William Greider: President Obama Is Leading The Assault on Social Security

[Better Believe It]

(edited for copyright purposes proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)



Whacking the Old Folks
By William Greider
This article appeared in the June 7, 2010 edition of The Nation.

In setting up his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, Barack Obama is again playing coy in public, but his intentions are widely understood among Washington insiders. The president intends to offer Social Security as a sacrificial lamb to entice conservative deficit hawks into a grand bipartisan compromise in which Democrats agree to cut Social Security benefits for future retirees while Republicans accede to significant tax increases to reduce government red ink.

Obama's commission is the vehicle created to achieve this deal. He ducks questions about his preferences, saying only that "everything has to be on the table." But White House lieutenants are privately talking up a bargain along those lines. They are telling anxious liberals to trust the president to make only moderate cuts. Better to have Democrats cut Social Security, Obama advisers say, than leave the task to bloodthirsty Republicans.

The president has stacked the deck to encourage this strategy. The eighteen-member commission is top-heavy with fiscal conservatives and hostile right-wingers who yearn to dismantle the retirement program. The Republican co-chair, former Senator Alan Simpson, is especially nasty; he likes to get laughs by ridiculing wheezy old folks. Democratic co-chair Erskine Bowles and staff director Bruce Reed secretly negotiated a partial privatization of Social Security with Newt Gingrich back when they served in the Clinton White House, but the deal blew up with Clinton's sex scandal. Monica Lewinsky saved the system.

What's extraordinary about this assault on Social Security is that a Democratic president is leading it. Obama is arm in arm with GOP conservatives like Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson, who for decades has demonized Social Security as a grave threat to the Republic and has spread some $12 million among economists, think tanks, foundations and assorted front groups to sell his case. If Obama pulls the deal off, this will be his version of "Nixon goes to China"—a leader proving his manhood by going against his party's convictions. Even if he fails, the president will get some protective cover on the deficit issue. After all, he is targeting Big Government's most beloved and trusted program—the New Deal's most prominent pillar.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.thenation.com/article/whacking-old-folks


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


From the National Coalition Against Social Security Cuts

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was formed by Executive Order on February 18, 2010. One of the Commission’s tasks is to determine how to significantly reduce the federal budget deficit by 2015.

The Commission shall vote on the approval of a final report containing a set of recommendations no later than December 1, 2010. The final report of the Commission requires the approval of at least 14 of the 18 members. If the Commission issues a report, it will be put on a fast-track vote in the US Senate and if passed, it would be voted on by the House.

Immediately after the Commission was created, the tone was set with the appointment of former Senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles.

These two picks sent a clear message; Social Security is on the chopping block.

After their appointments as Co-chairs both Simpson and Bowles began a PR blitz to soften up the public to the idea of gutting Social Security.

Former Senator Simpson:

"We are going to stick with the big three " (CNBC, 2/22/10)







Erskine Bowles

“Everything’s on the table.” (CNN, 3/1/10)

“We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.” (N.C. Bankers Assoc., 3/10/10)

Previously Bowles had worked on a plan for Social Security that included "raising the minimum age required for Social Security and for changing the COLA formula." This is basically the same plan that is being batted around Washington today. (The Pact by Steven Gillon: 2008)

Great Resources on the Fiscal Commission

Eric Kingson: Tale of Three Commissions

FireDogLake: Obama Packs Debt Commission With Social Security Privatization & Benefit Cut Supporters

Matthew Skomarovsky: Obama Packs Debt Commission With Social Security Looters

William Greider: Whacking the Old Folks

Trudy Lieberman: Secrecy at the Deficit Commission

Dan Froomkin: Obama's Fiscal Commission: What's Going On In There?

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/commission-watch

Find out more about the campaign to protect Social Security at:

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/

[Bluebear]

1. The Nation magazine never really loved him.

:cry:

[sendero]

20. Come on...

... Greider's history is impeccable. Learn to deal with the truth at some point.

[w4rma]

30. Judging by Bluebear's icon, I'm pretty sure that Bluebear is being sarcastically sensible. (nt)

[Bluebear]

32. And pragmatically sarcastic :)

[bobburgster]

169. Oh yes, we need sarcasm and negative insinuations in anything Obama.

God forbid we actually discuss it.

[Bluebear]

177. No, we need people to tell everyone that everythign negative is a LIE!!!!1

:cry:

[bobburgster]

200. Great response!

I rest my case :)

[Bluebear]

208. LOL

[QC]

214. Why are you so mean to Him?

:cry:

[Bluebear]

220. I just wanted President Palin!

:bounce:

[sendero]

64. Sorry I missed...

.. that. Around here sometimes you never know. :)

[LostinVA]

69. What did they want, President Palin???

[truedelphi]

168. No I think that the staff at the Nation realizes that for the most part

The "Vote for Obama or McCain/Palin " was a set up. A very cheap sleezy set up.

And it continues, in every state of the Union. We can vote for "Really really crazy, and very much for the Upper One Percent" or "Slightly Crazy, and pretty much for the Upper One Percent."

How is that Democracy?

Where are our Huey Long's? Our FDR's? Our Bobby Kennedy's?

Do I vote for Meg Whitman for California Governor, or Jerry Brown? Both plan assaults on the pension funds of Calif workers. Both will slash basic human needs programs.

But Meg is just so detestable. (Only Brown isn't much better; it is difficult to handle "liking" someone as bombastic as he is.)

I have seen only one Jerry Brown commercial, and I have to say if he wants to occupy the Governor's mansion, then he needs to start showing an occasional ad or two.

Especially since he is running against someone who has ads on every channel twenty four/seven

I've gotten to the point that I guess I don't care any more. In the case of the Calif governor's race, neither candidate is impressive. Neither one talks about how the state needs to get more than 73 cents for every dollar offered to Washington returned to us. In fact, even the S.F. Chronicle blasted both candidates right before the primaries, for not having any real sort of plan about how to turn this state around.

[DeSwiss]

203. +1000

Bingo!

[paulkienitz]

206. Jerry should just have an eight second ad that goes

"Meg Whitman. Geez, what an asshole."

Gah. Brown is so vulnerable, his record is so weird and spotty. I really wish the Dems had run somebody who's less of a dork. Any random assemblymember with a reasonably solid record.

I saw Brown on the streets of Oakland once, driving by... he was handing out mayorial leaflets or something... he saw me looking at him, and instead of smiling and looking friendly, he looked up with a sort of a frown on his face and gave a single crosswise wave of his right hand. He looked like a robot badly programmed to emulate a politician.

[truedelphi]

207. I love your sound byte!

it would generate controversy, and it would be fun too.

I once had to spend the entire evening with Brown. It was supposed to be a "treat" to me for something I had done for the local political scene, but Geez, he is one certifiable windbag. And the other young politicos there that night were all much more interesting than he was.

I can easily imagine the look he gave you that day.

[paulkienitz]

241. I'm beginning to think that ad would actually be a good idea.

"it would generate controversy, and it would be fun too."

I'm starting to think that in all seriousness, it might be a constructive step for me, or others of us here, to make a tiny ad that just says "Meg Whitman... what an asshole!" and pay to put it on one time on one station -- preferably one in L.A. that has a strong news department. The ad would be marked as "Paid for by Paul Kienitz (or whoever), private citizen not affiliated with any political campaign." They wouldn't want to run it, but then you hit them with the court ruling that Jello Biafra won when running for mayor of San Francisco, which found that the broadcast authorities cannot censor political speech even if it says "fuck". At this point, the ad becomes a news item and everyone's talking about it, and the statement "Meg Whitman... what an asshole" is on everyone's lips, without paying to get it there.

For this to work, though, we probably need to back it up with a website, meg-whitman-what-an-asshole.com or whatever, which documents that she is, in fact, an asshole... which I don't even know if she really is, I'm just assuming. That website would probably need a lot more work put into it than the ad would.

Jerry Brown should, of course, refudiate the ad and call on us to take down the website.


...Oh, and when Jerry Brown was running for mayor of Oakland? I voted for the other guy.

