevity. And it is true, those who survive childhood wind up paying into the system; hence, there are more contributing to the system.

[JDPriestly]

44. People are living longer because infant mortality and childhood mortality

rates are very low. If you live through infancy and childhood and to the age of 65 and are eligible to draw benefits, you contributed to the system.

Diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and other diseases that cause deaths in people before the age of 65 are still common enough.

It's the people who pay into the system and die before they are 65 who really get a bad deal.

But then, in that way it is like any insurance policy. Let's say you have insurance on your home. The insurance company does not save up all the premiums you pay and give them back to you if your house burns. They pay current claims from current premiums and money earned on past premiums after they pay their administrative and other costs. Further, if your house never burns and you have no other reason to make a claim, you can pay into your home coverage for 50 years and never get anything back. On the other hand, your neighbor who just bought the house last month and has the same insurance company will be paid in full if his house burns tomorrow.

We should view Social Security as an insurance plan. The government also insures banks and offers flood insurance when appropriate. The funding and administrative provisions are different from those that apply to Social Security, but the principle is the same. If more people pay in, there is more money to cover claims.

The problem now is that we outsource and import too much. Therefore, there are too few jobs. The theory that here will not be enough to fund Social Security in x number of years is based on the assumption that we will never really recover full employment at good pay, that we will never become a productive, export-oriented economy again.

The Social Security controversy is a distraction from the real issue which is how we should insure that American once again becomes a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation. Lower CEO salaries and restore pride in a job well done - that's the only solution I can see. Also, our financial sector should not be so dominant. We need more manufacturing and handcrafts, less finance. You can't sell financial planning skills overseas. You can sell things you make.

[joeglow3]

74. Close to right

They DO pay claims out of what you paid in premiums. These are invested in pretty conservative investments (as regulated by the states) and are used to pay.

The difference with SS is that, as you stated, it pays claims out of current receipts. Your example would be valid if an insurance company opened the doors and paid a bunch of claims on day one.

Thus, the problem with SS is that we have a stagnating population. Because of how the program was started, you HAVE to have a constantly growing population base to draw from.

[glitch]

128. I think you'll find that lifespan peaked in the US with the "greatest generation"

mainly due to the massive increase in obesity.

[Indydem]

69. That is just bunk

Average lifespan 1935 (all races and sexes): 61.7

Average Lifespan 2005 (same): 77.8

How can you possibly say that there has been no rise in the average lifespan?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html#axzz0wzdGfpZp

[ozone_man]

95. A more useful statistic for SS is life expectancy beyond a certain age.

You have to remove early life mortality from the data. A better statistic is the life expectancy beyond an age corresponding to the 50% Social Security contribution point. Probably around age 40. Since 1980, the life expectancy beyond age 40 has increased about 3-4 years for male population and 2 years for female population. So, about 2.8 years for the total population in 25 years. It makes sense that the SS retirement age would be increased from 65 to 67, and possibly 68 at some point. But, not 70.

Also, there has to be jobs available for people working that much longer.

-------------------------------

Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004

The expectation of life at a specified age is the average number of years that members of a hypothetical group of people of the same age would continue to live if they were subject throughout the remainder of their lives to the same mortality rate.

Read more: Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html#ixzz0wzac7qdD

[Rosa Luxemburg]

131. thr RW want to privatize social security period

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. The 'large rise in average lifespan' is bull.

The typical age of death is barely a year older today than it was 20 years ago. Even as some are living longer, many more are dying sooner due to the obesity epidemic and the subsequent diabetes, heart problems, etc., not to mention environmental degradation. There is also a rising epidemic of such problems as Alzheimers - as it has hit both my mother and father I have no reason to expect to see 75.

I would not be surprised if we were to see, within the next decade or two, a decline in the average lifespan in America. We are already behind much of the industrial west in that regard.

Over population, decline in public health, diminishing resources - we are entering a dark age.

[Lightning Count]

30. Any reasonable study shows that people are living longer.

Of course this does not affect the age at which people are able to continue working.

[vanbean]

84. Go to yesterday's Crooks and Liars and watch Cenk spell it out for you. Trust me, there is no

emergency.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

133. so, it doesn't mean that we can't afford to give them money

[JDPriestly]

47. The generation now in its late 60s is cursed by the fact that so many

of us were smokers raised on steaks and fried foods. I think predictions about our longevity are probably mistaken. We will be lucky to live as long as our parents many of whom grew up on farms where they developed muscular strength and good eating habits.

[glitch]

129. Yep. The obesity epidemic is already taking a toll.

Boomers' parents already aren't living as long as their parents did and we (boomers and younger) aren't looking like we'll reverse that.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. This has all been planned for

It's factored into the 1983 changes that created the $2.5 Trillion surplus that will be needed to pay out benefits.

