Obama's latest assault on Social Security

[Radical Activist]

Remember the Nation article by William Greider which declared that, according to the latest gossip around Washington, Obama is leading an attack on social security? Sure you do. It was posted at DU and elsewhere with that inflammatory headline.

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

Obama's comments at a recent town forum provide another opportunity to hold the professional left punditry accountable for their speculative fear-mongering.

Here's Greider in the Nation:

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.

How awful! Why did Obama change his tune? Here's his latest comment on the topic.

So here’s the thing. Social Security is not in crisis. What is happening is, is that the population is getting older, which means we've got more retirees per worker than we used to. We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it. There are some fairly modest changes that could be made without resorting to any newfangled schemes that would continue Social Security for another 75 years, where everybody would get the benefits that they deserve.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/18/remarks-president-a-discussion-with-ohio-families-economy

Oh...It looks like Greider's comment was absolutely and completely false. Greider went on to write: "Citizens can win this fight if they mobilize smartly. We can do this by arousing public alarm right now..."

Yes, call the alarm. But do it honestly. Crying wolf is not mobilizing smartly. It shows that you don't really respect the people you're mobilizing.

[Mika]

1. We need a Media Anon program in this nation to Cure the addiction.

Cuban media is more informative.
Seriously.
(Been there, seen it.)

---

[Radical Activist]

2. I believe it.

It's pretty bad when I can't even expect pundits in liberal publications to play it straight.

[KittyWampus]

75. ALL pundits write for their readership. They know what sells & what their readers want. Those on the

Left who write for the perpetually outraged end up giving Republican Ratfuckers quite a weapon.

[Radical Activist]

83. Exactly. n/t

[xchrom]

3. Obviously Obama knows the answer to any 'problems'

There might possibly be with SS and he can and should disband
The catfiod commission headed up
By people who want to see retirement ages upped
And benefits cut.

[babylonsister]

4. Thank you for again setting the record straight; it's been done

before, but people appear to have really short memories around here or are what we refer to teabaggers as-willfully ignorant.

[vi5]

5. I've no problem with that....

..and if it's the case then he should have said that Social Security was out of the scope of the deficit panel he put together with republicans on it.

If I missed that he did that, then please let me know so that I can retract my opinion on the issue. I honestly don't know if he did or did not publicly state that so I won't claim either way.

But if he truly believes the quote you listed, my presumption is that he would have excluded Social Security from the scope of that commission. That's what worries me. I hope to stand corrected on this, since I know there is in fact a lot of misinformation out there.

[Radical Activist]

9. Why would he need to do that?

He has people on the commission representing his position. Even Alan Simpson has said in strong terms that they aren't making big changes. It sounds like the most likely thing to happen is that they'll propose the minor changes Obama has been talking about all along, like raising the cap on paying into the system.

I'll respond if something is proposed that I don't like. But the speculation has gotten out of hand.

[vi5]

47. Sorry, if I'm not a trust first verify later kind of guy...

I used to be. But the past couple of years has taught me that you only get suckered when you do that.

First off he shouldn't have put together the commission in the first place. That alone pissed me off. It was another example of internalizing and prioritizing right wing criticisms, rather than pointing out the absurd hypocricy of the right crying about "the federal deficit".

But o.k. he felt the need to do it....o.k. But then state at the outset that any cuts to SS or any proposed attempts to raise the retirement age would not be considered.

Sorry, but his reputation at this point for still trying to be "bipartisan" no matter how ridiculously discredited all the republican proposals have been and no matter how much even the most basic of those proposals serves to gut democratic demands and needs doesn't leave me feeling an abundance of confidence.

[Radical Activist]

85. I agree that

we shouldn't be too trusting. Making SS an issue in the upcoming election is a good idea to preemptively stop any proposals introduced after election day. I point out the article above because it's the kind of exaggeration that alienates allies on the issue like me and spreads cynicism in a way that isn't helpful.

My assumption is that Obama appointed Republicans to build support for proposals that Republicans won't like, such as tax increases. It may not work, but even if it doesn't, Obama still wins politically when the public sees the GOP are being obstructionist a-holes.

He has gotten a few important Republican Senate votes, such as financial reform. It's going to be an ongoing problem unless we gain another seat or two in the Senate.

