Obama: I will protect Social Security with everything i've got

[impik]

"Privatizing Social Security is right up there in their to-do list if they win majority in congress this fall, and i will not let it happen. Not as long as i'm the president".

http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse?blend=1&ob=4

[lillypaddle]

1. Good deal

k&r

[progressiveforever]

133. That's the way he needs to talk all the time.

[chimpymustgo]

170. We've heard the TALK - over and over - on every subject before the cave. Let's see the WALK.

[nightrain]

2. yeah... we'll see on that one too, just like with health CARE

If Obama is about "protecting" SS, then why did he appoint such Republican destroyers of SS to the catfood commission?

[Nay]

4. I want an answer to that, too. I no longer listen to what is said, I

watch what is done. And I haven't been happy with what is being done.

[Whisp]

22. I listen as well.

and what i'm finding out, is that the groups here that insist Obama hates teachers and kids, that he is going to take away SS, ends up being a lot of distortion and very very loose in the facts.

So thanks for pointing out how you think Obama is lieing in the OP, I can save myself some research and just assume that he isn't now that the Cat Fooders have jumped in.

[Exilednight]

105. Yes, lots of distortion and ...............

advocating charter schools is good for public schools, and the public option was not traded away, and there is no mandate in HCR bill, and finance reform addressed the core issues of the financial meltdown, and gitmo was closed within a yer of taking office, and those 12 beltway insiders are really DC outsiders, and .............

Let me just ask this question: The overwhelming majority of experts agree that there is no Social Security problem, so my question is, why have a commission? If it's not broke, you don't fix it.

[patrice]

138. .

thank you.

[Fruittree]

144. Thank you for saying what I was thinking!!

[Lasher]

5. He shore does talk purty.

Define 'protect'. And define 'strengthen'.

"I'm committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen social security".

I think Obama wants to 'strengthen' the trust fund so that mostly rich people will be 'protected' from ever having to redeem its treasury bonds.

[IndianaGreen]

159. Purty sensible, I think.

And pragmatic and realistic too!

:eyes:

[Lasher]

160. Groundhogs R us.

:(

[PA Democrat]

10. And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Based upon the fiasco that was health care "reform" I am very cynical.

[Qutzupalotl]

118. Maybe so he can hear their arguments and counter them.

Obama has said he wanted to assemble teams of rivals, like what Lincoln did.

It's one thing to have a panel of like minds generating homogeneous ideas. It's another to have a diverse panel hearing concerns from all corners and arriving at a more durable solution, one that will have taken into consideration the most likely criticisms.

[patrice]

139. You obviously aren't either "Professional" enough or "Left" enough, so your opinion doesn't count.

:sarcasm:

[Orsino]

161. That's the only way to practice before releasing one's ideas into the wild...

...to be savaged by the right-wing screamers.

Heck, yes--assemble those rivals, and give 'em chainsaws and mohawks, I say. What can your team do that won't be done a thousand times worse by the freakin' Senate, much less the Limbaugh? Scar tissue is tougher than skin, and DNC focus groups are for sissies.

[NorthCarolina]

149. Because

if he scares you with "Privatization", you will gladly accept raising the retirement age and/or decreasing benefits as the "compromise" needed to stop it.

[Marr]

164. That's exactly it, right there.

You'd think it'd be obvious, especially to people who've been watching the way this White House operates over the last year and a half.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

187. BINGO!!!

You got that right.

[babylonsister]

3. Angle's all for privatization...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_ebui1HuD8N6deVsyVqO77B8RHgD9HIP5DO1

Angle on private Social Security: Chile's done it

By OSKAR GARCIA (AP) – 16 hours ago


LAS VEGAS — Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Sharron Angle says the nation's Social Security system needs to be privatized, and she says it was done before in Chile.

Angle referred to the South American country on Thursday in North Las Vegas while explaining previous statements that the United States should phase out its current system.

However, the pension system established in 1981 by right-wing Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is no longer a fully private system. Chile's system was revamped in 2008 to expand public pensions for groups left out of its system, including low-income seniors.

The tea party favorite challenging Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the current U.S. system is broken.

Reid and Democrats say Angle's ideas about Social Security are extreme.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. Most Republicans are except they slither around it

they use words like rebuild, reorganize but the likes of Vitter, Angle etc have actually said it. In some respect it would be better if they all came clean.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. 'which is why I appointed a commission to slash it'

"Have I told you about my public option for health insurance? Yeah, that's the ticket..."

[NorthCarolina]

7. He is painting "The Battle" as stopping "Privatization". The real goal however

being to raise the retirement age. After all is said and done, he can claim that raising the retirement age was the "compromise" he was forced to accept in order to stop privatization. Then he can declare another "victory". I can all but guarantee we are being set up. Time will tell of course, but I no longer hold much faith in this administration to do what is right for the people. Typical DLC conservative agenda and legislation from the get go.

[glitch]

11. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Unfortunately we've been served a lot of mediocre pudding. I fear you are correct.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. the more Republicans there are in Congress after November the more it would be likely

we have to make sure that there aren't.

[Honeycombe8]

23. No matter who is Prez, either the retirement age has to rise, or the benefits have to decrease.

It's just a fact of life. We've known this for decades. When the boomers are all retired, their benefits are being paid the next group behind them to retire. There are FEWER people in the group behind them (the boomer group is large...that's why it was called a boom).

So I've heard this discussed since the 1970's...that this would be a problem.

Or...it might be a little of everything to fix the problem (there IS a problem): raise taxes a bit, raise the retirement age a year, decrease benefits a bit = solvent SS.

[Chef Eric]

29. Those are not the only options.

Another way to solidify social security would be to raise the maximum annual wage that is subject to social security tax. Currently the maximum is $106,800. In other words, people who earn more than $106,800 are NOT paying their share.

[fogonthelake]

56. that is a viable option.

[YvonneCa]

156. And they should pay their...

...share. I think the 'fix' will be some combination of all the solutions in this thread.

[Mimosa]

191. ^ Exactly ^ (where do people over 60 go to get jobs anyway?)

Even if they were healthy?

[Zenlitened]

201. A question nobody seems to want to answer. Not only here at DU...

... but anywhere and any time the call to "raise the retirement age!!!1" is squawked out loud.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. wrong

the boomer retirement is fully funded at least until 2037 and funded at 75% under the most conservative projections after that. Finally, if in fact the worst case scenario unfolds and in 2037 we are actually facing a shortfall, raising the cap or eliminating it entirely would end that problem. There is absolutely no need to raise the age or lower the benefits. In fact in a sane and compassionate society we would be discussing how to lower the age and increase the benefits.

Shame on all of us for buying into the bullshit.

[Lasher]

97. Grover Norquist's propaganda money has been well spent.

I am sometimes amazed at the number of people who have fallen for this bullshit.

[dionysus]

135. bing! and there you have it folks.

:thumbsup:

[Zenlitened]

202. FACT. K&R for your post alone. - n/t

[Hansel]

98. Or the cap on wages on which you pay SS taxes will be increased..

Just like Obama has been advocating for for several years now.

