Froomkin: Obama's willingness to cut Social Security is 'killing him with voters'

[kpete]

Froomkin: Obama's willingness to cut Social Security is 'killing him with voters'

President Barack Obama's apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it's killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security.

That's the conclusion of three top progressive pollsters who spoke to reporters Wednesday at a briefing sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation and Demos.

"For the public, cutting benefits is the problem, not the solution," said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates.

As a result, the pollsters said that any Democrat seeking elected office in 2012 should be begging Obama not to say anything about Social Security cuts in his State of the Union address later this month.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/obama-social-security-talk-polling_n_811209.html
via:
http://www.americablog.com/2011/01/froomkin-obamas-willingness-to-cut.html

[n2doc]

1. Cue the "but he has 53% support in the latest poll"

And yes he does. But he also hasn't stood up and proposed cutting SS yet. We shall see if he does, and if these predictions come true or not.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

62. and thus we have the two facts that prove this blogger to be a fool.

he hasn't said he would and his polls show he is not being "killed" with the voters.

[ProSense]

2. The poll Froomkin cites is of likely voters before the Nov. election

Here's what the poll states:

<...>

Who will better handle Social Security
• Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress: 31% (R) to 28% (D); 34% both the same
• Republicans in Congress vs. Obama: 33% (R) to 26% (Obama); 31% both the same

Source: Lake Research Partners, Social Security Works, "Findings from an Election Eve/Night Survey of 1,200 Likely Voters Nationwide, Oct. 31‐ Nov. 2, 2010. Accessed at http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/lakepolling

PDF

Why is Froomkin is writing an article about a nearly three month old poll of a group voters that skewed conservative?

[great white snark]

4. Yes, the same idiots who voted in a Republican House. nt

[lamp_shade]

3. When did Obama say he was willing to cut Social Security?

[xchrom]

5. Then why create the catfood commission in the first place?

Why noted neoliberals on the commission?
Why was it financed by a guy who is noted fan government cuts?

[ProSense]

6. The commission that

everyone was sure would sent a report to Congress, and ultimately result in a bill that the President would sign?

There were some who predicted that an agreement would never be reached, primarily because there were several members who would never entertain the thought of cutting Social Security or raising the retirement age. They were right.

Still, in five days, we'll know if the speculation that the President is going announce cuts to Social Security in his SOTU is accurate.

[xchrom]

7. What we will see if anything from the commission

Is in the speech.

There are a lot of ways to go after 'cuts' - reductions, raising retirement age,
Putting cuts out into the future, etc.

All of them dividing the country into groups.

SOTU will be interesting.

[polmaven]

9. And that is exactly what it is.

Completely unsubstantiated SPECULATION. Just one more thing for the Obama bashers to eagerly run with.

[Pirate Smile]

10. He didn't.

[ljm2002]

12. When did he say he was NOT willing to cut Social Security? n/t

[HeroTwins]

15. wow, does your delusion really go that far?

When did he say he wasn't an Alien from outer space?

When did he say he wasn't an axe murderer?

When did he say he wasn't Jesus Christ???


I guess that means he must be all of these things, right?

[ljm2002]

16. Good try, no cigar...

...you see, there is currently a discussion swirling around DC and the country regarding "deficit reduction". You might have heard of a commission set up by the President, dealing with this very topic. It was called the Deficit Commission, and they did in fact make recommendations that amount to cuts in Social Security -- even though, historically, Social Security has never contributed ONE THIN DIME to the deficit.

Interestingly, the recent tax bill included a so-called "Payroll Tax Holiday" that will, for the first time ever, link Social Security to the federal deficit. This is somewhat alarming, since it will allow the opponents of Social Security to argue that Social Security does in fact contribute to the deficit. And this time, their argument will have some truth to it.

But you go on equating discussions of Social Security policy with discussions of whether Obama is an alien from outer space, or an axe murderer, or Jesus Christ. Because we all know the topics are equivalent.

Yawn.

[HeroTwins]

17. you asked Obama to prove a negative. I pointed out how ludicrous that was.

will you quit squealing when Obama doesn't cut SS,
or will you just move on to the next outrage?

[ljm2002]

23. I did no such thing...

...I asked YOU to prove a positive, namely, to show any statement made by President Obama stating that he will not make any cuts to Social Security.

Apparently you cannot do so.

On the question of him making such a statement, that also is not a request that he "prove a negative". I am not asking him to prove that he did not make such a statement; rather, I am asking whether he made such a statement. It seems clear enough to me that he could make such a statement. Since he has not done so, I am free to make my own inferences.