[suffragette]

86. I dislike the idea of making SS into a political football

People depend on Social Security to live.

It should never, never be about who "wins politically," but rather about honoring this social contract with the American people.

Nor should anything said or written be able to "alienate allies" from this issue.

You stand for the principle and policy that you won't do anything damaging to Social Security (and that includes privatization, increasing the retirement age and/or reducing benefits) or you don't.

[Radical Activist]

87. I agree

and the article in the Nation turned SS into a political football. If you want to make progress on an issue you don't start out by misleading the people who you need to mobilize.

[suffragette]

89. The Nation wrote about issues with policy and direction

You wrote: "It may not work, but even if it doesn't, Obama still wins politically"

Talking about this issue in terms of a politician winning or losing is what makes it into a political football game.

It's really not about any one or even several politicians and whether they win or lose political points or advantage.

It's about serving the people.

The people already mobilized to elect leaders in whom we put our trust that they would act in our best interests.

[laughingliberal]

107. My bottom line on this is there was no reason to create this commission in the first place.

The fact that he chose to do this after the Senate defeated the very unpopular idea does cause me to view his commitment to SS. He has also appointed Bruce Reed (the DLC announced their disdain for New Deal programs long ago) as Executive Director, Alan Simpson (hates all old people except himself)as Republican co-chair, Erskine Bowles (worked on a plan with Newt to privatize SS that was, blessedly, derailed)as Democratic co-chair and I can only find 2 people on the commission who have ever expressed any real support for SS. Even Andy Sterns, who one might assume would be there representing the interests of the workers is on record as favoring some privatization of the SS sytem.

[jeanpalmer]

93. Social Security Cuts Weighed by Panel

That was the headline just two days ago. It's very clear they're considering a benefit cut. Here's the quote from Alice Rivlin:

"Are Republicans willing to sign onto a tax increase, and are Democrats ready to sign onto a benefit cut? I think the answer is probably yes in both cases if the other is willing to do it," said Alice Rivlin, a Democrat and former White House budget director.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439792287255372.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

This is Obama's commission. It's not likely he'll disagree with them. He even put HCR on the chopping block, within days after signing it into law.

I trust Greider on this one. He's just saying what's obvious. It's not that difficult to put 2 and 2 together here, unless you don't want to know.

[scarletwoman]

6. It's still bullshit. We've been paying higher FICA taxes since the 80s to cover precisely

this issue of fewer workers per retiree. The fact is, that extra funding has been ripped off.

And sorry, but "modest adjustments" and "modest changes" are weasel words that mean nothing. Kind of like "fierce advocate" for gay rights. He's just giving himself wiggle room for the big reveal from the Catfood Commission.

sw

[MannyGoldstein]

11. +1000 - All of these changes were accounted for back in 1983!

This is simply an attempt to grab about $50k in promised payments to each retiree, assuming the "modest change" is raising the retirement age to 70 as is being publicly discussed by the Committee. And it's awful. Just awful.

[another saigon]

15. 'weasel words'

sadly, that is the one area where obama has been consistent. I will not be fooled again.

[sandnsea]

20. There are two separate "problems"

One problem is paying back the boomer trust fund in the form of benefits.

But AFTER that problem, there will be another problem where in we will only have enough workers to cover 75% of benefits due. THAT problem is a problem of not enough workers to cover benefits. The trust fund will have been exhausted at that point, around 2037 - 2044.

[Hannah Bell]

96. according to one of the three trustees' forecasts -- concerning 30-40 years in the future. fuck

that bullshit.

[sandnsea]

111. Moveon, Unions, Krugman, EVERYBODY

admits there is a need to "strengthen" social security due to the worker shortfall around 2040. There is no disagreement in that.

The disagreement lies in whether the trust fund will be covered through borrowing or tax increases.

[Hannah Bell]

113. there's no need to do anything now about something that may or may not happen 30

years in the future so far as social security is concerned.

that's the fundamental mistake everyone's buying into -- the same fundamental illogic reagan sold us in 1983 -- it was going to "save" social security for the boomers.

we got 30 years of higher payments & when it came time to retire, more of the same "omg, we gotta do something!" bullshit.

CAPITAL wants more money from labor. that's what it's all about.

[DrDan]

7. and candidate Obama was against a social security commission

I am sure you remember that.

and what adjustments are considered "modest" . . . . those paid for by the middle/lower earners preserving the wealth of the upper-crust?