Unfortunately, Obama and his Commissioners want to raid that surplus in order to reduce taxes on the wealthy.

[Caretha]

75. Want to?

I believe Manny they already have. They just don't want to pay it back.

[Ikonoklast]

78. Really?

"Unfortunately, Obama and his Commissioners want to raid that surplus in order to reduce taxes on the wealthy."


Prove it...show where this has been a stated goal by the president.


Your opinions on this matter are as valid as those of Fox News...not a fact to be found.

[Vincardog]

91. Try judging Obama on his ACTIONS and leave the reactionary BS in the hall.

[MannyGoldstein]

94. Prove that Bush lied us into war

He never admitted it, but the circumstances present no other credible possibility.

[laughingliberal]

155. Thank you. People seem unaware that this is not a new surprise & the compromise in '83 did make the

...adjustments to deal with this time. Full benefit age has been raised to 67. My age for full benefits (born in 1955) is 66 and 2 mos. It goes up slightly for people born in each year until it hits the maximum of 67.

[valerief]

66. On the very wealthy only, perhaps. nt

[Enthusiast]

77. Please read Demeter's post. nt

[obxhead]

126. The poor must not suffer.

I read several years ago that Oprah Winfrey is done paying SS taxes by 5am Jan 1st.

tax the fucking rich, support the poor. That's how you build a successful nation.

[Wednesdays]

143. Oprah's the only rich person in America?

Who knew? :shrug:

[obxhead]

146. Yup. That's exactly what my post said.

Oprah is the only rich person in America and we should take every penny she has to support SS.

Seriously?

I stated "I read several years ago that Oprah Winfrey is done paying SS taxes by 5am Jan 1st."

It was intended as an example that the extremely wealthy do not pay a fair share into the system. Obviously it flew wayyyyy over your head. Thanks for playing though. :hi: :eyes:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

130. move money that was stolen from the SS budget and put it back

the war budget for Iraq Bush should pay out of his own pocket. We want a refund. Don't tell me there's no money because there is.

[Kweli4Real]

100. Who knows ...

The modest changes could be a lifting of the FICA earnings cap or a lowering of the rate, but applying it to all income, not just earned income.

[amandabeech]

147. That's what I'll be looking for.

Anyone who appoints Alan Simpson to a Social Security Study Committee has some serious explaining to do.

[Citizen Worker]

164. Exactly! Obama did NOT say that Social Security retirment age and benefits wouldn't be cut, did he?

[Vincardog]

185. Why not call your congress critter and ask them to pledge 1 no privatization 2 no age raises 3 no

benefit cuts including COLA.

[Jennicut]

4. Of course it won't. How else do you get any Dems to vote for you?

If Obama is that stupid...

Minor adjustments are all that is needed anyway. Lift the cap.

[peace frog]

5. So..

'"modest" changes can keep the government pension system solvent for decades', saith Obama. And what, pray tell, would he mean by *modest*? I'll warrant that his definition of *modest* will differ markedly from ours.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. About 50,000 dollars taken from each recipient

Based on the plans to raise retirement age to 70.

The COLA Reductions will take even more from working Americans.

[HomerRamone]

10. And these people who can't collect in their 60s

will find work WHERE?

[pattmarty]

16. "Would you like fries with that"?

[Capitalocracy]

48. Yeah right

Why would they hire them if they'll have plenty of young folks (even those who went to college) with no future and who still live with their parents?

No, nobody will hire them. They're basically screwed.

[pattmarty]

85. Yep, I know. Just being sarcastic. We are ALL fucked now.

[Ignis]

33. Oh, that sounds quite modest...

...if you're a freakin' millionaire. :argh:

[RaleighNCDUer]

172. I'll tell you now, I'm barely dealing with the idea of hanging in till 62

and taking the earliest possible retirement. If retirement is raised to 70 I will shoot myself in the fucking head, because my brains will be scrambled by Alzheimers before I hit 70 anyway.

I do not intend to spend my retirement years in a lockdown ward.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

132. the money we save on not going to do futile wars

[Better Believe It]

6. Of course it won't. Benefits will "just" be cut without privatization so what's his point?

Sounds like he's trying to put up a straw man when the real issue after the election will be his "deficit commission" proposals for cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Who in Congress is seriously proposing privatization again? It's not going anywhere after the 2008 Stock Market crash and everyone understands that.

On the other hand Obama's commission will make serious proposals to cut benefits that will probably be passed by a lame duck Congress after the November elections. They may include Social Security "means testing", increasing the retirement age for full benefits to 70(which is a cut), weakening the "cost of living" formula and increasing the minimum age for partial benefits from 62 to 65 years old.

Notice that President Obama IS NOT promising to oppose any cuts in Social Security, just privatization.

And how about the drastic cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that will be proposed by his commission? That sure will "reform" the crap out of our health care system!

