Do we all agree that cuts to Social Security are unacceptable?

[Marr]

I'm just curious. Do we all agree that any president who would approve such a measure while making the blatantly dishonest claim that it's to "cut deficits" is not in fact on our side?

We used to have a contingent that insisted no Social Security cuts would never happen on Obama's watch, and that the Catfood Commission was only political theater and nothing to be concerned about. That argument seems less prevalent now, so I'm just wondering, now that the elections are over and the Commission's findings are being discussed, if we are still to assume that cuts to Social Security could never happen on Obama's watch, or if it's now a matter of "pragmatic compromise".

[patrice]

1. yes

[hlthe2b]

2. That Obama even opened the door is unforgiveable IMHO

Whether this commission is "theater" or not, he made it "acceptable" to consider cuts/destruction of SS.

[Little Star]

11. Yep!

[cyborg1966]

106. Another Yep!

nt

[Smashcut]

143. +1

[thereismore]

147. there. nt

[Bluebear]

168. with ya. nt

[sabrina 1]

173. Yes, it is, and he tied SS to the deficit by allowing them to even

discuss it. That is a lie, SS had nothing to do with the deficit. Shameful that it is a Democratic president who allowed this to happen.

[stopbush]

3. They are when there are EASY and EQUITABLE solutions available TODAY

to keep SS & Medicare solvent forever.

Simply lift the $106,800 income ceiling on SS taxes and tax all income up to $1MM at the same rate the rest of us pay. Why should a guy making $1MM a year pay SS tax on only 10% of his income while those of us making $106,800 or less a year are paying SS taxes on 100% of our incomes?

[MilesColtrane]

22. They are recommending raising the cap, by how much, I don't know.

[stopbush]

39. I say raise it to a million.

I don't know any American making under $100k who wouldn't be fine with that.

[whathehell]

89. That's good to hear, but when you say "they"..do you mean the dems on the catfood commission?...

I ask because I haven't heard that mentioned outside of a few boards like this one.

[MilesColtrane]

100. The report released to Congress was co-authored by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.

It included....

a gradual increase in the Social Security retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075

an increase in early retirement age from 62 to 64

stingier COLA adjustments

an increase on the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes

a 15-cent-a-gallon increase on gasoline

a three-year freeze on federal worker pay and the elimination of 200,000 workers from the federal payroll through attrition.

tight "caps" on the agency budgets adopted by Congress each year, including a near-freeze on the Pentagon's budget.

elimination of congressional "earmarks"

reduction of the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent

eliminating the taxes on overseas profits of U.S.-based multinational corporations.

the overhaul of individual income taxes and corporate taxes, giving Congress the choice of reducing the top rate to as low as 23 percent and no higher than 29 percent

______________________________________________________

It remains to be seen whether they can get 14 votes to send this to Congress.

[whathehell]

102. Gotcha...Judging by the rest of it, the "cap" increase will be miniscule. n/t

[The Box]

120. I like that answer

Why not raise the limit? It wouldn't hurt anyone and the benifits would be huge. There would be such a surplus it would fund medicaid as well.

[sasquuatch55]

159. C-Span interveiw Pete Domenici & Joseph Minarik, Bipartisan Policy Center, Debt Reduction Task Force

I am confused at their idea to get employers and employees to stop paying into Social Security for a year. Is this going to completely cripple the S.S. fund so they can actually do away with it for good?

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/11/29/WJE/A/41263/Pete+Domenici+Joseph+Minarik+Bipartisan+Policy+Center+Debt+Reduction+Task+Force+CoChairmen.aspx

[Democrats_win]

4. Agree! We lost 20 billion on the bankster bailout--no way should they cut SS.

We should be charging the banksters 30% interest like they do us. They'd owe us 500 billion or more for this give-away. Yet our government can't afford SS? Go ahead tell us some more lies.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Frankly, I consider it an act of war against us.

[bluethruandthru]

13. I agree! n/t

[lovuian]

80. Agree

I think the American people will truly go crazy if they do

[leftstreet]

47. +1

[cyborg1966]

105. +1

nt

[earth mom]

165. Yep. It's pitchfork time for the Catfood Commission!

:grr:

[alsame]

6. Yes. nt

[Puregonzo1188]

7. Yes. I'd be curious to see in if anyone here would actually defend them.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Social Security should not even be a matter of discussion....