[Radical Activist]

12. Actually, he was against candidates not saying what they would do

by hiding behind a commission. Go back and look at the debate video. He was criticizing Hillary for not saying what changes she would make. Obama said what he would do and he hasn't backed away from it.

[demodercrat]

21. Hillary was afraid

to say what she would do and she was being deceptive. At least Obama exposed that she was hiding. Well said.

[DrDan]

99. well - isn't that exactly what he is doing now?

[dflprincess]

52. Oh, but he hasn't created a "Social Security Commission" he calls it a

"Deficit Reduction Commission". The fact that Social Security has its own financing and doesn't contribute to the deficit makes one wonder why it's even being discussed by the Catfood Commission.

As far as what Candidate Obama said - let's remember that that person was against mandated insurance and believed in a strong public option to keep the insurance companies honest.

I'd love to know what he has been promised for his part in selling us out.

[dajoki]

122. So would I n/t

[CTLawGuy]

8. the problem with our politics

is that the media can print fearmongering and lies with impunity. But I don't know the right response....

[Political Tiger]

10. Why bother with facts when panicking is so much more fun?

:sarcasm:

[MannyGoldstein]

13. 'Modest adjustment' = $50,000 taken from each retiree

And that's just by raising the retirement age to 70. It's actually more once the cut in COLA is also factored in!

Anybody can call anything "modest".

[Radical Activist]

14. Really. When was that proposed?

Wolf! Wolf!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

23. I think he skipped the wolf, he has gone straight to yelling that werewolves are coming

[Radical Activist]

24. lol

[MannyGoldstein]

40. How dare you accuse me of crying wolf

without having done any research?

e.g.,

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37615380

http://firedoglake.com/2010/05/18/how-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security-clinton-gingrich-bowles-and-the-pact/

[laughingliberal]

84. Great! Austerity, American style! Cut the safety net AND lower the tax rate! Change! nt

[Radical Activist]

88. That's all speculative.

There are people who think the retirement age should be raised. That's a far cry from "Obama is leading the attack on social security." That's not an actual proposal.

[Hannah Bell]

97. yes, everyone should shut their mouths until they actually get screwed.

[laughingliberal]

106. I'm worried that's the plan. Bring out the report after the election is safely out of the way...

and our votes can not reflect our dissatisfaction with it. Bring it up for a vote in the few weeks of the lame duck session giving us no time for any real mobilization. The legislator who will be voting on it will all be people who are safely in their seats for 2 more years or looking for a job in the private sector and needing to score points with them.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[jpak]

17. Hysterical baseless anti-Obama crapaholla

yup

[Better Today]

18. Obama has speechified many things and then turned around and

caved to RWers and the like. I'll not give him an ounce of credit for his supposed opinion unless and until he backs it up by assuring that SS is not on the table at the catfood commission.

[demodercrat]

19. Obama is trying

but the rw is holding it all up.

[Better Today]

38. So you honestly believe he isn't at any fault? Wow.

[MannyGoldstein]

49. I don't think the RW will hold up his Social Security cuts

Obama appointed the two Commissioners (who both openly call for cutting Social Security), but the Republicans got to appoint a bunch of other Social Security cutters too. It'll be a big bipartisan wind in Obama's sail.

[JoseGaspar]

81. Which R/W organization or legislator proposed the Deficit Commision?

What powers did they use to create it?

Which Tea Party organization appointed Simpson and Coburn?

[RandomThoughts]

22. Best guess is the Democrats are a better choice.

And best guess is they have gotten some good things done.

[Hannah Bell]

25. the adjustments were made in 1983. not like they just realized the boomers were a bigger generation

than the one before them.

"retirees per worker" is a red herring. productivity gains have outstripped the increase in retirees per worker.

[laughingliberal]

35. Yep. It was ludicrous watching Alan Simpson say that in 1983 they didn't know there was a baby boom.

It WAS the reason for the 1983 'fix' that's had us all paying higher payroll taxes and that revamped the formula for calculating inflation so seniors could be screwed out of reasonable COLA's.

[Hannah Bell]

60. he said that? god, these assholes are corrupt.