[OwnedByFerrets]

121. Bullshit. Those are NOT the only two fucking options...that is just

rightwing bullshit.:mad:

[joe black]

165. Boomers payed double the amount in the 1980s.

Under an agreement by Raygun and Tip. Stop blaming us for problems created by sleazy politicians.

[amandabeech]

176. You could also put a SS and Medicare excise tax on capital gains.

Don't drink the puke cool aid on this one.

[amborin]

30. +1000

[Sherman A1]

79. I agree with You

and it is very unfortunate. I know I will be email my Senators & Rep for all the good it will do.....

[golfguru]

175. Raising he age to 70 is the only bullet the gov't has

to save SS.

[Zenlitened]

203. Bwahahahaha!!!

[Skittles]

180. it's pretty obvious

yet it goes over the pinheads of sooooooo many people

[Zenlitened]

204. Sure does seem like a possibility, unfortunately.

:(

[great white snark]

31. Any proof of that?

All speculation and bizarre infatuation with the committee panel. Nothing has been passed to justify your fear mongering and you know it. Pathetic.

[MannyGoldstein]

72. here

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MannyGoldstein/102

[great white snark]

89. Thanks, I've read it.

My speculation assertion still stands.

[Hansel]

99. +1

Plus the myth that Obama campaigned on a public option is again stated as fact even though he didn't.

[awoke_in_2003]

117. ah, but he was very critical...

of Hillary's and McCain's mandate plans.

[Zenlitened]

205. Nothing has been passed? Well, duh. But plenty has been said.

Or is your post an example of managing expectations, too?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[MannyGoldstein]

74. no, since it's based on evidence nt

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

136. at least you're consistent manny. at least you're consistent.

[MannyGoldstein]

145. Hopefully, a consistent messenger of what's going on nt

[Dawgs]

8. What the fuck does "protect" Social Security mean?

It's not in any danger of going anywhere while he's President.

Does he mean he won't let it change, or does he mean he won't let the retirement age change?

Does he mean he wants to improve it, or does he mean he wants to fix it?

Or, does he mean won't do anything?

I'm sorry, but I just can't figure out what he means.

[Faygo Kid]

9. You haven't been listening. The attack is full throttle.

The Republicans want to live in gated communities and have the rest of us serve them.

They cannot do that so long as Social Security provides a life raft for a decent life.

Do not underestimate the determination of the GOP to destroy Social Security.

[flyarm]

132. and those rabid republicans Obama put on his commission to deal with SS mean what exactly?

That Obama cares about us?????????? one squat?????????

It is my money, I spent a lifetime working for it and it was taken from my paychecks..I want it and I want it all! It is a bank account of which I fully funded with the paycheck deductions since I was 14 ears old and had my first job!!

Obama put the most anti SS people on his commission..who is bullshitting who here??????

I sure am not being bullshitted..not one iota!

It is Obama's Conservative Catfood commission..he is bullshitting no one !

Obama will fight the republicans or we are fucked if republicans win In November..who the fuck is he kidding??????

Deficit Reduction commission with well known Pro-social security privatization; Erskine Bowles (Chair), Alan Simpson (R, Co-Chair), John Spratt (D), Paul Ryan (R), Jeb Hensarling (R), Dave Camp (R), Judd Gregg (R), Tom Coburn (R), Mike Crapo (R), and Kent Conrad (D). In fact, of the eighteen panelists that Obama placed on the commission, ten (all listed above) have all expressed strong support for privatization of social security.

[flyarm]

140. If Obama Opposes Ryan’s Social Security Plan, Why Did He Appoint Him to the Catfood Commission?

Democrats have been able to seize on the issue because of a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, that would allow younger people to put Social Security money into personal accounts.

Ryan’s idea is similar to a proposal pushed unsuccessfully by former President George W. Bush. It’s not been endorsed by party leaders and has attracted only a small number of GOP co-sponsors.

If Obama Opposes Ryan’s Social Security Plan, Why Did He Appoint Him to the Catfood Commission?
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday August 14, 2010 8:24 am

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/08/14/if-obama-opposes-ryans-social-security-plan-why-did-he-appoint-him-to-the-catfood-commission/

If Obama thinks Ryan’s privatization plan is such a bad idea, why did he appoint Ryan to the 18 member Catfood Commission tasked with dealing with Social Security? In fact, why did he stack the commission with privatizers and budget hawks in the first place?

Obama’s campaign/transition team advisers on Social Security, Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson, have called the commission “a Social Security death panel.” As they have pointed out, raising the retirement age to 70 (which Hoyer supports) is a 20% benefit cut. So if you “add” private accounts on top of that, it is in fact privatization. These “trims” to “save” Social Security are nothing more than a sneaky sleight-of-hand to trick the public into accepting something they very much oppose, giving the “unprofessional left” (i.e., the Jon Chait JournoList set) some nonsense to shove down their throats to pacify them.

If the President truly is interested in protecting Social Security from the privatizers, and not just demagoguing the issue for political advantage, he sure assembled a strange crew for the job. Extra points for appointing defense contractor CEO David M. Cote of Honeywell to the commission. It was recently reported that Cote opposed cutting defense contracting to reduce the deficit, and instead wanted military personnel to pay for their own healthcare.

No wonder the commission doesn’t want their deliberations open to the public:

[Mimosa]

193. 'raising the retirement age to 70 is a 20% benefit cut' RIGHT. n/t

[Mimosa]

192. "The Republicans want to live in gated communities and have the rest of us serve them"

Faygo Kid, I believe you're right. There's a reason private companies of mercenary military are growing businesses.

[Honeycombe8]

24. If the Repubs win back both houses of Congress, they could pass a bill

that would privatize Social Security. That's what he means.

The exact amounts and rules and regs of Social Security, as they exist today, cannot remain the same. Something has to be done to fix the insolvency caused by there being too few workers to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers. Whoever is President will need to address this. We've all known this for decades.

[Hansel]

104. There is no insolvency caused by there being too few workers ...

to pay for the retirement of baby boomers. That is a right wing talking point. SS is solvent. The issue is that Bush pissed a ton of our treasury away and now the Republicans don't want to honor the securities in which SS dollars are in because they want to pay off their spending spree with it.

The boomers, starting in the 1980's at the urging of Greenspan and under Reagan's administration, paid doubled the amount for SS taxes so that there wouldn't be a crisis when we were ready to retire. Those of us near retirement paid for our parents and for our own retirement for decades. Boomers have already paid for their own retirement.

Workers right now are paying double as well and when they retire there will be a heck of a lot less people drawing because the boomers will have died. We aren't going to live forever.

So stop buying that BS. They want SS money so the rich don't have to pay back the money they gutted from the treasury and that is all that this is about.

[senseandsensibility]

130. Bingo

Thanks Hansel.

[harun]

189. +1000

[Warren Stupidity]

119. There is no insolvency. Fully funded for the next 25+ years.

They keep forgetting to mention that there is no actual SS crisis. The crisis is that the pentagon boondoggle funded largely by SS SURPLUS revenue will now have to get funded by tax hikes or more borrowing, or gee golly perhaps they will have to cut that shit down to reasonable levels.