[defendandprotect]

36. Exactly .... how many would like to discuss cutting the MIC?

I certainly would --

W doubled the MIC budget -- and we can't cut it at all --

war with Iran on the horizon --

We need to throw out everyone one of these warmongering, warmaking elected

officials!!

[Mimosa]

9. YES!! here. n/t

[dana_b]

10. Hell yes

people talk about "lines in the sand" and all that but it's more than that. Anyone who would cut SS is against the working class, the poor, the disabled and anyone not able to be totally self sufficient. I would work against that person or administration in return.

[Greyhound]

12. No.

Of course I agree that they are both unjustified as well as unacceptable, but if it were not against the rules I could give you a list of DUers that think it just fine.
:kick: & R

[Marr]

15. I've never seen one argue openly that such cuts would be fine.

I've seen a lot of assurances that cuts could never happen, and that we shouldn't worry our silly heads about it, but that's all.

Oddly enough, I asked this same question shortly after the commission was formed, and not one of the people who vocally denied any potential cuts in countless other threads bothered to state that such cuts *would* be unacceptable. There were a fair amount of responses, too-- so I found the silence from that quarter rather notable.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. We must consider every option in our effort to preserve tax cuts for the rich

Indeed, it is a time for tough decisions.

[Enthusiast]

94. You nailed it. nt

[saracat]

16. It certainly should be. But heck some are arguing cuts to Medicare are acceptable as well.

I remember when Gore talked about the SS lock box. I guess we won't hear talk like that again.

[Bonhomme Richard]

17. Let's see. I'm 56 so they can cut those that are 55 and younger.

At least I suspect that the wingers will look at it like that.

[peace13]

23. At 52 I say that if they make cuts or extend retirement to 70 then we should stop contributing....

immediately. I am sick and tired of paying in, times 2, to this stuff and having the benefit moved further and further down the road. The fund has been raided over time and we continue to pay into it like good soldiers.

[shanti]

27. gee thanks

i just turned 55 :eyes:

[PBS Poll-435]

18. Anyone that calls the 'Commission' the "Catfood Commission"

Should know better, first of all.

Secondly, is a Hamster-worship fantasy land.

[Marr]

19. Why not answer the question?

Do you consider cuts to Social Security to be unacceptable?

[PBS Poll-435]

21. Obviously. I just don't do the fear-mongering. nt

[Marr]

28. So you won't answer.

In this context, that's almost as good as responding anyway.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. I am against cuts to Social Security benefits. I thought I made that clear with 'Obviously'

:eyes:

[Marr]

30. I didn't ask if you were personally against it. I asked if you consider such cuts unacceptable.

[PBS Poll-435]

33. Ah-ha! Yes unacceptable. And not going to happen

So tell Jane and all her minions to find a new cause because she is wasting precious internet bits.

[Marr]

34. Thank you.

For the record, I don't read the site you're referring to.

[peace frog]

163. Typically tedious bashing of Firedoglake site

and Jane Hamsher of FDL. She's the girl the Obama cultists just love to hate.

Edited to add: Cuts to SS are completely unacceptable.

[mmonk]

56. Anyone who says it's a Hamsher thing may be in an

Obama-worship fantasy land.

[PBS Poll-435]

69. Don't remember saying Hamsher....

:shrug:

[Occulus]

83. Jane Jetson, perhaps?

We all know who you meant. Hell, I don't read FDL at all and I know who you meant.

[disillusioned73]

90. FYI...

PBS Poll-435 (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-01-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message

18. Anyone that calls the 'Commission' the "Catfood Commission"
Should know better, first of all.

Secondly, is a Hamster-worship fantasy land.

[liberation]

156. You're correct...

technically it is the "Working group for the provision, to cells and organisms, of the materials necessary (in the form of food) to support life of the domesticated felis silvestris catus," that makes all the difference.

[robinlynne]

20. yes.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[MilesColtrane]

25. The cuts proposed are raising the retirement age to 68 by 2050, and...

less generous cost of living adjustments in the future.

That's all that has been reported so far.

[defendandprotect]

35. Retirement age should go back to 65 .... and COLA should be increased in view of

hikes in most prices ---

We also need to extend MEDICARE TO THOSE 57 AND OLDER ... as a beginning --

Obama, I'm quite sure, can do this since it's an existding program --

[Mimosa]

46. We also need to extend MEDICARE TO THOSE 57 AND OLDER ... as a beginning

A great beginning, but do you think President Obama would even consider this?

