Social Security

[ProSense]

If you support cutting Social Security, you're not a Democrat.

If you lie about Democrats wanting to cut Social Security, you're not a Democrat.

If you are demagoguing the issue of Social Security, you're not a Democrat.

Those are Republican positions and actions.

The President makes a lot of speeches on the subject, sometimes he simply mentions the program and sometimes he's specific.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first -- this is a very well-informed young man here. (Laughter.) You’re exactly right that the way the Social Security system works, there’s what’s called -- there’s basically a cap on your Social Security, which there isn’t, by the way, on Medicare. But Social Security, it only goes up to the first $107,000; and you’re right, somebody who makes -- who has net assets of $250 million and are making maybe $5 million a year just on interest or capital gains or something, just a fraction of it’s going to Social Security. I think there’s a way for us to make adjustments on the Social Security tax that would be fairer than the system that we use right now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/17/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-alpha-illinois

But the fixes that are required for Social Security are not huge, the way they are with Medicare. Medicare, that is a real problem. If we don't get a handle on it, it will bankrupt us. With Social Security, we could make adjustments to the payroll tax. For example -- I'll just give you one example -- right now, your Social Security -- your payroll tax is capped at $109,000. So what that means is, is that -- how many people -- I don't mean to pry into your business, but how many people here make less than $109,000 every year? (Laughter.) All right, this is a pretty rich audience -- a lot of people kept their hands down. (Laughter.) I'm impressed. (Laughter.)

No, look, what it means is basically for 95 percent of Americans, they pay -- every dollar you earn, you pay into the payroll tax. But think about that other 5 percent that's making more than $109,000 a year. Warren Buffett, he pays the payroll tax on the first $109,000 he makes, and then for the other $10 billion -- (laughter) -- he doesn't pay payroll tax.

So -- yes, somebody said, "What?" (Laughter.) Yes, that's right. That's the way it works.

So what we've said is, well, don't we -- doesn't it make sense to maybe have that payroll tax cut off at a higher level, or have people -- maybe you hold people harmless till they make $250,000 a year, but between $250,000 and a million or something, they start paying payroll tax again -- just to make sure that the fund overall is solvent.

So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine. All right? (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-henderson-nevada

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

[ProSense]

3. I think that

your post comes close to demagoguery:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/1002443728#post19

[girl gone mad]

5. Posting a factual quote is demagoguery?

Maybe you should stick to rofl smilies.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. What do you expect to hear?

A detailed, on-point rebuttal?

[ProSense]

9. One was

"A detailed, on-point rebuttal?"

...given, and you're very familiar with it, as it has been pointed out to you over and over.

[ProSense]

7. FYI:

1) Conyers voted for the payroll tax cut, which the poster previously claimed as proof that Obama wanted to destroy Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002322228

2) Framing the Medicare savings as cuts is RW talking point when it has been pointed out over and over again that these are not cuts to benefits.

I mean, everyone knows that the RW talking point that the President cut Medicare benefits is bullshit.

<...>

Under Obama’s approach, for instance, higher-income seniors would pay more for doctors visits and prescription coverage beginning in 2017 and all new enrollees will pay a $25 deductible as part of their Part B premiums. But for the most part, the budget is similar to the administration’s September 2011 deficit reduction plan and recoups the greatest savings from drug rebates and modernizing provider payments to achieve greater efficiency. Here is a chart showing where all the savings come from:



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/13/424136/obama-budget-health-care-savings-in-one-chart/

[JoePhilly]

8. Manny will be hanging onto that same branch unitl Obama leaves office in 2016.

For Manny, that is the PROOF of Obama's evil plan.

Its his Kenyan birth certificate.

Its his proof Obama made it into Harvard as a Foreign exchange student.

Manny has become a version of Joe Arpio. Once the conclusion has been drawn, every event must be seen in the light of that conclusion.

And so, Romney picks Ryan ... and the intent clearly is so that Obama and the 3rd way DNC conspirators can cut, gut and kill social security. Its all so obvious. And if you don't see it, you are part of the conspiracy.

[ProSense]

10. Only five more years of this.

It's coming!

