General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKnow the FACTS: Simpson-Bowles only calls for tiny cuts to Social Security
People whine about Simpson-Bowles, but I don't think they really know what's in the plan.
Only 22% of the average recipient's benefits will be cut when their recommendations fully kick in. That's only a $50,000 lifetime reduction per beneficiary in today's dollars, or $100,000 per couple.
Nobody will miss that. Heck, I'll bet that with a little uniquely American ingenuity, seniors will be able to make up for that. Maybe they could sell a kidney. Or start an online service where retirees can rate dumpsters so their peers will know which ones have the tastiest morsels to scavenge - sort of the Yelp for trash pickers.
And it will allow us to keep taxes low on the job creators. And keep a strong military, so we can protect ourselves from those who hate our freedom and want to turn us into a third-world country.
Regards,
The Rich
kooljerk666
(776 posts)If this ain't addressed before the election it may give me a really poor attitude.
And by addressed I mean in the way Sen. Bernie Sanders is talking about.
and it's a holiday so no one at Sen Casey's office is answering
newfie11
(8,159 posts)I have 2 kidneys so could sell one. Maybe selling an eye could earn enough to fill up the gas tank in my car ( oh forgot cant afford a car).
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
dionysus
(26,467 posts)hay rick
(7,648 posts)Sid
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)If they don't like it the can eat cake.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Here's four, they aren't hard to find. There are some in this thread that would have you believe otherwise by cherry picking sources and links. Don't believe them, I have heard it from President Obamas own mouth on the Magic Box. Don't like the sources I have? I just picked the first four, go find your own if you don't like these, they are there.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-07/news/29766629_1_tax-compromise-spending-cuts-debt-ceiling
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/07/debt_ceiling_fight_democrats_w.html
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/27/obama-im-prepared-to-make-a-whole-range-of-compromises/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
We shouldn't tolerate spreading misinformation on DU.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)now the foaming at the mouth will *really* begin. Let me start: PUMA Jane Hamster Face!
Just the sort of reasoned debate we've come to know and love on DU...
(And for good measure: )
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)anyone can go pick their own link.
I already know what has been said by President Obama about Medicare and Social Security, regardless of what is being said by others on this thread. I wasn't going to spend a lot of time doing a search anyone else that is able to get to this forum must be capable of doing for themselves. People should already know what has been said and not believe the propaganda ministers that continuously scan this forum for anything said against their Beloved.
Does the truth hurt? Probably not as much as cuts to Medicare and Social Security will if we just sit back and ignore it because it's our side screwing us.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)a vocal minority. Ah, but nothing like possible cuts to SS and Medicare to make the pre-2008 DU come alive. I can hardly wait for the post-election sequestration threads...
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)What harm can it do?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Obama's not a fighter, and some are OK with that. I'm not. Social Security and Medicare are the end of the line for me.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I haven't checked your profile to know how long you've been here, but there's been high drama recent years over certain bloggers, Jane Hamsher being one of them. Bloggers generally in favor during the Bush Admin, but now on some DUers' hitlists because they dare criticize Obama administration policies.
Here's an article from my local (McClatchy) newspaper you might be interested in:
Obama, Romney differ on securing Medicare, Social Security
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/08/2399950/paths-on-programs-differ.html#storylink=cpy
Haven't read it yet, so I don't know if it makes good points or is total bullshit. Either way, it's good to know what information is being put out there for the masses...
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)"NYDAILYNEWS" I find this sentence buried in the middle of the article
Debt ceiling talks: Obama proposes cuts to Social Security, GOP's Eric Cantor signals tax compromise
BY ALIYAH SHAHID
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, July 07, 2011
After months of debt-deal stalemate, a grand bargain might be in the works.
<snip>
Obama, in exchange, is pushing congressional leaders to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare, sources told The Washington Post.
####
Of course we can't entertain the thought he would make major changes - he is a candidate running for office. He is going to say whatever it takes to make us think our unicorn is now in the mail!
I mean, remember his Autumn 2008 support for the public option?
Which sadly, was all but forgotten by July and August of 2009.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)yardwork
(61,715 posts)President Obama appointed Erskine Bowles to the committee. Bowles is supposed to be the Democrat! He was supposed to balance Alan Simpson. Why didn't Obama appoint a liberal to balance a right-winger?
Why is Obama playing footsie with social security anyway?
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)I never heard him say that. Link please.
- Or is this ''celestial position'' something that can only be observe from Canada??? Where it's safe.
Sid
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)The Two Great Secrets of Life:
- 1. Never tell everything you know
2.
Response to SidDithers (Reply #54)
Post removed
Trailrider1951
(3,415 posts)please ignore it. Your friend, Trailrider
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Seriously, did you REALLY just say that?
When I pay my bills (necessities, only as I have no credit cards, drive a 15 yr. old car, etc. etc. etc.) with my social security check every month, I have a grand total of $12.39 left over.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Probably a bit too dry.