[mmonk]

60. Nope or we would have it.

[defendandprotect]

72. Clinton tried to do it ...and it is the thing to do --

[girl_interrupted]

125. +1000

[treestar]

109. By 2050, 68 year olds will be middle aged

At least if they are middle class.

My father is often amazed at how in his 70s he is not a doddering old man, which, when he was a child, people in their early 60s were!

[MilesColtrane]

113. Yep, Wal-Mart better start making a LOT more blue vests.

Maybe each department can have a greeter.

[treestar]

115. Don't know what you mean by that

But at 68 retired from my current stressful profession, I'd prefer doing some job like that - actually school crossing guard - than sitting around watching TV and doing endless crossword puzzles. Or gossiping and interfering in the lives of the younger generation. I'd rather be helping them out, by staying sharp so I could do it.

[MilesColtrane]

135. You alluded to the fact that there will be many able bodied 68 year olds in the future.

I don't see companies reversing the trend of hiring younger workers over older ones.

Many forced into retirement want to continue to work, but the only jobs available are low paying service jobs...like being a Wal Mart greeter.

That's all I'm saying.

[ProudDad]

137. You're obviously "white collar:"

The most bogus claim they've made is that "people live longer"...

White collar workers who sit on their asses all day and have good health insurance may live longer, hedge fund managers and Wall St. bankers sure as hell live longer...

But blue-collar workers doing physically demanding jobs -- nope...

So again, these elites are proposing that working class folk get fucked again...


And let me know how well that crossing guard job pays your living expenses...


On Edit: Oh, yeah, as Miles said above, I too was forced out of the work force before I reached the age of 60 by age discrimination and physical limitations CAUSED by my profession... If it weren't for the ability to start my SS payments at age 62 I would be ROYALLY FUCKED instead of surviving at a decent subsistence level...

[AllyCat]

150. Gee, then by that logic, in 2080, a centurion will be a spring chicken!

Are you serious? First off, we are NOT getting younger as a group. The average death ages change by increments of months or so. With no health care to speak of and people out of work without being able to eat or have a place to live just makes matters worse as the stress of their condition (after decades of contributing) makes them live shorter, not longer.

Should we seriously have to work until we are so broken down that we can't contribute anymore?

I'm glad your dad is doing so well, but he is probably not the norm.

[ProudDad]

134. You mean less "generous" than the last two year's total of ZERO?

As I remember this bunch of corporate fuckers weren't asked to do anything with Social Security...

Especially since just raising the cap would take care of it through the end of this century...

(which, given the for-profit global greenhouse gas emission levels now in the the foreseeable future, we won't survive in our present form)...

But there's a good reason why they've tinkered with it -- it's a great smokescreen for the tax cuts for the rich they've also included in that execrable package!!!

More Class War and we're STILL losing!

[Recursion]

151. You are aware what "COLA" stands for, right?

When costs of living don't go up, the COLA will be zero. When they do go up, the recommendation is to use a formula that will produce somewhat higher COLAs.

[ProudDad]

167. Well, now...

That's funny...

My property taxes just doubled...

My sales tax went up by 20%...

My food costs continue to rise...

I barely drive anywhere any more so the artificially low gas prices don't help much...

So I question the efficacy of this "formula" they use...

I guess my home going $100,000 underwater over the last 3 years outweighs such trivial day to day costs of living, eh?

And the formula they're proposing will produce LOWER COLAs... Check it out!

Curbing COLA increases, to cover an annualized 26% of shortfall for the next 75 years.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/12/01/Guide-To-Social-Security-Cuts-From-Deficit-Commission.aspx

[shanti]

26. absolutely, it's my bottom line issue

i expected mccain to do this if elected, but certainly not obama!

[ProudDad]

144. mcshame is a bat-crap crazy motherfucker

and senile to boot...

But even at that I don't think he'd have touched Social Security -- other than raise the cap...

[xchrom]

31. I agree, yes. Strongly so.

But I also suspect that there are those here who do support the
Catfood commission or will see it as 'pragmatic'
If Obama supports it. And a victory for dems then
In that case.

[defendandprotect]

32. YES ... completely agree ...

[diane in sf]

37. yes

[AmandaMae]

38. yes, absolutely. n/t

[FloriTexan]

40. Yes n/t

[subterranean]

41. I agree that it's unacceptable.

It was unacceptable when bush was in the White House and it's unacceptable now.