[JoePhilly]

13. +1

[Robb]

15. It's like arguing with the batting cage machine.

[SidDithers]

18. Great analogy...

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. "arguing with the batting cage machine"?

[Cha]

24. Some things never change...

how boring to be stuck in such a paronoid rut and never being able to pull yourself. poor things.

[elleng]

11. NOT

[SunsetDreams]

4. K&R and Bookmarked

[freshwest]

12. +1. There it is, the solution.

[SunsetDreams]

14. :)

[ProSense]

16. When the

debate begins, it's going to be fascinating to see who tries to give Romney-Ryan a pass. Oh, it's coming.

[SidDithers]

17. DU rec and bookmarking...

to use every time the tired, old canard about Obama wanting to cut SS is vomited forth.

Sid

[StrictlyRockers]

19. Great idea! Increase payroll tax to higher incomes, as well!

I like it.

[freshwest]

20. President Obama Weekly Address August 13th, 2010: Honoring Social Security, Not Privatizing It

Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2012, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

On the 75th anniversary of Social Security, President Obama promises to protect it from Republican leaders in Congress who have made privatization a key part of their agenda. He makes clear that, especially in light of the financial crisis, gambling Social Security on Wall Street makes no sense.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
August 14, 2010
Washington, DC

Seventy-five years ago today, in the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, laying a cornerstone in the foundation of America’s middle class, and assuring generations of America’s seniors that after a lifetime of hard work, they’d have a chance to retire with dignity. We have an obligation to keep that promise; to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities, and all Americans – today, tomorrow, and forever.

Now, we’ve been talking for a long time about how to do that; about how to make sure Social Security is healthy enough to cover the higher costs that are kicking in now that baby boomers are retiring. And I’m committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security. I’m also encouraged by the reports of serious bipartisan work being done on this and other issues in the fiscal commission that I set up several months ago.

One thing we can’t afford to do though is privatize Social Security – an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market.

A few years ago, we had a debate about privatizing Social Security. And I’d have thought that debate would’ve been put to rest once and for all by the financial crisis we’ve just experienced. I’d have thought, after being reminded how quickly the stock market can tumble, after seeing the wealth people worked a lifetime to earn wiped out in a matter of days, that no one would want to place bets with Social Security on Wall Street; that everyone would understand why we need to be prudent about investing the retirement money of tens of millions of Americans.

But some Republican leaders in Congress don’t seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They’re pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall. It’s right up there on their to-do list with repealing some of the Medicare benefits and reforms that are adding at least a dozen years to the fiscal health of Medicare – the single longest extension in history.

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&hellippoverty-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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2010/08/14/weekly-address-honoring-social-security-not-privatizing-it#

Emboldening in the transcript is mine. This was made before the Tea Party took control of Congress in a Koch and media generated sweep, and he was correct about the GOP intended to do to Social Security. We have our work cut out for us. Be of good heart, friends, and take courage. This is OUR President.

[SunsetDreams]

21. thanks for adding that one as well :) nt

[freshwest]

22. You're welcome. :)

[woo me with science]

23. Yet when he actually offered a plan in debt ceiling negotiations...

a raise in the cap wasn't even part of it.

"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

-President Obama, July 22, 2011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president


The proposal he made included a raise in the Medicare age of eligibility, a chained CPI to reduce Social Security benefits, and 650 billion in cuts to the programs overall. No cap raise. And that was at the START of the negotiations.

THIS is why Democrats need a vow from him that he will not go to back to any plan similar to the one he proposed in April. Democrats don't cut SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, period.

[joshcryer]

28. Politics.

Learn what politics is please.

The teabaggers were just elected to gut all social programs.

Obama called their bluff.

[woo me with science]

32. I know!

And creating the catfood commission and appointing Simpson and Bowles was a very CLEVER plan to win over the support of CAT LOVERS! Of whom there are many in the voting households in the United States of America!

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html

There are approximately 86.4 million owned cats in the United States
Thirty-three percent of U.S. households own at least one cat
Fifty-two percent of owners own more than one cat
On average, owners have two cats (2.2)

[joshcryer]

33. It was never going to pass the Senate.

And Obama did not give a directive to cut those programs and being a dictator he could not do that. He merely said he was open to whatever the idiot teabaggers wanted.