Of course, virtually all seniors will miss it and many will be thrown into poverty. It's outrageous!
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Social Security is a touchy subject for me. Clearly.
Didn't mean to miss the context, and I apologize for jumping on you.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Sorry to scare people.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)at that point it was obvious to me it was sarcasm.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)In fact if it is good enough for kitteh then it should be good enough for seniors everywhere.
They'll never be able to taste the difference with the leading brand of human food.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)like "friskies, it's not just for cats anymore"
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...I bet it'd taste like Pâté on a Ritz.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)also called for an increase in the cap.
It was policy soup, pure garbage. People can pick what they want out of it, but overall it's a fail. It's sort of like RoboRomney.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488253
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)- Bill Clinton, DNC nominating speech, September 5th 2012
"I'm still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission"
- Barack Obama, accepting the DNC nomination, September 6th 2012
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488868
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Sucks for the rest of us.
Particularly considering that Social Security's "crisis" is fiction, fueled by projections that the current depression will never end. As long as the economy goes back to anywhere near where it's historically been for the past 70 years, there is zero problem with Social Security paying all promised benefits.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I know, you're not a current beneficiary or a future retiree, huh?
Are you going to post that piece about the difference between "slash" and "cut"?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Christian Science Monitor: Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)you get to keep posing that piece claiming that "slash" is different from "cut"
Clear?
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)And what is the precedent for a Democratic President stating that his position on Social Security is "similar" to his Republican challenger's position, as Obama did in the debate? When has that ever happened before? I'm almost 50 years old, and I don't ever remember that ever happening.
And what is the precedent for a Democratic President temporarily cutting payroll taxes, as Obama did in 2010, thereby tampering with the Social Security trust fund? I don't remember that ever happening either.
It used to be that Democrats were always staunch protectors of the Social Security program (and the payroll taxes that fund it), and identified themselves as such, thereby distinguishing themselves from their Republican opponents.
The fact that this is no longer the case does not portend well for the future.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)We are nearing the point where more people will be withdrawing money from 401(k) than depositing. Assuming retirees will be withdrawing more than these accounts receive in dividends, then the accounts will have to start selling stock to make the desired payouts. When more people are selling stock than buying it, stock prices will go down. This means it will take even more stock sells to keep the desired payout at the same amount. And so everything will spiral down.
If my assumption is wrong, if 401(k) accounts really will in the vast majority of cases receive enough dividends to make the desired payouts, those retirees will eventually die. And a very hefty percentage of their heirs are going to cash out those 401(k) at that time. So the selling binge is coming.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But public pensions will be no better off. Best to stick with Social Security and Medicare. Wall Street is not going to do well in coming years. How can it. Those who have 401(K)s are REQUIRED to cash out and pay taxes on their savings. It's a small percentage per year, but it is yet another short-sighted, private, corporate scheme to bilk the poor and middle classes that is about to go awry.
At this time, real estate is probably the best "investment." If you earn anything above minimum wage, paying off an inexpensive house somewhere, well below your means, is the very best way to assure a secure future. Even if property taxes rise (which they will as fewer people own homes), you have a roof over your head. I feel so sorry for people who borrowed against their homes to start a business or day-trade in the stock market or to pay medical bills.
Saving for retirement in a balanced way is a great idea, but most of us cannot afford it. The stock market is something over which we have no control. Only the very rich have any say even in a company or maybe two. So investing in stocks requires just too much trust and confidence in a lot of greedy people for my taste.
If Social Security and Medicare are having financial problems, the stock market is facing much worse ones. That might be why Romney is running. Because he is a Wall Street candidate, and they need someone in power when people start understanding what faces us.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Savings accounts because Ben Bernanke is holding down interest rates until 2015 that means that young, middle and old are penalized. If you can't earn money on your savings then what is one supposed to do. The plan by the Fed is to keep interest rates low to "spur investment" for job growth..but what they are doing isn't working and only allowing the Fiver Big Investment Banks to re-capitalize themselves for the crap they sold that caused the Financial Meltdown across US and Europe.
Young, Middle old and Retirees lost money in the meltdown and now they can't build back unless they go into risky investments in the Stock Market. That's the plan that isn't working though because people have to cash out 401-K's at a certain age and others are too afraid to be in the stock market so they sit with their money earning almost nothing when adjusted for inflation.
What a mess. And, to go after SS/Medicare when people are in such desperate shape and fearful is beyond belief for some of us who are informed and aware.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)to prop up the prices of the risk assets that serve as investment vehicles for the wealthy. That, and allowing for the re-capitalization which you mentioned, seems to be what it was designed to do.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)that are chastised in reporting here on DU. But, there are places on DU where one can find the information here on DU...and it's sad that so many here don't seek those groups who talk about this.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)younger people to buy a lot more themselves.