[laughingliberal]

72. Yes. He said that:

Finally, Lawson said that his understanding was that part of the justification of the 1983 changes was "prefunding the retirement of the baby boom by building up that huge surplus."

Simpson responded, "They never knew there was a baby boom in '83."

Well, Alan Greenspan, who headed the bipartisan commission that proposed the 1983 changes, would tell Simpson something different. The big demographic shift that began right after World War II was precisely why Social Security was expected to face a deficit as the number of workers relative to beneficiaries began to decline when the Baby Boomers began to retire. And that was why taxes were raised and benefits were cut then--to build up a trust fund surplus so benefits could be paid.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/06/20/Alan-Simpson-Wrong-on-Social-Security.aspx

[Cha]

26. It shows they don't respect

themselves either. Thanks for posting this side by side of grieder's fearmongering with the actual facts, RA.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

28. Obama appointing Alan Simpson and Tom Coburn shows tremendous respect...

for the people who put him in office.

[EFerrari]

27. How is Greider's comment false? He's right. Team Obama

is focusing on Social Security while they double the contractors in Iraq.

There's nothing false about that.

I hope YOU are not a reporter.

[backwoodsbob]

29. what are the modest changes? nt

[snot]

34. EXACTLY.

People in my family die young. I'll have paid into SS every year since I was 16. If they keep raising the retirement age, I won't have any retirement.

[katandmoon]

30. Why did Obama appoint harsh critics of Social Security like Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson

to chair the Deficit Reduction Commission unless he was prepared for them to recommend the decimation of Social Security? That's what these two fuckers believe in.

So keep peddling your right-is-left, left-is-right, up-is-down, and down-is-up attempts to hoodwink the faithful into falling for Obama's own version of the "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" doublespeak with his phony homespun "We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it" bullshit.

But do it honestly. Trying to pretend it's not bullshit is not peddling it smartly. It shows that you don't really respect the people you're snowing.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Notice the lack of answer to your simple and pertinent question

It's amazing that people just ignore the obvious and make fun of those who point out basic and direct truths.

Amazing ignorance.

[katandmoon]

44. And I even asked it twice in case he missed it the first time!

[MannyGoldstein]

46. This is how our country got so fucked up

People unable to accept facts that don't fit their assertions, rather than changing assertions to fit the facts.

[glitch]

63. Truth. Amazing to see people sneer at Greider here.

Then again, perhaps not. :crazy:

[QC]

66. Well, considering that people like Andrew Sullivan are all the rage here now,

it's not surprising that Grieder would be sneered at.

Hell, I saw people here denouncing Howard Zinn as a lying commie. That's when I knew the DU some of us had loved for so many years was well and truly gone.

[glitch]

73. It's been surreal, hasn't it? Still, enough of the old-timers remain.

Maybe not full-time, maybe not in shifts. Nevertheless. :evilgrin:

[Dr.Phool]

92. Or vested interest.

[Radical Activist]

102. Same question to you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8996820&mesg_id=8997402

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Citizen Worker]

32. As I recall Greider also said that Obama was going along with changes to

Social Security in exchange for rethuglican support to raise taxes. We all saw how that worked with the stimulus and health care. It won't be any different with changing Social Security.

[TheKentuckian]

33. Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his actions. Grider hasn't been disproven at all.

You don't need to force a commission by executive order to advance a cap increase. Nor are a bunch of corporate heads, Republicans, and right wing Democrats working for the "small people".

If you have an objection what possible difference would it make? You'll spin to justify it and keep on keeping on citing that the Republicans are worse and forced his hand by voting lockstep with the recommendations.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

39. Patterns of Stalking Behavior

Via newsgroups, the cyberstalker may even create postings about the victim or start rumors that spread through a bulletin board system. Another technique used by cyberstalkers is to assume the victim's persona online (such as in chat room) for the purpose of sullying the victim's reputation, posting details (whether factual or false) about the victim or soliciting unwanted contacts from others.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/83106/How_to_combat_cyberstalking

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

45. Here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8981504&mesg_id=8992106
Some are more equal than others! Waaah!

[laughingliberal]

58. You use your own posts, based on your opinion, as support for your opinion ?

AND are threadjacking your own thread for some sort of seemingly personal issue you are having with some posters. Or is anyone who disagrees with you part of a 'gang?'

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Greyhound]

94. See, proof that the reich-wing has something to teach.

The BBS version of the DC shuffle.

