Brass Tacks 2.0... Would YOU Support ANY Democrat That Proposes Cutting SS & Medicare Benefits ???

[WillyT]

Plain and simple.

44 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes.
	2 (5%)
	No.
	42 (95%)
	There is NO other.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[pscot]

1. K7R

[WillyT]

3. I'm With You 777

[Autumn]

2. Absolutely not. Plain and simple.

I could not do it.

[WillyT]

4. :loveya:

[Autumn]

10. love ya too WillyT

they start his fight, we win.

[treestar]

5. How do you define "cutting?"

[WillyT]

8. Oh No... You Tell ME... What "Cuts" Do Not Impact Those ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS THEY'VE EARNED ???

[Recursion]

21. You didn't answer: what's a "cut"?

It's not as if payments to anybody are ever going to go down.

[Dragonfli]

24. Under a chained CPI they will go down, relative to the inflation faced by the elderly

Even the current CPI doesn't keep up with the inflation faced by the elderly, the closest one that does is the CPI-E an option that only defenders of SS appear to talk about, opponents of SS like to talk about bathtubs and drowning when they aren't talking about "entitlements" and then they only talk about a chained CPI, or privatization schemes, but SS opponents are like that as they tend to ignore plans that actually help rather than harm seniors that they appear to view as useless eaters for collecting earned benefits.

http://www.ncpssm.org/PublicPolicy/SocialSecurity/Documents/ArticleID/1159/The-CPI-E-%E2%80%93-A-Better-Option-for-Calculating-Social-Security-COLAs

I think they might understand income relative to inflation if their total investment income as a dollar figure per year was frozen 10 years ago and I told them as an experiment to gauge their reaction that they were doing as well today as they were ten years ago, but maybe not, they do have a certain willful ignorance about them..

If income does not rise with inflation then income IS cut, but to understand that one must understand the relevance of inflation and how the number is relative to that, my grand niece does not grok this, but she is only 4, I believe she will understand it in a few years as her parents are not wealthy conservative trust fund idiots but well-trained educators.

[Recursion]

26. By definition, no

The chained CPI is the definition of what inflation is, if it's adopted, so payments will go up at the exact same rate as inflation.

Inflation is a construct, not a real thing; there's no one way to measure it.

But, that gets to my point, if changing what you use to measure inflation is a "cut", it saps some of the indignation from a lot of people about "cuts". And at any rate, the one proposal Obama has tentatively floated exempted IIRC the poorest third of retirees from the chained CPI, meaning by any normal sense of the phrase it's what we've until now called a means test.

[Dragonfli]

27. misinformation

[Recursion]

28. Yes, your post was. Glad you recognize that (nt)

[JDPriestly]

37. Chained CPI does not figure inflation correctly.

It assumes that when a price go up, people buy a cheaper substitute if one is available.

Let's say the price of beef goes up. Instead of increasing Social Security benefits to reflect the inflation caused by the rise in the price of beef, the basket based on which inflation rates are figured would leave out beef and be figured on chicken. And if the price of chicken went up, then it would be figured on beans and rice. Thus, the chained CPI is simply a way to rationalize forcing seniors into an ever reduced lifestyle.

The average Social Security payment is just barely above the poverty level already. Chained CPI would mean hunger or perhaps in many cases, homelessness for the elderly.

Or, more likely, seniors would apply for food stamps and housing assistance in addition to Social Security. 1/2 of seniors on Social Security receive less than a poverty level income from the program already. I have a friend who gets all of $500 per month. If her husband who is younger and still working dies, she will not be able to live on her benefit. She is well over 65.

[Recursion]

58. That's a good synthesis of how it's been described on DU, but not very accurate

Let's say the price of beef goes up. Instead of increasing Social Security benefits to reflect the inflation caused by the rise in the price of beef, the basket based on which inflation rates are figured would leave out beef and be figured on chicken. And if the price of chicken went up, then it would be figured on beans and rice. Thus, the chained CPI is simply a way to rationalize forcing seniors into an ever reduced lifestyle.

Well, no, that's a simplified explanation that you might find in a newspaper article, but it's very misleading. Consumer goods are divided into multiple "baskets" (I think 100 or so at this point) and the empirically determined contribution of those baskets to expenses is used to determine inflation. There's nothing specifically about chaining that makes it be lower than non-chained CPIs, that's simply a reflection of the fact that things get cheaper over time.

As it currently is set up, the spending habits of an urban government worker in the 1950s is what's used. Not clear why that's a better way.

[sabrina 1]

86. The bottom line is that this should not be a part of any Deficit talks

unless it is to point out that the Deficit was caused by the unnecessary wars, by the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, (approx two trillion right there) and that in order to go on this wild spending spree, they borrowed two trillion from the SS fund and now do not want to pay it back.