Prices never go in one direction forever.
I remember reading something once about the Great Depression and what was going on in the stock market during that very long period of time. Somewhere towards the end, many companies were paying what amounted to very large dividends, and still stock prices remained very low.
About thirty years ago my husband and I noticed that in the press, almost all economic news was bad news. Stock prices up? Now they're too expensive? Stock prices down? Now everyone is taking a loss. Interest rates up? Borrowing money is too expensive. Interest rates down? The return on bonds and CDs is too low, so no one will buy them. And so on.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)that they get wiped out in a downturn...just when they are about to retire..or have an emergency and need that money.
Those who had Mutual Funds (recommended by their Company 401-K Adviser) lost huge amounts in the 2008 and 09 Meltdown. If they stayed in those funds they would still be underwater today.
We need to take care of those who don't find the Wall Street Stock Market something they can understand and do the research to understand because they hold two jobs...have families and do not have time to deal with all this when they are young.
Just Saying.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Something that is on every legitimate stock prospectus in some form - "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.". They even think that is so important it's on the stockbroker tests, because it's against the rules to sell people stock indicating that the future performance will be good based on that past performance.
Like anybody cares about that rule
But we are operating in a far different way than they did 70 or so years ago. Back then we had HUGE government investments in people and machines from the 30's through WWII. That created an economic boom that went on for decades, aided by our having to rebuild the world we and others had reduced to rubble. But the past 20-30 years we have been selling the hard assets and dis-investing in people, while debt and leverage are used to create a semblance of what used to be, but it's really just a shadow of what was. Some think it is just a cycle, that it's not gonna be a permanent change. Some people think that about global warming too.
Look at the financial sector, growing from 12% back in the 30's to over 40% of our economy today. They replaced manufacturing, yet they make nothing we can use or eat. The market has gone hugely international, no longer reflective of our American economy. Look at not just the job loss, but at the millions and millions of mid-wage jobs that paid $40-60/hr that have been replaced with nothing, or with jobs that only pay $7-$13/hr. How are people gonna pay for a home and send the kids to college on that? Does anyone really think there will be a retirement plan for the newly minted millions of home health aides and tourist industry folks we are employing? We seem to have some "surely it will get better even though we have no plan" belief that the future is bright.
In effect prolonging this, (which keeps scavenging of the greater portion of all available income going to a very few people), our economy is being propped up by accounting rules that allow banks to hold assets at inflated values, 0% interest loans that banks can use to make profits by charging everyone else more, $40 billion buying the mortgage-backed assets of really wealthy people every month to support their value (we are told this is good for the rest of us). You've read, likely, about how total student loan debt is as great as our revolving debt for the first time in history - they reflect part of the millions of people in school, trying to avoid being out in an economy where only half will find jobs and more are moving back home to live than ever before. Even college students can't buy cheap stock if they have no money.
We are at a net loss of about 4 1/2 million jobs since 2008. We only have about the same number of jobs today as we had in 2005, yet the population grew by about 23 million - how can they thrive?
This isn't sustainable. It's like being laid off a $45/hr plus great benefits and vacation factory job and trying to live the same lifestyle on one's credit cards and serving fries at McDonalds. The economy of the government is different in some respects, because we operate by fiat, can always pay our bills, and can affect the value of money. But not producing enough and spending money not to INVEST in the American people, but to support the wealthy, must lead to less value.
And unless the Republicans get into office and enact their plan, which will very likely drive us into a second Great Depression, we have at least a couple decades of this slow conversion of our assets to debt to look forward to. In support of the wealthy.
Prices may not go in one direction forever, but it may feel like that 20 years from now.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)year or so of Obama's administration have all been added back, according to a quick Google search.
Plus, did you notice that unemployment is now under 8%?
And why is the stock market so high if no one is buying stock?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Don't know if one is more moral than the other...
Actually you should give Obama more credit, since his total is over 5 million, iirc, as against that loss of 4.3 mill in the first year, which was handed to him like a Bjorn Borg serve to a football player.
And that's all that needs to be said if one doesn't care about the 4.462 million increase in unemployment in the year before he took office. He didn't CAUSE them, and most people who aren't Creationists understand that. But while he didn't cause them, who takes responsibility for making sure policies encourage enough jobs being created to employ them as well? They were already ignored by one president. Don't they deserve jobs too, being as they are our neighbors and all? One either ignores them or there is a deficit of nearly 5 million in the financial crisis that started in 2008 (well, before, but that's another post). And we still have that deficit. Were it up to the right wing terrorists, I mean Republican Presidential candidates, there would be many more, obviously. But that doesn't relieve us of the responsibility of evaluating our current policies. For example, QE3, like QE 1 and QE2, is designed to support the assets of the very wealthy because it is so good for all of us. But if there are not some being trickled on, perhaps we need to do more?