(Psst! Hey Rad, you're supposed to quote/link somebody else's posted opinion that supports your opinion. When you link to your own, it blows any credibility you might have fooled anyone into thinking you had.)

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

53. You're helping the harassment campaign of a cyber-bully spreading bizarre lies.

Now that you've been notified of that you can choose to reject it or keep participating. You'll have to figure out what kind of person you are. Old Elm has decided that they're OK with cyber-stalking behavior and personal harassment. I'm not sure what DU has chosen.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

82. You're continuing the lie after I notified you that it's untrue.

DU would be a better place if you stuck to issues. Instead, you're knowingly engaging in an ongoing campaign of personal harassment against me. I'm amazed you haven't been banned. You are the last person who should complain about certain people being immune from the rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

51. Stalkers and the Borderline Personality

http://www.angelfire.com/ga/random/bordr.html

The Borderline stalker is very apt to see his/her actions as perfectly justified; he/she has paranoid disillusions which support these-often with disturbing frequency.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

68. "The Borderline stalker is very apt to see his/her actions as perfectly justified"

What happened that made you so angry at me? Not that it would matter or justify spreading false rumors to personally harass me.
Let me write that again. It doesn't matter what the motivation is: it doesn't justify a personal harassment campaign.

http://cyberstalkers.blogspot.com/2008/12/47-when-anger-comes-to-your-homepage.html

"We've all had interactions with unpleasant people, but we don't confront them. We take it out elsewhere," he said. "What the Internet has created is groups of people where there are no repercussions with being too aggressive."


"Some people are just bitter and angry," said psychiatrist Dr. Terry Eagan, medical director of the Moonview Sanctuary in Santa Monica, California. "Sometimes, they're against everyone, other times against a specific group. That person can get really stimulated and can say all sorts of horrible things. But I don't think it's not like they didn't exist before."

[laughingliberal]

70. Is it going to be that we must discuss harassment and stalking anytime someone disagrees

with your posts or opinions? It is a pretty serious sidetracking of the discussion at hand which is weird since you started this thread. Were you unaware that there are people on both sides of the SS debate who pretty regularly respond to posts on the issue? I mean, basically, it's one of my main issues right now and if I'm online, I'm usually going to thrown my $.02 in on posts about it.

[Radical Activist]

71. No, that isn't what's happening.

I'm happy to have people attack my posts when they write about issues. If you're totally unaware of what's happening then you should stop commenting on it.

[laughingliberal]

74. Fair enough. I just hate seeing you derail your own post. It is an important topic.

It would seem the 'other' is being dealt with as evidenced by 'name removed' rapidly becoming a major contributor to this thread.

[JTFrog]

100. It wasn't the OP that tried to derail this discussion.

No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

[laughingliberal]

103. delete dupe

[laughingliberal]

104. It looks as if the offending posts were removed. A moderator decision I agree with, btw.

If the above subthread was as presented, I wholeheartedly agree with the removal. No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise and make me part of it.

[JTFrog]

108. Looks to me like you made yourself a part of it. n/t

[laughingliberal]

109. Looks to me like you have some agenda which benefits by twisting my intentions,

which I think a careful reading of my posts will show was to point out that appropriate moderation was taking care of the personal issues being raised here and the discussion about whether President Obama is supportive of cuts to SS benefits was being derailed. I assume the author of the post made the appropriate alerts and, once the offending posts were being removed in a timely fashion,

I saw no value in continuing to bring it up. Now, you seem to be invested in making my posts something they were not and making this personal. I'm not interested in that and so, go on and take your pot shot in response to this. I'm through playing and you can have your last word which seems to be very important to you for some reason.

[JTFrog]

110. Amazing that you deduced all that out of the thirty words that I actually posted.

We'll just chalk it up to all the DUST in here.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

57. The alarm has been sounded due to the appointees to the

"deficit commission" and their stances and what they say and have said. There is no need for such a commission with people devoted to getting rid of it.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

62. Exactly! nt

[Better Believe It]

59. Your post didn't provide any facts or Obama quotes to refute Greider's comments.

So what "minor adjustments" do you think President Obama and his "deficit commission" will propose?

Perhaps the commission will propose lowering the retirement age for full benefits and increasing benefits!

Sure.