Other than that, SS does not belong in any Fed Budget or Deficit talks.

Benefits should be RAISED, if they are going to talk about it all as the money is there, put there by the American workers, which would HELP the budget by stimulating the economy, a sort of free (for the Fed Govt) stimulus program provided by the workers who saved it for their retirement.

So there's no need to go into much detail. The Chained CPI is a cut to SS and should not be considered at all by any Democrat, or Repub for that matter.

[RandiFan1290]

44. He is sitting in Mumbai, India

I'm sure he can see exactly how poor he thinks our aging Americans should be so they can continue to enjoy the "American Dream"

Just fucking disgusting and it's not the first time

[treestar]

52. What is disgusting is attacking Americans because they live in another country

And saying that just living there means their opinions don't count.

Posts like yours should be hidden.

[Recursion]

61. This again?

[Enthusiast]

50. Total misinformation.

And it comes as little surprise.

[treestar]

51. They always leave that out - that even if it were adopted, it would not

happen for the poor.

[sabrina 1]

70. The Chained CPI is intended to cut SS. Not 'by definition' or any other

excuse.

Bottom Line, SS had nothing to do with causing the Deficit, it has nothing to do with the Fed Budget so why is the MAIN target of these discussions?

Democrats know why. And any Dem who supports cuts to SS will find themselves being seriously challenged in their next election.

There is now a coalition of Liberal and other advocacy groups together with Unions, who formed before the last election to address these kinds of problems because no one trusts elected representatives to protect their interests on this issues any more.

The inclusion of SS in Deficit Talks was the last straw, and that is a fact that can not be ignored or excuses made for or whatever. Like it or not, SS is STILL the Third Rail of politics despite the claims of political think tanks that the way has been paved, finally, to attack it successfully.

Paul Ryan eg, thought that to be the case when he advised George Bush in 2005 that it was now safe to go to all 50 states to talk about cutting/privatizing SS. I believe Bush had to go home after travelling to only about three of them.

Take the Chained CPI off the table. If it is so small a 'cut' that we should not worry about it, then it won't bother anyone to simply remove it.

Cuts to SS will not help the Fed Budget, in fact they will adversely affect it.

We know why SS is included in these discussions.

[JDPriestly]

36. The average Social Secuirty benefit is maybe 200 dollars above the minimum wage level.

That is if the person working minimum wage works 40 hours a week just about every week of the year at the federal minimum wage.

That is another way of saying that the average Social Security benefit is just enough to provide a subsistence level income for a senior.

The chained CPI or any other policy that cuts Social Security or Social Security increases will put millions of seniors under the poverty level. They will fill the gaps just as the 1/2 of seniors who receive less than the average just-above-poverty-level benefit. They will apply for food stamps, other government and charitable support.

There is no way to make Social Security any cheaper. It is already a rock bottom pay-out for seniors.

Same with Medicare. If you cut Medicare, you will just bankrupt seniors. They will have to go to nursing homes, and paying for their board and care after they are bankrupt falls on the state or in some states on their children. Yes. By law, in California, for example, children are responsible for supporting their indigent parents. So, forget about cutting Social Security or Medicare. You would just be shifting the cost of feeding and clothing seniors from one account to another.

[Recursion]

60. Why do you ignore the fact that under O's floated proposal the poorest 1/3 keep the old CPI?

Seriously, isn't that a little dishonest?

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Gee, upthread you were claiming that CCPI is the more true measure of inflation, a good thing

but here you promote the plan by claiming the current CPI will be retained for some to keep them from getting cut. Buttering that bread on both sides will only get your fingers greasy. If it is great for some why do others need to be protected from that same policy?
I just read another pro CCPI post that claimed all seniors, Veterans, disabled and the poor will be exempted. It gets old, this lack of honest engagement by those who seek this despicable action.

[Recursion]

75. Nope

I said it's a different way of measuring inflation, one that probably results in lower payouts compared to the current CPI because things keep getting cheaper. I also don't think it's a good idea unless we get something amazing in return for it, and there's nothing amazing that the Republicans have it in their power to deliver right now.

[JDPriestly]

87. Because the people between 1/3 and 1/2 still fall gradually below the poverty line.

It does not work. The 1/3 gets subsidies already. If you lower the benefit at all, millions fall below the line and become eligible. The paperwork burden on the US government is just not worth the chained CPI. Plus you upset seniors and their families. It really is not a good idea.

And then there is the fact that in Los Angeles or New York City you can hardly rent a room for $500 per month. In fact a horrible landlord down the street was renting tiny little rooms (around 20 of them) with a shared bath that he had carved out of a house built for one family, charging and getting $500 per month per room.