[Dawgs]

146. My point is that "protecting" SS doesn't mean making it better.

The least he should is protect it from privatization.

I want to hear him argue for raising the payroll tax and lowering the retirement age. Two things that poll very highly.

[harun]

190. If he came out and made a strong speech on lowering the retirement

age the base would be motivated in about 2 minutes.

[ipaint]

12. Dismantle his conservative catfood commission.

Until then, bullshit.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. then they should

[NorthCarolina]

84. Exactly. We're being fed a line of BS for sure. eom

[Zenlitened]

199. I've kind of reached that point as well.

Take Social Security OFF the Deficit Commission's table. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.

Want to appoint a separate committee specifically on Social Security? Fine, go for it. But this gang of vultures and orcs on the Catfood Commission needs to STFU about SS.

[ibegurpard]

13. unconvinced

He's lost all credibility with me on issues such as this

[ruggerson]

14. So he's going to be a "fierce advocate" for social security?

The problem, in case some still don't get it, is credibility.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. He always has been

in fact the Democratic Party is a fierce advocate for SS

[ruggerson]

20. I'm perpetually hopeful

tho at times I feel like Charlie Brown with the football.

[ProSense]

33. Deleted, wrong place. n/t

[JoePhilly]

19. "Obama doesn't use the bully pulpit enough!!"

"Obama's using the bully pulpit ... but we don't believe him"!!

Good luck Obama.

[Zenlitened]

200. Um, he's not standing at a bully pulpit just now, unfortunately.

He's perched on top of a couple dozen crates of cat food.

Seriously, a president cannot hope to use the bully pulpit effectively if he has sabotaged his own credibility on the subject beforehand.

[denimgirly]

21. I really hope he is Honest about this -- And not just Campaign Speaking....

My fear is he might consider it after campaigning season is done since we've seen this talk before. Crossing my fingers...I really think democrats would be dead if they end up going against their word (again) on this matter after November. Right now its 50/50.

[old mark]

25. I certainly will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I HOPE he remembers this after the election.

It is after all very easy to find great things to say and then.....

Positive thoughts but with fingers crossed.

Fired Up?

Well,...


mark

[LaydeeBug]

26. Mmmm-Hmmm just like he gave "everything he's got" on the HealthScare Corporate giveaway. nt

[Aramchek]

35. spoken like someone with no pre-existing condition

look beyond your own selfish desires why don't you?

[eridani]

83. You think you're home tree? Think again.

They'll turn you down for having bad credit or charge you so much you won't be able to afford to eat.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

188. A lot of us who dislike the weak health INSURANCE reform we got --

have preexisting conditions. :shrug: I have three that make me uninsurable at any price and I still think the deal was bullshit.

[Enthusiast]

27. Will Obama veto a bill that would

increase the retirement age? We need a pledge from the President that he will veto any such legislation.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. He should veto it

The republicans like their friends the tories in the UK will increase the retirement age. People are not happy with that.

[YvonneCa]

40. I'm sorry, but I disagree. President Obama has...

...several responsibilities here. When GWB was looking to *solve* the Social Security problem, his solution...and that of the GOP...was private accounts. Get rid of Social Security as an insurance program for Americans.

President Obama is faced with the same problem where Social Security is concerned...but his goal is to KEEP the program, not privatize it and get rid of it. He needs our support...and some flexibility... to do this in the right way. That may mean adjusting retirement age, among other things. But it does not include getting rid of it.

Remember, President Obama also faces the economy left behind by 8 years of GWB. THAT has to be considered, too. If raising the retirement age by a couple of years TOGETHER WITH no cap on contributions keeps the SS program, how is that bad? That was done in the 80's and it extended SS for years. They raised the age of 65 to 66 for some boomers and 67 for some (depending on birth year). Adjusting to 68 or so could really help preserve the program for everyone.

[Enthusiast]

86. Raising the age might be alright

for workers that worked in an office for years. It isn't alright for factory workers that have flat out worn their bodies out. Most of the factory workers between 50 and 60 years old that I know can barely get through the day. See, these people did not work 40 hour weeks, they worked 56 hour weeks.

[YvonneCa]

110. I agree and I really hope...

...that is taken into account when decisions are made.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Raising the age is cutting the benefits.

And what exactly is this problem you refer to?

[Enthusiast]

150. There is no "problem"

with social security. The only problem is greedy corporations and politicians.

[Mimosa]

194. Raising the age is incremental to ending S.S. as a viable program for working people

Think about it.

[fogonthelake]

57. He said he would not raise it now but after the election is over and

the catfood commission puts out its report (after the election), it is another ballgame.

[Hansel]

103. There has been a report?

Care to share it?

[fogonthelake]

107. I said after the election the cat commission will put out a report (on its findings). so

I can share it.

[NorthCarolina]

157. I seriously doubt you'd get such a pledge since that is likely the plan.

SCARE you with Privatization, so you will be happy to accept an increase in retirement age and/or a decrease in benefits as the compromise needed to protect you from that threat.

[inna]

162. My bet is that the plan is... Partial privatization.

There are lots of indications that Wall Street is going to get at least 1/6 of the entire amount (that is, 2% of an individual's wages).

That's the best case scenario though and the least damage they can do; most people would be much less opposed to that than to outright cutting of benefits.

[Hawkowl]

28. NO BENEFIT CUTS

He needs to say more than no to privatization. No to benefit reduction, No to raising the retirement age.

Then I would have more confidence in his assurances which have proved somewhat hollow in the past.

[YvonneCa]

41. He also has to deal with...

...this GWB economy. That may not be realistic.

[Hawkowl]

59. Easy

The way to deal with the GWB economy is simple. Raise the effin taxes back to where they were and then some. Go beyond lifting the cap on the ss tax and make it applicable to ALL income not just wages. That more than solves the problem.

[Enthusiast]

87. That is the solution, Hawkowl. +1 nt

[Carolina]

197. and get the fuck out of Afghanistan

[ProSense]

32. After all the speculation, President Obama states definitively that he will protect Social Security

The never satisfied critics: Not good enough, he needs to prove it.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Rosa Luxemburg]

38. Not just Obama, the Democratic Party's policy is to protect SS

people are dubious because they haven't got what they want yet. No magic wands in politics.

[YvonneCa]

43. Many people are used to and expect...

...instant gratification. That's the world we have grown up in. Problem is big problems (like the economy and Social Security) can't be fixed in a flash. They are more like turning a large aircrft carrier around...REALLY SLOW. :7

[Rosa Luxemburg]

44. People have to be kept informed of the progress

The media is pulling strongly one one end we have to pull stronger on the other. WE should have our own propaganda team.

[YvonneCa]

46. Isn't that what we here at DU...

...are famous for? :7 :hi:

[Marr]

166. What sort of cuts to Social Security do you support?

List them. Don't wait until Obama has released his sales pitch.

If you don't support any cuts to Social Security, say it.