That's what the commission is all about!

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Marr]

67. This has been a very illuminating thread.

I'm glad I read it, even if my only posts were deleted.

[Radical Activist]

69. I hope so.

Now that you know the rumors are a false campaign of personal harassment against me you can choose to participate or reject it. It's a matter of what kind of forum we want DU to be.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[JoseGaspar]

80. Obama is all for the public option, too....

So far, what he does and what he says haven't always "matched".

And then there is "politics" and "realism"... and the Commission.

It is way too late in the game to expect "trust" on words alone. The "people" are way ahead of you on this, dear OP.

[Dr.Phool]

90. Just had to do it, didn't ya?

I'll take Greider's word any day. They both have verifiable track records.

[NYC_SKP]

91. "Citizens can win this fight if they mobilize smartly."

From the OP. I think it's one of the main points of the OP:

Oh...It looks like Greider's comment was absolutely and completely false.

Greider went on to write: "Citizens can win this fight if they mobilize smartly. We can do this by arousing public alarm right now..."

:patriot:

[Hannah Bell]

95. it doesn't need any changes currently.

[sabrina 1]

98. If that is what Obama is saying, what is in the OP.

now, he is wrong. SS has a huge surplus, and the claim that the worker to retiree ratio is a problem is false.

However this is an improvement since he was quoting the Rightwingers on the Catfood Commission and tying SS to the Deficit, which was an outright lie.

Kudos to all those who held his feet to the fire on this. He's been made aware that what he was saying and his disastrous Commission, were simply not going to fly with the American people, any more than they did with Bush.

Keep up the good work everyone, this is about everyone's future, their parents and grandparents. The DLC crowd thought that younger people would fall for their scare tactics since they are not affected right away. How wrong they are on that. Young people care about their parents and grandparents, but then the DLC doesn't care about anyone, so it's no surprise they would make such a huge miscalculation.

[laughingliberal]

105. Good points. The other way a benefit cuts will hurt our younger citizens is raising the retirement

age will keep us baby boomers out there holding on to the jobs longer. We've already almost lost a generation who can't get their foot in the door to start their careers. Keeping the baby boomers working until 70 is going to seriously compound that issue.

[sandnsea]

112. Then Krugman and Moveon are wrong too

They want to strengthen social security by raising or eliminating the FICA cap to cover the shortfall when the trust fund is exhausted and workers will only contribute enough to cover 75% of benefits. Again, AFTER the $4 trillion trust fund is exhausted.

[sabrina 1]

114. No they are not wrong, and they disagree the this particular

point being made by Obama, which is a roundabout way of using the false Rightwing claim that when the baby boomers retire, which is now, SS will need fixing. That is completely false as the Baby Boomer retirement problem was taken care of in the 'eighties when the SS tax was increased, completely funding the Baby Boomer retirement.

Krugman, Galbraith and all the other economists who actually understand this issue, have all commented on that scare tactic, which Obama is still using but avoided using the words 'baby boomer' as it's been pretty much discredited now.

However, as I said, people have to keep working to let them know that if they touch SS they will pay a huge political price, as Bush did actually. Which is why he waited until after the 2004 election when it didn't matter anymore. Which is what is happening again.

What Krugman et al acknowledge is that in the future, around 1044 or so, the ratio of retirees to workers will change. But that is NOT the situation right now and Obama should not be claiming that it is.

[sandnsea]

118. Where is the money going to come from to pay that?

Covering the $4 trillion boomer trust fund is a different issue. That has to either be borrowed or come out of the federal budget somewhere.

However, they ARE discussing the ratio of retirees to workers NOW. That may be covered by raising the FICA cap, providing more incentives for later retirement, or some other combination.

TWO problems.

[txlibdem]

101. K&R Obama Social Security

eom

[bvar22]

115. Why "The Commission" is necessary to successfully CUT Social Security.

1) Saturate the Media with the meme that something MUST be done to "Reduce the Deficit" or there will be a catastrophe, and strongly imply that Social Security is one of the BIG causes for the deficit.

2)Remove Pentagon/Military Spending from any discussion of cuts,
and imply that anyone who even talks about cuts to Military Spending are crazy, drug addled extremists.

3)Give all the politicians involved plenty of time to get out public statements that they support Social Security, and would never vote to reduce benefits.