[DrDan]

8. why do I get the feeling that "modest" changes wiill be at the expense of middle-lower earners

- not the wealthy

[progressoid]

11. I get that feeling too. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

134. definitely not

the modest changes will be the rich. Social Democracy - the rich donate to the poor for the good of society.

[harun]

15. Yep.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Absolutely. Here's how it will work:

Lower income people live several years less than higher-income people. So, raising the retirement age might take away half of the lifetime earnings for a low-income person vs. one-third or less for a high-income earner.

[DrDan]

28. I think you have found the golden solution to this problem

[peace frog]

96. Oh, HELL Yes

:scared:

[SammyWinstonJack]

109. Crappy feeling too have, isn't it?

x( I have the same feeling.

[Pirate Smile]

12. He has already said it is easy to fix - just raise how high you go in paying taxes into Social

Security or use a dough nut hole - such as keeping it where it stops now (a little over $100k) and then restart paying the social security tax at $250k or $400k.

As he said in the past, social security is easy to fix by just doing that. Medicare and Medicaid are the harder ones but they've started at that in Health Insurance Reform.

[defendandprotect]

38. Obviously, we also need to get the tens of millions unemployed back to work!!

[pattmarty]

14. This has become somewhat "cloudy". Remember the "cat food"........

...........commission has to "recommend" budget cuts which will surely include SS & Medicare. They won't vote to "privatize", but will surely recommend to raise the retirement age and/or cut monthly payouts. So this is just a "smokescreen" to hide what the commission will recommend in a couple of months. We shall see at that time exactly how serious Obama is on SS & Medicare.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

136. here we go, Catfood again - give it a rest!

no catfood

[nashville_brook]

153. we'll give the "catfood" a rest as soon as it's not our likely future.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

160. then people need to have their role clarified

[pattmarty]

170. We're here waiting......... C'mon, "clarify".

[Rosa Luxemburg]

178. you have to knock on their door first

[pattmarty]

182. I like the way you back up your argument with facts. Better keep............

.......your day job (if you're still employed) because your "one liners" aren't too funny and most importantly aren't too informative. I surely won't be calling you for info on the catfood commission.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

187. no you have to call them

[pattmarty]

169. Well oh wise one, what do you think the commission is for?

[no limit]

17. No, it will just be cut.

[Better Believe It]

18. The threat to Social Security benefits is not privatization, it's the bi-partisan deficit commission

The Neoliberal Attack on Social Security
By ALAN NASSER
August 18, 2010

Rasmussen Reports reveals that Obama’s popularity has plunged in the last three months. As of Sunday, 43 percent of the nation’s voters “Strongly Disapprove” of his performance as president. Obama’s weekly radio address on Saturday was an effort to endear himself to the gullible by showing that he defends their most fundamental interests against clear and present Republican danger. With titanic irony, he chose Social Security as the issue that makes the difference.

Obama talks about the threat to Social Security and deliberately misidentifies both its nature and its political agents.

The immediate threat to workers dependent upon Social Security benefits is not privatization, but rather the recommendations of the bipartisan panel to reduce the federal deficit. The panel is Obama’s, not the Republicans’, creation and is packed with opponents of Social Security. (A detailed discussion of the panel, its key members and its reactionary agenda can be found here. ) It is an open non-secret that the panel will recommend, after the fall elections of course, reductions in Social Security benefits and an extension of the retirement age. The fact is that “after meeting your responsibilities and paying into the system all your lives’, you will not “get the benefits you deserve.” That Obama can pretend to be a defender of the most popular social program in US history bespeaks his conviction that most Americans are either unaware of, or capable of being distracted from, his own promotion of an historic assault on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

If the Republicans did not exist, Democrats would have to invent them. The post-Carter Democratic Party’s race to the right is consistently masked by pointing, as Obama did on Saturday, to the more nakedly reactionary Republicans, a small number of whom do indeed press for the privatization of Social Security. But the more savvy privatizers of both Parties are full aware that in the midst of an economic crisis and with an unstable and unpredictable stock market outright talk of privatization will not win hearts and minds. A creeping approach is now the favored strategy of the elite. Twelve years ago it was different. A then-editor of The New York Times, David Brock, wrote an article critical of the Social-Security-is-going-broke alarmists titled "Save Social Security? From What?" (Business section, November 1, 1998, p. 12). Brock attributed the faux hysteria to "hidden agendas…..Wall Street would love to get its hands on at least some of the billions of dollars in the Social Security trust fund . . . But knowing that the idea won't fly politically, are pushing for partial privatization, in which individuals would invest a portion of their contribution in the stock market, all in the name of rescuing the system."