[ProSense]

34. Transcript

<...>

That agenda is wrong for seniors, it’s wrong for America, and I won’t let it happen. Not while I’m President. I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble your Social Security on Wall Street. Because you shouldn’t be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you’ve worked so hard for – all you’ve earned – at risk. You should have the peace of mind of knowing that after meeting your responsibilities and paying into the system all your lives, you’ll get the benefits you deserve.


Seventy-five years ago today, Franklin Roosevelt made a promise. He promised that from that day forward, we’d offer – quote – “some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against (poverty-stricken) old age.” That’s a promise each generation of Americans has kept. And it’s a promise America will continue to keep so long as I have the honor of serving as President. Thanks for listening. Thanks for watching. And have a nice weekend.

link

The President was extremely clear.

[MadHound]

42. Funny, didn't he say he supported a public option as well?

"Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or purchase an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale subsidies will be provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable
premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency."

<http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf&ei=qj0yS4T2Fo2XtgeQndCRCQ&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAkQzgQoAA&usg=AFQjCNHW0puxUcLyJUBEfFdnIyz38sZcLQ>

Hard to really believe or trust somebody who's gone back on their word.

[YvonneCa]

45. Obama is a realist. I don't agree he went back on his...

...word. In a perfect world, he probably wants what you (and I) want...single payer. In today's political climate, that is much more difficult. As President, he had to make a judgement on what could be done...considering ALL that we face right now. I, for one, am glad he is the person in that Oval Office making these decisions. I DO NOT always agree with each decision...but I very much still support President Obama.

[MadHound]

47. Here ya go

"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest."

Oh, and during the campaign he was against a mandated monopoly as well:

"We can try that with homelessness, mandating that everybody buys a house. The reason they don't have a house is that they don't have the money."

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk>

Oh, and as far as politically feasible, the majority of Americans were for a public option, and the vast majority were against the mandated monopoly. And if you're going to whine that we didn't have a super majority in the Senate, well, the fact of the matter is that if Obama had moved along HCR with the rapidity he promised, namely pushing it through before the August recess last year, there would have been a super majority in place. But super majorities aside, the fact of the matter is that neither Obama nor the Dems even fought for what the people in this country wanted. The 'Pugs threatened a filibuster and the Dems folded like wet cardboard. Obama, in a vain and foolish attempt at bipartisanship decided to cave as well.

So again, it is hard to support somebody who goes back on their word, especially on an issue all as major as HCR. Now, I am looking at spending more and more of my money on health insurance because there are no real price control mechanisms on this mandated monopoly.

[ProSense]

49. So?

You wanted him to veto health care legislation that met his overall goals just to appease people who believe that it's better to fight and lose, than make progress?

[MadHound]

52. He made a flat out promise,

Sorry if I'm rather old fashioned, but I believe a person's word is their bond. Instead, he went back on his word, went against the will of the majority of Americans. Why should he be trusted again?

As far as fighting and losing, hell, he and the Dems didn't fight at all, they caved, and badly.

[ProSense]

55. No, he didn't

His statement was a declaration to motivate the Senate.

I find it hard to believe that people can argue that the President should have started the health care negotiations with single payer and maybe we would have ended up with a strong public option, but are inflexible to the reality that he started with the most viable option and accepted the best he could get.

[MadHound]

60. I find it hard to believe that Obama supporters can listen to a simple declarative statement,

And then try and twist the words afterwards in a vain, but amusing effort to say that the President didn't make a promise to the people of this country. Really now, we laughed at Bush supporters when they did they same thing, but here you are, spin, spin, spin.

Sad, pathetic really.

And again, with the majority of people in this country, not Democrats, but the entire population, Obama and the Dems were in the perfect position to fight for the public option. But instead, Obama went back on his word and the Dems folded like limp pasta.

So why should we take his "word" on this one? Perhaps his statement is just a declaration to motivate the Senate. Or a smokescreen to cover his Catfood Commission.

[ProSense]

62. Did you want him to veto the health care bill? n/t

[MadHound]

64. Yes, starting a mandated monopoly given to the insurance industry

With little in the way of real price controls and no public option, yes, I was begging for him to veto the bill.

But gee, I would have been even more impressed if had led the fight for a public option last summer instead of standing aloof for so long and coming into the fray so late and doing so little.

[ProSense]

65. Completely unrealistic, especially

given that the bill won the votes of nearly every member of the progressive caucus, including Kucinich, and every member of the Democratic caucus, including Bernie Sanders.

[MadHound]

67. Well, you argue about your limitations long enough, and sure enough, they're yourse

The fact of the matter is that Obama didn't fight for his promise. None of the Dems, except for a few on the left. Explain to me how you are supposed to win anything if you don't fight for it.

The Dems were given a historic opportunity, and they blew it. Worse yet, they made matters worse by their refusal to fight.

Hard to get up much enthusiasm, much less vote for those who are looking more for CYA and actually fighting for the people (again, the majority of whom supported the PO

Human nature being what it is, politics being what it is, when you fail to fight, when you go back on your promises, you are generally looked upon with disfavor. That's reality.

[ProSense]

68. "None of the Dems, except for a few on the left. "

They all voted for the bill. Did you miss that? They supported the bill in the end. They're bragging about it as we speak.

[MadHound]

70. No, actually I remember that the decision for a few of them was agonizing

And that they fought as well they could, but when the rest of the party failed to have their back, and actively worked against them, well, they were forced to concede.

[ProSense]

75. Here:

relive the alleged agony.

[MadHound]

77. Well, first off, we're going to have to have a little discussion about what constitutes "left"

Because apparently your definition and mine are far, far apart. Also, I noted that you don't include anything from Kucinich. Hmm, wonder why?

[YvonneCa]

80. Dems were given a historic opportunity to pass...

...HCR when Clinton was President and they (both Clintons) blew it. Do you remember that? Were you around for that fight, too? If Obama had allowed complete failure AGAIN...under another Democratic President...it would be gone for our lifetimes. So he passed what could be done...given the GOP stance.

I don't think that means he wasn't for single payer or the public option...or that he went back on his word. I think he fought during the campaign for what the country needed, in his opinion. Once inaugurated, he faced the political realities and accomplished more than other presidents had. Not enough...but a step.

What would you have him do...wave a magic wand over the GOP? ;)

[MadHound]

93. No, damnit, I would have him fucking fight

The man promised that he wouldn't sign a bill without a public option. A large majority of Americans were/are in favor of the public option. What he needed to do was stand up and fight, invest some political capital and lead the LARGE CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITIES.

This was completely a doable thing, yet due to lack of leadership and an unwillingness to stand up and fight, the Democrats in Congress and Obama have now given us a law that is worse than nothing at all.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

109. you forget that this is only the beginning

you talk as though you want the Republicans to win this fall. If they do that's it. If they don't Dems can move on to phase to of HCR and quicken up the changes to a public option.
What needs to happen is that the public needs to be told the truth about what Republicans intend to cut.

[MadHound]

125. No, actually I'm getting to the point where I really don't care about who wins

As a teacher, having my profession, my life attacked by a Democratic administration is truly not conducive to supporting Democrats or Obama. Repeat that about two million more times across the country, for virtually each and every teacher in public schools has felt betrayed and attacked by this administration one way or the other.

