If cutting Social Serurity and/or raising the retirement age is something that Obama will never do--

[eridani]

--then why the fuck doesn't he SAY it in so many words, out loud and in public? Dems could be absolutly creaming Repukes on this issue if he did. There are only three logical explanations that I can think of.

1. He intends to "preserve" Social Security by cutting benefits and raising the retirement age.
2. He does not really want Democrats to win.
3. He doesn't realize that Social Security has overwhelming public approval, and therefore that it would be a really good campaign issue for Dems.

#3 is nonsense, of course. Anyone else have any other logical explanations?

[JDPriestly]

1. K&R Can't post this often enough.

[smalll]

2. He wants to keep a free hand in negotiations over it --

so that if he ever comes to decide in his wisdom that it would be best for everyone, three-dimensional-chess-wise, to, say, raise the retirement age, he will be able to get by with claiming that the retirement age as we knew it was "just a symbol."

:hide:

[Cal33]

40. This is the wrong time to raise the retirement age. It would help

to increase the numbers of the unemployed among the younger ones.

[DrDan]

3. and #2 is nonsense - which leaves number 1

During the campaign, he was against hiding behind commissions instead of stating a position.

So . . . once elected, what does he do?

[Radical Activist]

4. So the reason he gave publicly doesn't get consideration?

Not even a little bit?

[eridani]

5. He gave a reason for refusing to state that he would not raise retirement age

--or cut benefits? When and where? I heard him say he wouldn't privatize it, which is a different issue.

[Radical Activist]

10. He gives the same response

to nearly all questions about what the commission should do, on either social security or other issues. He wants the commission to be free to discuss possibilities without pre-determined outcomes from the white house.

If he answers a question about the retirement age then he'll be asked about changes to medicare, and then cuts in defense spending, and tax increases, and every other issue the commission is working on until there was no point to having the commission at all because Obama will have already finished their job. So he makes no response.

The blogs and pundits spreading rumor and hysteria should have told you that. Maybe it's a bullshit answer from Obama but the fact that so many pundits don't even acknowledge the existence of Obama's actual answer tells me that they're more interested in spin and manipulating fears.

Obama has repeatedly said he favors raising the income gap on paying into the system. That's the only fix SS needs.

[TheKentuckian]

13. What is "favored" and what is the firewall are two different things

What someone prefers and what they absolutely will not accept just cannot be merged into the same thing because they aren't. Its an easy rebuttal but it is a twist in the truth. It could be the same thing but that doesn't mean it is at all or even close.

I don't have faith enough to believe that he'd veto the recommendations if they were what he was shooting for but it contained an eligibility increase unless it was like a five or ten year jump.

The American people have every right and in fact have the responsibility to use pressure to make sure that limits are set, at the very least.

We are in no way obligated to hear anything out or to hope for the best.

You are totally allowed to be comfortable with our leader's tolerance for austerity measures but no one has to be and most likely shouldn't be.

Why would latitude be even expected in these matters? Most Democrats didn't even want the commission at all, much less staffed as it is. What is that we stand to win on here? Hell, who even believes in these things for such purposes that are clearly the responsibility of Congress?

We have every right to not have any desire to put Social Security "on the table" at all unless they want to talk about lowering the age or increasing the payouts so folks aren't trying to survive on a few hundred a month.

Hell, I don't want this group suggesting anything to do with the economy at all. Its just too many supply side believers and out of touch corporate friendly toadies including many of the Democrats.

[Radical Activist]

14. Welcome back!

What you're writing about would be political posturing.

Have you ever been to Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg? I've never seen another place with so many pancake houses!

[TheKentuckian]

21. Yeah, I've been down there but never for pancakes and I usually

keep rolling on into NC, usually I hit the golden triangle area.
In more prosperous times I used to rent a farm down there and enjoy mountain serenity. I like to get away from the crowds and tourist traps even if I still end up getting rowdy drunk.

Political posturing is certainly nothing new to politics or even the President.