[Larry Ogg]

244. I couldn't agree more with you opening statement

"The "Vote for Obama or McCain/Palin " was a set up. A very cheap sleezy set up." Sounds good but it might be a bit more complicated and I have my own theory.

I have been studying psychology and its influence in politics for almost four years, and the predator class, along with its minions, are masters at psychological warfare.

It was a given that Democrats would win big in 08 thanks to the wake of destruction left by the unelected criminal Bush regime. So why not do a litmus test and see how inherently stupid the right wing authoritarian base has become, and at the same time lets see if we can scare the hell out of anyone who might be thinking about voting for a party or candidate left of the DLC. Dudum... we have for the Republican party John McArmageddon... and a dumb as a box of rocks beauty queen Sara (we have to get America ready for Jesus) Palin...

And for the democrats lets show the world how much we've grown up by having the first black presidential candidate in a major party / in American history Barack Obama... And in order to insure things go as planed or in case we need to get rid of him once elected we will have as his running mate, from The Counsel of Foreign Relations Joe Biden...

And now with magic of the corporately owned M$M our pretend democracy is preserved and the predator class status quo remain in charge and the biggest threat to the American working class and the rest of the world...

[Kahuna]

128. They never loved Al Gore either. They supported nader. See how THAT

worked out. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

140. The Nation is RALPH NADER!

lol

[Bluebear]

148. Oh, no, the rolly eyes of magazine blame lol

[sabrina 1]

235. Gore won, so it would have worked out fine, if the SC

had not stolen the election.

[HillbillyBob]

185. I dont fucking like him either

hes a piece of shit, always giving in to the nazi lite assholes.

He lost me at FISA and letting bush and cheney run around lose..I have been sort of cool to him but his asshole antics..I m learnin to hate the dems as much as the repigs.

[Jackpine Radical]

234. Obama has disappointed me in a number of ways

but I think your language is pretty intemperate.

[depakid]

2. Clinton led the assault on welfare and fair trade- so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised

[enough]

3. Perhaps, but they would have liked to love him if they could.

Oops, meant to reply to Bluebear. Sorry.

[704wipes]

4. just sent Barrack a tweet

Hands Off Social Security Benefits !! Leave them totally alone !!

I suggest everyone else on twitter do the same everyday...

[Jim Sagle]

5. We need a pamphlet we can all download, print up and distribute everywhere.

[Better Believe It]

12. Good idea! Send them your suggestion and maybe some ideas on what should be in it!

The coalition was just organized and I think it's likely they will mass produce pamphlets, videos and other materials we can use in this battle to protect our Social Security.

I'm sure they'd like to hear your ideas and the suggestions of other DU'ers on how to build this campaign.

[Jim Sagle]

22. I think they have enough ideas already.

http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/blog

Good on them.

[Better Believe It]

25. But I like yours! A basic, to the point bi-lingual flyer or pamphlet for mass distribution.

[alberg]

85. Here's some facts

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago. What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.

Defeating these myths is a powerful step to stopping Social Security cuts.

Share this list with your network.

[xxqqqzme]

139. Posted it in my facebook page last week.

Several friends picked it up and re-posted on their pages.

[breadandwine]

167. But but but but -- Social Security is an expensive entitlement program that will raise the deficit!

I saw that on Glenn Beck!!!!!

[bobburgster]

175. I like this, short and to the point.

Question...is the information listed here verifiable? If so, does anyone want to point me in that direction/

[sulphurdunn]

179. Look here for starters.

Sources acquired from MoveOn.org

1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security" Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/fact_sheets/StraightFactsSocialSecurity-Sep09.pdf

3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement"Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/

4. "More on raising the retirement age" Ezra Klein, Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html

5. "Social Security is sustainable" Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/social_security_is_sustainable/

6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010." Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240

7. "Trust Fund FAQs" Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

8. "To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

[bobburgster]

201. Thanks....I appreciate your help.

:)

[Duval]

202. Thanks for the links!n/t

[CrispyQ]

155. Someone on DU did something similar when Bush was in office.

She printed up 1/3 page flyers with the facts about the lies about Iraq & put them in people's shopping carts at the grocery store, left them at laundramats, oil change places, everywhere she went. We have to use every means available - the MSM isn't going to report this.

[dsc]

6. He is blatently lying when he calls what Clinton wanted to do partial privatization

Clinton wanted to have the government (not individuals) invest some of the SS money into the stock market. That might have been bad public policy or good public policy but it wasn't privatization.

[Better Believe It]

7. That would have been terrible! I don't want any of our SS money invested in the stock market.

Period!

[closeupready]

156. Ditto - Do that, and no matter what Wall Street says, they do a little bingo, bango, bongo on

those funds, and voila, they're gone! :mad:

[laughingliberal]

10. How is putting tax dollars in the WS casino NOT privatization?

One more fucking privatizing benefits while socializing the risks scheme just like all the others that have turned the American dream into a nightmare for the average person.

[dsc]

18. No it isn't

there were no benefit cuts under the Clinton plan, none. Also, individuals would have not been given direct control of their accounts. That isn't privatization, again it may not have been great public policy but it wasn't privatization of SS. To take one, of about 100 examples, my state retirement isn't private but it is invested in the market by the state of NC.

[laughingliberal]

24. It is handing tax dollars over to private business. And it's a disaster. nt

Your state retirement is invested in private companies, in that case. Sorry. I've seen what WS did to our 401k's.

They've been licking their chops over our FICA taxes for years and it's pissing me off for Democrats to be doing this shit.

[Hannah Bell]

44. it is *too* privatization. wtf do you think privatization means?

your state retirement *is* privatized. it's invested in private for-profit investment funds - stocks & other.

the only difference is it may be managed by state bureaucrats drawing salary instead of private bureaucrats making fees. but it's in private investments.

social security isn't. it's (or it used to be, before reagan jacked up rates to produce constant surpluses) a pass-through: workers pay taxes which go directly to grandma's SS check. there's no "investment" at all.

[dsc]

52. it is defined benefit, as opposed to defined contrabution

which makes all the difference.

[Hannah Bell]

53. not if they want to steal it

Pension funds around the country bet big on private equity, but are finding the investments have turned sour through the recession. North Carolina's pension fund is finding a nearly $277 million investment gone sour because of one private equity firm's big bet gone bad.

Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/banking-finance/2010/02/24/private-equity-losses-cause-state-pension-funds-to-lose-millions/#ixzz0vR2TDJp7

[eilen]

71. My husband's pension had 15% go up Madoff's ass.

Never to be seen again.

[Hannah Bell]

209. one of the drawbacks of privatized pensions.

[defendandprotect]

104. No "difference" when the funds can be LOST . . . which is what privatization is!!

Do you think if the money had gone to Wall Street, it would still be there?

Wow !!

[JDPriestly]

150. Actually, Hannah Bell, a portion of the Social Security taxes

are passed through, but a portion of them are in the Social Security Trust Fund which is managed by the Dept. of the Treasury and are mostly invested in various government securities, Treasury notes, etc. Those are the amounts that will have to be repaid from the general treasury.

That is why the greedy right-wingers keep talking about cutting entitlements in order to balance the budget. They don't want to pay back in Social Security and Medicare benefits to the seniors of the future the money that those seniors paid in Social Security taxes and that the Treasury then invested in Treasury bonds and wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The alternative to Social Security is to either let elderly people just die hungry and sick or have children pay for the care of their aging parents. Sounds like fun for everyone doesn't it.

One choice is to have children paying taxes to pay for subsistence income (on average under $1200 per month) to their parents. On the other you have children living with their parents and caring for their parents as their parents age.

Jolly, jolly. Either way the children pay. It's actually always been that way. How do you think Methusaleh lived? Do you think he actually earned his own living, picked his own berries, killed his own chickens, until the day he died? No.

The Bible says: Honor thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

That's the King James version at Deuteronomy, 5:16. That commandment is an instruction to society, not just to individuals. We tend to quote the first words, but forget the last part of the instruction. And actually, it is the last part of the instruction that is the most important.