If Obama extends the tax cuts for the rich and signs a bill to cut Social Security (that includes raising the retirement age), he might as well not bother running in the next election. He'd have no chance.

[timtom]

42. Of course it is unacceptable!

They have stolen our money! OUR money! and they want to steal some more. Just so they can rain down death and destruction on hundreds of thousands of women, children, and other civilians.

[stray cat]

43. If they decreased benefits for multimillionaires I would not fight it

I won't fight for Donald Trump to get his maximum benefits

[Hawkowl]

44. Not enough recs

It is absolutely appalling that threads high fiving freezing federal workers' wages gets more recs than a thread trying to garner support for not cutting Social Security.

Maybe DU needs a mission statement on Democratic principles so we can determine if we are still in the right place.

[Marr]

45. I'd love to see more people who insist that no cuts are coming state

that such cuts *would* be unacceptable.

[BzaDem]

48. Not only does Howard Dean support SS cuts in a deficit package -- he says ANYONE who thinks we can

deal with the deficit without making SS/Medicare cuts isn't serious about the deficit.

I personally oppose Dean on this actually. Just putting out there how people will vilify Obama because they think he might one day at some point support cuts, but they glorify Dean even though he actually is on the record saying some cuts are necessary.

[stillwaiting]

53. Dean deserves criticism for that remark. It's not based on the facts.

Glad to see you're against SS cuts in any form.

[BzaDem]

55. Oh, I'm not necessarily against cuts for the wealthy.

I just don't think its necessary that we enact cuts to lower the deficit (like Dean does).

But it's amazing how people will say things like "Dean deserves criticism for that remark," but how when it comes to Obama, they will call him a Republican, insult him, vote against him in 2012 and enable Republicans in 2012, etc.

But Dean just deserves criticism. No double standard there.

[Marr]

54. Do you consider Social Security cuts acceptable?

I'm not asking if you personally oppose them. If such cuts are made, would you consider them to be practical under some likely circumstance, or is the idea a non-starter?

[BzaDem]

57. I would probably be fine with cuts for the wealthy.

I would prefer an increase for SS benefits for the middle class and the poor. If middle class and poor benefits were cut, I would probably oppose them unless the safety net were buttressed in some other way to compensate.

But would I enable a Republican in 2012 (who would want to scrap SS entirely) just because my President does something I oppose? Not on your life.

[jtown1123]

131. Cuts for the wealthy would do nothing since very few seniors are wealthy.

It would also undermine the program because it would become welfare then it would be destroyed entirely. Many of these proposals that cut benefits for the "wealthy" start with people who made $43,000 a year. Wealthy? I think not.

[mmonk]

62. So he is wrong. Why not CUT the RULING CLASS'S tax cut out?

This is war. No quarter to our corporate rapists.

[truebrit71]

49. Yes. It is my personal line in the sand with this President.

I have had as much as I am going to take, I have had it with the continuation of two wars, I have had to with the failure to prosecute torture, I have had it with the failure to get MEANINGFUL health care reform done, i have HAD it with the bullshit environmental policies of this administration, I have HAD it with the non-stop capitulation and obsequious grovelling before the minority party, and if they fuck with the "Third Rail" then I will be officially done with this President.

It is NOT okay to fuck with peoples' SSN whilst corporations continue to get favourable tax breaks as they ship jobs overseas. It is NOT okay that the fat cats on Wall Street have more say than the folks on Main Street, and it is NOT okay that people are being denied Unemployment Benefits whilst Congress ponders extending tax gifts to the wealthy.

I have just about had enough, but if he caves on this, i am done.

[Agony]

50. Well, I do...

Sure seems that there are others here who might make excuses for such cuts. What's with that?

[northzax]

51. define 'cuts'

there are certainly some tweaks I would accept to sustain the health of the system long term. I have no problem with higher end means testing, which could be construed as a 'cut'. if you are making over, say, $150k, can your benefits be reduced? probably.

[SmileyRose]

73. +1

[mmonk]

52. Yes absolutely. A litmus test for me.

[craigmatic]

58. Social spending is a drop in the bucket compared to military spending.

They want to talk about a bureaucracy. There is no bigger portion of government than the military they waste money and have a bloated number of staffers and all we do is throw money at them. We need to close some foreign bases and cut some positions.