Thanks, its nice to be back.

[eridani]

15. No, the commission does NOT need to discuss all possibilities

Cutting benefits or raising the retirement age should be off the table, period. If raising the cap is the ONLY acceptable modification, why doesn't he just say that?

[Radical Activist]

23. Because

If he answers a question about the retirement age then he'll be asked about changes to medicare, and then cuts in defense spending, and tax increases, and every other issue the commission is working on until there was no point to having the commission at all. The only way to not get walked down that road is to make no response at all.

[another saigon]

49. SS and Medicare should not EVEN be discussed

when talking about the deficit. How did we even get on this deficit bullshit? Wasting MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars for a repuke talking point? Why is this money not used to PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK?


The commission, if it were a serious under taking (and not another back room deal for corporations) they would be addressing REAL financial reform, cuts in defense spending, occupations, etc. There should be NO discussion of Government Programs that run quite well and DO NOT even contribute to the deficit anyway.

Seriously! WTF?

[Jakes Progress]

20. Why does the commission need to be free

to discuss everything. Some things should not be allowed. It is the president's commission. He can set whatever rule he wants. If raising the income gap is all that is needed, why doesn't he say so and limit the games. The games are the political posturing. If he refused to raise the age or lower the benefits, then he is posturing not to say so. If the commission, being free to discuss all possibilities, comes back with the recommendation to raise the age and lower the benefits, what is the president to to then? Ignore his own commission. Why let them discuss it if he isn't going to approve what they say? If he accepts a neo-con inspired recommendation, then he has lied to the public. If he doesn't listen to their recommendation after all the show of "Let's put everything on the table" he comes off as disingenuous. Lying or feckless are not good options, but they are what he leaves himself open to. I thought he was supposed to be brilliant at this stuff.

[Radical Activist]

22. And then another group wants their issue taken off the table

and then another and then another until, once again, there was no point in having the commission at all. The only way to not get walked down that path by reporters is to not declare anything off limits.

Five members can block a recommendation. Obama has enough allies to stop anything he's strongly opposed to from being part of the recommendations. So you're scenario is not a realistic possibility. On the other hand, it might get the one or two Republican votes he needs to pass anything in the Senate like he has on other bills.

The political posturing is mostly coming from fear-mongering pundits dealing in speculation and rumor.

[Jakes Progress]

24. We disagree.

You seem to see recent events as positive and seem to have faith in republican good will. I don't. I think that posturing to gain the support of right wingers and fishing for republican votes is a lost cause that should have been obvious to the administration by now. Just why can't he offer up a bill that says what he wants, that says we won't attack SS. He could even admit that SS is not in the need of saving but that his suggested legislation would put tampering out of the reach of the republicans. Then here just before an election, let the republicans vote against protecting SS. He needs to stop drooling over some republican vote here or there and screwing things up in the process.

Besides no one was talking about one group and then another. You said Obama didn't want to raise the age limit and reduce the benefits. That's not a group followed by another group. That is the president of the United States who gets to say what he will sign and what he will not. I recall that he said than any HCR bill he signed would have a strong public option. How did that work out for him? So he says he sort of indicates that he won't sign a bill that reduces benefits and raises the age limit. I'm glad that you have unbounded faith, but that football has been pulled out too many times. Even Charlie Brown is starting to wonder.

[Radical Activist]

25. A few Republicans have voted for most of his major bills, like Wall Street regulation

and credit card reform. That's all he needs to make up for a few Democrats like Feingold and Nelson. If Obama gets that from just two or three Republican Senators sitting on the commission then he has the votes he needs. People usually feel personally invested in a plan they helped create so it's a reasonable strategy for getting those 1-3 Republican Senate votes.

Why assume that's about social security? It could mean two crucial Republican votes for things like:
Tax increases on the wealthy
Cuts in defense spending
Cuts in corporate subsidies and special tax breaks.