And if you honest think that if the Dems retain power that they will revisit health care in the foreseeable future? Are you that politically naive?

As far as telling the truth, let's tell the people what Obama's Catfood Commission is putting up on the butcher's block, speaking of cutting. You know, the one that Pelosi already has lined up to vote on by a lame duck Congress.

Why should I reward a party that attacks my profession, doesn't keep it's promises, and is promising further attacks as a reward for voting them into office:shrug:

[Zenlitened]

206. "Explain to me how you are supposed to win anything if you don't fight for it. "

Some folks seem to believe in "finding" consensus, rather than building it.

:(

[Marr]

167. What an absurd defense. n/t

[ProSense]

48. Yes, he supported a public option.

Not a single Republican voted for the health care package, and the Democratic Congress still couldn't deliver a public option. Know why: Only thirty Senators committed to supporting a robust public option. To get the votes they needed for the bill, they had to compromise within their own caucus. In a perfect world, a public opttion could have passed with 59 solid Democratic votes. Democrats cannot even get a strong climate change bill (Kerry-Boxer) through.

If everyone on the left who supports the Democratic party would start dealing with the reality of the Congress we have, they would be able to create a significant movement for change, instead of standing on the sidelines shooting spitballs.

[MadHound]

50. So then that begs the question, why should we support the Democratic party?

If so many of them are willing to go against the will of the people, and Obama and the Democratic leadership is either unwilling or unable to get them into line (hate the 'Pugs, but ya gotta admire how they get their ducks in a row, or votes in a line) then what the fuck good are they? Passing bills that are worse than doing nothing in the long term? Oh, boy!

[ProSense]

51. Do what you want.

Life sucks sometimes, and sometimes you have good days.

[MadHound]

53. Nice to see so many people willing to lower their standards so readily

Anything is fine, just so long as there is a D behind the name, eh?

[ProSense]

54. No, you want to give up

hiding behind questions you know the answer to because the answer is up to you.

On the good days, maybe you can support better Democrats and look forward to more Democrats signing on to progressive goals.

You have a choice, and you know the alternative.

And the claim that "it's not good enough to not be Republican" is bullshit because it only applies to Ben Nelson and a few Democrats who continue to stink up the caucus.

People need to stop pretending that not supporting Democrats will make a progressive majority magically appear. The notion is preposterous, and when the chips fall, these same people turn around and threaten to let Republicans win, or worse, vote for them.

[MadHound]

58. You are assuming that the left wants a progressive majority,

While that is nice, we recognize that is probably an impossibility. What we would like is a bone thrown our way now and again. The public option was to be one of those bones that would satisfy the left and keep us wanting to stay in the big tent. But, much the same as the past forty years, we had the ball yanked away at the last minute.

FDR, LBJ, and other successful presidents of both parties have long recognized the political wisdom of keeping everybody happy and voting for their party. FDR was a master of this. Socialists were threatening to siphon off votes from his first reelection bid, so what did he do? He went and took a couple of planks from their platform, made them his own, and led his party in the fight to implement those planks into law. Good thing too, otherwise we wouldn't have Social Security or Unemployment Insurance. And the left was happy, and kept voting for FDR and Dems for generations.

But the left hasn't gotten that kind of treatment over the past few decades, and that lack of love has driven more and more people away from the party. Would it be so damn hard to get Obama and the Dems to go to the mat for a campaign promise they made to the left? Actually force a talk all night, pee in a cup filibuster and show up the obstructionism of the 'Pugs? Instead, time and again Obama talks bipartisanship and the Dems fold like wet cardboard.

You want the support of the left, well them you've got to keep them happy, just like any other part of this big tent coalition. Hell, Dems have thrown more bones to Republicans and conservatives than they've thrown to the left. It's about damn time for us to get fed as well.

We're not expecting miracles, but we are expected the same level of care and consideration as other groups in this coalition. What's so wrong with that?

[ProSense]

61. Reality

"What we would like is a bone thrown our way now and again."

There are 59 Democrats in the Senate. There were at times only 58. Bills need 60 votes to pass, and that requires the conservative Democrats and at least one (or at times two) Republican.

If both progressives and Republicans fail to compromise, nothing gets done.

"FDR, LBJ, and other successful presidents of both parties have long recognized the political wisdom of keeping everybody happy and voting for their party. FDR was a master of this."

FDR, for most of his time in office, had nearly 70 Democrats. Social Security, a bill limited in scope, garnered the votes of 60 Democrats and 16 Republicans.

[MadHound]

63. Way to fucking buy into the idea of Democratic hopelessness

First, it is "We can't do anything because we don't have majorities in Congress." Then it's "We can't do anything because we don't have the White House." Now it's "We can't do anything because we don't have a super majority in the Senate." Waaaah, waaaaah, fucking waaaaah.

You think we're dumb? You think that we're historically ignorant? You think we can't look back over the past decade and see how the 'Pugs manage to shove their agenda through, WHETHER THEY HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY OR NOT, WHETHER THEY HAVE THE WHITE HOUSE OR NOT! Hello, McFly!

This whole cry of how helpless and powerless the Dems are is belied by the history of the 'Pugs, and older generations of Dems. What is lacking in the modern Dem leadership, and has been lacking for about thirty years now, is a goddamn spine so that they can get up and fight.

Put some spine, some fight in the Democratic party, then maybe you'll impress enough voters to give you a supermajority.

[ProSense]

66. "Waaaah, waaaaah, fucking waaaaah."

That doesn't help.

[MadHound]

69. That's what it sounds like

Especially for the past ten years. I have listened to Dems around here and out IRL give every excuse for not accomplishing much of anything. And yet here I see the 'Pugs, doing what they want, no matter the political situation. But the Dems, they are always handier with the political excuse than a political fight it seems.

"Waaaah, waaaaah, fucking waaaaah."

Tell you what, I know that pisses you off, but the truth hurts. If you want me to take that down, then goddamn, help us get the Dems to stand up and fight. It really would be in your self interests. Or maybe not, maybe you're simply another one of those Democratic apologists who would rather go

"Waaaah, waaaaah, fucking waaaaah."

[ProSense]

71. What you do is up to you.

I'm not the one whining with unrealistic expectations and crying about disappointments.

[MadHound]

73. Ah, so now expecting a President to keep his promises is considered "unrealistic expectations"

You know what, I think you're right. Which is why you're seeing a growing withdrawal of the left from the big tent. People aren't going to support a party who doesn't fulfill their promises.

[ProSense]

76. "why you're seeing a growing withdrawal of the left from the big tent"

That's not reality either.

Disappointment is expected, and not unusual. This President's approval, despite the noise and difficult challenges, has still not gone down as low as most of his predecessors.

[MadHound]

78. Well, hey, keep whistling past that graveyard.

Just don't act all surprised this fall, you were warned.

[phleshdef]

115. Christ.

You: "But daddy you PROMISED me a public option"
Obama: "Honey, I thought it was a great idea, but the Senate won't pass it right now, maybe next time"
You: "But you PROMIIIIIIISED!!!"