4)Form a "Independent Secret Commission" to design a "Comprehensive Package" to study ways of Reducing the Deficit. This package will be lengthy and complicated, but it WILL contain reductions to Social Security benefits. The package will also contain a few minor crumbs that ARE good for the economy. These crumbs will be minor in scale compared to the structural changes to Social Security.

This "package" and will also contain some scam that opens the door for Wall Street to have access to Social Security funds. For Marketing cover, the package will also contain some easily avoidable "regulations" that will appear to restrict how Wall Street can use the Social Security Funds.


5)The Marketing will be Up and Running when the contents of the package is revealed. The Media will be saturated with pieces that highlight and overemphasize the few good crumbs, and catastrophizing the effects of not passing "The Comprehensive Package".


6)The Progressive Caucus opposition WILL be marginalized (again), and the full force of the White House, the DLC, DNC, and their Corporate Marketing & Messaging apparatus will be used to brand them as "traitors", "with the Republicans", "against Wall Street Regulation", "against the American People", "against Saving Social Security" or "Opposed to Saving our Children".
There will be a saturation of anecdotal testimony of how certain crumbs will "Save our Family, therefore the whole package MUST pass.
The Mighty Wurlitzer will be turned UP to FULL BLAST.
Any and ALL opposition WILL be Shouted Down and Demonized.

7)The Republican Party will play their assigned part in the Kabuki, and oppose the whole thing as "Big Government Takeover". It doesn't matter that their position makes no sense. It only matters that they oppose it so the illusion of a difference is maintained.

8)This "package" will be brought to Congress to be voted on as a whole, complete package immediately after the Democratic Losses in November 2010. No honest debate will be allowed.
No discussion of amending the package or deleting some elements will be allowed.
Democrats will NOT be "voting to cut Social Security".
They will be voting FOR "Saving the Economy", or "Protecting out Children (from the deficit)".

9) The Complete Comprehensive Package of Commission Recommendations WILL pass with a Party Line vote, or one or two Republican defectors if necessary to maintain the illusion of a Hard Fight.
No Democrat will have to admit that they voted to Cut Social Security.
Instead, they voted FOR a Reform Package that Saved the Economy.


10) The politicians will flock to the cameras with statements like this:
"I am on record as supporting Social Security, and of course I would have liked to NOT cut benefits, but we had to do something."

"This is historic reform legislation, look at all the good (crumbs) we got!"

"We couldn't let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good."

"This is the best we could do under the circumstances because we didn't have the votes.

"This is a Step Forward."

"Today, we saved our children from a crushing deficit."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8969793

[Radical Activist]

117. Or

Obama knows it won't be easy to get a few Republican votes for either lifting the income cap on paying into social security (the fix he campaigned on) or any form of tax increases. The commission is an attempt to get those few votes.

But I know that obvious, straightforward explanations are much less fun that elaborate speculative conspiracy narratives. The narrative is very important for some people. The financial regulation bill had major changes in it that progressives have wanted for years. But that doesn't fit the narrative of Obama being a corporatist and the two parties being equally beholden to corporate interests. So, the changes had to be ignored or belittled. The narrative trumps reality.

Alan Simpson says they aren't cutting it, but that's ignored. Obama says they'll make minor changes and not privatize. But the poster below links an article suggesting they'll privatize it anyway. Direct quotes from the key figures don't fit the narrative so you have to go looking for new clues to extrapolate from.

I'm sure that no matter what the commission proposes there will be people eager to shove it in the narrative, whether it fits or not.

[dflprincess]

119. "Obama says they'll make minor changes and not privatize"

Doesn't say a thing about cutting benefits or raising the retirement age - which Obama might see as "minor" given he won't have to worry about it. No doubt he will be well rewarded for his part in helping to destroy the working & middle classes - just like Clinton has been.

This is the same guy who said he opposed mandated premiums and would insist on a public option to "keep the insurance companies honest". What he says doesn't mean much. And once his Catfood Commission comes back with cuts I'm sure we'll hear his defenders shrieking "He never said he wouldn't cut benefits!"

[ipaint]

120. You are shoving the commission into a narrative that doesn't fit.

Not since Reagan. 30 years of cowardly compromise and phony bipartisanship. This is what we get- a ruined economy, massive unemployment, enormous shift of wealth from workers to the top etc.
No more. Enough.