Social Security was instituted so that things may go well with us in our country. Strange how the very people who oppose Social Security claim that we are a "Christian nation."

[Zhade]

249. Who gives a fuck what the bible says? Fairy tales should not be the basis for social policy.

NT!

[defendandprotect]

103. Remember Enron and CA investments?

[earth mom]

163. This is the ENRONing of Social Security. For sure.

:grr:

[defendandprotect]

240. "Faith-based" Social Security . . .

as Roseanne put it !!

[Jim Sagle]

13. Yes, that's privatization. Face up to the truth.

[dsc]

19. No it isn't

privatization is giving individuals control of the retirement accounts, not the government. It is nothing short of a lie to say otherwise. Also there were to be no reductions in SS checks. My retirement is invested but is in on way privatized (state teachers of NC).

[Hannah Bell]

45. no, privatization is taking money out of people's checks and then telling them they now have a

"private account" to invest in the stock market.

your retirement *is* privatized. pension funds are invested in stocks, bonds & real estate: private investments that yield private profit.

[Donnachaidh]

62. so the government giving our SS to business is THEFT by taking

They don't ask for our permission - they just take it. That's far worse than privatization.

[Greyhound]

145. You see how effectively language creates thoughts/beliefs. We've been told 'privatize'

so often for so long that we've effectively confused it with theft. People spouting privatize really aren't thinking theft, even though that is what it is and what it always has been. People drink kool-aide because it tastes good going down.

:thumbsup:

[CrispyQ]

157. "We've been told 'privatize' so often for so long that we've effectively confused it with theft."

:applause:

[HillbillyBob]

187. I remined ever rpuke i know that brings up privatization

Oh that worked for the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan and tell me how it contracting to Haliburton what our service guys and gals used to do as part of their regular job..how many died of electrocution in showers?

Privatize is the same as theft, how is your 401 doing, down 40%? well you let the wall street casino steal your retirement.

[kenfrequed]

93. Private investment is privatization.

And Wallstreet LOVES it. A large inflow of capital that can be lost in the system, cover bad investments, and prop up loser stocks long enough for the big boys to get out of them after they have topped off.

Social Security, as it currently exists, is not invested in stocks and the market.

Moving it into private investments would be privatization of the money involved.

And even if it isn't run by a private bank (I garauntee most schemes would attempt to make use of a hedge manager of some kind or another) it would still be an incredibly stupid idea.

[Greyhound]

190. Chelsea's new job, of course!

Nice catch...

[JDPriestly]

151. I have a 401(K). It's really hard to make investment decisions

about relatively small amounts of money. I cannot imagine how I would handle investments, let's say at the age of 95.

Horrors! Can you imagine your Aunt Sally who has Alzheimers having to manage a privatized pension fund?

I will tell you what will happen. The very elderly will have trustees who, for a pretty sum, will handle the investments for the elderly. There will be so much embezzlement and cheating that the courts will not be able to handle the cases. The real money will be in the embezzlement and cheating.

Oh, and if you want to know what the odds are that a small investors with a few thousand in a pension fund can make a killing on the stock market, visit ZeroHedge and Denninger.

No chance whatsoever. It's basically an unfair match. It's the local Little League against the Yankees.

401(K)s and privatization of pension and Social Security funds is basically a set-up so that Wall Street investors can steal from ordinary working people. That's all it is. And Obama's reform of the financial industry is not going to change that.

[closeupready]

158. 'That's all it is'. Bingo, Bango, Bongo - we have a winner here, folks.

+1000

[Uncle_Gunnysack]

34. If you hand over public funds to private enitise what might it be called then?

[laughingliberal]

40. Sharon Angle says it's 'personalizing' SS. Perhaps the poster agrees with her. nt

[Hannah Bell]

47. "personalizing". well, that's sounds all nice & fluffy, doesn't it.

[Lasher]

188. Yes, they've been searching for a new way to frame it

ever since GWB, et al., left such a bad taste in most peoples' mouths with their failed snake oil sales pitch of the same thing being pedaled now - except the current elixir is even worse.

[dsc]

51. No the poster doesn't

but no one would say that teachers and state workers don't have government pensions but each and every single solitary one of us, in all 50 states, have those funds invested in the stock market and other places by the government. That is what Clinton proposed to do with a small portion of SS. He didn't propose, like Ms. Angle and others do, ending the defined benefit aspect of SS and turning into a glorified 401k. But of course lieing about what I say is much more fun I know.

[laughingliberal]

171. You are aware that many state and public employee plans are having problems now with so much ...

lost in the funds which were invested in the stock market, right? I don't want it for my SS and there's only one group who benefits from doing it that way. We know who they are.

[Uncle_Gunnysack]

210. You never answered my question. That's unsportsmanlike.

[Jim Sagle]

182. Psssttt...yer blowing her cover.

;)

[LWolf]

245. Too many Democrats call it "public education." nt

[defendandprotect]

97. And what a fiasco that would have been -- SS $$ in Wall Street -- !!!

would have encouraged even more recklessness by now UNREGULATED Wall Street!!

How much Social Security $$ would have been lost in that stupidity?

If that's not "privatization" then then we're just all really dumb bunnies!

[sabrina 1]

236. Bush wanted to do that also. Imagine if they had succeeded

THEN they could say SS was in trouble as it would be by now. An Erskine Bowles idea and a very, very bad one. That money would be gone with the rest of the money they stole from people's pensions to use for their big Casino on Wall St. Fortunately people fought them off both times and now it looks like we have to do it again.

They are lying, including Obama who has connected SS to the Federal Deficit. SS is not part of the Deficit, it did not contriubute to it, it is a separate fund. Why is Obama doing this? Protecting SS from the greedy hands of Republicans is why many people vote for Democrats. If he does not come out soon and declare SS off limits regarding this Commission, then Democrats are very likely to lose in Novmenber. Someone better start talking to him as he appears to be listening only to Rightwingers on this issue. That is apparent from the 'evolvement' of his thinking on SS from when he was a candidate to when he was elected.

[laughingliberal]

8. I hope the coalition is poised to raise money and run ads about this.

If we can't make this an issue for the midterms, this is going to be shoved down our throats at Christmas with most of the public oblivious.

And Rahm can call us 'fucking retarded' all he wants.

[gratuitous]

9. Oh puh-leeze! Obama ran on a pledge to end Social Security

Doncha all remember? You're all just mad because you weren't paying attention!

[laughingliberal]

11. +1000 nt

[Jim Sagle]

14. That's right. We just want our Social Security pony.

;)

[Better Believe It]

17. Candidate Obama did not run on a pledge to dismantle Social Security

As the writer pointed out:

As a candidate, Obama assured voters that any shortfall was in the distant future and could be easily resolved with minor adjustments. As president, he has abandoned this accurate analysis and turned rightward without explaining why. He faces an awkward problem, however."

[d_b]

50. legit lols

even bit my tongue.

[treestar]

78. Sorry, that's really dumb

Obama did run on continuing the war in Afghanistan. But not on ending Social Security. And the idea is ridiculous. Greider has jumped the shark. Well, he always was predicting gloom and doom.

[LWolf]

118. Only to those without eyes to see, lol. nt

[bvar22]

161. Its not pragmatic or sensible to have eyes.

They only distract you from the truth posted on Whitehouse.gov.

[LWolf]

178. Brain cells, either. nt

[closeupready]

159. lol - yeah, right?

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

174. rofl

[SammyWinstonJack]

184. heheh

:evilgrin:

[Bluebear]

248. :)

[BeHereNow]

15. Translation: WE be F~~ked no matter who is in office.

They are not going to stop until they have squeezed every last penny
out of this country.

Doesn't matter who we vote for anymore.
TPTB have effectively gained control over every living soul.

BHN

[earth mom]

164. The powers that be won't be happy until we're all eating cat food and living under bridges. nt

[PBS Poll-435]

16. LOL!

Tool.

[laughingliberal]

21. I know where I'm starting. Harry Reid is kicking Angle butt over wanting to destroy SS

I believe it's time he hears from his constituents on it. Perhaps a few ads holding him to the protection of SS would be a good idea, too.