And who said no one is buying stock? The market is global now, and the numbers we typically get are not directly connected to or reflective of anything but about the wealthiest 20% of people, many international funds and investors, international markets, etc.
But people with less or no money are not the ones buying it. We have more people in poverty than we had in 2009, and many more considered "working poor". 50 million on food stamps. 10 million+ homes still in some process of foreclosure, student loan totals at historic highs, and defaults are rising.
Not a lot of day traders among them, I suspect.
And
Millions of people now earn $8 to $14/hr that used to make $14 to $21. Betcha they ain't buyin' a whole lot of stock either.
Look at how few stock issues really drive the whole thing. We can grow poverty and working poor and still have a healthy stock market, perhaps for a decade or two. Don't have to build a damn thing, with the magic of leverage, debt, and serfdom.
Some investors will do ok, but that really has not much to do with a discussion about how many people are hurting.
Btw, what you said above about irrational investing is absolutely still true.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)than under and still working? That would be the only way there would be more people withdrawing money from the 401(k) accounts than depositing.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)from 401-K's early because they don't have any other way to live.
So that's also a factor.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)near a majority of those working. The population of this country is still growing. The number of births each year is greater than the number during the Baby Boom.
There are a lot of things that need fixing, such as rewarding the amazing productivity of the average American worker, and stop sending jobs overseas, but sheer demographics will tell you that we are a very long way away from more people withdrawing from their 401(k) than are putting in to it.
If there is a population crash, or even a genuine slow-down, if we actually get to a Zero Population Growth place (as I believe is the case in Japan and much of Western Europe) then that will happen.
In reality, the fundamental problem with capitalism is that it assumes growth will last forever, and depends on growth to stay alive. There is a practical limit to how many people can live on this planet, and at some point we collectively have to stop reproducing so enthusiastically. THAT'S our real problem.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The total fertility rate is very very close to 2.1 children per woman, which is the replacement value.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)As I've indicated, in the long run never-ending population growth is not sustainable. We need to be paying attention to what countries with stable (and I think some may have declining populations) are doing.
I recently read a book the thesis of which is that all the fears of out-of-control population growth are completely unfounded, and that as countries become more and more developed, their birth rate declines to replacement levels or below. According to the author, this trend will in due time take over the entire world, and then we'll be faced with declining populations because of lack of replacement level birth rates.
tama
(9,137 posts)1) Social security that is not dependent from people needing to make many children to take care of them when they get old.
2) Sexual equality and access to contraceptive measures
High level of industrialization is not required, as "benevolent population curve" is happening also in socialist "developing country" economies like Cuba and Kerala.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)
by Bailing them Out and appointing the very people who brought down our Economy to try to Build it back Up!
All of Obama's efforts to Save or Rebuild our Economy have not worked...but, ROMNEY would be much worse and bring down everything and we "THE PEOPLE" would have NO INPUT.
We Need to Re-Elect Obama because (THE PEOPLE) Still have some Influence Over Him so that the push-back against the people who CRASHED OUR ECONOMY for "30 Years) will finally be OUTED OUT.
That is WHY we need to SUPPORT OBAMA....so we can BRING DOWN THE SYSTEM!
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts):sigh:
We don't want to dabble is phraseology which will confuse the general population when austerity needs a sacrifice from future retirees.
Let them eat cake? No need!
tama
(9,137 posts)"As long as the economy goes back to anywhere near where it's historically been for the past 70 years,"
There is very little reason to assume it ever will. It is much more likely that what we are going through is the final crisis of Capitalism. I assume that is not news to you, so I don't say more about that now.
Even that does not mean that social security has to be cut now. However accepting that this is now more or less a zero-sum game and social security cannot be founded on assumption of cake that keeps on growing ad infinitum, means that the argument needs to be radicalized, ie. "eat the rich". Making the fight based on reality instead of wishful thinking will make it harder in many ways, but it will have one major advantage: being based on reality.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)had he let it go through the president would have signed it.
Lasher
(27,641 posts)It would have given fast track authority to a committee like the Catfood Commission. Thank God the legislation was defeated in the Senate.
Then Obama created his Catfood Commission. They failed to reach consensus on anything, and therefore it is untrue to say that they recommended anything. I mention this because of a common misconception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform
99Forever
(14,524 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)a death sentence for the poor and middle class, even though they all paid into it. Way to counter the right wings criticism of government. Do this and people will lose faith in it.
jsr
(7,712 posts)Panhandling is always a good start
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)So Simpson-Bowles is essentially an affirmative action plan. It's as bold as the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is frightening.
No doubt these are women who have been homeless for some years now. They look like they are in really bad shape. It is heartbreaking.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)the rich won't even notice it! LOL
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)For every dollar that the rich pay in taxes, an angel in heaven sends one American job to a microwage country.
tech3149
(4,452 posts)progressoid
(50,000 posts)Problem solved.