They then got Paul Ryan to draft crap that makes the teabaggers look insane.

It was fine.

But I remember the panic filled posts here for months and months.

[ProSense]

43. You know

The proposal he made included a raise in the Medicare age of eligibility, a chained CPI to reduce Social Security benefits, and 650 billion in cuts to the programs overall. No cap raise. And that was at the START of the negotiations.

THIS is why Democrats need a vow from him that he will not go to back to any plan similar to the one he proposed in April. Democrats don't cut SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, period.

...the answer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1113334

The President did not, I repeat, did not introduce a proposal to raise the Medicare age or adjust the CPI. There is no such proposal If I'm mistaken, you can provide a link to one.

The Medicare cuts were not to benefits.

<...>

Under Obama’s approach, for instance, higher-income seniors would pay more for doctors visits and prescription coverage beginning in 2017 and all new enrollees will pay a $25 deductible as part of their Part B premiums. But for the most part, the budget is similar to the administration’s September 2011 deficit reduction plan and recoups the greatest savings from drug rebates and modernizing provider payments to achieve greater efficiency. Here is a chart showing where all the savings come from:



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/13/424136/obama-budget-health-care-savings-in-one-chart/

[woo me with science]

44. That is flatly, brazenly untrue,

and of course you know it, Prosense. Of course he proposed those things.

The links to the description of the deal have been posted many, many times, have been corroborated by those involved, and have been published repeatedly in major news sources. Even Nancy Pelosi has confirmed what was in the deal. You know this already, of course, because you have been presented with the links over and over. Yet you persist in trying to rewrite history.

________________________

It's all the Third Way has...but the problem is that you can only CLAIM to stand for certain values and principles, while actively pursuing policies in direct opposition to them, for so long before people begin to notice the disconnect. And being lied to angers people.

It is stunning that underlying this entire discussion is a simple request: That a Democratic President running for reelection as a champion of the 99 percent simply promise not to attack the safety nets that millions of Americans depend upon to avoid poverty and despair in their old age.

Not even that he promise to improve them...but that he promise not to ATTACK them.

The hysterical response that this simple request has elicited from the usual small group of Third Way policy defenders tells us all we need to know.

[ProSense]

45. WTF?

You're calling me a liar for posting information, but you can't produce the links?

[ProSense]

46. Where are the links to the proposals? n/t

[Skittles]

51. CORRECT

[Doctor_J]

47. It's no use, woo

The True Believers just block this out. And let's not forget that this is where the president decided to start the negotiations - presumably we'll end up with even more concession as the final product. Just like we got insurance mandates instead of a Public Option, and how Obama sat silent while Scott Walker trounced teachers and unions in Wisconsin.

Then, when the 2008 juggernaut doesn't show up at the polls, "the irrational left" will be blamed for another pasting at the polls. I hope for their sake that the New Dems/DINOs can maintain a majority in DC. But MY representation will be lacking regardless.

[ProSense]

48. Well, that

It's no use, woo

The True Believers just block this out. And let's not forget that this is where the president decided to start the negotiations - presumably we'll end up with even more concession as the final product. Just like we got insurance mandates instead of a Public Option, and how Obama sat silent while Scott Walker trounced teachers and unions in Wisconsin.

Then, when the 2008 juggernaut doesn't show up at the polls, "the irrational left" will be blamed for another pasting at the polls. I hope for their sake that the New Dems/DINOs can maintain a majority in DC. But MY representation will be lacking regardless.

...comment makes sense if one ignores that no one "block this out." Easy enough to say by ignoring the response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1116720

Yeah, and the non sequiturs are interesting too. The left isn't "irrational," but one doesn't have to buy conspiracies and be anti-Obama to be a member of the left.

[a2liberal]

25. So you don't think...

1.) that appointing 2 people who have a history of wanting to cut social programs to chair a commission on deficit reduction is an attack on those programs?