Or similar things that Republicans rarely support. This doesn't take unrealistic faith on my part. It has already happened on several other bills.
Obama lost on the public option. Maybe this commission is an attempt to make sure he doesn't suffer a similar defeat at the hands of Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats.

"Besides no one was talking about one group and then another." But if Obama starts answering those questions then that's exactly what it will become.

[Jakes Progress]

34. I think you know better than you post.

Why would you question whether this is about SS. And then you say the commission may be about increasing taxes on the wealthy, cutting corporate subsidies, and cutting defense spending. I think it doesn't take unrealistic faith. I think it takes a willing suspension of belief. And then you add that this is a way to keep him from being defeated by the republicans and conservacrats. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but I would have hoped that the president and his advisers had been and would know that this road they've been traveling for 20 months now doesn't get them where they say they want to go.

We'll see how it comes out. I will mark this exchange and we can see whether the commission suggests meaningful cuts in corporate subsidies or cuts in SS benefits. We will see if it suggests major increases in taxes on the wealthy or increases in the age requirements. Then we will see what Obama does with the suggestions.

Can I assume that if the commission decides that the best deficit reduction is an attack on SS, that you will be incensed and begin to question the wisdom of the president's advisors? If the commission that it is best to leave SS alone, not go after other programs for the people, cut corporate subsidies, cut military spending, and increase taxes for the wealthy, I will be here to cheer and admit my error in judgement. Sound fair?

[Radical Activist]

35. I look at what's actually said, not a pundits wild spin about what's said.

I think the pundits and blogs you're reading have given you a distorted version of reality. Commission members have publicly talked about cutting defense spending and tax increases. Even Alan Simpson spoke about cuts to defense. In fact, they've said more about it than cuts to social security.

If the "news" sources you read haven't informed you of that fact then I would start to question the reliability of those spinsters. And yes, I'm willing to wait to see what's recommended before I speculatively conclude that Obama is "leading the attack on social security."

[Jakes Progress]

37. Sorry if I don't put as much weight on what a pol says

as what they do and have done. If I believed and trusted what politicians say, I would be positive and upbeat too. History doesn't support that strategy though.

We'll just keep tuned and see how it comes out. We'll discuss on the other side of the election when the actions come more than the words.

[Radical Activist]

38. But you believe completely speculative guesswork of a random blogger or pundit?

Nice straw, but no one is suggesting we have to trust politicians. I wish I could laugh at how people who are skeptical of politicians suddenly become gullible when it comes to any attack that fits a narrative they want to hear. I'm also skeptical of blogs and pundits who have an agenda about selectively quoting and spinning politicians in manipulative ways. Politicians aren't the only ones with a motive to jerk you around.

[Jakes Progress]

41. You believe some politicians and not others.

You trust some bloggers and pundits and not others. But you don't think someone else should have the same prerogative. I have many pundits and posters that I don't trust. Some of them are on DU. I don't know what their motives are, but they seem determined to jerk with the obvious and promote the political ambitions of some politicians. They often do it by saying how unreliable pundits that disagree with them are.

Like I said. Nothing you say will make a difference. Noting I say will make a difference. Let's just see how your trusted commission and your faith in Obama's pan-dimensional chess plays out for retirees who make less than a quarter million a year.

By the way. You never did say how you would react if Obama signs a bill limiting benefits and/or raising the age requirements for SS. You did side step to a different subject, but we can always revisit that question. You have indicated that you didn't thing Obama would do this, that the commission would never suggest it, and even that you wouldn't approve. So, avoiding more "indications" and subject shifts, what would be your reaction if the commission and/or Obama do just the opposite of what you say they will? Will you be outraged? Will you be miffed? Or will you conveniently shift your position to reflect the "new reality"?