You're welcome.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)it should work here, too.
For extra insurance, I'm going to try to grow the world's longest nose hairs.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)Mark my words, they are going to raise the age so more people will die before ever getting a check! This is bull shit! That is my money that I have been paying in since age 12, I am 49 now! If they agree to lift the cap, Dems will agree to raise the age just watch!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If they agree to lift the cap, Dems will agree to raise the age just watch!"
...Democrats will agree? Obama can't change Social Security on his own, so which Democrats are going to vote for this?
September 20, 2012
A major bloc of 29 senators took a strong stand today against any cuts to Social Security as part of a deficit reduction deal. "We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package," the senators said in a letter circulated by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the founder of the Senate Defending Social Security Caucus. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, the Senate's No. 3 leader, signed the letter. So did Sens. Mark Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse and Al Franken, who joined Sanders at a Capitol news conference.
Social Security has not contributed to the deficit or to the national debt, the senators said. The program that benefits more than 50 million retirees, widows, widowers, orphans and disabled Americans has a $2.7 trillion surplus and, according to actuaries, will be able to pay every benefit owed to every eligible recipient for the next 21 years.
"Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing," the letter said. "Even though Social Security operates in a fiscally responsible manner, some still advocate deep benefit cuts and seem convinced that Social Security hands out lavish welfare checks. But Social Security is not welfare. Seniors earned their benefits by working and paying into the system," the letter added.
Social Security has not contributed to deficits because it has a dedicated funding stream. Workers and employers each pay half of a 12.4 percent payroll tax on the first $110,100 of a worker's wages. The tax rate for employees was reduced to 4.2 percent in 2011 and 2012, but is scheduled to return to 6.2 percent in January.
To read the letter, click here »
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=066FB085-5798-4E6C-ABA2-85549D84DFA6
When I see a letter signed by everyone from Harry Reid to Carl Levin to Joe Manchin, I'm thinking nothing is going to happen. Eleven more Senators and that's a filibuster. President Obama cannot change Social Security singlehandedly. That change would have to go through Congress. I doubt there are going to be Democrats, especially those up for re-election in 2014, who are going to put their careers on line.
Paul Ryan's reception by the AARP should be an indication that Social Security is still a political third rail.
Signatories:
Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Why the qualifier?
This is a good start, but the Grand Bargaining begins in one month - time is short.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I mean, the letter is useless if the Senators demanding the President protect Social Security are planning to sell out.
uberblonde
(1,215 posts)And many of those names also appeared on a letter stating they wouldn't vote for a healthcare act that didn't include a public option.
Look how well that turned out!
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)trying.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Can't afford Tender Vittles anymore? Just substitute it for Sams Club Economy Chinese brand.
Can't afford Little Whiskers? Buy dry cat food instead of canned.
Just like substituting Rib-eye steak for chicken breast. You didn't starve did you?
No problem!
I bet with a little innovation, I can substitute hamsters on a treadmill for Duke Energy. As long as they don't eat too much of my cat food.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Must fight and let our public servants know that mucking around with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAPS will not be well tolerated.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Gees Manny, the way you explain it I can't wait till they cut it. Thanks much..
RC
(25,592 posts)The so-called financial problems of Social Security are at least 25 years and more in the future. Plenty of time to remedy any real problems.
Receipts are down because of the outsourcing of our Living-Wage-Jobs. Because of the job outsourcing, fewer people have good paying jobs. More people have survival wage and less jobs now. Overall people are being paid less.
We are being sold a bill of goods here and too many people are buying it. They are lying to us, U.S. Social Security is fine for the time being.
If the congress critters want more money for their pay raises and perks, stop the wars, bring the troops home, close our overseas bases and spend that money saved on rebuilding THIS country for a change.
All those construction projects in every state will generate Living-Wage-Jobs that the congress critters can take credit for come election time. What is so hard about that? With all that money circulating in the economy, Social Security receipts will sky rocket more than enough to overcome any objection to increasing benefits.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..but thanks to the "Temporary Payroll Tax Holiday" it is now directly tied to the general Fund and the deficit.
By law, "shortfalls" in collections due to the "Temporary" Payroll Tax Holiday are to be made up from the General Fund.
This "payment" to Social Security WILL show up in [font color=red]RED[/font] in future budgets.
Does anybody here believe that the Democratic Party leadership is going to say,
"OK. The "Holiday" is over.
Its time to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class"?
...never gonna happen.
The FICA reductions are NOW The New Normal,
making the dismantling of the cornerstone of the modern Democratic Party and the most successful Social Program EVER so much easier.
