Greider at The Nation on how they are "reforming" Social Security without saying it out loud.

[madfloridian]

There was an article in 1997 at the FAIR blog. It was called Here We Go Again. Can Social Security Survive Another "Rescue"

It is a point well made.

The rescue of Social Security has been a staple of American journalism for 20 years now—a story all the more remarkable in that Social Security has never been in peril except from its rescuers.

The rescues have all been based on faulty arithmetic. First, in 1977, the rescuers humbly confessed that they had made a mistake in adjusting benefits to inflation, as a result of which Social Security was threatening to go broke. (They never say the Army is threatening to "go broke," only that it needs more money to do the job that it's asked to do.) Not to worry. Amid the Yuletide hosannas of our massed punditry, our leaders found the courage to enact a correction that would, they swore, assure solvency into the 21st Century.

..."A bipartisan commission under Alan Greenspan went to work on the numbers, while the media developed an unprecedented campaign of vilification of the elderly. On magazine covers, in cartoons and columns and on broadcast commentaries innumerable, they were depicted as hogs, vampires, sharks, gorillas and card sharps scooping up the sustenance of the young. While the investment banker Peter G. Peterson led the media legions, Greenspan fabricated a hurricane warning. Multiplying one false assumption by another (for example, he assumed that the C.P.I. would rise nearly three times as fast as it actually did rise, while his private firm was forecasting an even smaller increase), he predicted that Social Security would go bankrupt in 1983.

The scare headlines permitted Congress in early 1983 to enact a bill acclaimed in headlines as a great rescue. In addition to the previously scheduled cut of 20 percent in benefits for new retirees, it clipped six months of cost-of-living adjustment from all then and future beneficiaries, raised payroll taxes further and postponed the retirement age from 65 to 67 in phases to begin in 2002.

The solvency of Social Security was thus assured for 75 more years. The euphoria was such that when some new retirees learned that their benefits were taking a double hit and complained, they suffered the righteous wrath of the massed media. They were called "Greedy Geezers": "Avaricious," "spiteful" people who would snatch food from babies —a media image of America's elderly that persists to this day.

Ain't it amazing? Peterson's propaganda is still being catapulted even today. From The Nation article in the June 7 issue by William Greider.

Whacking Old Folks

In setting up his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, Barack Obama is again playing coy in public, but his intentions are widely understood among Washington insiders. The president intends to offer Social Security as a sacrificial lamb to entice conservative deficit hawks into a grand bipartisan compromise in which Democrats agree to cut Social Security benefits for future retirees while Republicans accede to significant tax increases to reduce government red ink.

..."The president has stacked the deck to encourage this strategy. The eighteen-member commission is top-heavy with fiscal conservatives and hostile right-wingers who yearn to dismantle the retirement program. The Republican co-chair, former Senator Alan Simpson, is especially nasty; he likes to get laughs by ridiculing wheezy old folks. Democratic co-chair Erskine Bowles and staff director Bruce Reed secretly negotiated a partial privatization of Social Security with Newt Gingrich back when they served in the Clinton White House, but the deal blew up with Clinton's sex scandal. Monica Lewinsky saved the system.

Here is more from Greider's article.

What's extraordinary about this assault on Social Security is that a Democratic president is leading it. Obama is arm in arm with GOP conservatives like Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson, who for decades has demonized Social Security as a grave threat to the Republic and has spread some $12 million among economists, think tanks, foundations and assorted front groups to sell his case. If Obama pulls the deal off, this will be his version of "Nixon goes to China"—a leader proving his manhood by going against his party's convictions. Even if he fails, the president will get some protective cover on the deficit issue. After all, he is targeting Big Government's most beloved and trusted program—the New Deal's most prominent pillar.

Obama's initiative rests on two falsehoods spread by Peterson's propaganda—the notion that Social Security somehow contributes to the swollen federal deficits and that cutting benefits will address this problem. Obama and his advisers do not say this in so many words, but their rhetoric implies that Social Security is a big source of the deficit problem. Major media promote the same falsehoods. Here is what the media don't tell you: Social Security has accumulated a massive surplus—$2.5 trillion now, rising to $4.3 trillion by 2023. This vast wealth was collected over many years from workers under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) to pay in advance for baby boom retirements. The money will cover all benefits until the 2040s—unless Congress double-crosses workers by changing the rules. This nest egg does not belong to the government; it belongs to the people who paid for it. FICA is not a tax but involuntary savings.

He warns us to fight. I doubt we will fight over this any more than people are fighting to keep this administration from privatizing education. It is being done right before our eyes, yet even at Democratic forums there is no outrage, just denial.

Citizens can win this fight if they mobilize smartly. We can do this by arousing public alarm right now, while members of Congress face a treacherous election and before Obama can work out his deal. Some liberal groups are discussing a "take the pledge" campaign that demands senators and representatives sign commitments to keep Hands Off Social Security Benefits. If politicians refuse to sign, put them on the target list for November. Barack Obama is standing on the third rail of politics—let's give him a warning jolt.

Speaking of asking congress to take a pledge, Will Marshall of the DLC and the PPI once wrote a little article about liberals who did that...he said they were "camp meeting converts swearing off demon rum".

Will Marshall attacks the Social Security Pledge

It is from 2002.

Like camp meeting converts swearing off demon rum, nearly every Democratic candidate for Congress dutifully took the Pledge. They vowed to never, ever allow working Americans to divert some portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. In leftish circles, this goes by the name of "privatization" and is regarded as the ultimate political thought crime.

..."The pledge is the brainchild of the Campaign for America's Future, a union-backed organization that is to Social Security and Medicare what the Inquisition was to medieval Christiandom. Its latter-day Torquemadas enforce New Deal-Great Society orthodoxy and ferret out heresy with religious zeal.

There is an long article at Alternet about the members of the Debt Commission and their agendas.

Greider was right in the article above...it is packed with those who will turn the future of Social Security over to private companies.

Many younger people don't have a clue about what Social Security and Medicare actually are, and how many people depend on them.

I suggest that they learn very quickly, and I suggest they fight back against such plans. Ask yourself how well you can financially take care of your parents or grandparents if such social nets are allowed to fail.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. How dare Obama turn against Social Security?

This is not what I expect from a supposedly Democratic President.

This is a callous betrayal of the highest order. I am aghast, outraged.

Thank you for this post...

You have parted the water, and shown us just how large, how menacing, this iceberg really is.

[DJ13]

2. This is not what I expect from a supposedly Democratic President.

Im no longer sure if he IS a Democrat.

So much of his policies are based on right wing ideology that Im starting to think he's always been a stealth conservative.

Even his HCR was a GOP plan from 1992.

[tonysam]

4. +1,000 n/t

[bobbolink]

40. Some of us saw the "stealth" before, but were attacked if we dared hint at it.

Now, here we are.

:nuke:

[zabet]

51. +1,000,000

Indeed..

[peace frog]

57. Exactly

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." :eyes:

[dgibby]

91. I never attacked anyone,

but I must admit, I was caught flatfooted on this one. I guess I needed to believe in him. My bad. Won't make that mistake again.

I'll give him credit for one thing: he's taught me to never, ever trust another politician, no matter how smart and/or promising.

[ShortnFiery]

146. AMEN!

I'm with you there 100%:

"I'll give him credit for one thing: he's taught me to never, ever trust another politician, no matter how smart and/or promising."

[bobbolink]

216. Yours is the pain that bothers me the most about all of this..... people who have had their trust

ripped off. There is NO excuse for that. :(

I think of all the young kids (to me they are "kids" ^_^ )who got so excited, and worked so hard, and are now not just diappointed, but quickly becoming cynical, as you have. That is a lot of damage, and it really upsets me. What would really be bad is if some of them never become active again because of this!

The one that really makes me sad is the Mexican immigrant who worked in our local recycling collection. He was so excited about Obama, and even though he lived in an area where his lawn signs were routinely torn down, he kept replacing them. He worked his butt off for this man, and when he became disillusioned it hit him really hard. It makes me feel very sad whenever I think of this hard-working and very patriotic man. :(

I'm sorry that you felt so blind-sided. I gave up on "organized politics" (as toxic as organized religion) also, and am quite fulfilled working on poverty issues, which is desparately needed. Movement politics will always be necessary, and I hope you find your nitch.

:hi:

[TampaAnimus2010]

250. Why didn't they index it to cover increases in life expectancy?

When SS started, it kicked in at 65 and people lived an average of 60-65 years. It was never designed to have large fractions of the population on it. They could have spent extra money retraining older people into jobs that didn't require so much physical stress - and a good fraction of them would have loved it.

So far, most the people I know that retired and stopped working, found out pretty quickly that not having anything to do with your time gets old real quick. Most would love the opportunity to get back to doing something productive and not be dependent on others. Granted, the sickly and those unable to work need to be taken care of.

[ooglymoogly]

108. Having phone banked and beat the streets for this four flusher

I could see this Raygunwinger soon after he was elected when everything went DINO or pug and taken the hits every time I have said so. I will never be fooled like this again....I will not vote for this man again. I will leave that option unmarked or write in a candidate, probably Howard Dean. In fact it would be very gratifying to me, to see a write in campaign started.

[whathehell]

197. I'm with you......I feel quite betrayed. n/t

[Peregrine Took]

207. We once drove 100 miles to see the 4 flusher now I wouldn't cross the street.

[MissDeeds]

161. Absolutely

I remember that well. It was especially bad for those who dared to support Hillary or Edwards in the primaries. This president and his "change" rhetoric has let down the Democratic party, and dare I say liberals, progressives, gays, unions, teachers...and so on. The only people he seems hell bent on pleasing are those on the right side of the aisle. Maybe they will vote for him next time. I certainly won't.

[liberation]

168. Unfortunately, both Hillary (a corporatist hawk) and Edwards (a monumental douche) are as bad

There was literally no place to go in the Dem primaries, given the only "allowed" front runners were slight variations of the same theme.

It is time to stop putting party before country I say. Else we will be stuck in the same "evil of two lessers" system. Which has proven to be not that great...

[ooglymoogly]

243. It is time for a monumental effort for a write in campaign

for someone we trust. My choice would be H. Dean, Clark, Grayson, Kucinich, in any order; We just have to all be on the same page. The time has come. What the hell have we got to lose.