That strategy has been rewritten. Partial privatization is at least for now off the page. Who would want to send their FICA obligations off to a stock broker? Reduced benefits and a shorter retirement are the favored starting points, in the name of reducing the deficit. But the Obama boys are too smart to talk about the coming blows to workers. Even as they are in the process of effecting the “reforms”, they’d have you worry about the Republicans. Liberal Democrats think that blaming the Republicans is essential if the Democrats’ constituency is to be made to remain faithful to the Party. That’s what Obama did on Saturday.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nasser08182010.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

137. This is not actually true

[Better Believe It]

142. So the bi-partisan commission will not propose cutting benefits. What do you think they will do?

Propose an earlier retirement with full benefits and Medicare for all?

If she were alive Rosa Luxemburg wouldn't have any trouble figuring this out.

It's pretty fricken obvious!

Especially when commission members have stated their inclination to cut benefits!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

159. she would have gone roud to their door

and got them by the throat.

Their role needs clarifying but I doubt we would risk such a thing.

[raouldukelives]

19. You guys are a bunch of malcontent naysayers

When the commission comes back and recommends getting rid of the cap, lowering the retirement age to 60 and increasing the benefits by 25% what will you say?

[florida08]

22. LoL

I would say you need to lower your valium intake.

[Ignis]

34. Answer: YAY!

Followed swiftly by, "Now that's change we can believe in!"

And then we woke up.

[kenfrequed]

59. That sums it up!

Maybe we should just start expecting these changes and demand them? It could work... couldn't it?

[JVS]

39. I'll say "Look out for the droppings from the flying pigs."

[valerief]

67. Hell hath frozen over!!! Yippee!!! nt

[florida08]

21. No it doesn't need adjustments either

Sick of this. Keep your damn hands off it and put back what was spent for occupations and tax cuts for the obscene wealthy. We should be marching on this. They're gonna cut it and raise the age.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

138. The adjustments are that the rich don't get any where near it

[sabrina 1]

23. The SS fund doesn't need fixing.

I would like him to explain what he means by 'modest fixes'.

He has already scared people by associating thee SS fund with the Deficit using the same language as Alan Simpson et al.

He needs to be very clear, and do members of Congress, that the SS fund has nothing to do with the deficit and that it is solvent and will remain so even with no 'fixes' for decades.

He also needs to direct that Commission he set up to stop talking about SS since it has nothing to do with the deficit, and talk about what they were appointed to talk about.

The finanacial collapse is the cause of the deficit, nothing else.

Words are fine, but he also needs to clarify tha there will be no up-or-down vote on this Commissions recommendations during the lame duck Congress.

[Frisbee]

25. Color me skeptical...

So they raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits.

There is NO reason SS should be insolvent or ever be privatized. Just run it properly and don't use it as a piggy bank. Once it is straightened out, maybe have a minor tweak every 5 years or so to the rate within a specified range to keep it within certain parameters as the population changes (say between a minimum of 5% and a maximum of 8%). A child born today should be able to expect to have SS waiting for them in 2075, assuming they've paid in to it.

[JDPriestly]

53. As one who is 67, I would like to say that raising the age for retirement

to 70 is nearly as bad as doing away with it. The percentage of people over 65 who have disabilities is about 50% according a Department of Commerce Census Bureau study. I posted the link on DU yesterday. The Department of Commerce definition of disability is on their site. People who are disabled are the last to get jobs, to keep jobs or to be able to work. If you raise the age for retirement to 70, you will impoverish America's elderly. The working adult children of the elderly will have to house and care for their parents. Our social structure does not generally provide for that. Our houses are too small, and the incomes of many Americans are also too small. This will cause a social catastrophe. Raising the retirement age for Social Security benefits to 70 will probably just result in a lot of social discontent -- a lot of anger at both parties.

[Frisbee]

72. Everything you say makes complete sense.

Unfortunately, in DC these days, that really doesn't seem to matter much.

As far as I am concerned, the government has entered into a contract with the people whose money they have taken, and just because they have chosen to act irresponsibly shouldn't allow them to modify their end of that contract. They certainly don't let a pensioner claim their having a hard time making ends meet, and they may be unable to pay their mortgage, so they need to INCREASE their month payment, so why should the government be able reduce payments (and raising the retirement age IS reducing payments).

And I agree, there are so many people living right on the bubble, through no fault of their own, who can not afford to lose any portion of those payments, much less have the retirement age bumped. And as you also said, few families are in a position to provide for their aging parents. I can't imagine how the republicans could even begin to spin this so their followers (blind though they sometimes are) would be willing to accept it, though the stupidity of the tea-partiers never ceases to amaze me. And if the Democrats were to pass it, I suspect it would be the end of the Democratic party as we know it. The only way it could pass would be with near unanimous support from both parties, and we know that's not likely to happen in our lifetime.

[burnsei sensei]

102. And then they'll tell us that this is as it should be.

That the old are meant to suffer.
The young are meant to remain ignorant.
And those in between are meant to remain desperate.
Will we buy the trash?