[BzaDem]

61. Actually, the opposite is true. SS + Medicare combined make up almost double defense.

And that's not including lots of other social spending.

[craigmatic]

63. I doubt that but still if I had the power I'd still cut defense before social spending.

[Recursion]

154. What? You don't get to "doubt that"

SS is slightly less than DoD (regular budget + overseas contingency). SS + Medicare and Medicaid is significantly more than defense spending. Now, if you want to count the VA as defense spending (that's most of the "other mandatory"), then SS + Medicare is slightly less than Defense.

And, the more we borrow, the more that yellow slice labeled "interest" grows.

[mmonk]

64. Social Security has a dedicated tax.

Want to cut medicare costs? Cut private insurance costs.

[BzaDem]

68. The poster asked about spending, not taxes. n/t

[cyborg1966]

110. This ANG vet agrees

I know only too well how bloated and inefficient Fort Fumble can be with our tax dollars.

Pushing for F-35's (money pit) since we got the F-22's limited is stupid. We are building updated, state-of-the-art F-16's and dual-role derivatives of the F-15 Mudhen for overseas customers...but the bluesuit bureaucracy won't accept them for a replacement for our tired F-15/F-16 legacy fighter force, despite the fact that they would be MUCH cheaper.

Given the choice (if I had one, which I don't) of fully funding Social Security, Medicare and a TRUE universal health plan, as opposed to these unnecessary Luke Skywalker birds, I know which one would be more cost-effective and HELP this country more.

Fully agreed on withdrawal from overseas bases. Spangdahlem? Aviano? RAF Lakenheath? The Germans, Italians and British are quite capable of taking care of themselves.

[Raine]

59. TOTALLY and COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE! nt

:mad:

[NorthCarolina]

65. Neither Social Security nor Medicare caused the deficit, and they should not be

sacrificed to fix it. This is just the next installment in class warfare to marginalize the middle class to the benefit of the wealthy, and Obama is the enabler.

[subterranean]

75. Well said. nt

[Liquorice]

66. Not only is it unacceptable, it's immoral and should be illegal. nt

[snot]

67. YES!

[NaturalHigh]

70. I think it would benefit the economy if we lowered the retirement age.

Wouldn't more jobs be available if people were retiring earlier?

[Individualist]

71. Yes!

[Shandris]

74. 100% agree.

There is no reason or cause to make SS cuts. Even this junk about raising the minimum age is bull...people aren't in static jobs like they used to be for 20-30-40-50 years. Once you reach a certain age, it's easier than ever to be let go and never get a job again. Now they want to extend that?

I hope all these 'CUT SS NOW!' fucktards realize that every little penny they make back is going to be spent taking care of those who are currently self-sufficient or close to it, and then some. Or that they realize that they're going to allow their loved ones to wither away and die. They really don't have a third option.

Greed is good, my ass. Greed is destroying the heart of this nation more than any terrorist ever could.

[Enthusiast]

95. Great post, Shandris.

You are so right about greed destroying the heart of the nation more than any terrorist ever could. People are concerned about security in their daily lives and personal security is every bit as important as fighting a war to preserve national security, even more so. Security is security.

[Stinky The Clown]

76. I guarantee there are some people who will fall in line if Obama says it is the right thing to do.

[OnionPatch]

77. Yes. A really big yes.

This is the line in the sand for me. Tax cuts for the rich, social security cuts for the rest of us----If the Democrats are complicit in this I'm changing to a third party. A Democratic party that supports this no longer represents me.

[MH1]

78. Depends what is meant by 'cuts'.

I've always been in the camp that retirement age could be raised, because average lifespan has increased since the program was introduced. There are important caveats though: 1) it should only take effect for those not yet in the workforce or very young (no older than 25), so that they have time to plan accordingly; 2) something needs to be done for those in physically demanding jobs so that they have a way to still retire earlier with full benefits if their health demands it.

An alternative would be to incentivize staying in the workforce longer. That's essentially what we have now, where you can retire earlier than the nominal retirement age, but you take a benefit cut if you do so, because you will (theoretically) be drawing benefits longer.

I'd most like to see the wage cap extended. I really don't see why it can't be or shouldn't be extended maybe to another, say, $50K of income. Sure, it's been adjusted for inflation all along, but if people are on average drawing out of the fund for longer, then they should be putting relatively more in as well, and that can best be achieved by raising the cap, in my opinion.