[icee]

60. I have said that for a long time now. He is a DINO, a hired gun

DINO who has an agenda handed to him by the men in charge.

[Citizen Worker]

66. Obama not a democrat?

Obama is a "new" democrat as is Hillary Clinton. Both self proclaimed new demnocrats by the way. In other words they are members of the DLC as was Bill Clinton and Al Gore and far too many more.

[bvar22]

102. Not just Hillary and Obama,

but almost the entire White House cabinet, certainly all the top cabinet positions:


The DLC New Team
Liberal Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

”I am a New Democrat!”---Barack Obama
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254931&kaid=85&subid=900184


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."
---Paul Wellstone

[avaistheone1]

134. They are doing God's work

taking Social Security (the pittance that it is) from the very Americans that have sweated to pay for it.

[Mike K]

151. The simple fact is

he is a puppet who was positioned by corporate interests. Wall Street has been salivating at the prospect of taking charge of the FICA treasure. And this bastard is going to try to help them do it.

I am convinced Obama knows he is a one-term president and he will be quite content to walk away with every penny in the war chest he will accumulate from the naive chauvinists who will continue to believe in him no matter what he does to them. Barack Obama has succeeded in making himself a very rich man by becoming one of the most successful of modern crooked politicians.

[bvar22]

162. "Brand Obama"...

..."Hope & Change" was a very successful Corporate Marketing Scam...nothing more.
Those who refuse to see the painful truth are in serious denial.


We're very proud that the Democratic Party is now somewhere to the Right of Nixon's Republicans...
AND we're not stopping there!

What are the "Old Liberals" going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!


"I did not campaign on a Public Option!"

[nichomachus]

178. That's not entirely true

Obama's HCR was a watered down version of one Richard Nixon offered in 1974. Oddly enough, the GOP and the insurance companies loved it and the Democrats hated it. They wanted it to go further, even though it went much farther than Obama's does. Nixon's was much more "soclalist."

[dgibby]

90. Just one more betrayal in a very long line, Peggy.

Sad, isn't it? I had such high hopes for him.

[bbgrunt]

135. Clinton did the same deal--and except for Monica, would have

trashed Soc sec in the 90's. Neither is a real Democrat.

[Telly Savalas]

147. Beyond forming a committee which doesn't appear to have done anything yet

what specific actions has Obama taken to turn against Social Security?

Did I overlook something in the OP?

[TheKentuckian]

229. He didn't get the votes for the binding proposal so he went Executive Order

but that can't by law be a pass/fail lock. Obama is driving this one all the way from the minds of trusty fellows like Judd Gregg and good old Kent Conrad.

You might also look at the collection of dumpsterfucks he assembled to make the recommendations. Its a good egg or two on there but the commission is stacked with cons that have a life mission of gutting the safety net.

Take a good look at that crew and think real hard if they are likely to suggest removing income caps or raising taxes on the wealthy.

Watch, not only will they be talking some steps to cut and/or privatize Medicare and Social Security but they'll have some neat-o ideas for regressive taxes as well.

[ProSense]

3. The notion that the President is secretly reforming Social Security is ludicrous.

The commission is going to make recommendations to Congress. No one has mentioned altering Social Security, that is not the purpose of the committee. Their finding will be released. This isn't a secret.

[tonysam]

Coming from you I take anything you say with a grain of salt.

n/t

[ProSense]

8. Thanks for letting me know. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. +1000!

:thumbsup:

[ooglymoogly]

110. Clearly! nt

[closeupready]

173. Agreed.

n/t

[OHdem10]

20. Do not be surprised when Grieder is proven correct.

[glitch]

28. So far he's batting 1000.

the people who try to discredit him, not so much.

[ProSense]

37. Well, he's not correct about it being a secret.

KOHL: SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENCY, TARGETED BENEFITS CAN BE IMPROVED WITH MODEST TWEAKS

May 18, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today U.S. Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, released an official Committee report on Social Security. The report outlines the challenges currently facing America’s retirement program and highlights options for addressing program solvency, benefit adequacy, and retirement income security for economically-vulnerable groups. Emphasizing that a majority of America’s seniors rely on Social Security as their primary source of income, the report calls on Congress to enact modest changes to Social Security in the near future to bring its long-term financing into balance and improve benefits for those who need them most.

“This report shows that, contrary to popular belief, the sky is absolutely not falling for Social Security. By implementing one or more of these modest changes, we can ensure solvency and even strengthen benefits for those who count on their monthly check the most,” said Chairman Kohl.

Copies of the report were delivered to all eighteen members of President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Many of the Commission’s members have publicly mentioned their interest in addressing Social Security as part of their work to reduce the federal deficit.

“Social Security has never been responsible for one penny of the federal deficit, and by law is barred from doing so. In fact, it has been in surplus every year since its inception. If the Commission chooses to take a look at the program, it is my hope that they find our Aging Committee report of use,” Kohl said.

The report points out that the nation’s demographics have changed significantly since the Social Security program began in 1935. Americans are living longer, women’s participation in the labor force has significantly increased, and with a rise in the divorce rate, household composition has changed. The labor force is also growing more slowly and with fewer companies offering pensions, the nature of work and compensation has altered in ways that affect workers’ ability to save for retirement. Therefore, in addition to improving solvency, any future reforms to the program should take into account America’s evolving demographics in order to ensure that benefits are adequate and equitable for generations to come.

The report includes an important disclaimer that the options laid out represent a range of commonly-considered proposals, and that none of them should be construed as having been endorsed by the Committee or its members. In the foreword, Chairman Kohl asserts: “Many members of the Committee, including myself, do not support and actively oppose many of the options. However, a full and informed debate begins with the collection of research and information, and it is our hope that this report will serve as a resource to Congress and policymakers as they discuss ways to ensure that Social Security will remain strong for another 75 years.”

"Copies of the report were delivered to all eighteen members of President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform."

Members - Senate Special Committee on Aging

Herb Kohl, Chairman (Wisconsin)
Ron Wyden (Oregon)
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)
Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
Bob Casey (Pennsylvania)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)
Mark Udall (Colorado)
Michael Bennet (Colorado)
Kirsten Gillibrand (New York)
Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)
Al Franken (Minnesota)

[ooglymoogly]

113. Yeah like not assessing even the barest

increase as, in law, demanded by COLA when prices are going through the roof (while they are pretending they are not) for folks having to decide between prescriptions and food. Fer Sher dooood, they only have our best interests at heart. sher. We all know who's interests they have at heart.

[Hannah Bell]

138. that's a senate report, not the report of the deficit commission. & some of

the "modest tweaks" proposed are trojan horses.

[ooglymoogly]

218. Remember all the good things we were going to get out of

health-care and watched them be flushed down the toilet one by one, by O himself; Who, in fact, was the major beneficiary? And any other "wonderful" things O has done. All you need ask is who was the real beneficiary? Who is better off today than they were 2 years ago....War criminals, bank looters, the banksters and the health-care industry and the oil corporations to name a few, that's who. If you receive SS, was there a COLA, as mandated by law especially critical to folks deciding between $300 medicines (with co-pays 1000 times the value of actual mecdicines) and food, when prices are shooting through the roof, no matter what faked up statistics they pull out of the hat? Even, evil incarnate, Bush, did not sink that low, because he would not have gotten away with it.

[bobbolink]

222. And O gets away with it solely because of that stinking "D" after his name.

The death toll remains the same as *.... and probably will be worse. :nuke:

[icee]

61. I no longer believe anything you say. No matter what he does,

you automatically take his side. If he does this, a revolution will occur. You will see blood on the streets like never before.

[freddie mertz]

74. + 100000.

Agreed. A thoroughly predictable and discredited source.

[Telly Savalas]

148. So the article from the Senate Committee of Aging is a forgery?

Interesting.

[treestar]

170. Pot meet kettle, when everything you say goes against him, your

credibility is not any better.

You know what the difference is? Trying to find out the facts before jumping on the bandwagon.

[icee]

184. Way past that with this one... But, clearly, I see where you are.

[MissDeeds]

187. There are several like that here

There are a few posters who will champion whatever Obama does - no matter how indefensible, or how his actions go against what the Democratic Party has traditionally stood for. I think their purpose here is obvious.

[icee]

192. Yeah. I understand what you mean. Let's alls stick together.

[MissDeeds]

194. Works for me

:hi:

[bobbolink]

223. Unfortunately, I don't think so. I think everyone is either too beaten down, or just mesmerized.

The deer in the headlights effect.

The frog is still slowing coming to the boil.

[icee]

226. And that, sir, is my greatest fear. For then we are truly doomed. I

hope that when the National Guard is herding us into fields to dig our own graves, I hope we have the energy and the will to at least cry.

[bobbolink]

257. Your scenario gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Just shoot me".

I would hope our cooperation would have ended long before that point.

[laughingliberal]

62. Bookmarking. nt

[freddie mertz]

73. If you deny it, there must be something to it.

I remember your "promises" regarding the public option.

How'd that work out for us?

[Yuugal]

176. +1

Same goes for the rest of that posting team.

[Change Happens]

84. THANK YOU!

[donco6]

98. Considering how your batting average is .000, NOW I'm really worried.

It must be a sure thing.

[tabatha]

177. Yes, this has been debunked before.

Obama will not take away SS, he will fix it.

[madfloridian]

211. Read who is on the debt commission.

Actually reread a lot of what I posted.

It has never been debunked.

The fix is like the fix for education....privatizing it.

[Me.]

5. Correct Me If I Am Misinformed

But I am under the impression that this committee can only recommend and cannot act without a vote in Congress. While that doesn't mean Congress will protect us and not be overjoyed at finally killing this 'entitlement', we will have a chance to fight back before it becomes the law of the land. There was a thread this week that said the only thing that stopped Clinton and Erskine Bowles was the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

[ProSense]

6. "cannot act without a vote in Congress"

Technicalities don't count when people are blinded by whatever the hell is causing them to make these unsubstantiated claims.

[Me.]

38. I'm Not Sure About Unsubstantiated

It may be history repeating itself. I am linking How Monica Lewinsky saved social security. A warning shot across the bough may be just what's being done here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x536684

[whathehell]

63. Vigilance.... Always.

[laughingliberal]

65. And that is only because the Senate did not pass the bill for the creation of the commission.

The way that bill was written it would have allowed no debate on or amendment to the commission's recommendations. Just an up or down vote on the whole package. The Senate failed to pass it so the President created the commission by executive order and could not, by law, make it as sacrosanct as the bill would have done. A look at the Senators who were pushing for this commission is revealing: Conrad and Gregg were the loud voices insisting on it. Neither of them inspire any confidence in me.