Seriously, you should enough of an adult at this stage in your life to understand that human beings promise a lot of things and then realize that circumstances are not going to allow them to do what they initially wanted to do. Its really that simple. You know damn good and well that if the Senate would have put a public option on President Obama's desk, he would have signed it. You also know damn good and well that even before Scott Brown won the election, Joe Lieberman and probably a handful of other Senators were ramped up and ready to join a bill killing filibuster if the public option was put in the bill, and even that public option was pretty watered down and not nearly big enough to make an impact. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the President was in an unwinnable position here? People end up in unwinnable positions all the time. Thats fucking life.

[MadHound]

126. Then you fucking filibuster goddamn it,

Force a real live, talk all night, pee in a bottle filibuster and fight for what is right.

You know, Rachel Maddow made an excellent point last week. There are two ways to get people to vote for you. You can either move them with fear, fear of the other, which sometimes works great in the short term. Or you can move people by respect, respect for keeping your promises, respect for putting up a fight. The latter is the way you build up a healthy, powerful, decent political party.

The Democratic party needs to start earning people's respect. Fear really isn't going to cut it for much longer.

[phleshdef]

152. The rules of the Senate do not require that of a filibuster.

I agree that if we manage to keep a majority, we should change those rules when the new Senate convenes in January. But for the past 20 months or so, that has not been an option.

[MadHound]

154. Actually the rules of the Senate allow the Democrats to force a filibusters

They don't have to settle for the faux filibuster that the 'Pugs always scare them with.

[YvonneCa]

81. "What we would like is a bone thrown our way ...

...now and again," your words. Problem is your bone is HCR, my bone is education, others' bones are DADT, Iraq, etc.

I think President Obama is throwing bones our way as fast as he can. :7 It's just the GW Bush buried him in bones before he left. And the GOP are HAPPY about that. I think we Democrats need to not only be patient because the bones are throw our way sporadically...but we need to figure out we are on the same team and start helping President Obama dig out.

[MadHound]

96. Really? You think that we're getting any sort of reward on the left?

The wars are still going on, Obama has furthered the destruction of our civil liberties, don't even get me, a teacher, started on his attack on public education, and ooo, we got stuck with a mandated monopoly, gifted to the insurance industry, with no real price controls attached.

The left has gotten ignored, worse yet belittled. There certainly haven't been any rewards. So the question becomes one of how it benefits me to continue to vote Democratic? It doesn't, hasn't for a long while. All the Dems are giving the left is a kiss before screwing us.

[YvonneCa]

111. I won't get you started on education...

...because I'm a teacher, too. We might actually agree on something. :7

Probably not on this, though...It benefits us Democrats to vote Democratic because our country is at risk. Things are not good and the GOP will make that WORSE. I don't expect agreement...that's just where I am on this. Peace.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

91. One thing is that decisions are made at the top in the party

when really the decisions should be from the grassroots. However, the gate closes as soon as we get near Washington. Many congressmen and women are 'feathering their own nests' and do they care what you the ordinary Democratic Party members thinks - no! The chiasm between our representatives and ordinary members needs to be filled. Representatives do their own thing and not accountable to the local party or it seems the whole party. Even at the local level reps are doing their own thing and when we invite Senators, Reps, local reps to our meeting we say WTF why did you do that? It's not just the left that's being left out!

[MadHound]

127. I agree with everything you say,

So why should we continue to reward them for ignoring us? Isn't that rather self defeating?

[Hansel]

100. He did not campaign on one, but did support the idea after he was elected.

These folks are convinced that he campaigned on one thing and then sold us down the river when he was elected. But he actually campaigned on what was passed, except that he was against the mandate. A very weak unenforceable mandate was passed and they are all in uproar over it.

I'm sorry but getting on board with the public option after he was elected and then not being able to get passed is not the betrayal they are trying to gin up.

I wouldn't even argue with them over this.

[MadHound]

128. Actually he did campaign on a public option

<http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf&ei=qj0yS4T2Fo2XtgeQndCRCQ&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAkQzgQoAA&usg=AFQjCNHW0puxUcLyJUBEfFdnIyz38sZcLQ>


"Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or purchase an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale subsidies will be provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable
premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency."

Now I recognize that he didn't use the phrase "public option," but really now, public option, public plan, do we really need to split those kind of semantical hairs?

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

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

[rpannier]

207. Actually, if he had done what many Presidents who have successfully passed

legislation they wanted he might have gotten it done

Tell Congress in no uncertain terms what he wants -- Don't turn it over to 535 people and let them make it up as they go a long.
Then get out there and stump for it every chance you get

[Zenlitened]

208. Oh, you and your wish for a magic wand!!!1

Tell Congress in no uncertain terms what he wants -- Don't turn it over to 535 people and let them make it up as they go a long. Then get out there and stump for it every chance you get.

Oh, wait. That's not magic, that's How It Is Done. :thumbsup:

That's the reality of politics, as opposed to the political "reality" peddled by the Oh-Well-Whaddaya-Gonna-Do denialist crowd.

[phleshdef]

113. There weren't 60 Senate votes for a PO. There also aren't 60 votes for privatizing SS.

If you are going to make comparisons, at least make them in a logical fashion.

[MadHound]

129. Ah yes, sixty, the new Democratic magic number,

Funny how the 'Pugs only need fifty one. But then again, they fight, whether they're in power or out of it. Don't like their politics, but damn, you gotta admit, they at least fight.

[phleshdef]

151. Not true. The Bush tax cuts never would have had an expiration date if that were the case.

They wanted to make them permanent and could not because they didn't have the votes to avoid a filibuster.

It is true that the Democrats didn't attempt to abuse the hell out of the filibuster like the Republicans have with this Senate. But thats not something that speaks less of Democrats. Democrats want the government to actually govern and want to actually allow the people elected to their respective offices the chance to do what they were elected to do.

[MadHound]

155. So in the interest of wanting "government to actually govern" the Dems allowed

Things like the Patriot act to pass, or Bush to get us into war. They didn't give us permanent tax cuts, that's nice, but they damn well could have, and should have, done more. All of us are suffering because of their spinelessness.

[eridani]

82. From pirvatization, sure. I believe him on that.

What about raising the retirement age, cutting benefits or means testing? When will he promise that he will never do those things either?

[Hansel]

101. He also didn't promise not to sign an executive order to end SS immediately.

Maybe you should wring your hands about that too.

[eridani]

142. Maybe you trust a gang of sociopathic hacks--

--well-known for longstanding public opposition to Social Security and meeting in secret with no accountability to the public, to not reccomend cuts. I xure don't.

[gulliver]

85. Great politics! Gloves coming off.

That is what I like to see! The Republicans in Congress and state office supported Bush/Cheney like a cult of lemmings. Bush made a centerpiece of trying to privatize social security, and the Republicans in Congress simply adored him for it. Now they want to run away from it, and Obama won't let them.