I think these kind of tweaks to SS would be better than cutting Medicare.

I also think any means testing at all is a very, very bad idea which will ultimately lead to SS becoming a program for 'them', like welfare, and thus ultimately gutted. Better to raise taxes or tweak the benefit formula but keep it a common benefit. (Not to mention, means testing introduces a whole new layer of bureaucracy and paperwork for us all to deal with, and would add cost to the program. K.I.S.S.)

Of course, the best thing would be to increase marginal income tax rates on the wealthy and semi-wealthy, and leave SS and Medicare alone, but it seems the actual, VOTING electorate doesn't agree with us.

[eridani]

82. How many times do we have to deal with this "lifespan has increased" bullshit?

Life expectancy FROM BIRTH is irrelevant, period. LIfe expectancy from age 65 has increased by only 3 or 4 years. With unemployment/underployment in the neighborhood ot 20%, how can anyone sane say that what we need is for older people to stay in the workforce longer?

As for what the voting public thinks, here it is--

http://socialsecurity-works.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SSWElectionPoll.pdf

Lake Research Partners released a new poll Thursday with dire implications for Democrats should Social Security cuts happen on their watch. And once again, the economy and jobs combined whomped the deficit as the primary concern of voters, 42 to 6.

Overall, of the 1,200 likely voters surveyed, 82% of respondents oppose Social Security cuts to reduce the deficit, including 83% of Dems, 78% of Independents, 82% of Republicans, and 74% of Tea Party supporters. Tea Party!!!! TEA PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!! (Note—this reflects observation of many of our Democratic ground-level doorbellers.)

The implications for Democrats are serious.

According to national exit poll data, Democrats lost seniors by historic proportions—21 points—in the November mid-terms. Even in 1994, Democrats only lost seniors by 2 points.

The survey reveals Democrats no longer have the advantage they traditionally have enjoyed on Social Security. However, candidates who made Social Security an issue often saved their seats, and voters who say Social Security was a top voting issue voted more for Democratic candidates.

As we have seen in previous work, voters see little relationship between the deficit and Social Security. (Which, of course, there isn’t)

[DirkGently]

79. Agreed this is an easy bright line for Democrats. There is no SS "crisis." Why is it being

discussed as though the economic mess we're in, brought on by a speculative bubble enabled by financial deregulation, presents some emergency regarding Social Security? The two are entirely unrelated.

[donheld]

81. 100%

[sabrina 1]

84. Yes, and any Democrat who supports any attack on SS

is no longer a Democrat. The SS program should be the pride and joy of the Democratic Party. No other program has protected the most vulnerable Americans, the elderly, the disable and dependent children, from falling into abject poverty, the this program has.

Millions have benefited from it in so many ways. It would be unconscienable for any Democrat to even consider discussing any cuts, raising of the retirement age or attributing blame of any kind to SS for the deficit. SS had nothing to do with the deficit and anyone trying to make that case is a liar, and if a Democrat does so, they are a traitor to their party's platform.

People need to call their Reps, and Republicans and let them know we are watching this and those who betray the American on SS will suffer politically for it.

Dems can kiss the next election goodbye, if they go along with the proposals of the Deficit Commission's anti SS members. If Alan Simpson has the power to influence Democrats in any way, then this party is lost.

[inna]

85. +1000 and thank you nt

[Altoid_Cyclist]

149. I second your thank you to Sabrina 1.

I have a feeling that most of the country is just like this area. Once you hit 50 with health problems, you become chum for the corporate sharks to feed on.

It's not much, but my wife and I would be pretty much destroyed financially if I hadn't been able to retire on SS Disability. It figures that I started receiving it just in time for no COLA and now the possibility of having to share my cat's Meow Mix.

[flyarm]

122. + 10 million gazillion! You got that right! eom

[Desertrose]

133. + another 10 million gazillion

[Kablooie]

86. Only after taxing the wealthy and every other cut is implemented.

We have paid into SS all our lives. It is
immoral to take it away just when so many are beginning to need it.

[Imagevision]

87. Unacceptable yes - but they'll do it because there are too many boomers retiring at the same time

[whathehell]

88. Yes and Hell Yes. n/t

[disillusioned73]

91. The fact that this is even brought up @ this site...

tells you that the goalposts have already been moved... :wtf:

[veness]

92. Hell Yes! n/t

[harun]

93. Obama should expand SS.

[Eddie Haskell]

96. Yes

and so are tax cuts for the rich. I'll be looking for a new party.