[Radical Activist]

45. Just because I'm not gullible

about believing the gossip, speculation and hyperbole about Obama doesn't mean I approve of everything he does. I suppose that's what you're implying with your question. I chose to ignore the insult last time. Most of my posts at DU are correcting exaggeration rather than defending his policies.
I would like to see the income cap for paying into the system lifted. I would like to see benefits cut for the wealthy. It's horribly unjust to tax the working poor to subsidize the lazy rich. That's one cut I'd be happy to support.

If the Senate continues to stall on climate change then the question of social security becomes academic for my generation. Those who survive to retirement age will be facing a level of societal collapse that's likely to eliminate social security. I find it callous and selfish that I'm told daily that SS is what I should be outraged about when there's more important work to do by pressuring the Senate on climate change. Arguing about minor cuts to social security is like shuffling deckchairs on the titanic.

[Jakes Progress]

48. Whew. Must be hard being the smartest and wisest on DU.

We agree on some of the SS inequalities. What I asked is if you would as readily post against Obama if he has lied here and if you would back off a little on the smug assurerance that you have it right about the commission being a benign source of advice for the president and the rest of us have it wrong should the commission actually do as many of us think it will.

We can discuss climate change should you want to make an OP about it. I find it callous and selfish to use the fact that there is a global climate crisis as an excuse for cutting SS. Your minor cut is someone else's food for the last week of each month.

[eridani]

29. Exactly correct. There is indeed NO POINT in having the commission at all.

You get speculation and rumor when the president refuses to tell us what is going on. Obama is the only person who can end it.

[liberal N proud]

6. The SS discussion is another right wing election year tactic

One in which everyone feels obligated to participate in except the President.

[eridani]

7. That is not an explantion of why he will not comment on an issue that would absolutely

--GUARANTEE a huge Dem win in November.

[Historic NY]

8. what he has said.......

The president acknowledged at a small town hall gathering in Columbus, Ohio, Wednesday 8/18/10 that the pension fund “has to be tweaked because the population is getting older” but said Republicans’ plans to drastically overhaul the program are wrong.

“Social Security is not in crisis,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it.” <...>

“There are some fairly modest changes that could be made without resorting to any newfangled schemes that would continue Social Security for another 75 years, where everybody would get the benefits they deserve,” he said.

“I have been adamant that Social Security should not be privatized, and it will not be privatized as long as I am president,” he added.

Obama also said his bipartisan fiscal commission could come up with proposals to extend the life of the program.

“I am absolutely convinced it can be done,” he said.


During the campaign

http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_social...

Q: You said earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, “I’m taking them off the table.”
A: That’s not what I said. I said I will convene a meeting as president where we discuss all of the options that are available. I believe that cutting benefits is not the right answer; and that raising the retirement age is not the best option, particularly when we’ve got people who are still in manufacturing.

Q: But in May you said they would be on the table.

A: Well, I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected. That is the option that I will be pushing forward.

Q: But the other options would be on the table?

A: Well, I will listen to all arguments and the best options.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/seniors-and-social-sec...

So I'd say he has been pretty consistant. I think the commission is just an excercise to show how stupid the claims being made are.

[eridani]

17. Fine. So why doesn't he just say "Raising the retirement age or

--cutting benefits in any way are OFF THE FUCKING TABLE?" Without the f-bomb of course.

[OHdem10]

9. He promised not to privatize SS. Have not heard him mention

the other points mentioned in post.

[eridani]

30. EXACTLY!! That was the point of the OP

WHY will he not take those two very damaging and abusive options off the table?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. He plays with words well.

I remember the cold rush I felt when I heard his say "Health Insurance Reform" the first time after months of "Health Care Reform". I remember thinking, "Did I hear what I think I just heard???" The group I was watching with even had the Tivo rewould to make sure we hadn't been hearing things.

Frankly, I don't trust his words anymore -- his actions are the only thing I pay attention to now.

[TBF]

12. Social Security should not be touched - and he should say so.

If they'd stop fighting wars all over the place they'd have plenty of money and wouldn't have to keep using Social Security as petty cash.

[rucky]

16. Because he's going to recommend raising the cap after midterms.

Is where my money's going.