[Sheepshank]

59. When will people finally realize you cannot prove a negative in a discussion

It just goes beyond the ridiculous that facts are resoundingly repeated in something that wasn't said.

Gawd it gets old.

[boppers]

51. It was debt and deficit, not just deficit.

The amount of debt created by Social Security is huge.

[ljm2002]

52. But the so-called "debt"...

...was covered by the input of monies by workers, into the Social Security Trust Fund. Those funds were borrowed by our government to finance its endless wars, and THAT is what created the gigantic debt. The SS Trust Fund is 100% solvent up to 2037 or so; to make it solvent farther into the future we could raise the cap on the payroll tax. As it is, it tops out at $106,000 or so, which is ridiculous, especially considering that those who make more get a higher monthly payment from Social Security, and also they are the very people statistically who live longer, thus getting their stipend for a longer period of time. Therefore it makes perfect sense that they pay more into the program.

[boppers]

53. The SSTF put all it's money into T-Bills. It's only as solvent as the US is.

It could collapse tomorrow.

But hey, your money is safe, right? Just like houses, there will never be a bubble or collapse.

I agree that lifting the cap makes sense, and I'd also go for means testing.... if you have 10 million in the bank, you don't need working americans to continue to pay for your retirement.

[ljm2002]

54. Historically, those T-bills were the safest investment in the world...

...so there is that.

But now you want to weaken Social Security because you say the government is insolvent. Well, first of all, Social Security did not contribute one thin dime to that insolvency. Social Security at present is 100% solvent. Those T-bills were based on the actual monies paid into the trust fund by actual workers, for one specific purpose.

If I managed a trust for you, and borrowed the funds for my own purposes, and then found that oops! I had squandered it all away and could not pay it back, would you accept that? Especially if I and my co-conspirators had enriched ourselves, and in fact were sitting on the very money that we claimed we could not pay back to you?

That's how I see the Social Security crisis. The politicians borrowed from the trust fund to finance their unholy endless wars, which enriched the already-wealthy beyond imagining. Now they're crying that the government is insolvent, and we can't pay all those "entitlements" to all those greedy workers who thought that paying into a TRUST FUND actually meant something.

At the same time, of course, those same workers who were swindled by their banks and are out of house and home, or sitting on upside-down mortgages -- well, hey, it's their own fault, dontcha know. "Personal responsibility" is the mantra they throw at the little people when they have the temerity to even think about walking away from their Serious Obligations. Never mind the ruling class, which walks away from their own serious obligations any damned time they feel like it.

[boppers]

55. "which walks away from their own serious obligations any damned time they feel like it"

.... which is why I never considered Social Security as a serious trust. I've always assumed my money was going into a hole, never to be seen again.

[ljm2002]

57. And yet the program has worked, and still works...

...for 75 years now.

The government has kept the ruling class in check at times. And yes, I'm aware that one might take "the ruling class" to mean "the government"; I would say that while they do overlap, they are not one and the same. The ruling class is just that, a class of people who are wealthy and who pull strings and buy politicians. The government is led by people who must be elected. Therefore, while there is overlap, they are not identical.

Although truth to tell, the overlap has become larger.

Anyway, I really never imagined that a Democratic president, much less President Obama, would break the Social Security trust by proposing cuts in the program (yes, yes, I know, he hasn't done so yet), rather than reiterating our government's commitment to this obligation.

The right wing has been chipping away at it for years, with complicity by the Democrats (who never hesitated as a group to vote for more off-the-books wars), and confidence in the program has indeed been seriously eroded. Which is exactly what they wanted. It will make it easier to gut the program, since people have been softened up.

Still, a huge majority of the population, across the political spectrum (with the possible exception of Libertarians), feels that Social Security should not be cut. That gives me hope.

[lamp_shade]

18. Oh that was really bright. See post #15.

[ljm2002]

25. See posts #16 and #23. n/t

[uponit7771]

26. wtf? He also never said he wasn't willing to cut open cockroaches on Thrusday either

[ljm2002]

28. I wasn't aware that is an issue of current interest...

...please elaborate.

[Drunken Irishman]

32. He also didn't say he was going to murder us all and feed us to the Neptune God...

So, should I worry about that one, as well?

[ljm2002]

38. If you are concerned about his position on murdering us all...

...and feeding us to the Neptune God, then yes, you should worry that he has not made a statement to the contrary.