Seniors with that kind of money have to rely on government assistance if they are to survive in big cities. The chained CPI puts the burden of paying for Bush's wars and tax cuts for the rich on the least capable of defending themselves including helpless seniors in nursing care.

No. No. No.

[Recursion]

89. The poverty rate among US seniors is 15%

So 33% is every senior in poverty, plus that many again, plus more.

[Bohunk68]

73. I guess I am wayyyyy below avg.

$7.25 x 40 x 4.3 (weeks in a month) + $1247. I get $813. It's very difficult.

[JDPriestly]

88. Yes. Approximately 1/2 of the receipients of Social Security are under the average level.

In big cities, that means they are in deep trouble.

It is hard to find a room to rent for $500 a month. You have people who are very elderly sharing the small apartment they have lived in for years with a stranger. Social Security needs to be increased not decreased.

If we increased the minimum wage, a lot of things would take care of themselves.

The main reason that the outlook for the post-baby-boomer generations' retirement is gloomy is that most of them are not earning enough now to put much into the Trust Fund for themselves.

Wages are being pushed down by our vacuous, corporate-driven trade policy. We have to bring jobs that pay well here back home. We cannot afford to spend so much overseas.

[treestar]

49. It's a simple question

What is a "cut?"

To me, it is a reduction in monthly benefit amounts, reduction in people qualified for them by making stricter qualification rules.

Has that been proposed?

[sabrina 1]

69. Anything that takes a single penny away from those who OWN that fund.

One example, currently 'on the table' is the Chained CPI.

[cantbeserious]

6. no, No and NO

eom

[truebluegreen]

7. No!

And if they really want my support, they should work to raise SS and improve Medicare (by, say, letting younger people buy in).

[TexasBushwhacker]

15. Exactly

Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit and even if it did, they have no business cutting benefits until the raise or eliminate the cap on income that's subject to SS tax. Out of control Medicare spending is just a symptom of the bigger problem - the cost of healthcare for EVERYONE. America spends far more than other countries for it's health care, but effectively get's less/worse care. A big part of the problem is that healthcare shouldn't be in the profit driven private sector. Yes, we need socialized medicine. We have "socialized" public education, police and fire departments.

[krawhitham]

9. cost cutting measures can be made without cutting benefits

[WillyT]

13. And You'd Better Be Damned Careful, Honest, And Explicit When You Try To Explain That Theory...

to most of America...

Because... as of now... most of America doesn't trust those that would propose such a thing.

[JDPriestly]

38. How? Medicare has lower administrative costs than does private insurance.

And Social Security is an extremely efficient system. How would you cut costs without cutting benefits?

Getting rid of fraud is always mentioned, but how much fraud is there? There is some. That's true of all insurance I suppose. But there can't be that much Medicare of Social Security fraud. Certainly not fraud perpetrated by seniors.

[okaawhatever]

11. Propose yes. Proposing it can be nothing more than a political chess move. Actually voting for

cutting is a whole different animal. I don't believe what's going on right now is designed to cut Social Security. I believe it's purpose is to either, get people talking about it and who really wants to cut it (Republicans) or a way for Obama to improve the economy short term and add jobs knowing we can make it a 2014 election issue and turn some senior citizen Republican voters out for democratic candidates.
The Republicans have stated they are willing to close tax loopholes (which benefit the 1%) and increase spending (which benefits the 99%) if Obama will cut entitlements. Most Republican voters, and probably all tea partiers, don't realize social security is an entitlement program. By Obama announcing, "sure, i'll cut entitlements. Let's talk about chained CPI" he accomplishes two things. One, he makes everyone aware that when Republicans are talking about entitlements they're talking about SS and two, forces the Republicans to either state publicly they want to cut it or hush. Obama puts the Republicans on the defensive, and splits their voting blocks. Seniors won't accept the cuts and rabid tea partiers won't support them not cutting it. Besides, the majority of senior citizens vote Republican, and the majority of defense of the program comes from Democrats. Time to stop giving the Republicans a free pass on the issue.
Worst case scenario: They put it in the budget and 2014 becomes about cutting it. How will the Republicans get elected if they have to choose between their business supporters and their senior citizen supporters?

[jtuck004]

23. Like the chess move that pays banks $85 billion a month because it's good for the little people?

Or the chess move that has let the number of people on food stamps increase since 2008?

Or the chess move that let the wealthy keep more of their money overseas so it wouldn't be taxed while leaving the debt they participate in creating to be paid back by working people who then don't have decent infrastructure, have to suffer with underfunded schools, and not have decent jobs because the only substantial amounts of real money being loaned out is to the truly wealthy?

Or the chess move that let 10 million families, families, be thrown out of their homes in foreclosure while bankers get bonuses from the trillions the taxpayers loaned them at 0% interest?