[Enthusiast]

59. Good suggestion. nt

[JanMichael]

23. William Greider is a liar! The facts are LIES!

Anyone that thinks the BIG-O is plotting to fuck of the working class is by nature by fact a LIAR!!!

Seriously - it's true:-)

[Kermitt Gribble]

26. "everything has to be on the table."

Including your re-election in 2012, Mr. President. Are you ever going to start acting like a real Democrat??

[defendandprotect]

105. Agree -- Obama's re-election in 2012 has to be "ON THE TABLE" . . .!!!

I thought that when we got rid of Bush . . . we had gotten rid of Bush!!

[Kermitt Gribble]

137. I thought the same thing.

Instead, we are getting many of the same policies wrapped up in a shiny new, well-spoken package.

[defendandprotect]

223. We went downhill with Clinton, though we had an economy . . .

this is even further downhill --

We have to find some way to make sure that we don't go backwards any further --

either with a Repug OR A DEMOCRAT!!

[lbrtbell]

27. I wish this post had been up last night

I "dared" to suggest that Obama Incorporated wants to dismantle Social Security, and a handful of Obama apologists stopped yelling, "LA-LA-LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" long enough to ask me where I'd heard such a thing.

This story needs to be front and center. I'm sick of rich people robbing the poor, elderly, and disabled.

And I'm even SICKER of "Democrats" like Obama willingly lending a helping hand.

No, everything should NOT be on the table.

Social Security should NEVER be on the table.

PERIOD!

[TBF]

72. Exactly right -

I knew it when he said we needed to "have a conversation about social security" during his first state of the union address. This has been in the works for awhile. Completely sucks.

[defendandprotect]

107. This NEWS has gotten out very slowly . . . dump the MIC, keep Social Security--!!

[Petrushka]

28. K & R

:kick:

[MilesColtrane]

29. I used to worry a great deal about whatever proposal the Catfood Commission comes up with.

But, it still has to be made law by Congress.

And, while your average Congressman is a brainless animal, he or she does have an instinct for self preservation.

Any solution that promotes slashed benefits and a raised retirement age foremost will be shunned by those representative legislators with functioning brain stems.

They don't refer to it as the third rail for nothing.

[Hannah Bell]

46. they're going to vote on it in lame duck session during the christmas holidays.

better think again.


BREAKING: Pelosi Sneaked Approval of Vote on Debt Commission Recommendations into Rule Regarding War Funding, Vote Happening Tonight

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xaygExWV6ygJ:firedoglake.com/2010/07/01/breaking-pelosi-sneaks-approval-of-vote-on-debt-commission-recommendations-into-rule-regarding-war-funding/+pelosi+debt+commission+lame+duck+vote&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[GOTV]

130. And they cannot change or amend the proposal in any way

[Hawkowl]

31. One term Obama

If anything even close to this nightmare comes true. If Obama once again crows about what an accomplishment his comprise produces, he won't be able to scratch up enough votes to be elected Dog Catcher of Cook County.

Teachers under the bus. GLBT under the bus. Unions s.t.f.u. under the bus. Progressives under the fucking retarded bus. Anti-war pacifists under the bus. Seniors will throw Obama under the bus if fucks with their SS.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[bluethruandthru]

143. Funny...but so sad

because it's true!

[tomp]

92. i'm pretty sure re-election is not his highest priority.

not that he'd mind, but these programs for the rich are the ultimate priority.

[Hawkowl]

102. That is well phrased

I think you summed it up perfectly. I figure he knows that is the easiest way to fabulous riches himself.

[defendandprotect]

110. Completely agree with you -- Obama/DLC agenda is to serve the rich . . .

[dflprincess]

146. He once said he didn't worry about being a one term president

and apparently that's one of the few things he meant. I imagine he knows that regardless of how long he is president, he and his family will be well taken care of thanks to his complicity in the continued destruction of the working & middle classes. No doubt his daughters will also get to have million dollar weddings.

[Jakes Progress]

176. He won't be one-term unless

the elite decide he will. He got elected because they decided to let Democrats take the heat for the depression they know had been created. So they ran a corpse and a tart against a hottie. Hottie won. If they want him out, they will have him out. If they want him in, they will have him in. You and I have nothing to say about it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

186. True, every word.

x(

[xiamiam]

242. damn..damn..damn..i know it as well..heartbreaking but true..nt

[Octafish]

33. Catfood

Cat Food

Lady Supermarket with an apple in her basket
Knocks in the manager's door;
Grooning to the muzak from a speaker in shoe rack
Lays out her goods on the floor;
Everything she's chosen is conveniently frozen.
Eat it and come back for more!

Lady Window Shopper with a new one in the hopper
Whips up a chemical brew;
Croaking to a neighbour while she polishes a sabre
Knows how to flavour a stew.
Never need to worry with a tin of 'Hurri Curri':
Poisoned especially for you!

No use to complain
If you're caught out in the rain;
Your mother's quite insane.
Cat food cat food cat food again.

Lady Yellow Stamper with a fillet in a hamper
Dying to finish the course;
Goodies for the table with a fable on the label
Drowning in miracle sauce.
Don't think I am that rude if I tell you that it's cat food

Not even fit for a horse!

-- King Crimson

[blindpig]

132. Gotta say....

your musical taste are fast and bulbous.

Hadn't thought of that.....

[Radical Activist]

35. Are these the same insiders who said Obama would give up on HCR?

I can't take any article or blog seriously if they rely on rumor and speculation. Too many have cried wolf too many times. Give me solid facts and named sources or keep your gossip to yourself.

[DesertFlower]

36. i agree. nt

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

38. I learned something about the media during the lead up to the Iraq war.

Did you? Do you think its OK to believe everything you read just because they're attacking Obama now?

[Spheric]

48. Should we believe the co-chair of the Cat Food Commision himself?

Or are you suggesting that he never said any of this.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/06/17/alan-simpson-cutting-social-security-benefits-to-take-care-of-the-lesser-people-in-society/

[Radical Activist]

54. "That's Bullshit." That's what he said about the rumors.

Great link!
"We’re not cutting anything, we’re trying to make it solvent." Why isn't that the line that's taken out of context and repeated on blogs?

"So we want to take care, we’re not cutting, we’re not balancing the budget on the backs of senior citizens. That’s bullshit."

Do you believe Simpson when he says it's bullshit? Reading your link makes it sounds like the rumors in the OP article are just rumors.

LAWSON: Thanks for being so frank. My question is: raising the retirement age, is actually an across-the-board benefit cut?

SIMPSON: There are 15 different options being discussed in here today, and why nail one of them……if you would like to get one of them that pisses your people off.

The picture I'm getting is that people know one of the options being discussed is raising the retirement age. We don't know how seriously it's being discussed, but everyone knows how controversial that would be. So, pundits and journalists, with various motivations, are making that idea the focus. It makes for a good action alert that gets people worked up. It makes for a good headline. It's great fodder for liberals campaigning against Obama. It has been the same routine since Obama took office and it's getting played out.

[Spheric]

55. Let me see if I understand you.

It appears to me that what you are saying is that since they are only discussing cutting Social Security, that we should just STFU and wait until they actually cut it before we open our mouths.

Is that about right?

[Radical Activist]

56. No, you don't understand me.

First of all, the commission doesn't have the power to cut anything. Congress does. So even if we wait until we have all the facts about what they propose, we'll still have time to organize and object. Of course I don't object to speaking up until after cuts happen.

Second, there's a big difference between:
"One of the options being discussed by the commission is raising the retirement age and we want to make sure that isn't part of their final recommendation"
and
"President Obama Is Leading The Assault on Social Security"

One of those is a rational statement of legitimate concern about things we know. The other is hysterical bullshit with an agenda.

One could lead to productive discussion and action. The other needlessly misleads people and alienates Obama supporters who would otherwise by sympathetic to the issue.

There's a difference.

[Spheric]

58. This is not just some commission making recommendations.

Their mandate has them crafting legislation which is already fast-tracked for a vote in the Senate almost as soon as it is released and then it goes immediately to the House.