2.) cutting a tax used to fund those programs (knowing full well that any attempt to restore it will be billed as a "tax increase&quot is to the long-term detriment to the survival of those programs?

And you believe that someone pointing these facts out is "l(ying) about Democrats wanting to cut Social Security"?

Words and speeches don't matter. Actions matter. I can say I love kittens as much as I want. If I then go out killing kittens, most rational observers will conclude that I don't love kittens. Even when threatened with adverse action on a kitten-loving website or being accused of being disloyal to the kitten-lovers party. Because what if the guy who admits he hates kittens wins? Oh, and he kills kittens slightly more gruesomely.

That's the situation we're in. Kitten-lovers for the kitten-killer! because he says he loves kittens. And the other guy would torture them before killing them. How dare anyone suggest that maybe kitten-lovers should think hard about their support of a kitten-killer?

And yes, I realize this could very well become my first hidden post...

Edit2: Also, everything "woo me with science" said. Again, *actions* speak louder than nice speeches.

[woo me with science]

31. It's all eleven trazillion dimensional chess! nt

[jimmyd13]

26. Obama Frustrated He Doesn’t Get Credit For Wanting to Cut Social Security and Medicare

We would probably stand a better chance having cuts to SS and Medicare blocked if Romney wins. The Democrats in congress stopped Bush from privatizing SS. Would they stop Obama?
I seriously doubt it.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/09/obama-frustrated-he-doesnt-get-credit-for-wanting-to-cut-social-security-and-medicare/

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. From NorquistDogLake? Are you shittin' me?

[woo me with science]

34. In all seriousness, this is how Third Way infiltration has allowed the one percent

to drive millions into poverty and continue/expand Bush policies on war, economics, and the police state.

This corporate-designed and funded infiltration of the party has broken the Democratic united opposition to policies that are flatly evil.

This is why it is so damned important that we drive these lying Republicans-in-Democrat-suits out of our party.

[ProSense]

41. Obama

"We would probably stand a better chance having cuts to SS and Medicare blocked if Romney wins. The Democrats in congress stopped Bush from privatizing SS. Would they stop Obama?
I seriously doubt it. "

...is sinister, who knows?

I mean, someday he plans to cut Social Security.

[flamingdem]

27. K&R

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. Thanks Pro. You're the best at knocking down the Stein/Johnson/Anderson/Romney contingent....

here at DU. The selection of Ryan has made 'em nervous, so they're doing their best to make the Obama/Ryan equivalency, albeit a false one. They know seniors are gonna lose their shit as they learn about Paul Ryan's plans for SS/Medicare, so the Rovemeister has sent out the alert to his henchmen to DIVERT! DIVERT! DIVERT! It's almost fun to watch "internet Democrats" as they flail about, trying to turn us against the president.

One thing they're right about though, is that according to Gallup conservatives outnumber liberals by 2 to 1 (40% conservative; 35% moderate & 21% liberal). The icky middle (centrists) outnumber liberals. Aside from typing angry screeds on internet forums, what do liberals intend to do to shift public opinion in their direction? And by the way, center left seems to work for 83% of Dems (PO's approval #), so the noise coming from the 17% is just that. Noise!

Hard Right Republicans Outnumber Hard Left Democrats
A much higher proportion of Republicans call themselves "very conservative" or "conservative" (71%) than Democrats call themselves "very liberal" or "liberal" (38%). Democrats are as likely to call themselves moderates as liberals.

[eridani]

37. That's just for people idiotic enough to believe labels

The American public is pretty "far left" by the standards of the Very Serious People if you as them about actual policies instead of self-labels.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Rationalize it any way you want. The fact remains, a bunch of people don't want to be called.....

liberal. There it is. Do with it what you will. I understand the frustration, but the face of liberalism these days belongs to troglodytes like Ralph Nader (who's a fake), and who the hell wants to be identified with his nutty ass?