Or the chess move that lets the "Recovery Act" expire this month which will result in millions of people having their food stamps reduced?

Here's a fucking thought. How 'bout we knock the chess board off the stump and quit playing games with people's lives, and propose some programs that actually work to make their lives better, instead of bending over for a bunch of thuggish, amateur politicians whose driving force is nothing but pure hatred and racism?

Or maybe we need to suffer through a couple of lost elections and find some politicians who are actually on the side of the people instead of the rentiers?

[BelgianMadCow]

25. You are watching to much Richard Wolff

I'm guessing. Carefully step away from the brink!

Great post!

[jtuck004]

35. I had heard the name, but never read up on him. But behold, a web site.

I'll have to go look.

Thank you.

[BelgianMadCow]

48. He made an analysis of the recovery that isn't a recovery unless you disregard the majority

of people, which was very similar to yours, that's why I though you'd seen it. It was in the vid & multimedia, lemme check...
Here's his most recent: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017150907

But in the one from September he made the point that there's one metric excluded from "recovery" graphs - the number of people on food stamps. That video is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017146024 and he makes these points right at the beginning.

[cui bono]

32. +1

[Enthusiast]

53. Plus 1,000,000!

[okaawhatever]

90. Ommm.....none of the things you mentioned, except the expiration of the Recovery Act, have anything

to do with Obama. Those things happened, or were a result of, policies prior to his being elected.

If Obama wants to save SS the best thing he can do right now is let senior citizens know it's on the table. Republicans don't want it to come out in the open. They want to force the cuts, will largely affect their voters, and then blame it on the Dems or pretend like it didn't happen. If obama can leverage that group of people and let them put pressure on their Republican elected representatives, it's the easiest method of keeping it.The democrats alone fighting to keep it as it is, is a difficult proposition at best. Anything that makes seniors aware of what's going on is a good move. Do you think if Obama swore to defend it Fox news would put it on the air? C'mon, you sound like Obama didn't wave the magic wand and make all this go away. The republicans are screaming for entitlement cuts. Their voters are behind them because they have no idea social security is an entitlement program. Why should we fight the republicans if we can get their voters to do it for us?

Also, as to the bailout of Obama took over 'Fannie and Freddie so the taxpayers will now benefit from the fact that they're responsible for the losses. obama took over the student loan program for the same reason. Why do you think Wall Street and the one percenters are against him so much? They're fighting him tooth and nail because Obama's not letting the American taxpayer be responsible for the losses without participating in the gains. l
We can propose all sorts of things. If we don't have a house majority it won't matter. The notion that anything can get passed right now that benefits the middle and lower class is absurd. immigration had majority support and the republicans blocked it from being brought up for a vote. What exactly is Obama supposed to do? Geez people. If you have a way to get these things passed, without a democratic majority in the house let us know.

[jtuck004]

93. And they say manufacturing is dead, yet some can manufacture excuses all day long.

If Obama wants to save Social Security the best thing he can do is say he will veto anything that even smells like a cut, and take to the tv to tell seniors how the thieving republicans are trying to steal their money. That he and his whole damn family will lead hungry seniors and people on crutches through the streets with the Secret Service and the military to protect them against the Teabaggers, and camp around the place until we get something that works for the American people for a change.

Compromise is what happens to an immune system before the patient dies - it has no place here.

He should also suggest that IRS issue new guidelines relieving the wealthy of one of their tax breaks on carried interest, since a court has now ruled people who are paying only 20% instead of 39% are actually running the business.

Wanna read about it?

"A Chance to End a Billion-Dollar Tax Break for Private Equity" Here.

Will you be as quick to let us know when he gives his first public speech on the need to stop letting Mi$$ RobMe pay only 20% taxes on the money he doesn't stash away overseas, while the Walmart workers (of which there are over 500,000 making less than $25,000 a year) are subject to as high as 39%, if they happen to make enough?

Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crisis. They came late to the game and were a minor player, and you should educate yourself on that - Wall Street took advantage of the trust the people had in them, just like the S&L officers did. We put them in jail, and there is no excuse good enough for the failure to even investigate them this time. When Obama stood in front of the bankers and said "I am the only one between you and the pitchforks" he handed these donors to this party a free pass. He should have directed the FBI to staff itself like they did in the Savings and Loan scandal and start investigating those bastards.

Instead Wall Street - who, btw, contributed heavily to the Democrats and his campaign, have not only been let off the hook, but have been profiting handily from money given them by a Republican Federal Reserve Chairman appointed by Obama, who keeps telling the growing number of people on food stamps and the people who are losing their fucking jobs that it is for "their own good". Go tell the nearly (and it will be soon) 10 million FAMILIES who were kicked out of their homes in foreclosure so the banks could steal money how great it is that none have been prosecuted, while people have DIED from the hardship this government has let them bring to hard-working Americans.