Obama created this commission through executive order and then chaired it with two men who have made a career out of assaulting Social Security. That sounds a lot like leadership to me.

"One of the options being discussed by the commission is raising the retirement age and we want to make sure that isn't part of their final recommendation." And one of the ways to do that is to make sure that those who are trying to cover up their involvement and support are not allowed to do so. They need to be called out.

If Obama is opposed to cutting Social Security, all he needs to do is say so. I think it is obvious who is trying to mislead.

[Lasher]

226. It is not fast tracked for a vote in the Senate.

When a measure is fast tracked, it is subject to Congressional approval but it cannot be amended or filibustered. There was a failed attempt earlier this year to fast track recommendations of the catfood commission.

This is an important distinction, because it means a Senate filibuster could be our best defense. And the Byrd Rule specifically prohibits the use of reconciliation to pass legislation that changes Social Security. Surely there must be 41 Senators who would vote to block cuts in Social Security and our other social programs.

But the Byrd Rule can be circumvented. Reconciliation disputes are settled by a ruling of the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.

Trent Lott, who was Senate Majority Leader at the time, fired the Senate Parliamentarian in 2001 because of unfavorable rulings regarding the use of reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.

Wikipedia article here

[Spheric]

232. Thank you for clarifying.

The devil is indeed in the details.

[Lasher]

237. That's OK, somebody else here did the same for me not too long ago.

IMO this tells us our highest priority is to get our Senators lined up.

[Jim Sagle]

227. You understand him well.

;)

[laughingliberal]

39. No. Just the ones who said he'd sell out the public option.

Never a doubt he'd bail out the for profit industry. I'm just bookmarking all these so we can take another look in December when he plays his hand.

[harun]

79. +1000

[defendandprotect]

112. 1000% --

Now let's see which Congressional Democrats begin to speak out on this --

it's been really quiet -- !!

[xiamiam]

243. you already know what he is going to do although it is hard to admit

even to ourselves..

[Lorien]

41. He did give up on HCR. He made in an Insurance profiteering scheme instead. nt

[Spheric]

49. +1 Exactly. /nt

[Better Believe It]

74. If it's as bad as the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act we are in big trouble.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

98. In case you didn't notice ---

Obama DID give up on Health Care Reform and instead gave us servitude in the form of Health Insurance Reform. A HUGE fucking difference, amigo, and you damned well know it.

[inna]

231. precisely. thanks for making that point.

[kenfrequed]

100. Probably the same insiders...

Who said he was giving up on the public option and trying to trade it off long before we found out it was off the table.

I find it funny that Universal single payer was off the table and yet 'EVERYTHING' is on the table for Social Security reform.

I wonder if raising the income caps is on the table? Or will it all just be cuts and raising the retirement age?

[CrispyQ]

160. How they handle your last two questions will be telling.

My guess, raise the income cap by $5000 & raise the retirement age to 70. Then they can claim that everyone will sacrifice. :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

111. Actually, Obama took HCR and stomped it into the ground . . .

[dflprincess]

147. Just because he calls the insurance bailout HCR

doesn't make it so.

[Hannah Bell]

42. Greider under the bus!

[JoseGaspar]

43. It took a Republican to go to China.

It will take a Democrat to dismantle Social Security. Bush couldn't do it. He ignited a firestorm when he tried.

Who says bipartisanship is dead?

And, right up to the day it happens, there will be many who claim, "It will never happen". Then, they will seamlessly switch to explaining why it had to happen.

Is anyone else beginning to get a little tired of this racket?

[Poboy]

86. Yep, so tiring and transparent-

"And, right up to the day it happens, there will be many who claim, "It will never happen". Then, they will seamlessly switch to explaining why it had to happen.

Is anyone else beginning to get a little tired of this racket?"

[burnsei sensei]

57. Social Security is running a surplus.

The investor elite knows they can't count on consumer spending any more.
They're desperate.
Social Security is capital to them.
It always was lost capital. Something to which they were entitled.
In that sense, the debate about Social Security is a debate about entitlement.
Those who want, even to open Social Security to the stock market "a little bit", are taking part in the redefinition of entitlement away from the people and toward the corporate elite.
This is a Third Way priority, obviously.
Trust the stock market?
That's like allowing a known arsonist to house-sit a frame and plywood "mansion".

[OKNancy]

60. I'll believe it if it happens

I'm pretty sure this will be another thread I will bookmark and possibly have to pull up in a few years when it doesn't happen.
Just like the hand-wringing done when we were going to attack Iran in 2004 among oh so many others.

[Better Believe It]

75. And if you sit around and do nothing to stop it, what will you write when it happens?

[Enthusiast]

61. Governor Ed Rendell made it

clear on yesterday's morning talk show. He said we have to cut entitlements. No suggestion to cut defense waste or anything else, his entire thing was to cut entitlements. This doesn't bode well.

[defendandprotect]

113. Calling Social Security an "entitlement" is another bit of rw propaganda . . .

Social Security is PAID FOR BY citizens who contribute to it --

Unlike the benefits which our Congress enjoys which we all pay for --

their health benefits, pensions, etal --

[Enthusiast]

141. Of course it is.

This is just more of the same shit they pulled with health care reform. Smoke and mirrors. It was in our face. They act like we're going to fall for more obfuscation and lies.

[defendandprotect]

189. Thing that really irks me is that Seniors aren't UNITED in any way . . . excluding AARP -

which is an insurance agency!!

Amazing!!

And not only do seniors have Social Security at risk -- they also have

Medicare at risk! How does it not occur to Seniors that they have to UNITE???


Help!! Hi Enthusiast -- how are you --?

We seem to be both pounding the same pavement -- again!

:)

[Enthusiast]

228. We have to pound the same pavement.

Because we recognize the threat. TV politicians throw around the words 'Social Security' like it's nothing but it means life for millions of us. :hi:

[AzDar]

63. K & R

:kick:

[QC]

65. William Greider never really loved him!

:cry:

[BrklynLiberal]

66. That makes me want to cry...literally.

[fasttense]

67. Thanks for posting this article.

This crap about raising the retirement age really gets to me.

Take a look at your Social Security statement and read it carefully. On the inside page titled Your Estimated Benefits, you will read, "You have earned enough credits to qualify for benefits. At your current earning rate, if you continue working until...."
"your full retirement age (XX and X months), your payment will be about ....$ X,XXX a month"

And now here is the kicker: "age 70, your payment would be about ................$ X,XXX a month."

Note that the full retirement age of 70 years old will increase your pay outs. In my case it is over 28% higher than if I retired at the age identified in the 1st line.

So in effect the FULL RETIREMENT AGE IS 70 YEARS OLD.

This is how most people's Social Security statements read.

The real full retirement age for Social Security is right now 70 years old and that was changed back when that bad actor and senile old man Raygun was voted into office.

So what are they going to change it to? 75, 80, 90 years old?

[paparush]

68. Erskine "Free Trade - I Heart NAFTA" Bowles makes me sick.

Erskine Bowels

[depakid]

88. Kinda makes a person wonder why this person would have been appointed to such a position

or any of the rest of them, for that matter.

[defendandprotect]

114. Guess Obama would be surprised to find FOXES in charge of the chicken coop????

I'm sure Obama had no idea -- !!

[paparush]

229. As a North Carolinian, Bowles makes me furious.

We've lost so many manufacturing jobs here (like so many other places), and he knew. He KNEW this would happen. We literally have ghost towns in North Carolina where the only jobs were at the mill. Textile, furniture, small industrial manufacturing, and they're virtually all gone.

[90-percent]

70. This used to be

This used to be just a good and insightful George Carlin bit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=490947&mesg_id=490947

It is now the agenda of the Obama Administration.

I will not get fucked over without a fight! Who's with me? Did America back down when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

-90% jimmy

[williesgirl]

76. That's it - I'm done! Fuck Obama and the rest of his corporatists. He's lost me forever.

[defendandprotect]

115. PLEASE . . . unite with other liberals/progressives and let's do something ... don't give up!!

[whistler162]

180. what this the 20th or 30th time you have "given" up?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

116. +1000% -- "let's cut Jesus's social security to pay for war" -- !!