The Republican politicians' support and creation of the Bush/Cheney disaster should be the story. They want power back so they can do more of what they did. Obama is reminding people of who Republican politicians really are and what they stand for. That's exactly the medicine we need for this election.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

88. Older people will be very afraid at this revelation that Repubs are going to privatize it

[Jakes Progress]

90. Nice words if he carries through.

And if HCR is any indication, everything he's got isn't enough.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

92. I believe more can be done with HCR it's not the end of the road

we're not done with it. as far as I'm concerned this is the first phase. The events need to be quickened up instead of waiting til 2014. If the Republicans win in November then we can kiss goodbye to anything that we have fought for.

[Hansel]

102. You are absolutely correct.

And all of the energy being wasted over outrage and hand wringing over what the bill doesn't do would be far better spent getting people elected that will strengthened the bill.

Instead it appears as though too many are giving up after the first battle and are so in angst that they would help guarantee they will never get what they want.

[Jakes Progress]

124. Sorry. It wasn't us that gave up

before the battle even started.

[TheKentuckian]

168. The bill doesn't need strengthening, it needs to be scraped

it is a shit structure designed to prop up the current failed system not replace it.

[Jakes Progress]

123. So capitulation before battle

was a campaign strategy, eh? Sounds pretty callous to me.

[smalll]

183. Just words, just speeches.

:hide:

[SugarShack]

106. You know? It's not up to him, them, it's up to us and it's a program the people want. We SAY

It's our money....it's how WE want it appropriated. Just raise the cap. it's rediculous...all this "I'll save it"....

come on they work for US and EVERYBODY still wants the Soc Sec program.

Get real.

They are running government as if we have no say so. I'm sick of it. "I'll save it"...blah blah.

News flash Obama: Americans want to keep soc. sec. raise the cap on income, not the age, and no one will notice.

[Usrename]

108. If this was said to reassure me, it's having the opposite effect.

After the way he closed Gitmo and got us all universal health care and ended DADT it worries me that he now wants to protect our Social Security.

:scared:

[lordsummerisle]

112. lol n/t

[Skittles]

114. oh no

[Hawkeye-X]

116. Then you must fire your Catfood Commission and remove the cap on FICA taxes

There, SS remains solvent forever.

Hawkeye-X

[midnight armadillo]

171. Bingo

Putting Peterson on the Catfood Commission was a dead giveaway. The fix is in.

[IndianaGreen]

173. K&R

The sole purpose of the Cat Food Commission is to give cover to the DLCers that have wanted to mess with Social Security and Medicare just as much as the GOP has.

[OwnedByFerrets]

120. I hope he defends it better than his stance on the mosque at GZ.

[craigmatic]

122. If it comes right down to it, he might negotiate with the repubs at least on raising reirement age.

[saracat]

134. Good to hear but privatization isn't the only fear.Raising age limites and reducing benefits

are also scary .

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[jeanpalmer]

143. Yes that's the game plan

He needs to scare us with privatization to get us to agree to reductions in benefits. And he will say he saved it.

[ipaint]

147. Exactly.

What else is there to do now but "compromise". Especially when we get the catfood commission report with all the oh so scary details on the deficit comes out. Pretty convenient.



We'll get what these people want us to get-

"Setting public debt on a sustainable path is a key macroeconomic challenge. Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to fiscal stabilization, but noted that a larger than budgeted adjustment would be required to stabilize debt-to-GDP under staff’s economic assumptions, requiring revenue and expenditure measures. They urged the authorities to accompany the 2011 adjustment with a strong commitment to medium-term stabilization, perhaps including further entitlement reform."

snip

"Directors welcomed the health care reform, including enhanced coverage and measures to control costs, the key long-term fiscal risk. However, with payoffs highly uncertain, close monitoring of costs and remedial actions, if needed, will be essential. Further action is also necessary on Social Security, where needed measures are well known and payoff more certain."

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2010/pn10101.htm

[Catherina]

141. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then no dice. Once burned, thrice shy. n/t

[hulka38]

148. The whole idea of the commission stacked with fiscal conservatives

was to separate the president from initiating unprecedented changes to SS that would be too damaging politically. IOW, the idea didn't come from him, he's just following the expert advice from renown public servants and statesmen. Everybody, especially Obama, knows there will be recommendations to cut benefits or raise the age of eligibility or both. It will be touted as a sensible and pragmatic way to "save SS" and be another political victory.

[ipaint]

163. The commission is the brain child of billionaire Pete Peterson.

And it's purpose is to get the elite in this country out of paying back their loans for 30 years of tax cuts and resource wars.


"The first TFT "dispatch" to appear in the Post--"Support grows for tackling nation's debt"--made no mention of Peterson's crusade. But it featured the same devious gimmick the financier has been peddling around Washington. Congress should create a special commission of eighteen senators and representatives empowered to to make the "tough" budget decisions politicians are loathe to face--slashing benefits, raising payroll taxes or both. Other members of Congress would be prohibited from changing any of the particular measures, and would cast only an up-or-down vote on the entire package, no amendments allowed. Supposedly, this would give them political cover. Look, no hands. We just cut Social Security but it wasn't our fault.

This "reform" is profoundly antidemocratic because it would strip ordinary citizens of the only leverage they have in Washington--the ability to lean on their elected representatives and exact retribution if they get sold out. Peterson has two advocates in the Senate--Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire--who are self-righteous fiscal hawks. The TFT story describes the rising federal deficits as a threat to the republic, yet fails to explain why deficits on rising. The billions have been devoted to bailing out major banks and Peterson's old chums in Wall Street or to turning around the failed economy or fighting two wars at once.


...Here is what really worries the fiscal hawks: as the Social Security trust fund built up the huge surpluses, the federal government borrowed the money and spent it. The time is approaching--maybe ten or twelve years from now--when the federal treasury will have to start paying back its debts to Social Security. The accumulated wealth does not belong to the US government, any more than the money it borrowed from China. The beneficial owners are all those working people who faithfully paid their FICA taxes for all those years. If Washington stiffs them now, it will be a bait-and-switch swindle larger than Wall Street's"

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

Obama seems to be playing right along.

No compromise, no meeting in the middle. Just pay it back.

[Steely_Dan]

153. General Statement On Our Expextations

I think that many people gave President Obama the benefit of the doubt very early even when he was making appointments that (even you might agree) were questionable at best. However, when the road that Mr. Obama was (is) on continued to raise even more questions, many of us began to wonder if we were being hoodwinked in the name of bipartisanship...an approach that smacked more of naivete than a sophisticated political strategy.

Yes, Congress is a major factor. However, the President has a bully pulpit. And for whatever reason, he has not successfully articulated a message that matches either literally or figuratively the speeches he gave during the campaign. The soaring rhetoric of the campaign which emphasized hope and change gave many of us the courage to say...Okay, one more time. It took a while, but now I believe him.

I can only imagine how some feel after giving so much to the President during the campaign only to see so many Bush policies continue taking our country down the wrong road. Okay, so some had unrealistic expectations. But can you blame them after the kind of campaign that Mr. Obama conducted. For many, that campaign now sounds more like a "sales" job appealing to our desire to "believe." Disappointment is necessarily tied to expectation. Is there any doubt that the author of our expectations was (to some extent) Mr. Obama himself.