The Republicans could have NEVER gotten away with THAT one.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Right now it has a dedicated funding stream from the General fund to pay for the payroll holiday. So in order to cut it they would either have to target it directly or use an across the board tax cut to hit it. Even then it's only 1/3 of the funding and the trust fund is sitting on 2.7 Trillion in bonds. That said I agree that it was a bad political bargain and undoes the very political insurance policy built into the system. I need to look and see if the payroll tax holiday has a sunset provision, I really hope it does because then there is at least a chance to overturn it sometime in the future. They could restore rates in the future also, it didn't start at 6.2% originally.
as debt is related to consumerist growth economy running on debt fumes.
But there ain't many homeless hungry old people in Cuba.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)lifestyle. Just like in the olden times.
Three generations living together in one household with grandpa making the rules. Won't it be fun?
Your children can't talk at the table because grandma and grandpa can't stand the noise. Children should be seen, not heard.
A bicycle for Johnny? Forget it. Gotta' buy grandpa's meds this month.
Mama getting a part-time job? What? And leave grandma at home alone what with her Alzheimers and failing kidneys?
If Medicare and Social Security are cut, that's what the youth of America have to look forward to. Used to be that way, three generations living together until death they do part. And it will be that way again.
Unless, of course, you've got lucky genes, and grandma and grandpa . . . .
But, don't worry, if you've got those unlucky genes and chances are your parents are going to be around a while, you've got years and years of looking for grandma's glasses ahead of you.
And you will owe it all to those Christian Republicans and their low taxes and cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The future looks bright ahead.
Have fun kids. And remember, do what Grandpa says! It's the Republican way.
tama
(9,137 posts)there's lot of good in that.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I don't trust ANY of our esteemed elected officials on this, and if it's President Cool Breeze who shows up during the sequestration battle, we are FUCKED.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and after reading the shallow and senseless viciousness of some in this thread, perhaps maybe a more thorough analysis of the knowns is in order. http://americablog.com/2012/10/why-i-expect-obama-to-cut-social-security-benefits.html
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)His insight is no different than the ten thousand other opinions of people outside of the process.
But I like how he puts the Kochs and Obama together in agreement, no agenda there.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)note that your impotence is showing and that you can't really undermine a damn thing he said, other than denying that BHO and koch brothers couldn't possibly agree on anything? He didn't say BHO and Koch agree on cutting SS as your what, abysmal reading comp skills or dishonesty suggests, but rather only that Koch has been agreeable to some tax increases. Are you denying that, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/david-koch-tax-increases_n_1846323.html or just trying to muddy the water here with easily dismissable BS?
And by your "blogger" standard, that puts him a notch or two higher than some obscure poster like you, no?
your opinion doesn't mean squat to me, particularly when it is as devoid of any meaningful substance as the one you just offered, and indeed, is full of BS instead.
well done. What will you do for an encore?
emulatorloo
(44,210 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that thinks that's a worthy substitute for something worthy of consideration
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)but whatever it isd you're comparing it to, by all means, let's see a thorough and complete comparison so that the readers might detrmine whether or not there's any foundation for your otherwise vacuous declaration.
It's not unlike trying "debate" rightwingers on this board. It's either totally substanceless efforts at smartasshood, or thinly veiled claims of vanquishment -- like that can be accomplished when the material debated hasn't/wasn't even addressed.
But hey, I've never claimed they have a monopoly on such.
emulatorloo
(44,210 posts)Especially dumbass bloggers and DU Ryan Plan Enablers.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)well then, surely a self-proclaimed but totally unknown little genius like you could shred it without pause or effort then, no?
I read hollow declarations like that many times a day, although generally from rightwingnuts, and they almost all origniate from largely hollow heads
TahitiNut
(71,611 posts)Two words: Living Wage
The SOLE 'problem' with Social Security is the decimation of working class wages over the last 35 years!! The plutocrats (i.e. "entitlement class" have been waging an economic war on the working class for over 35 years. The working class is losing.
Alternatively, put a 1% "Transfer Tax" on the sale or exchange of corporate equities (i.e. "entitlements" .
Fuck the "free-ride" entitlement class!!
kooljerk666
(776 posts)and where is it? The top 5% got it........
Cenk did a great job on this article last week, It shows the rich should be paying a lot of TAX!!
http://current.tumblr.com/post/31955170571/the-young-turks-productivity-and-hourly-wages
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)That's why "this current depression" will never end, repeat will never end, until we get something like a New Deal 2.0.
TahitiNut
(71,611 posts)I've been ringing that bell since the 90s ... with charts and FACTS. I was voicing the OWS 'message' since then as well. To me, it has been OBVIOUS for over 20 years.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)that's a huge amount, and so fucking needless.