[earcandle]

80. I would stop participating in anything that smells like a Social Security replacement program NOW.

Stop funding programs that are trying to act as if they are
replacements or supplements. 

Like AARP is a private company with an image of government
care and it isn't at all.  Drop it. 

[earcandle]

81. Also, read the news with a critical eye. This are lying fucks out to undermine our trust in our own

party.  

[90-percent]

83. Critical Eye

I rely on the critical thinking and reasoning abilities of my fellow 161,095 registered DU colleagues.

However, I've read on DU in the past that there are THOUSANDS of people at the CIA engaged in MSM MISINFORMATION, and they could with great subtlety get people of the stature of Noam Chomsky to publish misinformation to further their agenda, presumably at the expense of we American non-elites.

So, I'm confused. I do see imminent and unmistakable signs of a Corporate Take Over of American Government, especially in Washington. I engage everybody I possibly can in my life - like people throwing tag sales and the bag boy at the grocery store and old friends in chain emails, and it's amazing how many Americans in my little northwest Connecticut stomping grounds are of like mind. And it's amazing how resigned they all are to it all!

I am not resigned to it at all, however!

-90% jimmy

[quiet.american]

82. There's not a single, solid fact in this article to support the author's assertion.

Wild-eyed speculation.

[depakid]

89. There are tons of facts listed throughout the thread

and in the article.

Might be worth a look.

[quiet.american]

95. I see lots of snark and wild-eyed speculation and no facts to support Greider's fearmongering.

But here's one: Obama's FY2011 budget contains a request for an 8% increase for the Social Security Administration to be able to streamline the process of paying out benefits and for them to be able to pay them out more quickly. Now, if I had started a thread on that, no doubt it would have sank and been unrec'd to the bottom by those who are howling at the moon in this thread.

It's obviously much more fun to sit around thinking up and cheering on Democratic candidate loyalty oaths.

[defendandprotect]

117. We know . . . Wm. Greider "wants a pony" -- and doesn't get the "Chess game" -- !!!

[quiet.american]

119. What nonsense. nt

[defendandprotect]

122. Perhaps you're starting to recognize that the "pony" arguments are nonsense ...???

Would be nice to get that message thru here to those who still believe in it!!

And, that also includes the other attempts at ...

"Miracle worker"

"Superman"

"Idealists"

"Magic Wand"

"Only (fill in the blank with seconds/minutes/months) since Obama took office!"

It is all nonsense --

And what we need most of all is a liberal/progressive Democratic candidate in 2012!!

*************************************************************************************

[quiet.american]

123. My repsonse was specifically in reply to yours. Thought that was clear enough. nt

[defendandprotect]

125. OK -- evidently the "pony" message isn't getting thru to those using it?

Guess it will take a while longer of feeding it back to you???

[quiet.american]

131. Where did I use it? nt

[defendandprotect]

133. Where did you produce any info counter to Wm. Greider's article?

[quiet.american]

142. Where did I use the arguments you attribute to me?

As for your deflection question, my reply #89 has a fact of what the Obama administration is doing regarding Social Security right now that Greider saw fit to omit from his piece.

Add to that, upon Obama's inauguration, Social Security recipients were first on the list to receive real help in the form of $250.00 checks to make up almost all of the COLA increase that had been cut from Bush's 2009 budget.

Add to that, the only talk I've seen of reducing benefits are of reducing benefits to those with high incomes, a la John McCain, who collects Social Security. Does he need it? Hell no.

Edited to add: So how does the actions of the Obama administration so far add up in Greider's book to Obama now wanting to turn on a dime and "whack" old people? Sounds like Greider needs to step away from his Soprano's dvds.

You can Google for the information I've posted here. Past experience tells me that while it's considered good form to go beserk here over hyperbolic misinformation, posting facts and links to back up one's own assertions are greeted with less enthusiasm.

[defendandprotect]

195. First, Seniors did NOT get a $250 check . . . and they did not either get COLA increases . . .

though Social Security checks should probably be TWICE what they currently are --

The idea of making Social Security something for the "poor" has long been a GOP theory

on how to destroy Social Security --

No - - McCain doesn't need his SS check -- but he paid into it and should have his share

back just like everyone else!

But we need to raise the FICA barrier to something above $106,000 of income --

And, perhaps news of "The Cat Food Commission" hasn't reached you?

[quiet.american]

198. Really? Then what was that my mom cashed? Hint: it wasn't a coupon.

I didn't say that seniors received a COLA increase. You may have read my post too quickly.

Yes, news of "The Cat Food Commission" has reached me - through the usual outbreak of fevered hysterics on DU.

[defendandprotect]

212. Understand what you're saying... $250 vs No COLAS ...didn't happen as far as I'm aware ....

Senate Rejects Obama's Seniors Bribe | Sweetness & Light
From a dismayed Reuters: Senate rejects $250 checks for elderly March 4, 2010 WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A measure to give some 57 million elderly
sweetness-light.com/archive/senate-rejects-obamas-250-seniors... - Cached

Obama seeks $250 payments for seniors - Business - Personal ...
President Barack Obama is calling on Congress to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33316549 - Cached

Obama: $250 to Seniors in Budget
President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposes a $250 payment to ... "Without a COLA, far too many of America's seniors will find it even. more difficult to purchase basic ...
psst-progressivesavvyseniorstexas.blogspot.com/2010/02/... - 88k - Cached


http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AubXPr_TpbPdnHGbES4ZVjqbvZx4?fr=fp-yie8-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF8&p=obama%20%24250%20to%20seniors


If you can find anything on its having passed, please post it --

Maybe some seniors at DU can answer that question for you?



Sorry -- but the Cat Food Commission led by those most anxious over decades to destroy

Social Security and Medicare is not as you insultingly suggest -- "the usual outbreak of fevered

hysterics on DU," but a very serious issue for the nation and for seniors.




:eyes:

[quiet.american]

215. Understand what you're reading. Here:

My post said "....upon Obama's inauguration" - that means I'm talking about 2009 -- the funding for it was included in The Recovery Act; you're referencing requests made for the 2010 & 2011 Budget that have been blocked by Congress. But even with what you post, if Obama is making a budget request to supplement Social Security, how does that still add up to he wants to "whack" or dismantle Social Security payments? In any case:

2009: Vice President Biden Announces $250 Recovery Payments to Go to Social Security and SSI Beneficiaries in May
Payments will inject more than $13 Billion into Economy
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/vice-president-biden-announces-250-dollar-recovery-payments-go-social-security-and-

Vice President Joe Biden and Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, announced today that the federal government will send out $250 economic recovery payments to people who receive Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits beginning in early May 2009 and continuing throughout the month. No action is required to get the payment, which will be sent separately from the person’s regular monthly payment.

"The Social Security Administration and Commissioner Astrue have been working closely with other federal agencies to get these payments out the door in record time and into the hands of folks who need it most," said Vice President Biden. "These are checks that will make a big difference in the lives of older Americans and people with disabilities - many of whom have been hit especially hard by the economic crisis that has swept across the country."

"We have been working diligently to issue the $250 one-time recovery payments as soon as possible," Commissioner Astrue said. "The legislation requires extensive coordination with other federal agencies and I’m pleased we are on track to issue these recovery payments earlier than the statute requires. Soon more than $13 billion will be in the hands of more than 50 million Americans."
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides for a one-time payment of $250 to adult Social Security beneficiaries, and to SSI recipients, except those receiving Medicaid in care facilities. To receive the payment the individual must be eligible for Social Security or SSI during the months of November 2008, December 2008 or January 2009.

The legislation also provides for a one-time payment to Veterans Affairs (VA) and Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) beneficiaries. The VA and RRB will be responsible for paying individuals under their respective programs. However, if someone receives Social Security and SSI, VA or RRB benefits, he or she will receive only one $250 payment. People getting Social Security or SSI should not contact the agency unless a payment is not received by June 4, 2009.