However, speaking for myself, that is not an issue that has come to the forefront of any political discussions that I am aware of, so I'm leaving it on the backburner for now.

Social Security policy, on the other hand, has been a hot topic for at least the last year. It was discussed by President Obama's Deficit Commission, who made recommendations for certain cuts in the program (even though Social Security had never, to that point, actually contributed to the deficit); it has been discussed recently by Senators Sanders and Durbin, and by many other pols and political commentators. Oddly, all of this leads me to believe that it is a current, active policy issue. So I'd really, really like our Democratic President to come out and say that no, he is unwilling to consider cuts to this vital and successful program that workers have paid into with their hard-earned money, and that has kept this country from reverting to the bad old days when so many retirees lived out their golden years in a state of abject poverty.

[Drunken Irishman]

41. If I worried about every little thing Pres. Obama didn't say he was going to do...

I wouldn't have time to post on DU or even surf the internet. In fact, I'd wager you would be in the same boat.

Maybe Pres. Obama doesn't have to say he won't cut social security because he finds the entire notion absurd.

Which it is.

[ljm2002]

43. It is not at all absurd...

...to expect the President to weigh in on important issues of the day, particularly one like Social Security, which is successful and popular and has been a bedrock policy of the Democratic Party -- one that has consistently differentiated Democrats from Republicans over the years.

I don't expect our President to weigh in on absurdities such as the one you present. I understand perfectly well that he cannot be expected to avow, or disavow positions on every conceivable thing. However, this is a current and active issue of great importance. I would like to know what is our President's position regarding Social Security? Given his choice to create the Deficit Commission, given his appointments of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to chair that commission, given that the commission proposed cuts to Social Security, given that he decided to consider their recommendations in spite of their failure to come to any formal agreement, given his ongoing kowtowing to Republicans in the name of "bipartisanship" while enacting policies that adhere to Chicago-school Friedmanomics -- given all of that, you bet your sweet patoot I'm concerned. Time will tell how it plays out. I'm willing to admit I could be wrong about Obama on this issue. Hell, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. But so far, I see a President who is unwilling to publicly take a firm stand in support of Social Security, and against any cuts. This is not what I expect from a Democratic President.

So go ahead, laugh at those with concerns, tell us we mustn't make any inferences about the President's positions unless and until he makes a statement. Then turn around and tell us that expecting a statement on this crucial issue is like asking him to prove he's not a space alien and is not going to kill us all. Yeah, that's the ticket. That's "logical" -- in some upside-down, topsy-turvy, wacko world.

[BobbyBoring]

49. No

Just worry about the secret FEMA concentration camps we'll all be herded in to after he takes all our houses, money, guns, and bibles~

[yellowcanine]

47. When did you say you were NOT going to burn down your neighbor's house?

[ljm2002]

50. There is, of course, no equivalence...

...between any random statement I might make about not intending to burn down my neighbor's house vs. a statement the President might make about his position on Social Security. Although, if I thought that my neighbor believed I might be planning to burn down his house, say if there had been someone spreading rumors to that effect, I would not hesitate to make a statement on the matter. It would only make sense, to alleviate his concerns and to make my own position clear.

In this case, Social Security is a bedrock issue of the Democratic Party and a program that remains highly popular. In fact recent polls have shown that across the board, people favor raising the cap (i.e. are willing to pay more taxes to support it) rather than making cuts in the program. At the same time, various proposals are being bandied about in the press, on the talk shows, even in the Deficit Commission that was created by ... wait for it ... President Barack Obama. All that being the case, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect our Democratic President to take some leadership on the issue, get out in front of it, and state his support for the program, and against any cuts to it. The fact that he has not done so is troubling to me, sorry if that upsets you but there it is.

(on edit)

By the way, if you don't like the way I present it, please go here to listen to Thom Hartmann's eloquence on the topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x546168

(end edit)

I must say, it has been somewhat amusing playing with the logic kiddies in this thread.

[Enrique]

19. Dec. 10, 2010

in an interview with NPR.

[namahage]

29. Link?

TIA

[Enrique]

33. here

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/10/131949362/transcript-obama-on-taxes-economy-and-start

[namahage]

34. Thanks for the link.

But I still don't see where he says he's willing to cut SS--unless you also want to argue that he's willing to cut defense spending.

Or that he's opposed to tax cuts for the rich.

[Enrique]

35. here's where he says it

OBAMA: Actually, I think that if you talk to economists, both conservative and liberal, what they'll say is the problem is not next year. The problem is, how are we dealing with our medium-term debt and deficit, and how are we dealing with our long-term debt and deficit? And most of that has to do with entitlements, particularly Social Security and Medicaid.