On edit-- shit, now I see the satire. But it's freaking maddening!
frazzled
(18,402 posts)From the highly respected Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a "policy organization ... working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals." :
The Bowles-Simpson plan included revenue and benefit changes designed to restore long-term solvency to the Social Security trust fund. For purposes of presentation, the Bowles-Simpson documents and public statements by the co-chairmen excluded the Social Security solvency proposals in some aspects of their presentation and included those proposals in others. The Social Security proposals were usually not counted in the deficit reduction totals or in the ratios of spending cuts to revenue increases, as the co-chairs described the Social Security proposals as not having been done for the purpose of deficit reduction. These proposals were included in calculations of the resulting levels of revenues, spending, deficits, and debt. In this analysis, we present the plan using the same approach as the co-chairs.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3844
What does this mean? It means that despite all the hair-on-fire, flame-baiting (vote-suppressing) posts regarding Simpson-Bowles, when the president says he favors some of the Simpson-Bowles plan with respect to the deficit reduction (read: fiscal cliff), it is not at odds with his promise not to reduce Social Security benefits. Social Security was a separate discussion in Simpson-Bowles from the deficit.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)remember people love that stuff. See the recent Presidential debate.
Oh, and when it's fiction disguised as satire, sweet!!!!
emulatorloo
(44,210 posts)Manny does what so many Republicans do - blame Democrats for what Republicans are doing.
"ignore the Real Ryan Plan, Obama has a 'Secret Plan'"
eridani
(51,907 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Nothing.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)
A regurgitated hizzyfit aimed at suppressing the vote.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)As to suppressing the vote - that is nonsense. Americans need to know what's in store starting the day after the election.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)emulatorloo
(44,210 posts)Rather than endlessly trolling your "Obama's Secret Plan" bullshit.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Either be specific, or apologize.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The problem is that Social Security benefits will eventually require repayment from the federal General Fund of monies borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. So slashing benefits ends up reducing what needs to be repaid from the General Fund.
The Commission's wording is just an accounting treatment. In plain English, what they're doing is cutting benefits so that there will be more money in the General Fund to pay for their recommended tax cuts for the rich and for corporations.
They're stealing the Trust Fund. What we call it is immaterial.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)He has not said it. So I'd like to know why your panties are in such a twist. Especially 3 weeks before an election?
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. do you suggest almost powerless people "get their panties in a twist"? When the only leverage they have, their vote, has already been used, is off the table and rendered useless?
Fucking brilliant strategy you've got here.
emulatorloo
(44,210 posts)We'll all pretend Obama and dems have a "secret plan" to destroy the safety net.
Then Romney/Ryan can implement their real plan to destroy the safety net.
It is genius!
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. wasn't asked of you. So, consider your non-answer ignored.
Have a nice day.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Obama Offered To Raise Medicare Eligibility Age As Part Of Grand Debt Deal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_894833.html
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)I am awaiting his plan to make it stronger. Probably a combination of lifting the cap, increasing the benefit amount and lowering the retirement age.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021493763
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)replacement for 'Mudd'. Make sure no heir nor ally of such a President ever gets elected to anything, never gets a good review from anyone. For generations, the name of any President who made a secret deal to harm the least among us will be a word more cursed than spoken, more spat than said.
How's that? Happy?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)20score
(4,769 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)I love it!
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)I'm basically house bound now. I can't afford to go out except when in dire necessity of shopping for necessities and food. My little trips to the library, the beach and for coffee with friends have had to stop.
tama
(9,137 posts)you have no other means of transportation to any of those locations? Walking, bicycle, scooter, public transportation, nothing but driving?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And why just kidneys? Quite a few organs come in pairs, and we can surely get along...
We shouldn't underestimate the resources we already have to support ourselves.
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)Nicely done
mzmolly
(51,010 posts)means test and an across the board cut. Further, there isn't anyone in the administration, cheering Simpson-Bowles.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and in several other Media Interviews.
You might as well consider him a part of this administration.
mzmolly
(51,010 posts)put to work by the President to address various issues. All that means is that the President had a so called plan. It does not mean that he's out hitting the stump, in favor of every recommendation.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It was more than 40% for high earners. Low earners get a slight boost. This was certified by the Chief Actuary of Social Security.
As to whether the plan has fans...
"I'm still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission"
- Barack Obama, accepting the DNC nomination, September 6th 2012
It's interesting that the President has rejected the spending cuts called for in the Simpson-Bowles plan, but he's not commented on their calls deep cuts in Social Security.
mzmolly
(51,010 posts)Thanks.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Vouchercare is awful. Obviously we need to vote for Democrats, but they don't have my permission to screw the 99%.
mzmolly
(51,010 posts)Democrats will not screw the 99%. They'll form committees, and suggest that we can't come to an agreement on the debt etc. Then, they'll let the Bush tax cuts expire and the debt will decrease as a result. This alone, will rendering the zeal to gut XYZ, far less popular. However, if R's get elected, because people don't realize the R's and D's differ, we'll have more wars with the middle-east, higher taxes for the lower - middle classes, and gutted social programs.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)NAFTA, almost-free trade with China, bank deregulation, two wars that many Democrats voted for, etc. They made a fortune thanks to their actions... Clinton, Rahm, Summers and the rest made huge money doing almost nothing once they left the White House.