Social Security.gov
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/newsletter/archives/2009/feb2009.html

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Among its provisions are one-time payments to Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries, as well as funding to help the agency address critical needs.

One-Time Payments of $250 For Social Security and SSI Beneficiaries

Nearly 55 million people who receive Social Security and SSI benefits will get a special one-time payment of $250. They should receive the one-time payment by late May 2009.

The payments will be automatic, so people receiving benefits do not need to take any action.

People who receive both Social Security and SSI benefits will receive only one payment of $250.

The legislation also provides for a one-time payment to recipients of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) benefits. However, if a person receives Social Security or SSI benefits and also receives VA or RRB benefits, he or she will only receive one $250 payment. Social Security will send that payment.

In April, Social Security will send an advance notice with further information to each person who is eligible for the one-time payment.

So that we can issue the payments as quickly as possible, we ask that people not contact Social Security unless their payment is not received by June 4, 2009.

Meanwhile, we encourage people to visit www.socialsecurity.gov/payment for answers to frequently asked questions about the economic recovery one-time payments.

Buying into unsubstantiated misinformation and then getting worked up about it doesn't do a lick of good towards helping those who need help, either. And that's what I meant by the "fevered hysterics on DU."

[defendandprotect]

222. My apologies if this actually happened -- I hope it did -- !!

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. Know what I notice? All these people talking about cutting SS benefits

are fucking RICH MEN who will never have to depend on their social security benefits.

[Bluebear]

87. ++++++

[Karmadillo]

91. The oligarchs work for the oligarchs, not us.

nt

[kenny blankenship]

152. But see? That just makes them disinterested impartial judges of what's best for the nation!

Or so goes the logic prevailing in this fucked up land, made by millionaires for millionaires.

[Poboy]

90. K&R!

[defendandprotect]

94. Congress refused to create this Panel -- Obama did it by Executive Order . . .

And we need a new Democratic candidate in 2012 --

We watched what Clinton did -- shocked -- and never reacted --

and Clinton did it with a nod from Gore --

60 years of Welfare Guarantees overturned!!

Maybe this new round of attacks by the a Democratic president will finally

wake up America?

[quiet.american]

96. The *Republicans* in Congress refused to allow it to be created. nt

[defendandprotect]

101. You're saying that the Democrats were in favor of this panel . . . ???

And the Republicans were protecting us from it???

Just one of the ironies of polarization?

And eventual result of co-option of parties?

[quiet.american]

108. Do you understand we're a debtor nation?

This commission was created to help find ways to pay down the Bush/GOP 1.3 trillion dollar deficit we now have - as well as the massive deficits that are projected to come our way going forward. That's a good thing. OR would you prefer that we economically implode as did the Soviet Union?

You honestly ask did Republicans "protect us" from the commission?! With respect, what have you been smoking?

If you really want to scare yourself, and see just what REPUBLICANS have in mind for Social Security, Google Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That plan is what our wrath should be pointed towards, because in black-and-white, Ryan describes exactly how REPUBLICANS envision dismantling Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and ending taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Not Democrats and not the President. REPUBLICANS.

[defendandprotect]

120. Do you understand WHY we're a debtor nation . . . ?? Start with wars bankrupting Treasury . . .

one of the most efficient ways to undermine democracy!

Stop the wars -- cut the MIC budget back to where it was before Bush became president!

Social Security is NOT part of the general budget -- it is paid for by direct funding from

citizens. The term "entitlement" is rw propaganda created to confuse the public on that issue.


If you're concerned about our "imploding" then start with ending the trade agreements --

and by overturning the Bush/Reagan tax cuts for the rich!!

Evidently you see this new Obama betrayal as a good thing?


Your comments are at least highly confusing when you end with this . . .

If you really want to scare yourself, and see just what REPUBLICANS have in mind for Social Security, Google Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That plan is what our wrath should be pointed towards, because in black-and-white, Ryan describes exactly how REPUBLICANS envision dismantling Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and ending taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Not Democrats and not the President. REPUBLICANS.


If you are against the dismantling of these programs then you should be against this Panel!

If I've misunderstood you, restate what you are trying to say --

[quiet.american]

121. Where are the facts to back up Greider's fearmongering.

All the deflection, snark and goalpost moving on this thread, and in your replies, still have not produced a shred of a fact to back up Greider's howling at the moon.

[defendandprotect]

124. OK -- so YOU are in favor of the Panel and cutting Social Security --

That's a bit clearer now --

Again -- Social Security is not an "entitlement" -- it's paid for directly by

citizens --

If you want to cut our debt, then start with the MIC and ending the wars --

And, no, Greider isn't "fear-mongering" -- Obama has permitted this Panel to "fear-monger"

re Social Security --

And, he's provided the method and means for them to attack Social Security!

Let me suggest we need more Greiders -- and more Weiners -- and more Howard Deans --

more "screaming" Dems shouting out the truth--

[quiet.american]

129. This conversation shows me in real time the thought processes of people who take Greider seriously.

Based on what, I don't know, you make a 100% incorrect assumption about what I think.

Yet, Greider says something that plays into what you want to believe about the Obama administration, with nothing more than shadows to back it up, and it is the Gospel Truth as far as most on this thread are concerned.

When I ask where are the facts of the piece, I get shards of this political argument and that poltical argument thrown at me, as well as the requisite bits of snark, and not a single person concerned that maybe Greider's piece cannot be taken at face value.

"Obama has permitted this panel to fearmonger" -- where did they do that?

[defendandprotect]

134. This conversation ...

has reached levels of inane I'll leave you with --

bye --

[inna]

230. Unreal.

Try to exercise some critical thinking and do some minimal research into this issue; it's unfortunate to see people so deeply in denial.

[Greyhound]

191. DO you understand that SS has nothing whatsoever to do with our debt? n/t

[nashville_brook]

205. you're YOU smoking? SS doesn't add to the deficit and cutting it won't help the deficit.

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.1

[girl gone mad]

217. Do you know that this commission is not addressing the actual causes of the deficit..

namely the financial crisis and the unemployment crisis?

Social Security is a transfer program, indefinitely sustainable and irrelevant to deficit economics.

[Hannah Bell]

219. The US has been in debt almost every year since the revolution. so what?

debt isn't the problem.

and social security didn't create the debt. and hell if the ruling class is going to steal from the working class to pay off their own gambling debts.

[ooglymoogly]

127. + !

Grayson-Franken 2012. Barring that, a write in campaign for the primary.

[defendandprotect]

99. Btw, LOVE Wm. Greider and he's long been one of America's truth-tellers . . .

[Fearless]

106. This is why we can't have nice things... n/t

[amborin]

126. one article suggested it's a done deal, the commission is just theater

[Joe Chi Minh]

135. He's surely not accusing the State Department of being double-dyed hypocrites.

[EFerrari]

138. Our State Department?! Inconceivable.

lol

[blindpig]

144. It's an investment opportunity!

for the investor class.

If people sit still for this then what next?

[KoKo]

166. How else can they keep Wall Street Profits up and Market High?

They have to get those donations. Older, jobless, Mutual Fund holders are having to cash out early from 401-K, ...so it's a brilliant idea to replace that money with funds from those still employed. Stealing your retirement future under your nose. Selling it as Deficit Cutting and Regaining Control Over Your Own Money! Just invest with those who sold you down the river the last time and required bailouts. But, don't be so sure that another bail out will come when there's a crash and you are just about ready to retire in the next 10 to 20 years...

:rofl: It gets better and better...Hoodwinked!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

149. It's the "sensible" thing to do...if you need to pay for a lost war.

[zenprole]

153. The Playbook

For those not swayed by the award-winning propaganda of the Obama campaign, this is exactly what was expected. Just as the owners and rulers needed Clinton, a nominal Democrat, to massacre the public welfare system (and push through NAFTA, etc), so too was Obama selected to hack away at Social Security. Now he'll soft-peddle and divert from a key issue of class warfare. And it will probably work.

If we had a citizenry worthy of the name, at their first utterances Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles would have fled the country in terror.