[Enthusiast]

97. Social Security cuts are unacceptable.

Yes, unacceptable.

I will actively work against any elected official, including President Obama and any Democrat, that supports these cuts. I am disappointed that President Obama has not expressed his outrage at the Deficit Commission's proposals. But President Obama commissioned the Deficit Commission so it would be folly to believe he didn't know what the likely outcome would be. I am one pissed off citizen at this juncture.

[bigwillq]

98. Yes (nt)

[bullwinkle428]

99. The number of unrecs on this is both telling and shameful.

[deaniac21]

101. I think inevitable is the word.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. There are problems with the US budget. Social Security is NOT part of the solution. n/t

[cyborg1966]

104. As a disabled person...

...who is on Social Security disability and Medicare, if Obama caves to the far right ("pragmatic compromise") on this issue, he will NOT get my vote again. I will vote Socialist Party USA instead.

[treestar]

107. Depends on the cuts

No matter how much, we pay into the system. If it is to those wealthy enough to have other means of supporting themselves in retirement, it might not be a bad idea and would even be a strike at the rich.

[woo me with science]

108. I wish we'd had a similar poll about crotch searches BEFORE they happened.

Opinions always seem to change after the fact.

K&R.

[geardaddy]

111. Yes.

Stop cutting our lifeblood. Start cutting the rich peoples' party favors.

[madmax]

112. New Buzz words.. .not 'CUT'

'CURTAIL', 'CURB', 'REIN IN' REDUCE, ...

Along with 'The American People have spoken', The American People want, The American People decided.

:puke: on 'The American People.' And every thieving Republican, which would be all of them.

[Love Bug]

114. Hell to the 'yes'!

[laughingliberal]

116. Everything he's done-creating the monstrous commission & appointing the nasty haters tells me...

cutting SS and Medicare has been on his 'to do' list from the get go. Actions speak louder than words.

[flyarm]

121. absolutely and I never in my lifetime thought or even dreamed anyone who called themselves a

Democrat would even attempt to say the words reduction or age increase!

That money is mine and yours..not Obama's or the fuckers who want to rob it from us!

No REAL DEMOCRAT would ever dream of screwing us on our Social Security.

And I mean that!

[roxiejules]

117. +1000 thank you for posting

[guitar man]

118. Agreed 100%

I haven't paid into this system for over 30 years only to be ripped off because the wealthiest in this country have a bug up their ass about being asked to so much as lift a finger to help their fellow citizens. I've had enough of it, period! :grr:

If they won't deliver on what was promised when I started in paying into the system, then GIVE ME MY DAMN MONEY BACK...EVERY PENNY!! :grr:

[flyarm]

119. When I began working as a young girl and the Government took money out of my pay for social security

no where was there ever in 40 years of my working a disclaimer saying MY SECURITY MONEY would be used for a deficit.

No in fact, I was told for a lifetime, that that money was my money being put aside by the government for my senior years for SECURITY..It has always been MY MONEY.. NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY TO DO AS THEY PLEASE.

NOT TO BAIL OUT FUCKERS WHO ROBBED THIS NATION BLIND..NOT TO BAIL OUT CROOKS AT THE BANKS AND WALL STREET! NOT FOR WARS OR THE PENTAGON..NOT FOR THE MIC!

It is my security money..Mine and yours!!

Social Security is not deficit reducing funds!

IT IS A SAVINGS ACCOUNT WE ALL PAID INTO DEARLY! A savings account that belongs to you and me! Not the god damned banks or wall street!

[swilton]

123. If you have to ask this question

it doesn't need an answer - Hell YES it's unacceptable....If the country is going to go down the tube, I won't vote for any candidate (i.e. Democrat or Republican) that facilitates the process or enables others to make it happen.

[kestrel91316]

124. yes

[girl_interrupted]

126. K&R

[Sherman A1]

127. Yup!

I am with you on this one.

[MissDeeds]

128. Cuts to Social Security are unacceptable

Absolutely unacceptable. DU would be going ballistic if a Republican prez was considering this.

[Daphne08]

129. Yes! Completely unacceptable.

[jtown1123]

130. It could definitely happen under Obama's watch. Check out his budget in the Spring.

Wouldn't be surprised if he took some of these proposals so he can look "serious" to the Republicans who he seems to love so much. The freeze on Federal Pay is just the tip of the iceberg I'm afraid. Get ready for draconian austerity.