Excuses. Bullshit.

We have plenty of examples from history of politicians without a majority who could get things done that were good for someone other than the 1%. But for some, success is worth any price that SOMEONE ELSE has to pay.

As you say "Geez" - why the fuck can't the Democrats get the backs of the people being screwed, instead of making sure their donors made a record profit in the second quarter of this year?

As far as the rest of that crap, he inherited his first term from someone else, but he inherited this one from himself. So there is no one left to blame.

Sure, it's easy to get "something done" if you bend over for the bullies. Take a look at Chamberlain in the 40's. And how many people died for that mistake? Sometimes it doesn't matter what the odds are, one has to fight.

Believe what you want, but think about why she said this...

"I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." Harriet Tubman

[JDPriestly]

34. It's the Democrats who keep raising the subject.

And that is one of the problems. If the Democrats are being forced into considering cuts to Social Security, then why don't they let the Republicans talk about it on and on on TV?

No. We do not need to cut Social Security. We need to raise taxes on the rich. We need to return to the tax levels of the Clinton administration. Remember, back then we were regularly balancing the budget and had a strong economy.

The Democrats who constantly talk about how it is OK to cut Social Security by adopting the chained CPI or through other means are betraying their voters, betraying seniors, betraying the US. Cutting Social Security is a default by another name.

[okaawhatever]

92. Dempocrats may be betraying their ideals by suggesting cutting social security, but they aren't for

one second betraying the social security voting block. That's the problem.

As to your question about bringing it up:
First Obama (who isn't up for re-election) has suggested it. At first I thought the guy from Maryland was also supporting it, but a more careful read of his statement revealed a sort of double speak. He didn't actually support cutting it. With those headlines came a few Democrats and Democratic party candidates who vowed to never cut social security.

Why not let the Republicans talk about it? Because they won't and they own most of the media catering to seniors. Because talking about it is political suicide for the GOP. Notice, they talk about entitlement cuts. That's after they've convinced many folks that entitlements are "free stuff" and not what they actually are, benefits earned through some type of action and legally enforceable in court. Such as VA, SS, Medicare, Federal Retirement, and so on. Getting Republicans to talk about cutting social security is exactly what we want, hiding their true intentions is exactly what they want.

Another really important note: There are two chained CPI calculations. Regular chained CPI would result in less income for future senior citizens. The modified, chained CPI-Elderly is a special equation that takes elderly citizens purchasing habits and needs into account. That number actually INCREASES social security benefits over the long term. So tell me, what exactly is Obama proposing? He never mentioned one or the other. Republicans have been playing the talking point game for too long. If this ends up being a "cut" to SS via chained CPI-Elderly, i'll be just fine with it. And if the senior citizens wake up and realize the Republican party is willing to throw them under the bus for their corporate donors and tea partiers, all the better. If I see the headline, "Obama willing to cave to Republicans demand to cut social security" I won't shed a tear. I'll sit back and watch them eat their own.

[LWolf]

65. Proposing it puts it on the table,

and it never gets to come off. The idea of cuts is made legitimate. The machine can drip, drip, drip, for ever until it finally wears opposition to cuts down and convinces them that they "won" something with a compromise.

That's the worst chess move I've ever seen.

[JoePhilly]

85. "You want X? Ok, what will you give me for X?" That's the game.

As you note, this forces the GOP to become very explicit. Which they don't want to do for many of the reasons you provide.

The GOP's plan has been to damage the government and the economy so bad that Americans would WILLINGLY give up their Social Security and Medicare, because its the "only" way to fix the mess. But they haven't been able to cause enough chaos to get the American people to buy into that plan.

So the President and the Dems are more than happy to let the GOP have plenty of rope here, hopefully enough for the GOP's craziest members to hang their entire party.

And its working. The GOP wants to use the debt ceiling, deficit, and government shutdowns to get the American people to buy in to cuts, and the American people aren't responding the way the GOP wanted.

The American people, for the most part, blame the GOP for the mess.

[okaawhatever]

91. Thank you, it seems the seniors are starting to come around. I was wondering what the numbers

looked like recently, so I just reviewed some articles.