[Lasher]

227. A couple of important points:

If the fast track scheme had prevailed, Congress would have been obliged to take up the commission's recommendations in a timely manner whether they wanted to or not. And the Senate vote would not have been subject to a filibuster, so only 51 votes would have been required.

[bvar22]

251. We dodged the first bullet,

but the DLC Democrats have more ammo in the magazine.
The DLC and their economic allies (the Republicans) are like Terminators.
They WILL NOT STOP until Social Security is DEAD, and the money disappeared into Private pockets.


"And everyone has a share!" shouted Milo as the American planes began dropping bombs on their own base.

[monmouth]

7. Obama's mother-in-law will straighten him out soon enough...n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. I'll eat my shorts if politicians actually vote to end Social Security.

It's well known on the Hill that Social Security is the political equivalent of the third rail.

[dkf]

10. Maybe we need to means test it though.

Warren Buffet doesn't need it.

[w4rma]

53. No we don't need to means test it, but we do need to remove the payroll tax cap. (nt)

[CrispyQ]

59. If we did that, wouldn't the people making huge salaries get an even bigger check when they retire?

So why are they opposed to this? A bigger SS check would help to support their extravagant life styles when they retire.

I'll never understand the level of greed these bastards have. They don't have enough - they want it all.

[Jackpine Radical]

81. The relationship between paying in & taking out later is not linear.

Lower-income people recover more of what they put in than higher-income people. Personally, I think that's the way it should be. Those most financially vulnerable need it the most.

[laughingliberal]

67. +1000 nt

[Hannah Bell]

142. removing the cap is a trojan horse intended to dissolve support for the program

among the most well-heeled & politically influential segment of beneficiaries.

[bullwinkle428]

87. Means testing will make it easier for them to completely dismantle it

later down the road.

[femrap]

119. I believe a 'means test'

is a good thing.

I look at it this way: Social Security is an INSURANCE program. We pay into it because we don't know what the future holds. Do we become disabled? Hit by a car and can't work? Do you retire when the stock markets are tanking and that nest egg you worked so hard to grow turns into a pittance?

It's like Insurance for your home...you don't know if it'll be struck by lightning or if there will be an electrical fire. You pay for the insurance. Now when you sell the home, do you demand all of your money back since nothing bad happened to the house???

No. I think people who are lucky enough not to NEED Social Security should thank the Goddesses and Gods of the Universe.

Raise the cap on it....the wealthy can, after all, afford it.

Honestly, this COMMUNITY of GREED has to STOP. It is like some horrid viral disease that has infected this nation.

I hope TPTB choke on their damn money.

[bertman]

137. Thank you for that post, femrap. I agree with you.

[Hannah Bell]

141. more means-testing is a trojan horse intended to dissolve support for the program

among the most well-heeled & politically influential beneficiaries, the upper-middle class.

[femrap]

190. I guess

the well-heeled upper-middle class (I like your terminology) deserve to be shamed for their complete lack of empathy as well as their inability to be grateful for the gifts they have received in life.

I'm very tired of selfish people.

And the people who complain about all the taxes they have to pay. I tell them, 'You don't want to pay taxes, I can solve your problem right now. Give me all your money and belongings.'

Taxes are so low now compared to when I was making big bucks in the '80's as a corporate semi-whore.

[Hannah Bell]

234. Social security is financed by workers; the well-heeled pay more (total) going in;

The less-well heeled receive more going out.

It was designed that way for a reason; so that it could not be demagogued as a "welfare" program that the well-off pay for but the less well-off primarily benefit from. That's why it's lasted 70 years: the longest-lived, most fiduciarily sound retirement insurance program in world history.

Welfare-type programs already exist, & are funded out of income taxes. Because the top 20% pay most of the cost of those programs, they are especially vulnerable to attack & cuts on that basis; as witness Clinton's welfare "reform". As witness the attacks on Supplemental Security income. As witness even the attacks on things like Head Start & WIC.

I don't want that to happen to Social Security.

The "reforms" being pushed are part of a long-term plan to destroy it. The most important fact about social security is: the supposed crisis is phoney; it's being hyped in order to herd the uninformed into supporting the "reforms" that will destroy it.

[femrap]

253. I don't disagree with you.

By raising the cap on the salary, do you feel that the well-heeled will get all huffy and whiny and demand more and better shoes and boots?

Hey, maybe some viral disease will come along and attack only those with grand shoes and fancy boots as well as large investment portfolios. It will be known as The Elite's Plague. Death is quick. SS is saved for the Have-Nots.

A woman can dream....

:think:

I just am tired of coddling those with Italian shoes.

[Hannah Bell]

140. social security is already means-tested through the tax on benefits.

[Radical Activist]

154. Absolutely.

It's a terribly regressive tax that punishes low wage workers and gives the money to wealthy retirees. That's not what the system was set up for.

[madfloridian]

11. Nowhere did I say they would "end" it.

I said they are going to privatize it just as they are doing with education. Corporations want their greedy hands on both. With that comes deregulation of sorts.

Look what happened to our country with all the deregulating.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. Correct. I will eat my shorts if politicians vote to privatize Social Security

The third rail analogy still applies. No politician will dare touch Social Security at the very real risk of their political destruction.

[bvar22]

16. No, NO..They aren't going to "END" Social Security.

They are going to "SAVE" it!

"Sir. We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

It doesn't really matter what they actually DO anymore.
It only matters what the CALL it!


What do ALL of the following have in common?

"Patriot Act"

"Health Care Reform"

"Financial Reform"

"Social Security Reform"

"I did not have sex with THAT woman."

"I did not campaign on a Public Option."

"I am not a crook."

ANSWER:
They are ALL lies.

[tango-tee]

50. I've learned to be on the lookout

for our Hopenator's (you coined that great term a short while ago, bvar!) PR shill to show up on a thread, telling us all will be well. Then I can be fairly certain the screws are gonna be put to us once again.

[laughingliberal]

68. None so blind as those...nt

[TheKentuckian]

78. Yup, yup. That's it. Lying liars that lie.

[femrap]

120. Yep

...look at our Health 'Reform.'

It's all about the 'Spin' these days. I don't know how these people look in the mirror.

[Change Happens]

83. +1

[Hannah Bell]

139. they won't. they'll vote for "tweaks" intended to divide support for it.

tweaks like

1) reducing benefits by income & age
2) increasing ss taxation on the income segment least in need of it

= creating opposition for it & dividing the young from the boomers & the upper middle from other income segments


then those who don't see themselves as benefiting will "vote" to end it, by withdrawing their support & buying into the "solutions" of the future.

the ruling class thinks long-term.

[Mike K]

175. There will never be a vote to "end Social Security."

Just as there never was a vote to commit American troops to Iraq and Afghanistan for a prolonged and indefinite period.

It won't go down that way. The end of Social Security as we have known it will occur as an incremental drift toward privatization. It will commence with a slight but necessary adjustment in the interest of more efficiently investing the Fund's money. And like the boy said to the girl, I promise I won't put it in all the way!"

[xchrom]

13. Recommend - small nuanced changes enacted by congress

Coming this presidents commuter could have
dramatic effects on many many people.

And no big Third Rail commotion made about it.

[bananas]

14. Greider's article is also at MichaelMoore.com

I couldn't read it at The Nation for some reason.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/whacking-old-folks

[madfloridian]

17. Thanks for that link. Having trouble staying logged in at The Nation

Usually no problem, but annoying today.

[Overseas]

15. Hands Off Social Security and Medicare! We need them !! //nt

[bvar22]

106. The seeds for the destruction of Medicare have already been planted...

...in the Health Care "Reform" Act, beginning with a $500Billion Dollar de-funding to help "pay" for the new provisions in the HCR Bill, of which the For Profit Health Insurance Industry will now be skimming off the top 15%.

[Hannah Bell]

143. that's how they do it. they never do it all at once; that would arouse too much opposition.

they do it piecemeal so that the opposition remains divided.

and that's what they're going to do this time, too.

reagan/greenspan "reform" was the same thing.

[madfloridian]

18. Take time to read all of the Alternet article.

http://www.alternet.org/story/146183/obama_packs_debt_commission_with_social_security_looters?page=entire

"After the defeat of the Conrad-Gregg commission, groups defending Social Security had little time to rejoice before Obama resuscitated the plan, creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform by executive order. While the Commission's proposals will not be limited to an up or down vote in Congress, it's otherwise exactly as Conrad-Gregg envisioned, and Pelosi and Reid have promised to put them to a vote before the end of the current session of Congress."

Does this commission have powers beyond congress? Not sure.

[laughingliberal]

69. The timing of the commission's recommendations is telling, is it not?

Just after the midterm elections and well before any of them have to face another election cycle.

[WinkyDink]

19. IF done, neither he nor we will see a Democratic President in 2012...or EVER AGAIN.

Perhaps Obama cares not.
Perhaps he is in office to accomplish certain things, and will work to that effect.

[Hardrada]

21. He is our Tony Blair, as someone said. He IS in office with an agenda.

And that is to completely consolidate corporate power. Insurance corporations. Education Corporations (profiteers from Obama's War on Teachers), and Wall Street gets the SSI money at last. He was long groomed for this as is obvious with every passing minute.

[katandmoon]

23. +1,000.

[glitch]

31. I am sure he feels he's doing God's work.

He is mistaken but that won't stop him.

[femrap]

122. + kazillion...nt

[kenny blankenship]

127. He is beyond your stale tired ideological debates and petty partisan bickering!

If Obama is completely consolidating corporate power over democracy, education, medicine, unions, and social welfare, then we say "Long live the Corporate Empire!"

His victory is our victory. Surrender yourself to Obama, and win. Be ready to sacrifice everything, and win. For if we serve the corporate good to the contempt of ourselves we cannot fail. "To obey" is the only catechism. Cheer his successes. Destroy his enemies.