[Metta]

32. Uh oh, watch out. If he keeps this promise like he kept his campaign promises, we're done.

Happy karma, pres. O.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

135. well I'm sure you will love your repulican privatization of SS

[Metta]

148. There's a nice barb and a deflection of issues.

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

36. "Adjustments" . . . . ???? We need FICA income cap raised ---

If there are any "adjustments" let's try doubling Social Security checks --

Interesting article on that today --

New Study Identifies Revenues for Doubling of Social Security Payout
Guaranteeing the American Dream with Expanded Social Security
by Stephen Hill


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/08/18

[florida08]

42. couldn't agree more

First, lift Social Security's payroll cap that disproportionately favors the wealthy
(Ex. A lawyer making $500,000 a year effectively pays only 2.5 percent, and millionaire bankers pay a paltry 1.2 percent.]

Second, with all Americans receiving Social Security Plus, employers would be freed from providing retirement for their employees
{They no longer would need to receive the substantial federal deductions they currently accrue for providing employees’ retirement plans. These deductions total an estimated $126 billion annually.)

Third, we could reduce or eliminate other unfair deductions in the tax code that allow higher income people to reap generous deductions that low and moderate income Americans can’t enjoy. (Exxon and GE come to mind..they paid no tax and got refunds)

thanks for that link defendandprotect.

[BillH76]

43. Privatizing SS would move savings from Treasury bonds to stocks

This is the opposite of what the US should be doing right now.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

139. but the Republicans want to privatize it and get rid of Medicare

[JoePhilly]

45. Interesting listening to the left claim there are death panels ...

and that Obama plans to kill granny.

Where did I hear that before??

[Fruittree]

82. I actually have started reading the more positive sounding ...

news stories just to see how far down I can go on the comments before they turn mostly negative. It usually isn't that far...

[Vincardog]

90. Do you know anything about Obama's Cat Food Commission?

[pattmarty]

171. Is this just bullshit, or maybe you can provide links? I don't watch...........

.......Fox "news", so maybe I missed this.

[tabatha]

46. Obama has always been against privatization of SS.

Nothing new here.

[lib2DaBone]

49. It won't be privatized..but it will be gutted in a late night Lame Duck session..

You will now have to work until you are 75 at which time they will pay you $50 a month.

The rest of Social Security (which is solvent up until 2037) will be handed over to Goldman Sachs for "Safe Keeping"....

[DirkGently]

50. Is privatization even the threat at this point?

I'm a little leery of this continued emphasis on privatization of SS being the big "threat" from the Republicans at this point. Is that really what they're pushing?

Are we going to be presented with a serious slashing of SS benefits across the board (such as rasising the age) with the message that this would be a "victory" because "at least they didn't privatize it?"

Don't want to be overly cynical, but this seems like a very odd push against a "privatization" threat that does not appear to particuarly exist.

[wordpix]

71. +1 it seems the biggest threat is raising the retirement age to 70

Even if you want to/have to work until 70, a lot of employers don't want a worker that old. Finding something full time is hard enough in your 50's if you've been laid off.

[DirkGently]

173. Can someone please suggest a reading of this push, then

that does NOT herald an upcoming or already-made deal to raise the retirement age or make other across-the-board cuts to SS?

[jpak]

51. Oh please, we all know he's lying and will turn SS over the Banksters

:sarcasm:

:D

[Lost4words]

52. And I should believe you now,..Why?

codeword "adjustments"

[Cherchez la Femme]

54. He's made a lot of promises

not only not kept but in which he did the opposite of,
so pardon me if I don't quite believe it until I see it in it's final form. :(

Additionally, 'Privatization' is the absolute worst case scenario of what could happen to Social Security. There are plenty of other negative things that Obama's hand-picked "Cat Food Commission" can do to it
--including he deliberately choosing more than a few virulent 'I hate Obama & want him to be hated by everyone too'/'I want Obama to lose'/pro-Privatization/'get rid of SS' Republicants--;
just one such example would be raising the retirement/benefit age to 70 or older. :puke:

I wonder what the percentage is of our older folk, on average, who will die between age 65-70(+)? I'm fairly certain it's substantial.
Raising that age surely would obviate the cost to Social Security, seeing they wouldn't have to pay for at least 5(+) additional years (along with & especially after all the accumulated years past that age!) and this towards the millions of so many people who have paid in to said program all their working lives, at or after the age of 70!

And BTW, I don't understand why the government can put out interest-accruing Savings Bonds for citizens to purchase yet can't use the same tactics on Social Security! I could be ignorant on this, but if S.S. IS accruing interest at whatever the bond rate is, the only thing that I am left to believe is the government wants an ever greater profit on it's already-increasing held money!

And that can only mean gambling. & Who profits from gambling, in a major way (on average)? Not the ones placing bets, that's for certain!



