Obama: Social Security 'is not in crisis'

[ProSense]

Obama: Social Security 'is not in crisis'

By Jordan Fabian

<...>

"Social Security is not in crisis," Obama said. "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 they deserve," he said.

"I have been adamant that Social Security should not be privatized, and it will not be privatized as long as I am president," he added.

Obama also said his bipartisan fiscal commission could come up with proposals to extend the life of the program.

more

[Skink]

1. Alan Simpson. you're fired!

[MannyGoldstein]

2. '[A]ny plan I sign must include...

...a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."

[denimgirly]

14. Bingo. nt

[dionysus]

23. bless your little heart for trying so hard manny.

[book_worm]

3. Somebody tell Manny.

[w4rma]

4. His words do not deny that he stacked his commission with Social Security haters & privatizers. (nt)

[Nite Owl]

6. Lame duck congress and

no hearings either.

[w4rma]

7. It's a huge dirty trick that he and his DLC cohorts are trying to pull here. (nt)

[Radical Activist]

22. "That’s bullshit! We’re not cutting anything." - Alan Simpson

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

[johnaries]

8. No, he didn't. That is a myth perpetrated by anti-Obama sites.

It is a bi-partisan commission, do of course the Republicans appointed anti-SS members. Also, in order to make sure it was bi-partisan Obama made sure half of his appointee's were Repukes. and, guess what he had to choose from? But he DID NOT "stack" the commission. That's a lie, plain and simply.

[w4rma]

9. Don't lie to me. Read this list and tell me that these DLCers appointed to this commission haven't

spoken out against Social Security and it's benefits and tried, either recently or in the past, to privatize and reduce it's benefits to Americans who worked hard and put their money into this system. Don't lie.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

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

David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)

Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands

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

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)

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

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

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

Andrew Stern, former President, Service Employees International Union

[denimgirly]

15. Wow, dont need a crystal ball to know what that corrupt list of whos-who is going to say...

Republicans cracked open the champagne the day this commission list of whos-who came out.

[laughingliberal]

32. Not only that but this list has Bruce Reed as the Executive Director of the commission:

Co-Chairmen: Alan Simpson (Conservative Republican), Erskine Bowles (Conservative DLC Democrat, Former Clinton Chief of Staff)

Executive Director: Bruce Reed (DLC Executive Director & Former Clinton Domestic Advisor)

Commissioners:

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA)

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Dave Cote (Chairman & CEO Honeywell International)

Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID)

Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Ann Fudge (Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands)

Senator Gregg Judd (R-NH)

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)

Alice Rivlin (Brookings Institution)

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Rep. John Spratt (D-SC)

Andrew Stern (SEIU)

http://tallgrassactivist.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/%E2%80%9Cwhack-the-elderly%E2%80%9D-or-deficit-reduction-commission-national-commission-on-fiscal-responsibility-reform-%E2%80%9Cthe-deck-is-stacked%E2%80%9D-and-andy-stern-has-sold-out/

AND Andy Stern of the SEIU, who one might think was put there to represent workers' interest is on record in favor of investing part of the fund in Wall Street:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/andy-stern-invest-social_n_631228.html

[laughingliberal]

18. Obama appointed Simpson.

There were some far more moderate Republicans from Simpson's era who could have been tapped for Republican co-chair. And the Democratic co-chair he appointed isn't exactly a big defender of New Deal programs, either.

Actually, he could have just chosen not to form this commission, at all. The defeat of the legislation to form this commission was one of the most bipartisan votes the Senate has had in the past 2 years.

[Radical Activist]

20. Simpson has said several times that they aren't cutting social security.

But the people looking for hidden clues about an attack on SS don't want to hear it.

[laughingliberal]

24. Yep. He talks about raising the benefit age and thinks we don't know that's a cut.

In actuality, raising the benefit age to 70 is a 20% cut.

[Radical Activist]

26. I've never seen a quote from Simpson saying that and I couldn't find one on a google search.

Do you have a link to Simpson saying that since he joined the deficit commission? Google only turned up blog posts making that claim without any quote proving it.

[laughingliberal]

28. Here's a transcript some of his remarks:

He may not come right out and say he wants to raise the benefit age but his insistence that we were all expected to die at 57 when SS was set up is highly suggestive of that. He also denies that the deal made in '83 addressed the increased life expectancy. He actually said that in '83 they didn't know there was a baby boom! I see no good reason for just sitting silent about this commission's work behind closed doors when the report is due out in December and due to be voted on in the lame duck session meaning we'll have somewhere around a month to mobilize against cuts if that's what they come out with. I'd think a Radical Activist would be able to see that some preemptive fighting against it is in order.


LAWSON: Didn’t they plan for that, which is why they’ve been…
SIMPSON: Of course not because they thought … the retirement … they that you would die at 57 and that’s why they set the date at 65. If you can’t get through this stuff, then why do you spread this crap. The thing was setup when the life expectancy was 57 years and that’s why they set 65 as the retirement date. Now the life expectancy is 78, whatever it is, and so we have to adjust that and make it work for the future people like you in the United States.

........................................

LAWSON: No, I understand that. But in my understanding from actually looking at the 1983 commission, they actually started prefunding the retirement of the baby boom by building up that huge surplus.
SIMPSON: They never knew there was a baby boom in ’83.
LAWSON: But actually they knew there was going to be demographic issues when the set up Social Security, so they actually predicted…
SIMPSON: They never dreamed that the life expectancy from 57 years of age to 78 or 75 or whatever. Who would dream that? No one. They just died. People worked. Social Security was never a retirement. It was setup to take care of poor guys in the Depression who lost their butts, who were digging ditches, and it was to give them 43% of their wages…when they got out…and that’s what it was. It was never a retirement. It was an income supplement.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/alan-simpson-cutting-social-security-benefits-take-care-lesser-people-society

[Nite Owl]

5. The only modest change that

would be good is to raise the cap or preferably remove it. Remove it completely then lower the rate, it would be a tax cut for working people who most need to have less taken out of their paychecks.