William Greider's one of the greats. It's always good to see his articles.

[lumberjack_jeff]

154. I want to know what the definition of "problem" and "solvency" is.

If lawmakers are worried about the fact that one long-term estimate suggests the trust fund might be depleted in 25 years, and might require tax hikes or a 25% benefit cut at that time, I'm listening (despite my belief that there are bigger immediate problems). Very modest tweaks are all that is required to fix that hypothesized problem.

If lawmakers are worried that retirees might begin redeeming some of those bonds we've been investing in all these years, then my pitchfork is ready. You're damn right we're going to redeem those bonds.

Withdrawing money from savings is not "insolvency", and if it's a problem for the bank, I really don't give a shit.

[SpartanDem]

162. Opinion does not equal fact

and Grieder is heavy on opinion and light on the facts, the only facts are that this commission exist and that it will make a recommendation. Outside that their isn't one credible fact about Obama wanting to cut SS.

[SugarShack]

165. Top 5 Myths Regarding Social Security

rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8

Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?

[h9socialist]

170. This is total crap!

[laughingliberal]

172. Well, just for fun, I'll bookmark this and we'll see how much 'crap' it is come December. nt

[earth mom]

173. Better to have Democrats cut Social Security?! Are you fucking kidding me?!

Social Security is NOT broken people!

Meanwhile Obama and his buddies are selling the public on some wild ass idea that it is!

Of all the convoluted Orwellian shit that these politicians dream of-this is the one that takes the cake and the one that people need to pay attention to!

Do you want to eat CAT FOOD and LIVE UNDER A BRIDGE when you're 70 or 80?!

Ask yourself WHY Obama is allowing this and WHO will benefit from sucking every god damn dime out of social security!!!

Wake up people-Social Security is NOT broken-that is a god damn LIE! :grr:

[Lasher]

193. Better to have my mother shoot me in the head?

What we're seeing is the finest pretzel logic that money can buy.

[polichick]

181. The prez should be ashamed of himself...

But politicians who hide behind a smile while fucking over the people don't seem capable of feeling shame.

[SammyWinstonJack]

194. +1000!

[HillbillyBob]

183. Well my measly ssd check is all I have to live on

being disabled.

I think that if they do this to ss we should show WDC what BASTILLE DAY really looked like, because w/o this income I ll have nothing to lose.

Besides the rpigs haven't actually gone along with any bipartisan piece of shit, the godam dimicrats keep folding up like a f ing wet bag.

[Lasher]

192. What's happened is, DLC neoliberals have highjacked the Democratic Party.

Just the same as the Republican Party has been assimilated by the neocons. Neither party has a monopoly on either curse, however. There are neoconservatives in the Democratic Party and there are neoliberals in the Republican Party.

Clinton was a neoliberal. So is Obama. If you are a New Deal Democrat like I am, you need to be facing the music, and start thinking about what you can do to alter this course.

[defendandprotect]

224. +1000% -- by now we should be waking up from this nightmare we thought was over!!

'06 -- we put Democrats in office to end the wars and they've been

refinancing them and bankrupting the Treasury for the last four years!!

Agree -- we had best make sure we're not putting DLC/New Democrats in office -- at any level --

including the White House --

We need a new Democratic candidate in 2012 -- not more DLC/New Dem poison --

[LWolf]

246. +1

[Citizen Worker]

196. Just as it took a "democrat," Bill Clinton, to jam NAFTA, GATT, WTO

through a reluctant congress so too will it take a "democrat" to begin dismantling Social Security, the last major program of FDR's New Deal. Over the years the pro-businees wing of the democratic party has bought into deregulation, privatization of public education, erosion of unemployment and workers compensation and these wonderful "free trade" deals. And O'Bush thinks he's going to get republican support to raise taxes in exchange. What a sick joke! The tax increase, if there is one, will be miniscule at best and will be promptly rolled back as soon as the republicans retake control of the senate but Social Security "reform" will remain in place.

Working people had better begin organizing right now as the theives are already mounted up and headed for the tresury.

[Poboy]

221. terrible. -nt

[defendandprotect]

225. +1000% - and we continue to pretend Obama isn't dismantling public education -- !!!

and on his way to destroy Social Security and Medicare!!

We had better know exactly whom we're voting for in 2012 --

and for me it sure won't be Obama!!

and I hope it's not only a huge anti-Repug vote but a huge anti-New Democrat/DLC vote -- !!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

197. LEADING?

He established the commission, yes, and made some appointments, yes. But what evidence is out there that anybody- let alone him- is talking about privatizing Social Security/destroying it or anything else?
I know that we are all very curious and somewhat suspicious about the commission because of some people who are on it but if anybody can offer some explanation as to how Obama is "leading" some kind of "assault" on Social Security or even how he might possibly even pull off a Bushian-style campaign to privatize or otherwise eliminate Social Security, I'd be interested in hearing it. My suspicion is that the commission will come back with some ideas we don't want to hear/like but may also come back with some ideas we WILL like and have previously advocated for. Congress will still have to approve whatever the commission recommends, so it's not like whatever the commission recommends will go straight to his desk. A lot of people must seriously believe that Obama is politically suicidal if they actually believe that Social Security is going to be destroyed by him and the Democratic Party.
I mean, if President Obama and the Democratic Party REALLY wanted to dig Social Security's "grave", Bush/Cheney were offering it on a gold platter back in 2005 and could've done some really crazy "bipartisan" compromise to privatize it. However, out of all of the Dems in Congress, only a SINGLE Democrat ended up supporting the privatization and the idea eventually floundered out of existence. Our solidarity against the scheme and defeat of it was truly a shining moment out of a LOT of dark ones during that period of time. I simply cannot subscribe to the idea that we will be witnessing the death of Social Security or anything else that is being looked at in our lifetime and certainly NOT by President Obama and/or the Democratic Party.

[Better Believe It]

233. " My suspicion is that the commission will come back with some ideas we don't want to hear"

Suspicion???!!! You merely have a suspicion? :) You joke, right?

And what do you think those ideas might be?

I know what they will be.

We all know.

And so do you!

They will present various proposals to cut Social Security benefits.

That is obvious.

Just look at the composition of the commission.

And President Obama has clearly said that proposals to cut social security benefits are on the table.

What more do you need?

A signed notarized statement sent to you by President Obama declaring that cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are on the table?

Now be serious.

OK?

[WillyT]

199. "The money will cover all benefits until the 2040s—unless Congress double-crosses workers...

by changing the rules."

"If Democrats can no longer be trusted to defend Social Security, who can be?"

"Citizens can win this fight if they mobilize smartly. We can do this by arousing public alarm right now, while members of Congress face a treacherous election and before Obama can work out his deal. Some liberal groups are discussing a "take the pledge" campaign that demands senators and representatives sign commitments to keep Hands Off Social Security Benefits. If politicians refuse to sign, put them on the target list for November. Barack Obama is standing on the third rail of politics—let's give him a warning jolt."

Yep...

:mad:

K & R !!!

:kick:

[deathrind]

204. Ok...

I always hear this from the right. Let’s get rid of SS... then what, I want to know? A lot of people worked at an hourly wage job all their life and did not retire with a 6 digit bank account or 401k. What happens to these people once they reach the inevitable unemployable age? Last year it was "Don't pull the plug on Grandma" what is it now "Grandma can't work anymore time for a long walk into the woods"?

[Bolo Boffin]

211. 12 out of 12 of Noah Cross' friends agree: he should get custody of his daughter/granddaughter.

Forget it, Democrats, it's the Catfood Commission.

[RetroLounge]

213. Maybe I can invest my retirement in Ponies!

Yay, Ponies!

RL

[dflprincess]

216. You might as well gamble it on the ponies

probably safer than the stock market.

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

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

[Jefferson23]

238. Seriously, how much more are we suppose to take? n/t

[Better Believe It]

239. As much as they can dish out until we organize mass movements to stop them.

[Jefferson23]

247. I'm afraid so. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

250. Should I start taste testing my kitties' food or prepare to become Soylent Green?