[icee]

185. I said that. It becomes clearer every day.

[jwirr]

22. Now you have done it! I had a fairly good day - babysat 4 great

grandchildren under the age of 3 and they all survived, the house is still standing and I am not in the hospital. This article is depressing. If we fight is there any groups we can trust to stand with us?

[defendandprotect]

30. Other than the usual liberal groups, I don't think Senior Citizens have ever organized . . .

certainly not thru AARP which is an insurance company --

:crazy:

Elites are always successful at keeping the masses separated --

one way or another!!

[icee]

64. I don't think that would work this time. The guns will come out

this time. I'm starting to wonder if there may be normal teaparty people.

[femrap]

123. 'normal teaparty people'

:rofl: :spray: :rofl: :spray: :rofl:

I read about a 'coffee party' that is on Facebook, I think. It sounded 'normal.' But of course it gets no press since it is made up of intelligent, caring people who want to create a better world instead of destroying this one.

[nichomachus]

179. When AARP started it was an advocacy group and had some clout

It was only later that it was co-opted by the insurance companies. The corporatists always win.

[nichomachus]

180. delete

[ima_sinnic]

205. seniors organized as the Gray Panthers in the 1970s to fight mandatory retirement

My dad still reminisces about the good ole days when he fought tooth and nail against being forced to retire at age 65 (he's 93 now)--a political activist for the first and last time in his life.
The Gray Panthers did succeed in eliminating mandatory retirement.

on edit: I see the Gray Panthers are still active:
http://www.graypanthers.org/

more about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Panthers

[Nikki Stone1]

24. No surprise. Wait til Medicare is privatized now that the new health insurance mandate is in place

....

[laughingliberal]

72. The cuts HCR made to Medicare is the set up for that.

It will start failing worse with further underfunding and they will scream that turning it over to the private entities is the only way to 'save' it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

131. Yes thats the way right wing governments do it.

Everywhere in the world. Not talking about totalitarian regimes like North Korea or Mayamar, but in all so-called stable democracies.

Whether national, provincial, or civic. I've seen it happen here. A left leaning government comes in and tries to cut back on tax benefits to the wealthy and big business and spend it on helping average people through social programs, education, medical. Then the full wrath of the corporate masters rears up and uses its media arm to savage the government as reckless spenders and threaten to leave the area for greener tax havens.

So eventually the wingnuts get back in power and immediately hand giant tax cuts to their wealthy friends and corporations, while cutting programs as they moan in public about how they need to get the books in order because of the ruthless spending spree that the previous gov did.

And every day they are in office, they work tirelessly to convert all public held assets, corporations, programs etc.. into private hands. Into the hands of their wealthy donors. They know its a one way street. That is even if the left gets back in, those assets are SOLD. There is no way to recover those assets back for the public.

So pretty soon it won't matter for some future left leaning government. There will be nothing left for the public anyways. There will be nothing to 'govern'. The conservative dream of the death of government.

It's so difficult to watch the Obama I thought I knew, change into the Obama he obviously is.

[dana_b]

25. Thank you - I'm bookmarking this

and sending it to my friends/relatives. I want them to be aware and to FIGHT this b.s.! They should NOT play around with this. We have worked for SS and their is no reason to mess with it - it is healthy! Grrrrr.....:mad:

[Carter Hayes]

26. Agree and thank you

for fighting. I will do what I can

[LongTomH]

27. I like this paragraph from the Greider article:

Citizens can win this fight if they mobilize smartly. We can do this by arousing public alarm right now, while members of Congress face a treacherous election and before Obama can work out his deal. Some liberal groups are discussing a "take the pledge" campaign that demands senators and representatives sign commitments to keep Hands Off Social Security Benefits. If politicians refuse to sign, put them on the target list for November. Barack Obama is standing on the third rail of politics—let's give him a warning jolt.

Paraphrasing Dylan Thomas, let's not "go quietly into that good night!"

[glitch]

33. +all in. nt

[defendandprotect]

34. Agree with you and, ironically, as far as I know, Seniors have never organized?????

[Hannah Bell]

144. ?

http://www.graypanthers.org/

seniors have organized & are a fairly politically active segment of the population. more so than the young, generally speaking.

[defendandprotect]

224. Thank you -- hadn't heard much about them . . . even here at DU!!

[Hannah Bell]

235. they used to get quite a bit of press -- not so much these days. but seniors also

are more likely to vote than most age groups as well:

"An amazing 70 percent of those between the ages of 65 and 75 voted in the last presidential election to lead all age groups. On the low end were the young 18 to 24-year-olds, that produced only a 32.2 percent turnout.."

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politics/4-10-28SeniorVote.htm


that's why the privatizers plans always include some provision that *current* retirees get to keep their benefits -- they don't want seniors as part of the opposition. cause they have lots of free time to make trouble.

also the reason it's important to make sure seniors are involved in this fight.

[defendandprotect]

249. Thanks for the info -- and I think we should get them back in picture . . .

probably here at DU . . . ??

So seniors voted for obama and he's going to cut benefits!

Despite any promises that will turn those whose benefits aren't effected into

objects of hate by new retirees!!

Good way to devide Seniors -- IMO.

Many seniors have sisters and brothers coming into retirmeent age -- I can only hope

this doesn't work smoothly for Obama.

Trust Seniors will also recognize that an Obama deal to betray Social Security will

also mean betrayal on Medicare????

Also, evidently many seniors don't know that there checks should probably be double

what they are -- due to cuts and deals along the way?????

Wow!


Just as an aside . . .

Would be nice if things started reversing for our corporate fascists . . .

like those in Arizona profiting from slave/immigrint labor --

Watched part of a program on Arizona law today re immigrants on C-span that I found

amazing . . . evidently, 75% of Hispanics in Arizona supported Republicans! And right

now that is tremendously backfiring on them. Largest support by Hispanics in any state

for Repugs!! But a mystery as to why they would have been supporting the sexist, racist,

homophobic, corporate GOP anyway???

They also contribute billions to Social Security with no prospect of collecting, ever!!


Maybe they thought the GOP was going to continue to look the other way re illegals

keeping a profitable slave labor force in place for business elites there?

[defendandprotect]

29. One more reason we need a more liberal/progressive candidate in 2012 . . .

This is simply Bush/Part II attack on Social Security --

and imagine had Bush succeeded in moving Social Security funds into

Wall Street markets !!!!


Can't wait to hear how the nuclear stuff is going --

We survived W, but now the question is can we survive corporate Dems doing

what Bush couldn't do???

[ColesCountyDem]

42. Don't you mean 2012? n/t

[defendandprotect]

43. Thank you . . . we need a liberal/progressive Dem candidate 2012. . . !!

[madfloridian]

32. The Nation is so slow tonight...try this link from xchrom above.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/whacking-old-folks

I have a subscription to The Nation, and having trouble getting the page to load or to log in.

[sabrina 1]

35. Thanks for this.

For decades they have wanted to get their greedy hands on the Social Security fund. Bush was given the job, but failed. I am certain that they believe Obama can do it for them.

This is a vital question to ask any Democrat running for office, 'do you support the privatization of SS'. He cannot do it without Congress's approval.

The Cato Institute still has in its archives their ideas for taking over that fund. I have book-marked it so that I can recognize it when Obama, probably after November, starts trying to sell it.

If Bush had succeeded, what would have happened to the SS fund over the past several years after it was invested in the Wall St. Casino, or used to quietly bail out the banks and AIG?

If they try, and I am sure they will as it is the last major fund they have not privatized yet, (healthcare bill took care of medicaid) I hope we give them a real fight and any politician who goes along, no matter what the excuse, should know in advance that s/he will lose their job.

[glitch]

36. I think their job should be the least they lose.

I know that sound harsh but looters are typically dealt with quite brutally. Quite a bit of precedent on that.

[bvar22]

111. Not just the Cato Institute, but the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party, the DLC.

They have always wanted to give SS to their friends on Wall Street.
Its no secret.
Some of that junk is still up on their Website, though they have scrubbed most of the open advocacy for "investing" on Wall Street after the crash.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=165&contentid=251410

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=165&contentid=253231

One thing the DLC absolutely opposes is "raising the cap" which "they" claim is "regressive", and harmful to the Middle/Working Class!!!!
The ONLY thing raising the cap will do is force the RICH to pay their fair share.

The bad news is:
the DLC OWNS the White House, and with their financial allies (The Republicans) also OWN Congress AND the Supreme Court.


The DLC New Team
Liberal Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


”I am a New Democrat!”---Barack Obama
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254931&kaid=85&subid=900184

[Autumn]

39. Amazing , this is something I would

never in a lifetime expect from a Democratic President.

[madfloridian]

41. TPM's Josh Marshall once called it "phasing out" Social Security.

But that's the essence of it: abolishing Social Security or not.

Imagine for a moment that we were having a different sort of Social Security debate. In this alternative universe it wouldn't be about reform or privatization or who had the best plan to save Social Security. The issues would be different. The question would be whether we should abolish Social Security and replace it with a system of loosely-federally-regulated 401ks, or not.

It wouldn't be abolished overnight, of course, but phased out over time. So any oldsters collecting benefits now wouldn't need to worry. And the same would probably go for pre-fogies too ... say, anyone over 55.

But that's the essence of it: abolishing Social Security or not.

Well, guess what? That is exactly the debate we're having. Only many of Social Security's defenders don't seem to know it. It's not that they don't know it exactly. They, more than anyone, understand the stakes involved. But for all the great facts they're bringing to the table, they still seem content to frame the argument in a way that obscures the true issues involved and benefits their opponents immeasurably.

If the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would not make the same mistake.

[Hannah Bell]

145. exactly. if they abolished it all at once, people would be up in arms. it's

death by 1000 cuts.

the ruling class thinks long-term.

[SammyWinstonJack]

56. Not so sure Obama is a Democrat, not at this point.

If he is, then I guess the Democrats can take back what they gave, i.e. SS and Medicare.

[Autumn]

77. After his speech

to West Point this morning, I no longer wonder if he is.

[dgibby]

93. I find myself more and more unable to listen,

and I used to hang on his every word.

[saracat]

44. K+R Thank you for keeping us informed again Madflo.

[bonnieS]

45. Privatizing

I read on another thread at DU linking to Biuzzflash (petition and info at the link) that Obama is attenpting to privatize HUD housing as well. As a tenant activist, i can tell you that this is awful beyond belief, and also not what one expects from a Democratic President. It seems as tho the Manchurian Candidate is really in place.