I agree, though, that they'll screw the 99% far less than the Republicans will.
All that being said - what does that have to do with cutting the COLA? I'm not sure how one can "spin" cutting the COLA. It seems to me that a cut is a cut. But I'm willing to listen...
mzmolly
(51,010 posts)what the actual COLA will be in the future. There is a difference of opinion on that.
I'm not going to debate trade policy in this thread. If the Green Party candidate had been in charge of the Presidency, for any amount of time in the past, we'd have complaints as well. There is no such thing as perfection. There is what amounts to, reasonable, and at times imperfect vs. collective, well funded sociopathy.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...using the same lies used to push Welfare Deform in the 90s.
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)mzmolly
(51,010 posts)than welfare.
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)No thanks
Corporations don't need to profit from SS or Medicare
mzmolly
(51,010 posts)eom
mzmolly
(51,010 posts)It would remain a social safety net, which was the intent.
LarryNM
(493 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Dialed in as usual. But you & I both know we there's only one way to vote next month. It will be far better than the alternative. Then, when the cuts come, the apologists will be telling us about how they're forced by the COngressional profile, how we can't do anything without 62 (or so) Dem Senators, how the president had to be flexible on (bargain away) SS to pass some other thing, how they're not really cuts, how we have to adopt far right policies to get into the WH in 2016, etc. Heartbreaking, and a really big reason only 50% or so of voters bother to vote. But that's where we are.
the intelligent among us EASILY see the truth
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"Liberals didn't show up at the polls. If they had we'd have 65 Sanders clones in the Senate and the president would be able to enact his preferred FDR-esque agenda. But since they didn't, we have to support school vouchers, drone strikes, and EPA cutbacks."
No one here is going to vote for Rmoney, but just for once I'd like to vote for a Dem who panders to his/her base instead of the the teabaggers.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...those who put Party before Principle,
who do NOT hold their Democratic representatives accountable,
are the ones directly responsible for the 30 year rightward drift of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party should FEAR us,
not ridicule us in their rush to abandon the principles that made our Party great.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and the Dems definitely take the lefties for granted, and the result is, as you say, both parties are now far to the right of Ike's Republicans. May you live in interesting times.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Appreciated it.
https://twitter.com/madfloridian
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)you've been gone for a long while? Welcome back!
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Still posting at the DU2. Just branching out more at Twitter and Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/user/floridagal/
I am too outspoken on education to be comfortable here right now.
Thanks for the welcome back.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I say that as someone living in Wake County, NC, where the Broad Institute superintendent (General Tata) was just given the ol' heave-ho by the Democratic-controlled school board. Once a nationwide model for diversity, Republicans had control for awhile and now a TOTAL mess!
Rex
(65,616 posts)finally decided to join us over in the tar pits?
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)I used to love all your journal posts about education, Teach for America, etc. on DU2. The lack of a prominent journal section is one of the things I miss the most on DU3, and your journal posts were a large part of that.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)DLevine
(1,788 posts)And the retirement age needs to be lowered, not increased.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)"The Senior Citizens League calculates that such a change would reduce Social Security benefits by an estimated 7 percent over a 25-year retirement. For a senior who retires in 2011 and receives the average Social Security benefit -- about $1,100 per month -- this would reduce benefits over 25 years by $18,634. The cuts would be very small in the beginning but escalate as recipients age." (emphasis added)(see http://www.tscl.org/action/emergencycola.a... .)
Additionally, the Senior Citizens League issued a emergency petition, the first three bullet points of which are:
" The Social Security COLA should not be calculated from the consumer price index (CPI), since the CPI is based on the purchases of young urban workers and does not reflect the actual expenses of senior citizens.
Even when CPI-based inflation is very low, the expenses that form the backbone of senior citizens budgets medical insurance, prescription drugs, fuel continue to rise alarmingly.
The federal government itself recognizes the inequity of a CPI-based COLA by calculating a senior-specific CPI formula, which it never uses, that shows our cost of living rises faster than that of most young people."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Samantha/57
$18,634 is a lot of money to me, and I am sure it is to you as well.
At the time I gathered the research on this issue, I sent it all to Bernie Sanders, and he has been great about refusing to support the implementation of a chained COLA.
Sam
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Chuck Schumer is positive the grand bargain can be made before the end of the year. He says Democrats are more than willing to put entitlement cuts on the table.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Sen-Schumer-Discusses-Democrats39-Approach-to-Tax-Reform/10737434810/
I'm finding the CSpan page to be extremely slow. Not sure if it's just being slammed right now, but definitely recheck the press conference video later if you have trouble seeing it now.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)And hopefully all of the apologists remember the "grand bargain" before lying about the president's stance.