[ProSense]

10. Those are two options

"raise the cap or preferably remove it"

The President has already pointed this out.

Still, within the range of those two options, there are numerous formulas for making a slight adjustment.

[Nite Owl]

11. If he removed the cap though

and lowered the rate he would win back a lot of people who would see paychecks rise. However minimal it might seem those dollars mean more spending money on needs for the poorest. It would be a good move and good political move. They wouldn't forget it.

[denimgirly]

12. $2.6 Trillion surplus...you're damn right it's not in crisis...Problem is It's all Gone to the Rich

thru bush tax-cuts and wars. that is the real reason there is talks of changing social security.
The fear is that Obama's "adjustments" could mean potentially raising the age which republicans are salivating for.

We wont know what Obama REALLY thinks until after the mid-terms...because right now he is in Progressive-speak mode.

[denimgirly]

13. Have to wait until after Mid-terms to know what Obama REALLY wants to do.

Obama in his statement above has already indicated he is most definitely interested in some changes which is a warning sign. Recall we are not in any danger at all...the problem is the money was already used by the right for tax-cuts ot the rich and wars and endless bailouts to rich bankers. The goal now is to figure out a way to not have to pay the american people back...and one good way is to make it so they have to get older which ensures they will likely die and hence no benefits need to be paid.

Mid-term season makes all democrats pretend to be progressive and so it is hard to get a real indication what they really want to do . So Obama's surprising strong progressive stance for social security might just be political theater....pattern does show he does provide an ear to the right and so we wont know what he really will propose until after mid-terms when the democratic base (which leans very progressive) won't have any affect on his likely controversal decision. And we already know his economic team which are made up of rights will obviously propose some forms of cuts to social security.

[Cha]

16. Thank you, Pro Sense..

I posted the same thing in the BOG..it's newsworthy coming from the President..not going to listen to all the other claptrap on it.

[laughingliberal]

17. My problem with that is it depends on the definition of 'modest changes.' I am glad he opposes

privatization but I would be more reassured if I heard him say he opposes benefit cuts also. I did hear him speak to a group a couple of months ago and when he was asked a question about SS and Medicare he said SS was not in any real trouble and that simply raising the cap could easily solve the issues with SS. Medicare, he said, was more difficult which is accurate. I would like to hear him repeat the part about raising the cap and I would very much like it if he would do more about dispelling the propaganda about SS being insolvent and an emergency.

Otherwise, I suppose we will see what shakes out with the deficit commission's report. The reluctance of our reps to state that they oppose cuts to benefits and will not vote for them is making me nervous.

[eridani]

19. WHAT "modest adjustments"?

Raising the FICA income level, fine. Raising the retirement age, cutting benefits or means testing--FUCK NO!!!!!

[Radical Activist]

21. But I read on DU and some blog that he was leading the assult on social security.

Was someone pulling my leg? :shrug:

[laughingliberal]

25. Don't know yet. We'll have to see what the commission comes up with and how he reacts to it.

What we know at this point is he created this commission in response to demands from Conrad and Gregg, who both would like to see entitlements cut, after the Senate voted it down on a bipartisan basis and anything they do is pretty much on him.

[Radical Activist]

27. True, we don't know.

That's what I write in response to the chicken little posters who claim they do know and make definitive statements about the "catfood commission." The wild speculation is not particularly honest or responsible.

[laughingliberal]

29. We are only going to have a month or less once this report is out before it is due to be voted on.

A lot of the 'chicken littles' are people like me who are in our 50's and have lost everything in this economy. Most of us are not likely to find employment again. Our savings have been used up trying to survive the last years and SS is now all we have to depend on to avoid starvation. We are the group that is being targeted and have every right and reason to be concerned. What will you say to us if the predictions are all true? My guess you'll be trying to tell us all about how it's the right thing to do.

I'd prefer to see some mobilizing against cuts before we're scrambling to fight them in a few weeks in December. If they surprise us and leave SS intact, what have we lost? If they do go for benefit cuts, it is smart not to sit here like bumps on a log waiting for the report.

[Radical Activist]

30. "Tell the deficit commission not to cut SS benefits"

That would be an honest call to action. It suggests a course of action to prevent something that might happen in the future.

"Obama is leading the attack on Social Security." That's a lie that alienates Obama supporters and anyone who enjoys reading accurate statements.

The difference is that the first statement might actually accomplish the goal of protecting social security. The second statement is much more effective at dividing the progressive movement than protecting social security.

I'm all for protecting SS but I'm ready to tell the people writing this stuff to go fuck themselves. It doesn't help the cause one bit. Maybe it isn't supposed to.

[laughingliberal]

31. I am involved with every call to action out there to prevent the deficit commission from cutting

SS benefits and trying to pin down legislators with pledges they will not vote for cuts if they come out of commission.

I also did a lot of writing to reps and Senators opposing the creation of the deficit commission and the Senate did vote it down. President Obama then saw fit to create it by executive order. AFAIC, whatever they do is on him. We would not have to be worrying about this commission had he not chosen to do this.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. modest changes?

that would be benefit cuts.

That is why he is staking out 'no privatization'.

There is no crisis.

Cut the war budget.