[Enthusiast]

48. This is what I am saying.

If Obama wants to dismantle social security, if he wanted to protect the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and continues to wage Republican wars, is he actually a Democrat?

[Enthusiast]

46. Is Obama even a

real Democrat? Or is he just masquerading as one? I really wonder at this point.

[Time for change]

47. Wow! The news gets worse all the time.

Democrats are very reluctant to criticize Obama strongly, given the attacks on him from the rabis right. But he just keeps on disappointing us.

[blindpig]

49. k&r

The only thing that will do is to take a page from the Greeks.

[w4rma]

52. If Obama's picks on that council try to support cutting benifits then Obama is toast.

He'll never get his credibility back with the base, ever.

[madfloridian]

54. Guess who is exec director of the debt commission. Bruce Reed.

The guy who made the deal with Gingrich under Clinton.

"Bruce Reed, whom Bowles and Simpson recently named as the commission’s executive director, can help Fudge brainstorm slogans. Reed is CEO of the corporatist Democratic Leadership Council (previously chaired by Joe Lieberman for six years, and now by Hamilton Project advisory board member and Blue Dog Harold Ford, Jr), is very tight with Rahm Emmanuel (they wrote a book together), and coined the phrase “end welfare as we know it.” Any other social program Reed would like to end as we know it?"

http://www.alternet.org/story/146183/obama_packs_debt_commission_with_social_security_looters?page=entire

[whathehell]

58. How many here are within "shouting distance" of retirement?....I am and this REALLY pisses me off !

Wow...This would be a MAJOR betrayal.

Dick Durbin, my long time democratic senator, and member of this commission, was quoted in a post here yesterday, as saying "'Bleeding heart liberals' and conservatives must be prepared to sacrifice.."

I wrote that son of a bitch an email telling him what I thought...The email format for constituents has both a topic and subject line...For Topic I listed "Budget/Finances. For Subject I wrote "I'm one of your 'bleeding heart liberals'"..and in the body of the letter I gave him what for.

I asked him, not very nicely, to consider asking our military industrial complex to "sacrifice" and then pondered that possibility considering that a defense contracting CEO was a member of "the commission". I mentioned shutting down our "wars of choice"...to fund budget shortfalls, noting that one of his fellow senators had even determined that "the wars are why we have no money".

In addition, I told him I was a life-long democrat WHO WOULD TURN ON HIM and the president IN A HEARTBEAT if they put their hands on our benefits!
:grr:

[whathehell]

70. This would be an attack on the Baby Boomers....Wow.

..They thought we raised hell during the Sixties??

Effing A, if we WON'T be Torquemadas if they try and steal our retirement...Fuck THAT!

[laughingliberal]

80. The time for raising hell is now

We need a way to make this an issue for the midterms. The plan is to roll this horse manure out just after the elections and hold a vote before the end of the year. There will be little time once it comes out and many people will be disengaged due to the election being over and the holidays.

[whathehell]

94. I agree...What can/should we do?...For one thing, should we re-institute the CFA's Pledge?

I'm ready to fight for this..Seriously, we should all put forth our best ideas of how to proceed.

[laughingliberal]

100. CFA pledge would be a good start

Wonder if we can get some of our progressive groups involved in mobilizing people and getting the word out. Progressive Change Committee might be a good bet. Possibley Move On but not sure after they capitulated to the administration on HCR.

[whathehell]

103. I believe Campaign for America's Future started this...They may be the people to go back to.

and they are having a convention in D.C. this summer, not sure of the dates.

[laughingliberal]

105. Good information. Thanks. nt

[whathehell]

114. Your very welcome.....I've got more information here about the convention.

I've got some further information as well regarding this year's convention

Date: June 7, 2010 at 10:00 AM (registration opens at 8:00 AM) to
June 9, 2010 at 3:00 PM
Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert Street, NW
Washington, DC 20008

[madfloridian]

112. I think it starts about June 7 this year.

[whathehell]

115. Yes, it starts on June 7th...Check out the post below yours. I have more details.

[whathehell]

116. Sorry...I meant the post Above yours...I've got the details here, at any rate.

Date: June 7, 2010 at 10:00 AM (registration opens at 8:00 AM) to
June 9, 2010 at 3:00 PM
Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert Street, NW
Washington, DC 20008

[Hannah Bell]

149. peterson's group is planning a major propaganda offensive in june - with town halls, etc.

In June, according to the Washington Post, Obama’s deficit commission will be participating in a 20-city electronic town hall meeting, put together by an organization called America Speaks. It is financed by Peterson, along with the MacArthur Foundation and Kellogg Foundation. This is a truly unusual event because it marks the first time a presidential commission’s activities are financed by a private group that has long been lobbying the government on the very subjects the commission is supposed to “study.”

http://unsilentgeneration.com/2010/04/27/petersons-anti-entitlement-juggernaut/

[madfloridian]

165. That is so disturbing.

The rich people can catapult the propaganda, and the rest of us can't afford to stop them.

[whathehell]

203. Thanks for that....We should prepare for it. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

231. yes. organizing & getting the word out should be happening now.

1. Speaking/flyering community groups, high school/college classrooms, etc.
2. letters to the editor
3. letters to reps/president
4. putting the word out to friends/family
5. forming a local group to publicize/"lobby"

other?

[Peregrine Took]

208. Thanks for posting this link - looks like a great site! n/t

[Dinger]

71. K & R

Thank you for keeping us informed. WOW

[freddie mertz]

75. The first post-baby boom, Reagan-era president.

I predicted something like this would happen long before I ever heard of Barack Obama.

Will be become the charismatic vessel of Gen-X resentment?

[femrap]

128. I've long felt that

this prez would initiate a 'divide & conquer' of the Boomers and the GenXers.

I see and hear the hostility from the younger generations toward the Boomers....here on DU, in fact.

Look at the HCR...those 26 and under get health insurance. Those over 55, nada.

O is bought and paid for....has been. Many of us realized this before the election and said so. Many were banned for telling The Truth.

[Change Happens]

76. One IMPORTANT thing, the money you speak about is not there --- Already spent by our government(s)

You write:

************Here is what the media don't tell you: Social Security has accumulated a massive surplus—$2.5 trillion now, rising to $4.3 trillion by 2023. This vast wealth was collected over many years from workers under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) to pay in advance for baby boom retirements. The money will cover all benefits until the 2040s—unless Congress double-crosses workers by changing the rules. This nest egg does not belong to the government; it belongs to the people who paid for it. FICA is not a tax but involuntary savings.*****************

This money is not really there because as we all know, the money in the locked boxes has been spent over and over since early 1980s...

Social Security is indeed one of the top three major government liabilities: Defense, SS, and Medicare/Medicaid.

Fact: People are now living longer and longer, SS cost more and more...We need a fix fir this.

Important to note however, we need to cut defense first, then we need to work on Medicare/Medicaid, SS is not really bad compared to these two items.

[madfloridian]

85. Fix it without privatizing it. Fix it without destroying it.

Simple fixes would do the job.

They think we are stupid. I think we are as well.

They could "fix" education without turning it over to private companies. They can "fix" Social Security without putting the privatizers in charge.

No excuses on this one. None. They mess with it, then being Democrat no longer matters. The education policy is wiping out my loyalty, but this would be the final straw.

[Change Happens]

236. Agreed..nt

[laughingliberal]

88. Yes, they have 'borrowed' from the fund constantly...

to make sure they kept taxes low on the wealthy without having to cut any defense spending. It was supposed to be paid back. Not paying it back is called stealing. The uber wealthy have reaped the benefits of this theft. They got the huge defense spending the wealthy corporations favor and they didn't have to pay their share of taxes. It's past time to rectify the Reagan errors.

[Change Happens]

237. So true...Yes, and very sad for our country

[whathehell]

101. True...but isn't this exactly where the "fight" has always been?..

the wealthy and the military industrial complex would rather cut our entitlements than THEIR money and empire makers.

Screw that...That's got to be the first line of offense..Cut the war machine...Alan Grayson's newest meme is right on the money...It's "War makes you poor".

[westerebus]

118. Like HELL it's not !!!!!

Don't buy that BS. And don't sell it either.

If there's one bank with one US DOLLAR, it belongs to us.

Last time I looked there are several including the FED with TRILLIONS of US DOLLARS.

That belongs to us. You and me and granny and our kids and their kids too!

Don't for one minute buy into that Corporate crap!

And if you have a Congressman or Senator who tells you different let them know how wrong they are!

It's called the Currency of the Nation.

That would be us.

It does not belong to the FED.

It does not belong to the US Government Treasury.

It does not belong to Congress.

And it does not belong to the banks. Or Corporations.

What needs reform is Congress. The Banks. The Corporations. And the attitude of my fellow Americans!

[laughingliberal]

125. + a few trillion. nt

[westerebus]

136. I didn't want to count all the mortgages we own.

And that would be pretty much all of them. Thanks, Ben.

Or all the park land. Or the mineral rights.

Or the inter state highways. And military bases.

The timber rights. The research labs. National Monuments.

The ability to raise taxes and levy tarriffs...

All of that is ours too.

[femrap]

129. I fear

that TPTB will devalue our Dollar.

That would lead people to the streets....at least I hope that might get them off the sofas and away from the pron.

Of course, then they'd have to get a nice war going WW3. Israel, Iran, Syria, The Koreas. This war will probably start with a nuke as opposed to the last WW that ended with a nuke.

Goddess, I'm depressed. Think I'll go take a walk and listen to the birds sing.

[westerebus]

130. I know how you feel.

I just went out and cut the grass and filled the bird feeder.

The local woodpecker came by to check on the job.

I think I passed.

[femrap]

133. Thanks for reminding me....

I'll feed the birds on my way out. And the squirrels as well.

[KoKo]

132. Well Said!

[westerebus]

150. thanks.

[Hannah Bell]

152. the money in your bank account is also "spent".

someone born in 1900, if they made it to age 65, could expect to live 11.9 more years.

someone born in 1940, 12.8 more years.

someone born in 1960, 14.4 more years.

http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html

Table 12A.

Age to collect full benefits on SS has already been raised to age 67.

And that takes care of the boomers.