[eridani]

18. Why wait? Does he not realize what a good campaign issue this could be? n/t

[rucky]

19. Because their fear machine is bigger and louder than ours?

I'd get excited about it, but it's easily spun as a tax increase. Tax increases are baaaaad for elections - especially with the influence the 5-percenters have over the media.

[eridani]

31. So don't mention raising the cap. Mention not raising retirement age

Mention not cutting benefits.

[laughingliberal]

26. K & R nt

[leftstreet]

27. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

28. Perhaps it's the old "if by whiskey" argument

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grahamhgreen/24

[eridani]

32. Very good. Best alternative explanation yet. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

33. Clearly, it's #1

Because like every other politician, he doesn't want to have to raise taxes high enough, and cut expenditures deep enough to produce the surpluses needed to redeem the Social Security Trust Fund IOU's.

[librechik]

36. He knows if he says ANYTHING the Right will leap at his throat

so he tries to say nothing that will provoke them (EVERYTHING provokes them)

I think it's a poor strategy, and disappointingly cowardly, but then I'm not him. He's got his reasons, I suppose.

[Jakes Progress]

42. beck might hiss at him.

[eridani]

47. That is a very good reason to say something, given that

--Social Security happens to be one of the most popular progams ever. In 2005, Bush couldn't even get his handpicked crews of blue-haired culture warriors to agree that it should be changed.

[another saigon]

50. cowardly? not at all!

I gave up that notion a few elections ago. It is called collusion and the perks are pretty good.

[Cal33]

39. Maybe he has too many right-wing advisers who should be fired?

[suffragette]

43. Spot on eridani

K&R

[USArmyParatrooper]

44. False Trichotomy

4. If he's going to make public dictates to the commission then the entire point of the commission becomes moot.

Undoubtedly the commission will come out with a scary outlook on Social Security, which IS in fiscal trouble. Obama has campaigned on raising the income cap on payments to Social Security, an idea the Republican vehemently oppose. There are only two viable ways to make Social Security more solvent - increase taxes or decrease benefits.

When the public is faced with the choice and the GOP is forced to publicly choose, it provides political pressure.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[eridani]

46. Bullshit. Social Security is most certainly not in trouble.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/07/professor-jamie-galbraiths-testimony-to.html

The usual "solvency" arguments directed at the Social Security system and at Medicare as separate entities are in any event complete nonsense. These programs are just programs, like any others, in the Federal Budget, and the Social Security and Medicare "systems" are thus fully solvent so long as the Federal Government is. Further, as explained below, under our monetary arrangements there is no "solvency" issue for the federal government as a whole. The federal government is "solvent" so long as U.S. banks are required to accept US. Government checks -- which is to say so long as there is a Federal authority in the Republic. This point has been demonstrated repeatedly in times of stress, notably during the Civil War and World War II.

<snip>

Social Security is a transfer program. It is not a spending program. A dollar "spent" on Social Security does not directly increase GDP. It merely reallocates a dollar from one potential final consumer (a taxpayer) to another (a retiree, a disabled person or a survivor). It also reallocates resources within both communities (taxpayers and beneficiaries). Specifically, benefits flow to the elderly and to survivors who do not have families that might otherwise support them, and costs are imposed on working people and other taxpayers who do not have dependents in their own families. Both types of transfer are fair and effective, greatly increasing security and reducing poverty -- which is why Social Security and Medicare are such successful programs.

Transfers of this kind are also indefinitely sustainable -- in fact there can intrinsically be no problem of sustainability with transfer programs. Apart from their effect on individual security, a true transfer program uses (by definition) no net economic resources. The only potential macroeconomic danger from "excessive" transfers is that the transfer function may be badly managed, leading to excessive total demand and to inflation. But there is no risk of this so long as the financial crisis remains uncured. Under present conditions Social Security and Medicare are bulwarks for stabilizing a total demand that would otherwise be highly deficient.