From April 2012 Politico article:

Paradox: Dems protect seniors who back GOP
Republicans are adroitly exploiting elder whites’ fears and prejudices. Commentators like The New Yorker’s James Surowiecki, The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, The Nation’s Christopher Hayes and Harvard sociologists Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson (“The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism”) variously note an alarming trend: Today’s elderly regard themselves as uniquely entitled to government support and resent younger generations getting public benefits

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75543.html#ixzz2ih7XhEMW

From August of 2013 article in The National Memo:

—Seniors are now much less likely to identify with the Republican Party. On Election Day in 2010, the Republican Party enjoyed a net 10 point party identification advantage among seniors (29 percent identified as Democrats, 39 percent as Republicans). As of last month, Democrats now had a net 6 point advantage in party identification among seniors (39 percent to 33 percent).

—More than half (55 percent) of seniors say the Republican Party is too extreme, half (52 percent) say it is out of touch, and half (52 percent) say the GOP is dividing the country. Just 10 percent of seniors believe that the Republican Party does not put special interests ahead of ordinary voters

—In 2010, seniors voted for Republicans by a 21 point margin (38 percent to 59 percent). Among seniors likely to vote in 2014, the Republican candidate leads by just 5 points (41 percent to 46 percent.)

—When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives at the beginning of 2011, 43 percent of seniors gave the Republican Party a favorable rating. Last month, just 28 percent of seniors rated the GOP favorably. This is not an equal-opportunity rejection of parties or government — over the same period, the Democratic Party’s favorable rating among seniors has increased 3 points, from 37 percent favorable to 40 percent favorable

We're making progress. With Obama (who's not up for re-election) stating he's willing to look at chained CPI, he gives the chance for every Democrat seeking re-election to announce their staunch support of the programs.

[JoePhilly]

95. YUP ... and your last sentence really nails another great point.

Obama has plenty of room to maneuver here. He can appear as "reasonable" as he thinks he needs to be to get the GOP to explicitly state their true goals. He can reach his hand WAY OUT, and then yank it back at the last minute.

If the Dems can split off enough seniors, we can take the house back in 2014.

[libdem4life]

12. Time to bring out the old "anti-war" crew. Hell, no we won't go ... without healthcare for our

kids and grand kids and mitts off our SS and Medicare, too. Guess we Boomers have to get out our signs...yet again. Sigh.

[dembotoz]

14. snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

the democrat way

[ReRe]

30. Chuckle

[riqster]

43. That's "Democratic". Enough with the Rovian re-naming.

It's bad enough when Reeps do it.

[mike_c]

16. never....

eom

[WillyT]

17. Me Too...

[kiranon]

18. Already cut SS benefits when they upped age to get full benefits.

So many of my friends and relatives died before they received any SS benefits. Raise the amount of income subject to SS taxes if more money is needed. There aren't jobs for many who are older forcing them to apply for SS early and take much less in monthly benefits. There aren't jobs for younger people either so less money will go into the SS system and less will be paid out to them when they are older. The real issue for all of us and to save SS is to create more jobs. Instead of "It's the economy stupid" - the battle cry for 2014 and 2016 will be "Where are the jobs?". (Which is a variation on "It's the economy stupid".)

[liberal_at_heart]

22. exactly. So many on here swear their precious democratic leaders have never hurt SS.

Not only did they up the age but for two years in a row they have made historically low increases to the cost of living increase to SS. Their precious leaders not only propose cuts to SS, they cut it.

[woo me with science]

29. +10000

[Bohunk68]

71. It wasn't that the increases

were historically low, THEY WERE NONEXISTANT!!! I know. I'm on SS.

[JDPriestly]

40. We need to end the trade agreements that permit US jobs to be moved overseas without

penalties on the companies that move the jobs. And we need to tax imports.

Right now, we tax income. So if companies move jobs overseas, they can afford paying employees enough so that the employees can pay our income taxes.

As a result, we have fewer jobs meaning less income to tax and therefore lower tax revenue than we would have if we kept the jobs here.

We need a pro-American trade policy. At this time we steadily maintain a trade deficit. China buys the debt that indirectly results from that deficit.

So in that way, the budget deficits, our debt, our lack of jobs and our financial problems are all linked to our unrealistic, unworkable "free" trade policy. We pay dearly for that policy.

I am not suggesting that we end all trade with other countries. I am suggesting that we get it back in balance so that we can have a healthy domestic economy. It's not just in our interest that we do that. The entire world would benefit if we changed our trade policy and got our household and our job situation into balance.

[Enthusiast]

59. We need a pro-American trade policy.

And by that we mean not just pro "wealthy America". We mean working class America.

[Enthusiast]

56. "Where are the jobs?"

Just wait until they shove the TPP down our throats.

[BlueJazz]

19. That's sacred territory

[Recursion]

20. What's a "cut"?

Brass tacks and all; that's not a simple question.

[TheKentuckian]

62. A reduction in buying power. Quit your dancing, your answer is yes but it is preferred

that it can be spun for marketing purposes rather than a cut in real dollars.