The "living longer" trope is mostly a canard. More important is that a larger portion of the population reaches age 65. But that means there are more people working longer & paying into SS.

[Catherina]

246. The only fix is to be accountable and call in the IOUs. n/t

[fascisthunter]

79. fuck him

[Change Happens]

82. Who?

[flamingdem]

86. I participated in a focus group and the gist of it was to figure out how to inform

people that they can take social security later, say age 70, and get more.

As in the government is wanting to make the full benefits available later.

This is what I understood but I really am not up on the SS details.

This was a government sponsored group.

What is apparent is that most people don't have enough $ and many in the
group were resigned to working until 67-70.

If anyone can post more detail on what upcoming changes they envision
please share. Many of us don't know enough about this topic.

[whathehell]

97. Interesting...I already knew of that option, but I wanted it to be a choice, not a mandate. n/t

[madfloridian]

126. Part of the plan is to have private investment firms benefit more....

than they do now. To open what is called Universal Savings Accounts, Universal Pensions, or various other names such as private accounts, personal accounts.

It would in no way "fix" Social Security, just make sure that the folks would give to private companies as well as having the govt take it out under FICA.

Not a solution, just a benefit for private companies. It has been the goal of the DLC think thank since it was formed. It was Clinton's goal, it was Hillary's goal under Dream Accounts.

Remember when Wall Street did not do so well? Just imagine how the people's retirement funds would have fared?

[Hannah Bell]

155. the problem with that is that additional life expectancy has mostly accrued to the

higher income brackets. the poor & working class haven't gained much life expectancy. waiting until 70 in many cases amounts to never collecting.

for the boomers, born 1945-1961, increase in life expectancy after age 65 is .9 - 2.5 years over what it was in 1900.

http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html

They've already phased in a 2-year increase in the age to collect full benefits for the boomers.

[n.michigan]

89. Obama's Ugly New America discards the elderly, poor, sick- a national disgrace.

Yet he addresses the grads of elitist West Point about "quality of life for Americans" - what a sin Obama! You lie.

[JHB]

92. Doug Henwood has also been on this for a long time...

Henwood is also a contributor to The Nation and other "liberal media" that actually are liberal/leftist (e.g., Pacifica Radio)

From Dec. 1994:
Of some interest is the news, for example, that the higher the rate of immigration, the sounder the system is, since immigrants (legal or not) tend to be young, and swell the ranks of those paying into the system rather than drawing it down. Immigration, however, won't make or break the Social Security's finances. GDP growth will, since the size of the economy decades hence will determine how much money is available to pay retirees. The bankruptcy scenario is based on an assumption that GDP will grow at a rate seen only in depression decades.

As is common in the work of official seers, the trustees present three sets of forecasts, an official guess, an optimistic one, and a pessimistic one. The official scenario assumes the economy will grow an average of 1.5% a year over the next 75 years half the rate seen in the last 75 (2.9%), and a rate matched only in one decade of the last century, 1910-20's 1.4% rate. The economy grew more quickly even during the 1930s, 1.9% (1930-40). The growth rate for the trustees' optimistic vision, 2.2%, is only slightly bouncier than the 1930s rate. The pessimistic guess is 0.7%, slower than population growth, and a rate so torpid as to guarantee a war of each against all. As the graph shows, the system will go bust only if you assume decades of stagnation. If the economy grows in line with the 197394 average of 2.4%, still slower than the 75-year average of 2.9%, it will run a big surplus.

Either the trustees are deliberately projecting slow growth to feed the pension-cutting mania, or they're expressing a deep pessimism about the U.S. economy's future. Big news, whichever it is.
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Pensions.html#SS_bust
(the link is to the part of the page that addresses "Is Social Security Really Going Under?", but the part above deals with pension and entitlement "reform", including Peterson's arguments, and is worth a read)


From Dec. 1998:
Folks on all sides of the debate accept the basic premise, that Social Security faces certain insolvency when the baby boomers retire. Compelling "facts" are trotted out to prove the point: the system will start running a deficit in 2013, and will have spent down all its reserves by 2032. There will be just 1.8 workers for every retiree in 2075, compared with 3.4 today. We could all do better by buying stock in Amazon.com than contracting with Social Security anyway.

Taking these specious points in reverse order: there's no need to say anything about the stock market approach other than to point to the article on p. 5 . The dependency argument needs a bit of attention though. Yes, it's a fact that the population will age, and the number of retirees per worker will rise. Pointing just to those numbers, though, is a selective rendition of history, since the history of capitalism has been to bring an ever-larger share of the population into working for pay. In 1900, there were almost four nonworkers for every paid worker; as almost everyone left the farm and as most women came to draw paychecks, that number fell steadily to just over one today. As the chart shows, the boomer retirement will raise this number a bit, but not by much in the scheme of things. And these, it should be emphasized, are fairly conservative projections. In 2050 there should be a larger share of the population working for pay than in 1950, when mom was at home and the earliest boomers were in kindergarten.



***
The Trustees' growth projections have been trending steadily downward since the early 1980s, so much so that you'd almost think there was an intention behind the trajectory (though the system's actuaries deny any political pressure to emit bearish forecasts to grease the privatization agenda). As is typically the case with official projections, there are three scenarios -- a gloomy one, an optimistic one, and an official, moderate one. In 1981, the Trustees projected a long-term growth rate of 3.1% in their middle scenario and 2.1% in their gloomy one. In 1986, the numbers were 2.5% and 1.4%. And this year, they're 1.4% and 0.6%. The Trustees' optimistic prediction for 1998 -- 2.1% -- matches their most bearish forecast from 1981. Aren't lowered expectations a banished relic of the Carter years?

Rerun the projections with more reasonable -- though still conservative -- projections and the "crisis" largely or fully disappears. If the employment-population ratio for those aged 20-64 remains constant, a third of the projected shortfall for 2020 disappears; if it rises, because the share of women employed approaches that of men, then two-thirds of the projected deficit disappears. As the nearby chart shows, if the economy grows at a modest 2.5% rate, red ink will turn to black. And even if the official bearish projections turn out to be true, the shortfall could be made up easily by subjecting investment income to Social Security taxes, and by eliminating the cap that exempts wage income above a certain maximum ($68,400 in 1998). The reason for sparing such income from Social Security tax is that the program is supposed to be financed solely by labor, with no contribution from capital, capital already being so burdened. The "crisis" of Social Security is a political one, not an economic one.



***
Leading the charge is Wall Street, which would make a fortune out of privatization; no wonder financiers have been discreetly showering money on the privatization campaign. A few quick numbers will explain Wall Street's enthusiasm. Chile's privatized pension system, the enthusiast's favorite model, devotes about 30% of revenues to administrative costs, which means everything from paperwork to brokers' fees to marketing expenses. The U.S. life insurance industry is a bit more efficient, devoting about 10% of premium income to administration, which includes everything from paperwork to profits. Social Security's overhead is under 1%. About $430 billion flowed into the system's coffers this year; 10% of that would be a very pleasing $43 billion, and 30% would yield $130 billion, a windfall even by Wall Street's standards. Higher fees, lower benefits, greater gender inequity, and more risk -- no wonder privatization has to be sold with a cooked-up scare campaign.
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/AntisocInsec.html


From 2005:
Speaking of that productivity revolution, it's nowhere in the projections. Over the very long term, output per worker in the U.S. has grown around 2% a year. Some reputable economists project that the infotech has kicked us up to a higher rate of 2.5% a year, though that seems like a stretch. (Some boosterish business pundits are even pushing an implausible 4% rate.) Lost in their gloomy world, the Social Security Trustees are projecting a 1.6% rate of annual productivity growth through 2080—20% below the long term average. Those differences might not sound like much, but they really compound over time. At 1.6% a year, productivity in 2080 would be almost 230% of today's levels; at 2.0%, over 340%; at 2.5%, almost 540%. Obviously, the bigger the number, the better the economy will be able to afford its retirees—but the Trustees chose a very small one.

Economic growth isn't only a matter of growth in productivity per worker; it's also determined by the growth in the labor force. And the Trustees project that the growth in the labor force over the next 75 years will be about one-sixth as fast as it was between 1960 and 2004. Some slowdown is likely, since women's entry into paid labor is a trend that may have run much of its course (though just 57% of adult women are working, compared with 72% of men, so that gender gap in employment hasn't closed any more than the pay gap has).

But the Trustees' projection represents a stunning drop from historical experience, and one that can only be partly explained by the 60% slowdown in population growth they foresee. (And one reason for the slowdown in population growth is that they also foresee a sharp dropoff in immigration—important, since immigrants tend to be young, making them net contributors to Social Security.) Oddly, they're projecting that the labor force will grow more slowly than the population, even though it's grown nearly twice as fast as population since 1960. Maybe the Trustees are implicitly projecting a breakdown in the American economy's prodigious powers at putting people to work—but if that's the case, it's a big deal, and we should really be talking more explicitly about it.


It's historically and theoretically inconsistent to project a slowdown both in labor force and productivity growth; across time and space, lower population growth has often resulted in higher productivity growth. If labor is plentiful, employers are less keen on squeezing more out of the workforce and are less likely to invest in capital equipment. But this inconsistency is fully consistent with the Trustees' outlook, which is as dark as a goth teen's worldview.

When you put all the Trustees' projections together, productivity and labor force growth, you get a sharp dropoff in projected GDP growth—from a historical average of 3.4% to an extremely sluggish 2.0%, which is little better than what we saw in the Depression-afflicted 1930s. If the Trustees really expect near-depression rates of growth for the next 75 years, we should be talking explicitly about that as well. Were the economy were to grow at a more normal pace, then the Social Security system could easily pay its projected benefits with no cuts or tax increases.

But no, reply the privatizers; if growth were higher, wage growth would be faster, and therefore benefits (which are keyed to wages) would also rise more quickly, so it'd all be a wash. Someone should tell the Trustees: they're projecting no dropoff in wage growth from now to 2080 despite the sharp drops in productivity and GDP growth. And someone should also tell U.S. employers that higher productivity growth means higher wages: workers have gotten only about 28% of the productivity acceleration since the mid-1990s in the form of higher wages. The rest has gone to profits, which is very nice if you're a CEO or a big stockholder.

(if anyone can give some pointers on creating text boxes that work, I'd appreciate a PM)

[Hannah Bell]

156. great charts. these facts need to get out there.