*sigh* I would MUCH rather be happy with this our Democratic, history-making President;
however the adage "(Many times) burnt, twice (or more) shy" is more than just a saying,
it is an absolute truism regarding basic human nature. It's the primary way most of us learn --i.e. "I won't do THAT again!"
yet it appears to be a lesson some people (of all parties) are simply unable to learn!
Y'know: those who expect a different outcome when they constantly and consistently repeat the same exact behavior!
Those people,
and mostly they in political power, they who 'craft' our laws. :cry:


edit: Grammar sux, as usual; but I hope the jist of this post can be understood.

[thereismore]

55. He even kept a few. nt

[JJW]

56. Idiots

He treats us like idiots. What does he mean by adjustments? Reduced such that the elderly can only afford cat food?

He dances around every issue and then sells out to Wall Street.

[texastoast]

63. He does not treat us like idiots

He does treat us like we had all better pay attention and be the voice behind the office of the White House. How many times has he said we have to do this stuff together?

I agree that Social Security needs adjustments, for one to increase the taxed limit considerably up from its present $106,000 level.

I don't see this man ever allowing laws that would put the elderly at risk of being able to afford only cat food. He's certainly not Mr. Perfect, but I just don't see that.

And he didn't sell us out like Bush--not anywhere close.

[Vincardog]

89. Did you call you congress critter and ask that he/she pledge 1 No privatization of SS 2 No cuts

in SS 3 no raising age of benefits of SS?

[texastoast]

158. Not yet.

But I did confront him at a town hall on public record when he held HIS LAST LIVE TOWN HALL in person UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION when a bunch of us organized Democrats stuck a stick in his lame spokes with facts about privatization and how it would have really done well for anyone who had cashed out the proposed annuity option in 2000 before the dot com bust and SCREWED anyone who would have cashed out at the time of the meeting. I had my facts straight, as did the other two Dems who were called on and because of the facts we presented, Brady whined that oh, those mean old organized Democrats put a damper on the town hall. (Rep. Kevin Brady are you watching, you big wimp who won't call on me on those weaselly telephonic town halls, you big weenie.) Brady can whine all he wants, but we got the attention of everyone there, and it wasn't just Dems who called his office and said no to his Bush brown nosing.

But I digress.

[w4rma]

60. And Social Security had better not have any benefit decreases (including age limit increases). (nt)

[pgodbold]

61. Bravo! He said something the professional left advocates. nt

[Politicub]

62. Increase social security payments and lower the retirement age

We have a consumer economy, and this would be a way to inject more cash into the system while helping many people who are making ends meet.

On edit - and, reduce or eliminate the income cap for payments into social security.

[dflprincess]

64. He also said he's opposed to insurance mandates and supports a public option

Talk is cheap.

[madfloridian]

65. Then why did he appoint this deficit commission...list of members.

Shocking to see Peterson and Simpson and others on the panel...
in charge of "fixing" Social Security. It's rather chilling to me. A couple seem ok, but even Durbin warned us
"bleeding heart liberals" what was coming.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)

David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)

Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)

Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.)

Andrew Stern, former President, Service Employees International Union

Look up the names, check them out.

Obama appointed them...why?

[florida08]

73. bipartisanship

is not why we elected him..makes me not like him

[SammyWinstonJack]

110. His catfood commission makes me not like him.

[SammyWinstonJack]

111. dupe

:silly:

[suffragette]

181. It looks like a hit list to me

I shudder to think what "fixes" they will propose.

[JJW]

68. Closed Meetings

His deficit commission holds meeting behind closed doors. Remember when he told us, all stake holders would have a seat at the table in his open government. That much would be played on C-Span for all to see.

[subterranean]

76. So it won't be privatized for at least two more years?

He said "as long as I'm president." No guarantees that it won't be privatized after he leaves office.

[SammyWinstonJack]

114. Heheh. So he isn't planning on running in '12?

:evilgrin:

[nightrain]

141. good point. maybe in 2014, when we have to buy crap insurance?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Capitalocracy]

81. And then the next guy can privatize it.

Because the "deficit commission" sets a precedent.

And I'm not even convinced (after he originally opposed a mandate) that he won't use the "package" excuse to do it anyway.

[swilton]

87. Color me sceptical

It depends on how you define 'privatize'......we know Obama likes to wax eloquent and lead us on with his eloquence to believe what we want to believe

Why does Obama have to come out and make this promise if he's not up to something behind the scenes?

He's great on equivocating and hedging on his promises.....

The March of Folly for us and our country continues

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopinko]

93. jan Schakowsky would kill him. dick Durban would help her.

speaking purely figuratively of course. both are on the committee.

[earcandle]

97. Works for me! Thanks!

[Greyhound]

98. "I will veto any bill which does not include a robust public option."

Is it raining again?