[Capn Sunshine]

45. but he didn't say that

he asked a question. How best to deal with this? Henever said "let's cut social security"
But you seem to see that in the secret messages to your aluminum foil headset.

[Capn Sunshine]

44. That's what I was wondering. Haven't seen that anywhere

typical disconnect of the gravy train , nay gravy boat, lefters who want to score website hits off the burgeoning hysteria fed by hysterical website speculation. (Arianna)

[Enrique]

8. here's the real mission accomplished

Social Security has survived to this point because one party has devoted themselves to protecting it. Now, with Obama's "bipartisanship", the lines have become blurred Social Security isn't as clearly a Democratic priority.

"And it takes away one of the most potent Democratic arguments against Republicans. Historical GOP hostility to Social Security, Greenberg said, "is a critical part of their vulnerability."

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[impik]

11. Still looking for the magic link-proof that the president is going to cut SS

Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...

[Ikonoklast]

61. The same ones here that screamed "Obama will never do ANYTHING about DADT!1!!!!".

Funny, how silent they went after repeal of that law was signed by the president.


Some of those loudest voices ranting about that completely disappeared from this board.

Funny dat.




This is just the latest 'outrage de jour' from those who are desperately looking to spread disinformation.

[HeroTwins]

13. those spreading rumors without any facts to back it up are responsible for misleading voters

Obama hasn't uttered a word about cutting SS.

But those who hate him need a new reason to justify it.

[bornskeptic]

20. So "apparent willingness to consider cuts" equals "willingness to cut"

in your mind? I can understand if English is not your native language, but otherwise it's a really bizarre distortion of what the linked article says.

[vaberella]

21. I'm surprised people on DU didn't believe Obama would have death panels in HCR.n/t

[namahage]

22. More information on the poll, please.

Note the use of the word "poll" (singular), even though by the article's own admission this is the conclusion of multiple progressive pollsters.

If the other pollsters came to that conclusion, what harm would there be in showing their work? Certainly that would make their argument stronger, would it not?

[Phx_Dem]

24. ROFLMAO! And he has a 9 pt poll bump to prove how much they hate him!

Froomkin is clearly a moron.

[jenmito]

27. When will you and others stop posting this article based on a poll from 3 months ago? n/t

[w4rma]

30. So his SS wishy-washyness cost Democrats the election? (nt)

[namahage]

31. If the poll being quoted here is to be believed,

SS was the deciding issue for a whopping 7% of the respondents, and of that 7%, 55% still voted for the Democrat.

The big issue was...surprise, surprise, "the ECONOMY, STUPID" at 32%.

Link: http://socialsecurity-works.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SSWElectionPoll.pdf#page=5

[w4rma]

46. Elections are swung by only a few percentage points, usually. (nt)

[jenmito]

36. Nope. See post right above this one. n/t

[krawhitham]

37. Unless Obama says he is cutting SS it is all just media spin

and simple minded people always fall for media spin

[FrenchieCat]

39. Froomkin: Obama's willingness to cut Social Security.....

is a lie. Obama's has not stated a willingness to cut social security.

Froomkin lies!

[DCBob]

40. What does "cut Social Security" mean?

I have not heard any details.

[ProSense]

42. Another three-month old poll on the parties and Social Security. This one is

not based on likely voters:

Kaiser

[barbiegeek]

56. If Repugs & Corporate owned media say He'll cut it, it must be true

All they have to do is make shit up. They did it all during the campaign

[Arkana]

58. From the "If We Make This Shit Up, That Means It's True" Department.

[HeroTwins]

60. "conclusion of top three prog pollsters" That made me laugh out loud.

You should pay more attention to what the President actually says.

[namahage]

63. Of which only one had their poll mentioned.

One would think that the other pollsters would also be interested in showing how they also arrived at their conclusions independently--rather than parroting a single poll. Perhaps their results on the areas that "matter" (how Obama sucks on SS) don't tally quite as neatly?

[impik]

64. Pathetic thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012403472.html?hpid=topnews

[namahage]

65. Nice title. Even the article didn't quite go as far.

"Apparent willingness" != "willingness".

But of course, this is how memes start--just like how a member of Obama's staff calls a strategy to attack Conservative Democrats suggested by an organization of progressives "fucking retarded."

[Arkana]

66. And I'm sure recent polls will bear Mr. Froomkin out on tha--

*CNN releases poll with Obama at 55% approval*

...oh.