[John Q. Citizen]

95. Oopps, a dupe

[John Q. Citizen]

96. Thanks for the great articles on Social Security,

and putting them together to give an historic perspective on the attempts to dismantle and divert funds from our functioning single payer retirement insurance social safety net.

I sure hope we can defeat the Public Option that Will Marshall seems to favor.

[happygoluckytoyou]

99. JUST sent a clip from this to WHITEHOUSE.GOV... asking HOW DARE YOU.... please do as well

they need to know THAT WE KNOW

[customerserviceguy]

104. While it's true that the math surrounding Social Security

seems to resemble the population bomb estimates circa the first Earth Day (weren't we all supposed to have exploded by now?) the fact remains: All of the money that the payers of Social Security put in were simply borrowed by the Federal goverment to finance debt. The only ways to pay it back are to either raise taxes, drop spending, inflate the currency, or some combination of all three.

Being as all three are politically unpopular, I expect politicians to do anything they possibly can to avoid getting to the point where some Bernie Madoff admits it was all an illusion.

[laughingliberal]

109. Our payroll taxes financed the tax cuts for the wealthy.

I give not one damn if raising their taxes to keep me from starving in retirement is politically unpopular. And drop defense spending while they're at it.

[customerserviceguy]

121. They financed all kinds of things

including tax cuts for the wealthy, and wars that yielded nothing but coffins full of dead American servicemembers, too, but the fact remains, it's been spent, and only the IOU's remain.

Raising the Social Security tax, and cutting back on benefits (usually by postponing the retirement age) are the ways that current politicians have of staving off the day when the IOU's have to be redeemed by one of the three ways I described above.

[laughingliberal]

124. Retirement age has already been raised and benefits are already barely enough to stave off ...

starvation for most. Lift the cap on SS taxes, raise the income tax on the wealthy as our SS taxes were used to cover that shortfall. Then we'll talk.

[Hannah Bell]

157. the money was borrowed by capital; over 1 trillion in income tax cuts to the top 1%

in the bush years alone. they used it to help finance their bubble economics.

the only 'problem' is capital doesn't want to pay it back.

[customerserviceguy]

239. Agreed, they don't want to pay it back

Since Social Security has finally started to pay out more than it's taking in, there are now schemes to push off the day of reckoning by increasing FICA taxes and reducing benefits. No politician wants to have to deal with the fallout on this Ponzi scheme on their watch, best to kick it on down the road for a while longer.

[Hannah Bell]

240. it's not a ponzi scheme.

[customerserviceguy]

241. It's being run like one

And the subject of this whole thread is how our current leadership is very open to keeping it all going, so that we don't have to deal with the consequences of having to pay those IOU's.

You go right ahead and depend on it, I'll make plans for my own survival in retirement without it. If I'm wrong, then I'll be in good shape; if you're wrong, then what?

[Hannah Bell]

242. it's not a ponzi scheme. my retirement plans are immaterial to this discussion.

[customerserviceguy]

245. OK, you keep on believing that, if you want to

In the meantime, I predict that efforts by both Democratic and Repuke administrations and Congresses will do whatever they can to make sure the inflow to Social Security usually exceeds the outflow, and they'll do whatever they can to avoid having to deal with those IOU's.

For Democratic leaders, that means raising FICA taxes as the primary solution, for Rethugs, it will mean pushing the retirement age ever further away, since it really isn't as hard to sit at a desk like their people do, versus hard physical labor like working class people do. Frankly, I expect both sides to embrace the idea of reducing the COLA, especially since we're about to do away with another one this next year. If the world does not collapse as a result, look for reductions in the COLA formula to be part of the fix.

Yes, your retirement plans are not material to this discussion, only to what you'll do as a result of the decisions made by people in government that are the subject of this discussion.

[Hannah Bell]

247. i will continue to believe it because it's true. SS is nothing like a ponzi scheme,

& even if the Trust Fund were never repaid, could continue to pay out over 75-100% of scheduled benefits into infinity, by current estimates. and 75% of 2040's scheduled benefits is more in real terms than 100% of today's.

those who think SS is a ponzi scheme are basically saying they think it's impossible to feed, clothe & house some portion of our elderly -- because if social security "can't work," no other retirement insurance scheme can either.


"social security = ponzi" is a meme pushed by the right wing.

[amborin]

107. K&R

[bvar22]

117. The BEST fix.

1) End "Free Trade" !!!

2) Break up the Big Boxes, institute "Fair Competition" regulation that allows Mom & Pop to compete with the giant corporations on a level playing field.

3)Bring manufacturing and small farming BACK to the USA. (See #1 & #2)

4)RAISE the cap (make the RICH pay their fair share).

4)LOWER the retirement age and INCREASE benefits.

4) Facilitate Immigration to bring NEW Working Class people to the USA to fill the jobs opening under the above, adding to the Tax Base and filling the Working Class slots opened by the retiring "Boomers".

[Radical Activist]

153. Lots of big rhetoric without specifics here.

Of course, we're all used to overreaching accusations from this poster. I agree that young people should learn about social security. It's a horribly regressive generational transfer of wealth. Young, low-wage workers could end up paying 1/3 of their income to subsidize retirement and health care for boomer retirees if we're not careful.

[Hannah Bell]

158. there's no scenario under which young people wind up paying 1/3 of their income to subsidize

retirees.

[Radical Activist]

163. We're nearly there already.

Have you been an hourly wage worker lately? Do you know how much of a low wage workers check is taken out for medicare, medicaid, and social security. It's the most unfair, regressive element of the federal tax structure. I guess you'll have to choose between your progressive ideals about having a fair tax structure and the greedy entitlement that's so typical of your boomer generation.

[Hannah Bell]

166. exactly the same % taken out of my check: 7.65%. Medicaid is funded through income taxes & state

taxes, not payroll taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

if you're a low-wage worker, you don't pay much in the way of income taxes.

[Kermitt Gribble]

181. I'm an hourly wage worker.

Social Security and Medicare account for 13.7% of my paycheck. No idea where you're coming up with 1/3...

[Radical Activist]

200. That's a very big chunk.

How much when you add in all the payroll taxes, FICA, income etc? Where I come up with one third is that we're already getting close. Add in what people will have to pay for universal health care, plus the huge number of boomers retiring, then a few years later will be their astronomical end of life care. We've never had a society that spends so much money on the last few years of a persons life, and today's young workers will be asked to pay the tab. It won't be cheap.

[Hannah Bell]

228. income tax has nothing to do with social security. social security tax is 6.2% of your paycheck.

period.

medicare tax is 1.45%.

the poster is including the employers' portion, but your check never sees that.

the fica taxes taken out of your paycheck are the same as everyone else's: 7.65%.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html

there is no special high rate for low-paid hourly jobs, nor for younger workers. you pay the same rate as someone who's 60 does.

in addition, social security benefits are taxed.

[Kermitt Gribble]

244. And when you're old and retired,

young workers will be asked to pay your tab. That's the way the system works.

These taxes are the price for living in a civilization. I'd be willing to pay even more if we could have programs like a lot of European countries have.

[Radical Activist]

252. I'd pay more

if our programs for people at all stages of life were comparable to what we do for seniors. We have SS and medicare. But we also have high infant mortality rates, young workers are the least likely to have insurance, everyone graduates college with students loans the size of a large mortgage. We have a regressive generational inequality in government programs that needs to be addressed.

[KoKo]

159. Wrong thread..

[northernlights]

160. I've already paid a huge chunk of my income to social security

and been robbed of my private retirement fund thanks to unemployment/underemployment during the Bush decade in hell.

I'd BETTER FUCKING GET BACK WHAT I PAID IN PLUS INTEREST because at this point that's all that's left and I have precious little time to try to re-save what was stolen.

And many of the boomers you speak of so derisively supported their aging parents and still have their young, low-wage worker children living with them well into their 20s after having helped them through college. :grr:

[Radical Activist]

164. You didn't "pay into" anything. No one did.

That was always an illusion. You were paying for people who were already retired.

And I'm well aware of how many young people are working low wage jobs and living with their parents because baby boomers won't retire from the workforce.

[northernlights]

167. Um, I didn't write "paid into" anywhere...kindly don't put words in my keyboard

I'm fully aware that my social security taxes paid for my parents retirement. I'm not that ignorant nor am I that stupid to believe those taxes are sitting in a lockbox somewhere, though it may serve your purpose to pretend that I am too ignorant and/or stupid to understand how the system works.

I wrote that I have paid thousands IN social security taxes (as opposed to paying thousands in, say, income taxes or thousands in, say, property taxes.)

My generation supported our parents DOUBLY, through social security taxes and then, for many, supplementing that, while putting kids through college. Thank you so much for recognizing that even as you suggest throwing us under the bus now that our time to retire is approaching.

[Radical Activist]

172. you wrote: "I'd BETTER FUCKING GET BACK WHAT I PAID IN"

Your words.
Oh poor baby being thrown under the bus. Typical boomer drama and generational warfare.

[northernlights]

199. What I paid INTO THE SYSTEM

after I specified that I've paid in SS taxes. Hundreds of thousands in, to be clear. :eyes:

typical drama? A lot of people would not have survived what I've been through. Just the last 10 years: 20+ year career crashed, left to fend for myself by the police during 3 years of 24x7 harrassment by a registered sex offender and his gang of thugs (their only help was to advise me to get out of town), defrauded out of $20K+ in real estate transaction that in any other state would have left realtor liable, identity stolen (including SSN, former and current address & phone, employment and education history) by former colleague and his wife using "inside company information," poisoned by an employer and told by the state labor dept. that they can "do anything they want and if you don't like it, get another job", property trashed by contractor with bulldozer (no licensing or oversight in this hellhole of a state), harrassment by freeper neighbors (most recently next door neighbors tried to run over my dogs in our own driveway).

You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. And the only one trying to generate intergeneration warfare is YOU, implying I should suck it up and give up social security because it will supposedly be such a hardship for the generation behind.

ALL I WROTE IS THAT I PAID INTO THE SYSTEM; HOW IS THAT INTERGENERATION WARFARE?

I SURE AS HELL BETTER GET BACK. BECAUSE AFTER ALL THE SHIT OF THE LAST 10 YEARS, WITHOUT SSN I WILL END UP IN THE STREETS. AND SO WILL MILLIONS LIKE ME. DON'T THINK I'LL TAKE THAT LYING DOWN, EITHER.