[NorthCarolina]

144. You realist you

:hi:

[nashville_brook]

152. eggsactly.

[Oceansaway]

101. K&R...n/t

[Lasher]

103. Yay, Obama won't kill me in my sleep!

This is a major victory!

[diane in sf]

104. let's adjust the tax to pay for it onto the rich, increase the benefits and give them at 60

or 55 if the person is long term unemployed.

[Lasher]

113. If you want the rich to pay, the best thing to do is nothing at all.

The wealthy elite doesn't want to start paying off even one dollar of the trust fund's treasury bonds (as planned), because they would be redeeming regressive payroll money with progressive revenue that would and should be derived from other sources. Gotta keep that 30 year Saint Ronnie tax holiday alive for the rich folks.

[Juche]

106. What happened to his plan of a donut hole tax?

He talked about leaving a donut hole from 100k to about 250k, then having a 4% tax on incomes above 250k.

I don't mind if the tax goes up (it is 12.4% now), pushing it to 13-14% isn't really a big deal to me. But the cap needs to be lifted first.

[eridani]

107. That's a start. Now how about a solid commitment that

--benefits won't be cut, retirement age won't be raised, and the program won't be means-tested? Now, it's true that he could be referring to the adjustment of raising the FICA cap, and that step only. If so, why won't he say it?

[NorthCarolina]

145. He won't say it

because you nailed the real plan in your first sentence. Keep the discussion about stopping "Privatization", and then sell raising the retirement age and/or cutting benefits as the compromise "solution".

[Stevenmarc]

115. Sure it won't, until the Repug's whine and the Dems cave

[another saigon]

117. did anyone ask the real question?

"Will Social Security be stripped so bare that no one would want to privatize?"

[John Agar]

118. But what about cuts and other changes?

These statements seem more than a bit selective.

[DesertFlower]

120. after what happened in the stock market,

how can anyone suggest that we privatize social security?

[jerseyjack]

121. What is a "Modest" change?

He has let us down on every other opportunity to make things better.

[bvar22]

122. Gonna REC this thread cause I;m glad to hear him say it,

But I am cursed with a memory.

"That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange — a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" --President Obama

And, of course, it ALL depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[fascisthunter]

123. I'll believe it when I see it

then I will know...

[obxhead]

124. Now I am TERRIFIED!

I strongly support the public option.

I will close Gitmo

We need strong regulation of the banking industry and Wall Street.

Now I'm terrified.

[nashville_brook]

151. we are truly fucked. i mean, triangulated.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

125. Obama has actually been making sense the last couple days.

But, we need details. "Modest changes" had better not mean raising the age requirement to 70.
Tread carefully Obama.

[HankyDubs]

127. Obama sounds like he's getting ready to "compromise" again.

This sounds extremely ominous. SS won't be privatized...BUT...

[Faryn Balyncd]

140. But the issue NOW is: Will Democrats allow it to be GUTTED in December? By rigging COLA calculations

...and raising the retirement age.

Everybody's eye is on the retirement age, but while we are distracted, the big money is on the CPI and COLA calculations. Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out, but few are talking about, the fact that the CPI has ALREADY BEEN RIGGED (by the Boskin Commission in the 90's) to underestimate inflation, for the specific purpose of stealthily cutting SS benefits. But Allan Simpson & his cronies are spreading the lie that COLA's overestimate inflation & are gunning to further rig the CPI calculation. This is complex, and by fraudulent accounting Simpson et al aim to gut SS benefits through COLA chicanery to a much greater extent than any delay in retirement age.

Privatizing SS is not the issue presently on the table.

What we need is a president, and Congress, that will commit to not gutting the benefit calculations for those that have in good faith paid a lifetime of payroll, and self employment, taxes.

That is the pledge we need you to take, Mr. President.


http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/16/social-security-coalition-whipping-members-of-congress-on-pledge-to-protect-program






:kick:

[amandabeech]

149. It would be helpful if a SS and Medicare surcharge were added

to capital gains taxes.

The wealthiest people pay little or no income tax in comparison to what they pay in capital gains.

In addition, a social security and medicare surcharge should be added to the estate tax as well.

Those who gained at the expense of the majority over the past 25 years should contribute more.

[Phlem]

150. yes that's nice

It'll just get milked some other way.

In the up is down and down is up world of politics this usually means what he's saying that's not going happen is going to happen and Soc. Sec. will get privatized.

-p

[uberblonde]

154. Depends on which "modest changes" he's talking about.

Raising the ceiling on taxing the rich? Fine.

Raising the retirement age? We're going to war. Just sayin'!

[laughingliberal]

156. +1000 nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

161. there's no harm asking what the modest changes are? Like taxing the super rich I hope

[Phillip Walker]

157. Gotta

stay on this one.

[TomCADem]

162. But Some Anonymous Poster On DU Insisted Otherwise...

...While another anonymous poster insisted that Obama was going to socialize everything else!