No one needs to touch social security. The rich need to pay back what they borrowed to fund 30 years of tax cuts by a raise in their taxes. Period
Not to lift the cap, not to cut the benefit, not to raise the age limit, nothing. Once the rich give more than they get it becomes welfare in their minds and we know what wealth pays our representatives to inflict on the poor. Say hello to your future.

Keep the greedy motherf*cker's hands off a fund paid into by workers for the benefit of workers.

[ipaint]

116. Sorry, I'll take this person's opinion before a desperate stump speech

by a politician that took single payer off the table and put social security on it.

"William Greider, a prominent political journalist and author, has been a reporter for more than 35 years for newspapers, magazines and television. Over the past two decades, he has persistently challenged mainstream thinking on economics.
For 17 years Greider was the National Affairs Editor at Rolling Stone magazine, where his investigation of the defense establishment began. He is a former assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, where he worked for fifteen years as a national correspondent, editor and columnist. While at the Post, he broke the story of how David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, grew disillusioned with supply-side economics and the budget deficits that policy caused, which still burden the American economy.
He is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple and Who Will Tell The People. In the award-winning Secrets of the Temple, he offered a critique of the Federal Reserve system. Greider has also served as a correspondent for six Frontline documentaries on PBS, including "Return to Beirut," which won an Emmy in 1985.
Greider's most recent book is The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to A Moral Economy. In it, he untangles the systemic mysteries of American capitalism, details its destructive collisions with society and demonstrates how people can achieve decisive influence to reform the system's structure and operating values."
http://www.thenation.com/authors/william-greider

http://williamgreider.com/content/about-me


20 years of books and look how wrong he was :crazy: -

http://williamgreider.com/books

35 years as an investigative journalist apparently has taught Greider something you don't quite grasp. Actions speak much louder than words. If Obama wanted to protect social security perhaps NOT putting it on the table and thereby creating another massive hurdle to achieving that goal would have been the smarter thing to do.

Funny here is a Greider article from 1/4/10 which predicts a commission just like the one Pete Peterson had been pushing around Washington for a while. Funny it also correctly predicts the caliber of anti social security hacks which would sit on this corporate commission.

And look what happen, Greider was right.

http://www.thenation.com/article/looting-social-security-part-2



Another reporter who prefers the truth to spin and pr bullshit:

"Now that the President has opened this Pandora’s Box, it is hard for him credibly to make the case, as he attempted to do in last Saturday’s weekly radio address, that “some Republican leaders in Congress want to privatize Social Security.” In fact, it is an idea enthusiastically embraced by a number of Wall Street Democrats who are funded with huge campaign contributions from Wall Street itself. (Candidate Obama received more money from Wall Street in 2008 than Hillary Clinton.) These contributors would be the Rubinites who for decades have played a huge role in allowing for greater financial leverage ratios, riskier banking practices, greater opacity, less oversight and regulation, consolidation of power in ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions that operated across the financial services spectrum (combining commercial banking, investment banking and insurance) and greater risk. Privatization of Social Security represents the last of the low hanging fruits for Wall Street. Who better to provide this to our captains of the financial services industry than their major political benefactors in the Democratic Party?

The issue of privatization is germane when one considers the members of the Commission approved by the President. There are questions of possible conflicts of interest. As James Galbraith has noted, the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has been one of the leading campaigners to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is co-chaired by Erskine Bowles, a current Director at North Carolina Life Insurance Co (annuity products are a competitor to Social Security and would almost certainly be beneficiaries of the partial privatization). Mr. Bowles’ wife, Crandall Close Bowles, is on the Board of JP Morgan, and she is also on the “Business Council,” a 27 member group whose members include Dick Fuld, Jeff Immelt, Jamie Dimon and a plethora of other Wall Streeters."


http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/08/16/which-party-poses-the-real-risk-to-social-securitys-future-17610/

Nice.

A Democratic president puts older and soon to be older workers in danger of draconian, unnecessary cuts to their desperately needed social security. And he chose to do it. Unforgivable.

[depakid]

121. Either Obama set up a commission for a phony assault on Social Security

(which suggests that there's a lot more phoniness in the administration) or else he shares the predisposition of those folks he appointed.

Not really a pretty sight either way one looks at it.