[Radical Activist]

204. Becuase its all about you personally and your story.

Again, typical "Me generation" attitude.
You didn't pay into any system. You paid for the SS benefits of others, just as you will ask others to pay for you. I'm sure the voting power of the Me Generation will stop social security from ending any time soon. I want to make sure it isn't raised so much that it stops the current generation of workers from being able to live any kind of life while they pay for their student loans and someone elses retirement.

[Hannah Bell]

232. in fact, we paid for the benefits of others & over 1 trillion extra, which was funneled to the top

1% in the form of tax cuts during the bush era alone.

[liberation]

169. Given your posting history...

... your nickname seems to be an oxymoron. LOL.

[Radical Activist]

174. People who think that being progressive

is defined by exaggeration and always attacking Obama no matter what he does do seem to have a problem with my name.

[madfloridian]

213. You are posting a lot of accusations about me. Please back them up.

[madfloridian]

212. Overreaching accusations from me? Do you have examples?

I would appreciate them.

Be specific.

[activa8tr]

171. I'm not going to win any friends here by what I, (as a Soc Sec recipient) say ..but

We cannot bankrupt the greatest democracy in the world with a Ponzi scheme that is broken.

If I live an average life span for my current age, (according to the actuarial tables) I will collect twenty-five times what I paid in.

I am (OBVIOUSLY) NOT against paying elders a fair and reasonable retirement pension, guaranteed and supported by a government system, but I have to say, our system is NOT WORKING, according to the numbers, NOT working for the young folks, NOT working so that the disabled are afforded adequate income and care! SOME may be doing fine today, SOME retired folks, SOME with disabilities, but the current trajectory of the system is doomed to fail, as currently constructed.

OF COURSE: we must give the aged adequate income for a decent, (not luxurious) lifestyle.

OF COURSE: those that were more financially successful should be paying more into the system now, and taking out less later.

OF COURSE: we need to protect those who cannot work, those whose physical and mental challenges are immense.

BUT HOW? THAT is the question I expect Obama and his team and his appointees to resolve, that's why I voted for him. Will it be perfect in my lifetime, probably not. Can it be improved ? Of course! Will it be fair to all? I doubt it.

By electing the likes of GW Bush and the anti-tax Republican crowd, our nation put us on this collision course, please stop blaming Obama for trying his best to make it a little more fair.

Some of the sensationalist posts on this thread have me wondering if people here at the DU have looked at the numbers, looked at the spiraling costs of health care for the elderly, the costs of untreated illnesses, or looked at the blessings of a mixed capitalist system that actually rewards savings for retirement.

Sure, it's not fair now, sure, we will see some suffer because our system is imperfect, but to blame Obama for this mess, to blame him for trying to make it a little less unjust, for looking at ALL the options, let's be a little more rational, please. We have a problem, the numbers don't add up, we need to fix it.

I've said my piece, I am thankful to the workers of America who pay me once a month for being old, able to work, but old and not expected to work. I don't have hundreds of thousands to support myself in my senior years, I need some system to keep me from being homeless and on the streets. I hope few of you wind up as poor as I did after 40+ years of working, all I have is 500 a year in dividend payments from investments, and social security. I am willing to work, but too old to be hired by most employers, and I will NOT be able to work forever.

Let's have the millionaires and the off-shore corporations pay for their success in the USA. Let's not tax the simple workers and retiree's for their plight, let's let the bounty of American enterprise pay for our seniors' quality of life, not riches, but decency.

Can we move toward that? I hope so. I'm more willing to trust Obama to get us there than GWB or Ron Paul or some other half-wit.

And YOU?

[flamingdem]

183. thanks for sharing your story nt

[icee]

188. I am absolutely not. If Obama handles SS reforms like he did HCR,

80% of the elderly will be living under freeways. I guarantee this. If Obama tries to pass SS reductions and wipes out Grandpa and Grandma, he will not win re-election to any post, even dog catcher. He may well have to leave the country. Voting for Obama was the biggest political mistake I have ever made.

[activa8tr]

191. Well, I'm not sure how you arrived at that, but of course Obama had to deal with

a hostile Congress in health care reform.

In this Social Security commission, he doesn't have to deal with that, and actually can work to fix a system that's eventually going to be completely broken. (He could have solved BOTH problems by going for single payer and just liquidating the Health Insurance and Pharma industries, but he wasn't a real socialist, I know).


Your predictions are dire, if not a bit accurate.

So, may I ask, how do YOU propose we fix the problem? I doubt you'll have an answer, but I might as well ask. I thought my idea of charging the rich more and limiting their benefits while giving everybody else a reasonable and fair income and health care was a good one, but maybe, just maybe you have a better one? I'd love to read it here, or are you just here to make sure we mistrust Obama forever?

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

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

[whathehell]

201. How about dealing with the REAL "problem"....Senseless, bankrupting wars?

Let the military industrial complex "sacrifice"....The War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan..The fucking 700 * military bases?...How 'bout cutting a little of THAT?

[activa8tr]

215. Yeah, I'm all for that, and so are most seniors who are veterans

but there seems to be a problem taking our sentiments to the White House and Congress and getting results, and we all know that Republican D. D. Eisenhower warned us as to why this would be so.

Show me how to de-activate the military industrial complex's power over government at the same time we assure seniors of fair and just retirement benefits, and fix the looming deficits, that's a great trick, and I, for one, am glad Obama is the guy trying to fix some of this.

Now if we all had a bit of patience, and gave him more than 16 months to work these miracles, with proper study and investigation along the way....

[Hannah Bell]

233. social security is almost 3 trillion in the black. it's not broken.

[madfloridian]

202. You are very wrong.

But if it makes you feel better, fine with me.

[activa8tr]

217. What am I "so very wrong" about? I'd love to learn something I don't

know.

Is the Social Security system unfair to workers, and too generous to the rich?

I think so.

[Hannah Bell]

230. SS isn't a ponzi scheme. This is a right-wing meme.

1. SS promises actuarily sound benefits, not pie-in-the-sky riches.
2. SS is backed by real labor & production, unlike ponzi schemes, which are backed by nothing.
3. Excess SS funds not paid out to beneficiaries are put into US securities.

[nichomachus]

182. Until we get corporate money out of politics, nothing will change n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

186. Ironically enough, a Republican president had some wise words on this subject (among others)

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security...you would not hear of that party again in our political history."

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54

Ike was referring to extremist elements within his own party at the time. But what was considered extremely right wing in 1954, would be "liberal" compared to the DLC.

And what better way to complete their goal of destroying the Democratic party from within, than to make Eisenhower's prophecy come true?

[activa8tr]

189. True enough. But where do people posting here on this thread get the

idea that Obama is attempting to "destroy" Social Security?

I'm sorry, fixing a problem is not "destroying" the system, that's GWB's kind of thinking. Not Obama's! Where do people get the idea he's "destroying" Social Security?

[Sebastian Doyle]

195. It's been on the DLC's list for years.

It was the original centerpiece of Hillary's primary campaign, believe it or not. She branded it as "The American Dream Initiative" and the sales pitch is probably still on the DLC website, where she first published it, as she held an official title within that treasonous organization at the time.

In case you didn't take the hint from health care, education, and now even public housing, they apparently want to privatize everything. Why would you think Social Security would some how be exempt from this madness?

[stevietheman]

196. Now _this_ is the loony left. Exhibit A.

This is all a bunch of made-up nonsense to make ultra-leftists feel good. Obama is a fine President and these attacks are meaningless.

[ima_sinnic]

206. wow--a real "deep thinker," aren't you?

I'll be sure to, er, watch for your posts -- wouldn't miss 'em for the world -- heh

:wtf: :rofl: :rofl:

[Peregrine Took]

209. He certainly is a man of his word. We know that, right??????????????

Not!

[laughingliberal]

210. You forgot the little sarcasm thingie, huh? nt

[madfloridian]

225. First time I have been called the loony left.

Do you feel better now?

[Jakes Progress]

198. Maybe we should have paid more attention to his reagan adoration fetish.

[icee]

221. I've thought that for a while now.

[Usrename]

219. The comedic genius of Alan Greenspan

[Odin2005]

220. DISASTER CAPITALISM

:grr:

[MadHound]

238. Obama and Congressional Dems are already skating on the thin edge of not getting my vote

If this goes down, if Obama and his commission push a vote through Congress to decrease SS benefits and such, I will not vote for another Democrat ever again.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, these so called leaders of ours have to realize that actions have consequences. I'm not going to stand by and continue to enable programs and policies that are a direct threat and assault on me and mine.

[dajoki]

248. If they do that...

they better think about extending Secret Service protection to Congress because there will be an awful angry public, some of whom may be capable of drastic measures.

[Jefferson23]

254. A look back at a Greider video, Feb. 2009. Looting Social Security.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNUD18Cumuw

runs 3 minutes, 44 seconds.

The resounding defeat of George W. Bush's effort to privatize Social Security in 2005 seemed to be the end of attacks against the program. However, William Greider argues that Wall Street interests are leading a new round of threats to Social Security in a plan to use money from the program to recover the costs of bailing out banks. Although President Obama has indicated support for Social Security in the past, Greider argues that progressives need to exert pressure and educate the public about its solvency in order to counteract the efforts of private interests pushing for a compromise.

To learn more about Greider's argument read his article in The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302...

[stillwaiting]

255. Social Security funds/Medicare clearly are the target and the prize.

I am convinced that they'll wait until after the mid-terms to move on it.

ALL of the slights against traditional Democratic voting interest groups over the past year and a half will probably pay off as intended as Republicans increase their representation in Congress. I believe they (corporate interests that clearly are running this show) want the Republicans to win back the House and bring the Senate back to as near 50/50 as possible.

They will get Republicans and some Democrats to vote for whatever monstrosity they've cooked up (more Repubs in both houses will vote for it than Dems by far) and Obama will sign it. I don't doubt he will for a minute.

Then we'll fight with the right wing (the masses) over which party is to blame, and we'll fight amongst ourselves as to whether this needed to be done. Divide and conquer, indeed.

God, please let me be wrong...

[inna]

256. Wow. Too late to rec.

The mind boggles.