In the President's defense, much of the fever during the campaign had a "life of its own." It became something even bigger than Obama himself. However, while he stated that it would take time, the "hope and change" mantra continued right through November.

There is a sense among some that what was left by the previous administration is so devastating that no single person could correct the ship of state in a mere 18 months. This is reasonable to consider. However, there is another school of thought that says what was left by the Bush administration is so devastating that only quick and decisive action commensurate to the problems we face is required.

It is my belief that people on the left (especially those who would frequent this board) are passionate about their beliefs. "Passion" runs hand-in-hand with being impatient...I'm one of those. I don't feel like we have the time to negotiate with the RW in the name of cooperation. The problems are too deep.

Many would love the rest of us to look at what has been accomplished in 18 months. And indeed, we should not discount the fact that some progress has been made. I "try" and remind myself of that everyday. However, some would argue that the progress that has been made is somewhat hollow. There is nothing worse than a half-ass attempt. It just doesn't feel right. It is analogous to how I feel towards the Repugs. There is very little that I agree with (policy-wise) with my friends on the Right. However (and this is important), I KNOW where they are coming from. I know what to expect from them and I am not surprised when they side with corporations to the debt of the rest of us. What angers me (and I believe many others) is when our own party does not act like the party we have supported and sacrificed for. This is far more devastating than anything the Right could do.

Because the President didn't grab the message right at the start and let the RW frame the arguments (which is just simply beyond my understanding), Mr. Obama has now been made out to be a Marxist, Socialist...the most Liberal President in history...etc.etc. Well...if the RW has successfully convinced the wingnuts out there that he is as extreme as they say, then you might as well make bold strokes towards what is fair for the "people" of this country and not bow to the right cowering and shaking at every Fox News report.

I will try and be patient. I will try and understand that what I thought would happen with Healthcare didn't happen, but someday it will. I'll try and understand for now, that it is still okay to listen in on my telephone conversations. I'll try and put behind me the fact that we committed horrible war crimes and no one was brought to justice. I'll give it go to accept that banks received bailout money with little or no regulation to insure that the money (at least a crumb or two) would make it to the people. I'll try and accept my new role on the "radical left" when it wasn't that long ago, I was considered just a Democrat. I'll try and give my "new" Democratic friends the time they need to show that they have not abandoned the essential planks that have served the Democratic Party for decades and made us the Party of the People.

-P

[YvonneCa]

158. This is a great post. I hope you will repost...

...it as an OP.

[IndianaGreen]

169. then replace Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson as co-chairs

otherwise there are only empty words.

[NorthCarolina]

172. Privatization = straw-man. eom

[golfguru]

174. Social Security is ALREADY in the RED this year!

In fiscal 2010 it is already paying out more in benefits
than collecting in taxes.

It is true Social Security has a big surplus on books.
But as everyone knows there never has been a lock box.
Every dime of the SS surplus has already been spent.
Tim Geithners drawer is full of IOU's to SS. But there
is no money, no gold, not enough assets to back up the IOU's.

[Steely_Dan]

177. Well, I'm Confused

I saw on Countdown that SS had a surplus of $2.5 Trillion and that it could pay out 100% benefits for the next 24 years.

-P

[golfguru]

184. It is easy to be confused about social security surplus

Social security has it's own account.
It is correct that they have $2.5 Trillion surplus on PAPER.

What has happened is that the surplus was spent in the General budget by congress
going back several decades.

So, the US Treasury owes social security several Trillion dollars.

However as you know, US Treasury is broke. They have a $13 Trillion debt.
They also have humongous yearly budget deficits until as far as the eye can see.

So yes, SS owns Trillions in US Treasury bonds. The problem is if they try to cash
them to pay benefits, federal budget explodes even higher.

This situation is exactly similar to that your brother-in-law owes you $25,000.
So you think you are in good shape. However he has no cash in his bank account,
he has $130,000 other debts, and spends more every year that he makes. Good luck
getting back that $25,000 he owes you. You are flush with surplus cash on books.
In reality you are not.

[Zenlitened]

209. You are not confused, you are correct in questioning the lies floating around out there.

Some info sources I find helpful when the bold, declarative sentences about SocSec's impending demise begin to fly:

Social Security Lies & Truths
http://www.democrats.com/node/2660


Common Misconceptions about Social Security
http://pdamerica.org/newsletter/2005-01-PreSummit/ss-misconceptions.php


Zombie Social Security lie: The system is going "bankrupt"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/24/885347/-Zombie-Social-Security-lie:-The-system-is-going-bankrupt


Paul Krugman column: "Attacking Social Security"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

There's lots more factual info out there. Bottom line: There Is No Social Security Crisis.

Fact.


Edited to add:

A plan to fund Social Security for the next 60 years, and to sustain or increase benefits without raising taxes or the retirement age.
http://www.keephopealive.org/socialsecurityplan.html

[LAGC]

178. Abolish FICA and Pay All S.S. Proceeds Out of the General Fund!

Raise taxes on the rich to make up for any short-fall! If they can raid the trust fund, Social Security can raid the general fund.

Problem solved.

[golfguru]

185. Not sure if the rich can cover $60 trillion in future liabilities

But let's say it will cover all SS liabilities.

The problem is it will affect millions of small business owners.
Let's say a business owner makes $200,000 net profit. Currently
he pays aprox 12% which equals $12,000 in social security tax since
the upper limit subject to SS tax is around 100,000.

If the upper limit is abolished as you propose, the same individual
will pay $24,000 aprox. Are you sure that is good for creating new jobs?
As you know, most new jobs come from small business owners. That $200,00
net profit goes towards personal living expenses, buying new equipment
for business and hiring new employees.

[Zenlitened]

210. What does your $60 trillion figure refer to? - n/t

[Skittles]

179. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

186. And who did Obama appoint to the catfood commission?

Alan Simpson, the man who just called my 78 year old mother a social security leech. :mad:

SAdly, I do not trust O to handle any "tweaks" to SS -- he has already proven to us that he is perfectly willing to give away the store when it comes to the things that are most important to us.

[Hekate]

181. I believe he will do just that. nt

[smalll]

182. "With everything I've got" -- and then he'll end up telling us, "I got nothin'" --

After all, only a CHILD would expect him to use some sort of "bully pulpit" to "exert influence" and somehow "accomplish things!"

Or maybe he'll end up telling us that Social Security was "just a symbol." :shrug:

[old mark]

195. I guess my question is, what have you got? nt

[Carolina]

196. yeah, that's right

that's why he appointed Alan Simpson to chair his executively ordered Deficit Commission?! And that's why we got a public option with health care -- I mean insurance -- reform. Oh, and don't forget, the Gulf is pristine again. Spare me, Obama, your words mean little or nothing.

[bullwinkle428]

211. Will he fiercely advocate that no changes are made to Social Security?

[donco6]

212. I'm sensing some "fierce advocacy" here.

RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

[ibegurpard]

213. uh huh