Don't you need something in the way of proof for your assertion that "The American public is pretty "far left"? And why would people not want to identify themselves that way? What's wrong with the label? And more to the point, why are people not buying what they're trying to sell? Even people that agree with some of their basic tenets can't stand 'em, because they have an alienating smugness that says I'm smarter than the rest of you. That's a problem. Joe & Jane Sixpack don't like people who they feel are throwing their "education" in their faces. I actually saw one compare himself to Einstein & Churchill. That's off-putting, smug, pompous, and pretentious to people who haven't had the same advantages. Democrats should be natural allies of liberals, but they seem to be doing everything in their power to make moderate and conservative Dems distance themselves. The math is simple. They are outnumbered. Facts are facts.

Maybe it's just an internet phenom, but I've come to despise most of the ones I have contact with. They seem every bit as extreme to me as the teabaggers, and I think it has a great deal to do with fading relevance. That's not inviting. It doesn't endear them to the people they claim to be standing up for, and their primary goal these days seems to be attacking Democrats. And if all else fails, they want to blow the whole thing up. I mean, WTF?

[eridani]

40. People can't buy what they never hear about

All of the positions below are far to the left of Obama, let alone Republicans

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2178/polls-and-federal-budget-debate-two-roads-diverging-wildly

I raise this because current polls continue to show that there’s a substantial disconnect between what’s being said about what people want on the budget and actual public opinion. Indeed, the latest polling on budget-related issues shows that the purported lessons of the 2010 midterm elections are much closer to wishful thinking than an accurate assessment of existing public sentiment.

For example, House Republicans have insisted that voters gave them a mandate in November to cut Medicare spending, but a poll released last week by Bloomberg showed that 76 percent of respondents opposed such reductions. Education also appears to be on the chopping block in the House, but 77 percent of respondents said education cuts were not justified. As usual, reductions to foreign aid received the most support — 72 percent — but that part of the budget has drawn little attention.

In addition, the mantra we’re hearing that revenue increases are unacceptable is completely contradicted by the 59 percent of respondents who supported repealing a cornerstone of the tax deal put in place in December — an extension of tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 per year.

Strong public sentiment in favor of single payer also, an option that was never "on the table"
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Chart_of_Americans_Support

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Perhaps you missed this part?

"Even people that agree with some of their basic tenets can't stand 'em, because they have an alienating smugness that says I'm smarter than the rest of you."

Single payer was never going to pass. Obviously, it's not so much the message, but the messengers people have a problem with.

[eridani]

53. If people have a problem with single payer messengers--

--why the overwhelming support for it? Especially since MSM won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Where does this silly delusion that people on the left have a lot of media access come from anyway?

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. Those polls were from a couple of years ago. Anything more recent? I never said "people....

on the left have a lot of media access", which is why I asked you how your message gets out? People initially approved of the mission of OWS, but it faded so quickly. How do you keep the attention of the electorate? And when you get it, what do you do with it?

Single payer is but one issue, and I'm not so sure it's a "liberal" issue at that. From what I've seen, liberals are lazy. Say what you will about the Tea Party, but they turned their anger into political successes. And despite public opinion about them, the M$M can't get enough of 'em.

[eridani]

55. The MSM is working for the 1%

Heavy Koch whore funding turned the Tea Party into a success.

http://www.thenation.com/article/36615/detroits-social-forum-hope-crisis#
20,000 lefties register for the Detroit US Social Forum in 2010 = not news

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/us/politics/08palin.html
600 registered for the national Tea Party conference in Nashville in 2010 = really big news

Of course it is of no help whatsoever that so many on the left disdain electoral politics.

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. But you guys have "passion" on your side. Who needs money?

[B Calm]

36. When I hear a republican

wanting to fix Social Security I get angry as hell. You know it's one or two things. They either want to raise the retirement age or privatize it.

Social Security has a surplus, there is nothing wrong with it! If we need to guarantee there will be money in it for future generations, then raise the damn cap so those rich bastards that screwed us all through our working life will have to pay just a little more into it, problem solved!

[AtomicKitten]

38. Excellent pushback of those bent on muddying the waters of this election.

[ProSense]

42. It's going

to be interesting to watch the debate over Romney-Ryan unfold.

[kentuck]

52. Just a thought...

For those that talk about a "flat tax", wouldn't the FICA rate have to be applied to everyone across the board for it to be "flat" or equal?