You and like minds need to own what you support, why not put into your signatures that if one is not in the bottom third that our future benefits are too generous? Because you will be exposed, most folks will be heavily dependent on social security, just like now but to a larger extent.

[Recursion]

63. "Too generous" is a weird way to put it.

The social security payments to people in the top two thirds economically are something that we might be better off trading for, if there's a good deal to be had.

I keep coming back to the point that I can't see any logic for entitlement cuts because I can't think of anything we want that the Republicans can deliver on.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. I'm pushing for reductions to the TSP portion of FERS, we can't afford that extra gravy

for those who don't care about other people's bread. Those who get that gravy also tend to get excellent salaries and 'perks' like free housing. Why should they get such lavish treatment? We would be better off trading their gravy off and giving it to Grandma.

[TheKentuckian]

83. I don't see what is weird about it. That has to be the argument, most folks are just over broke, at

best.

I don't get the hedging but I then think benefits are to meager for most.

[Recursion]

84. They are too meager, which is why it would have to include something big

to make up for it.

e.g., if it were matched by a decrease in the Medicare deductibles or something. Or, hell, for that matter, national single payer. I would trade means testing SS for national universal single payer.

[pansypoo53219]

31. medicare needs to EVOLVE. the SS FICA cap needs to be ELIMINATED. BOOM that is it.

[JDPriestly]

41. What evolution do you propose for Medicare?

[ReRe]

33. No way, Jose

Yet some among us see it as an afront when asked a simple yes or no question.

[pnwmom]

39. Depends.

I always choose the lesser of two evils.

So I wouldn't vote for a person who cut SS and Medicare in a primary election, assuming there were more progressive alternatives; but I would in a general, assuming the only other viable candidate was a Rethug.

[Hoyt]

42. Depends on circumstances - how bad things are, what people might get in return, whether

we are better off, nature of cuts, and a lot of other things.

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. I had to choose "No"... because there wasn't a "NO WAY IN HELL!" option....

We need to start a letter writing campaign, starting with the "Mainstream Media" talking heads, then move on to our local Reps, our State Reps and Senators, our U.S. Congresscritters in the House & Senate, and all the way to the Vice President *and* the President DEMANDING that they stop using the term "entitlements" for Social Security, SSDI *and* Medicare!

These things are NOT, in any way, shape or form, "entitlements"! We had money taken out of OUR PAYCHECKS every week, bi-monthly or however you got paid, with the PROMISE that it would be there for us when we reached retirement age, or if we became disabled and could no longer work. The ONLY way it could be considered an "entitlement" is due to the fact that it is OUR MONEY and, YES, we are "entitled" to it when it is due to us, as promised.

Millions of Americans *depend* on those SS or SSDI checks to live on, and barely scratch by month to month. If Congress decides to cut payments, or cut the programs off completely causing people to lose everything they have, they are just too damned STUPID to understand the Hell they will unleash. I honestly think that they are TOO DAMNED STUPID to realize that the person who has nothing left to lose is the most dangerous person they will ever run across! When you have nothing left to lose, you have everything to gain... even if you have to TAKE IT! I have actually heard people say that *IF* they lost their Social Security or Disability checks, they're going to be camping out on the lawns, or in the houses, of their Congresscritters. Some have said they'd be camped out all over D.C., even if it meant the Whitehouse lawn, Capitol Hill, in the streets, parking lots, parking garages, etc.

You may be asking yourselves "WHY would they do that?!?!" The answer is simple... "Why not?? We have nothing else to lose! What are they going to do?? Shoot us?? So what, I have nothing left to lose! Jail us?? So what, I have nothing left to lose... at least I'll have somewhere to stay and get fed!"

IMHO, they need to end the failed war on drugs, cut defense spending in half, and maybe cut some pay from Congresscritters, then invest that money into rebuilding our infrastructure, which would create jobs Nation wide, and invest in THE PEOPLE! Give THE PEOPLE some HOPE & SECURITY, and do it QUICKLY, or I'm afraid we are headed to a really dark place in this Country and, quite frankly, I *do not* want to see that happen.

Give Peace and HOPE a chance!

Ghost

[peacebird]

46. ^ agree100% with Ghost!

[DLevine]

47. Hell no. nt

[eridani]

54. Chained CPI is CUTTING Social Security

[gopiscrap]

55. not just hell no but,

FUCK NO!!!

[eridani]

57. Let Senator Durbin know how you feel--sign the CREDO petition

This past weekend, Sen. Dick Durbin, the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate, appeared on Fox News Sunday and told host Chris Wallace that he would support cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits as part of a grand bargain with Republicans.

These vital and hugely successful programs deserve to be strengthened and expanded, not cut.

The last thing we need is a powerful Democrat going on national television and saying he's open to making a deal with the Republicans that includes benefit cuts.