:)

[Shining Jack]

166. And vice-versa.

:P

[tomp]

168. get specific obama, i've heard about your "change" before.

"It will not be privatized as long as I'm president," Obama said.....

well, that's comforting. are any of your "modest changes" going to make it possible or more likely that it gets changed after 2012, when you LOSE, perhaps.

which "modest changes" in particular? do they include cuts of any kind? i feel like i'm being set up again.

[TexanRudeBoy]

176. They will cut SS

This fearmongering is just to help with the November elections. They've been planning to cut SS for a while, but for now its "Go out and vote Dem so those dastardly Reps don't privatize it".

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/democrats/index.html

Did Obama bring Karl Rove on his staff and nobody noticed?

[DirkGently]

175. A welcome but odd pledge at this juncture.

... when it looks like raising the retirement age or other across-the-board cuts are what we're up against.


I'd like to hear a pledge that SS will not be compromised in ANY WAY. That should not be too much to ask, as SS is not a real deficit issue, nor a cause of our current economic problems, nor about to crash and burn as Republicans continually try to suggest.

[bonnieS]

177. Big deal

If Bush said this, we would immediately know it was going to be cut severely. My Democratic liberal Congressman will not even pledge not to cut Social Security anymore--he has to see the entire package from Obama's Catfood Commission first. A total turnaround from a guy who used to promise to safeguard Social Security. They are all taking their linguistic and voting cues from Obama.

[txlibdem]

179. I don't care if we all live to be 120

We were promised something when we began our working career, that we will have security in our old age through Social Security, that we will be able to retire at a certain age. Since I started working the age I can retire at has been increased twice. Thanks a fking lot for continuously moving the goal post.

If there is a budget shortfall in SS it is thanks to the people who raided the Social Security Trust Fund: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. There needs to be recompense, money has to be put back in. Since those three are responsible then let's just remove all their assets and place them back into the Social Security Trust Fund that they stole from. Case Closed on the BS of a money shortfall.

But I agree with the posters here that this is nothing but a red herring. There is nothing wrong with social Security. All the brouhaha about SS is a distraction so they can raise the retirement age, reduce your benefits (maybe put a lifetime cap), etc. Never mind that the REAL problem with Social Security is that the rich f__kers do not pay into it.

[zipplewrath]

180. Uh huh

Will this be like the public option, mandates, and cadillac taxes?

Hope he doesn't mind if I take a wait and see attitude on this. Might also take a "write my congressman regularly" attitude on this too.

[txlibdem]

188. I'm so jealous

My congressman is Cornyn and when I write to him to demand pro-worker or pro-middle class action all I get back is a list of bullet points straight from Rushbo and Murdock's Fake News channel.

I'll keep working on returning Texas to a blue state (it was in the 1960s I'm told).

[suffragette]

186. An idea of what "modest" changes could be from the DLC

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&contentid=1926
DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000
The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century
aka A New Agenda for the New Decade



5. Balance America's Commitments to the Young and the Old

An ever-growing share of the federal budget today consists of automatic transfers from working Americans to retirees. Moreover, the costs of the big entitlements for the elderly -- Social Security and Medicare -- are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them and that could leave little to pay for everything else government does. We can't just spend our way out of the problem; we must find a way to contain future costs. The federal government already spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. To allow that ratio to grow even more imbalanced would be grossly unfair to today's workers and future generations.

In addition, Social Security and Medicare need to be modernized to reflect conditions not envisioned when they were created in the 1930s and the 1960s. Social Security, for example, needs a stronger basic benefit to bolster its critical role in reducing poverty in old age. Medicare needs to offer retirees more choices and a modern benefit package that includes prescription drugs. Such changes, however, will only add to the cost of the programs unless they are accompanied by structural reforms that restrain their growth and limit their claim on the working families whose taxes support the programs.

Goals for 2010

# Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

# Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.

# Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement.





Of note is that Rahm, Baucus and Conrad signed on to this manifesto since Rahm is Chief of Staff and Baucus and Conrad are on the commission.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_00-DLC7.htm


This is not reassuring to me in terms of how they view Social Security and their stated goals for 2010.

[rocktivity]

189. The simplest adjustment of all being lowering the salary cap

And eliminating it altogether would allow everyone to pay a lower rate.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Rod85]

190. The Printing Press will save us

They only have to use the Printing Press to get our country back into shape. Fully fund Social Security with the printing press. Sure the dollar will lose some value abroad....but it will make it no longer cheaper to use Chinese labor and our kids will be able to get jobs.

I personally think President Obama should be spending $20 trillion a year and get this country going. Having all of our people working is what is important.

If I can't afford a gold necklace, I don't care. Will the kids eat and have a home over their heads? That's what's important.

Social Security should never be privatized, nor cut.