Sign the petition telling Sen. Durbin not to sell us out on Medicare or Social Security:

http://act.credoaction.com/sign/durbin_socsec_2013?sp_ref=.4.958.e.4026.2&referring_akid=9210.457465.fWxJOu&source=mailto_sp

[Scuba]

64. As it says on the red graphic ....

[Puzzledtraveller]

66. Well they may say they won't

but that doesn't mean they won't. If the field only has those who based on what we know about them are likely to either propose or be willing to go along with cuts then what do we do? Not vote? Doubtful. Most people checked no on this survey. I believe many of them would support and or vote for a Democrat who would very likely approve of some cuts as I believe most of them will. Once in office anyway.

[Savannahmann]

67. Yes

In accordance with the terms of service for Democratic Underground as long as the candidate has the letter D after their name, I fully and whole heartedly support them providing they have secured the nomination. Once the nomination is secure, I fully support them no matter what policies they support.

For those of you who have voted no, I wonder if you realize you have just violated the Terms of Service here at Democratic Underground.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Now all of you who voted no, you wouldn't be rooting for the other side would you?

[Bluenorthwest]

77. This is not election season. If Skinner wants to ban folks for being actual Democrats he

is free to do so. It's his house, not yours. You seem to simple to grasp that most of us primary the shitty candidates. If Ron Wyden votes for such a thing he will NOT be the nominee in Oregon, we have several other Democrats who would be just fine in his seat. No politician is the Party and none are owed a thing.

[Savannahmann]

80. The question was would I support them?

The answer, according to the rules of this site, is yes. I would support those same Democrats. I answered in accordance with the rules. Now, if you want to discuss specifics, say the nomination process and any primary challenger, fine. That we can do. However, once a candidate has the nomination, according to the rules we all agreed to in order to post here, I would support that candidate even if they supported slashing Medicare and Social Security as long as they were the Democrat.

[alc]

68. need to see the short and long-term explanations and total package

If interest rates go up (higher debt service costs) and ACA costs are higher than expected we can be screwed in 10+ years. Those are not unrealistic "ifs". SS will need to cash in a lot of trust fund bonds every year so it DOES have an affect on the general budget (debt service of those bonds).

I'd like to see a major change in our revenue/budget system. Put everything on the table from tax increases (income, cap gains, SS caps) to means testing to older retirement to who knows what. "Default" is pretty scary so let's not stay in a situation where it's possible every 2 years because of stubbornness, and may be impossible to avoid in 10-20 years (without printing huge amounts of money - much more than we do now - which is a different type of irresponsible debt service).

[eShirl]

72. hell no... Slashed Enough Already

[dawg]

78. I'm calling bullshit on myself.

Because I voted no. But I have already knowingly done what I just claimed that I would not do.

[JoePhilly]

79. Is there a video of a Democrat making such a proposal?

I mean, are Democrats actually coming out and saying to the American people ... "We really need to CUT Social Security."

Are there Democrats PUSHING that as an actual goal somewhere?

And to be clear, I'm not asking if they've said we should "reform", or "modify" ... I mean actually come out and PUSHED for cuts ... tried to sell the idea of SS cuts, to the American people?

I'm very comfortable with the Democrats continuing to dangle the "entitlements" carrot in front of the GOP, and allowing the GOP to try and grab for it.

But that little game of politics is not the same as "proposing cuts", even though it is mistakenly described as such on DU every couple months, for the last 4 years, often in Hair-On-Fire threads.

Its been that way since about May of 2009, won't stop until Jan 2017 when the President leaves office.

And it will probably restart a few months later.

[meanit]

81. No

We know who is really trying to cut these benefits, we know why they are trying to cut these benefits, and it has NOTHING to do with "strengthening the programs" or "saving them".

Enough is enough.

Absolutely no cuts.

[Xyzse]

82. I generally wouldn't but given the option of either voting for them or a Republican/Independent with

A Worse platform...
I'd vote for them regardless.

What other choice do I have?

[TheKentuckian]

94. That "logic" means you can be herded as long as their is that scarier alternative

The threat is best reduced by not being allowed as an option, hell or high water.

Democrats need to grasp that there is no power without the ability to say no. There is always a more frightening alternative and if there isn't there will be in very short order because we are easily checked just by framing. The ownership class knows this, get real.

[Xyzse]

96. Well, this is how I voted Obama.

During the primaries I supported others.
Obama was my last choice.

So, the only choice I had was McCain or Obama... McCain picked Palin and that became a frightening option.
Unfortunately, I'd have to pick the lesser of two evils.

So I support who I want in primaries then if I don't get what I want, well I have to be pragmatic enough to vote for who I think would do less damage.