[JDPriestly]

132. Yes. Cutting Social Security means forcing the middle class into slavery.

Seniors have paid for their Social Security benefits. The government, the corporations, especially the financial sector, borrowed and wasted the money on wars and other unnecessary defense spending. That money is ours.

Cutting Social Security would cut the ability of low-income older people to survive. I should correct that -- to subsist.

Cutting Social Security would force middle class people who may have saved money during their working lives to spend that money down in order to survive. That would mean that today's middle class seniors would not be able to leave any wealth or even modest inheritances to their children.

If the middle class children could not inherit the life savings, land, property of their parents because the middle class had to use those savings, land, property to fund their basic living costs in their old age, the younger generation would have to start from scratch. Middle class parents who used to pay for their children's education will need to save that money for their own retirement instead. Cutting Social Security would create a mess across the generations. Of course, young people could simply take care of their parents as they age. But that is not generally a part of the so-called "American dream," is it?

[dana_b]

162. nope

so we middle aged parents could live in a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment (3 br would be a luxury) with our college aged kids while they try to pay off loans for school. We will save for our own retirement while mom and/or dad (grandma/pa) take the other bedroom. Whoopee!! Of course who is going to watch grandma/pa while we go to work?! There won't be $$ for nursing care.

The "American Dream" is dead.

[kenny blankenship]

136. yes, finishing the work that Reagan began is not what I elected Obama to do.

Nor will I accept it from any Democrat.

[WCGreen]

138. Yes!!!

[Fearless]

139. Completely. In fact I'd campaign VEHEMENTLY AGAINST anyone who suggested such a thing.

[bonnieS]

140. yes.

I called my two Dem Senators. Only one office was willing to say he would vote against. The other Senator is in the Dem leadership, so I assume he is voting with Obama.

[GOPBasher]

141. If Obama cuts SS or raises the retirement age, the Dems are toast for a couple generations. n/t

[orbitalman]

142. ABSOLUTELY !

[AllyCat]

145. I won't vote for a republican, but cannot with good conscience vote for Obama again

I've forgiven a lot that he's done that I didn't think was progressive in the name of "it's better than McCain, or "we have to get it started somehow", but this is beyond the pale for me. I cannot believe a Democratic president is even suggesting this is an option.

I'm opting out. May not cast a vote for POTUS in 2012 unless there is a third party candidate I feel speaks for me. I'll work for and vote for Dems for Congress and my local and state elections, but Obama is finished in my book.

[ProudDad]

146. Of course, it was NOT in their mandate to even look at SS

and they have done it in order to draw attention away from the fact that their "report" is a collection of tax cuts for the rich!!!

And business as usual for the war machine -- the REAL job killer and economic drain.

Smokescreen...

And it seems to have worked again...

[Orsino]

148. Unacceptable, unless we're talking a means test to cut payments to the already well off. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

161. Means testing is unacceptable

because it gives the whole enterprise the appearance of an entitlement, which it most assuredly s not. It's easier to chop once people think of it as an entitlement instead of something they paid for and deserve.

[Orsino]

170. Thinking of it as insurance is also faithful to the big picture.

Fire insurance, for example, doesn't pay out when your house isn't on fire.

If they are determined to cut Social Security, don't let them start anywhere but with those who don't need it.

[Deep13]

152. Yes. Even more unacceptable in the face of tax cuts for the rich. nt

[Michigan-Arizona]

153. YES, very unacceptable n/t

[BlueJac]

155. Cuts to Social Security and raising the retirement age are............

OFF THE TABLE. KEEP YOUR GREEDY "FUCKING" HANDS OFF MY SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BlueJac]

157. They can take their right wing ideas and stick it..........

where the sun does not shine. I have had it with this destruction of the America. Go find some more countries to shove this shit down their throats like you have done in the past!!!

[TatonkaJames]

158. With all the money they waste

You can read a headline in the news every day about millions, sometimes billions wasted by our government,
stolen mostly these days by Iraq and Afghanistan, Big Banks, U.S. Representatives, Billions in aid to countries that
goes missing, outdated military projects that end up being scraped because they are no longer useful, etc.
YES, start where the real waste is and then look at cuts for those of us who need them.
Unfortunately we live in a new country that thinks of their citizens last and the wealthy first.
Sure, go ahead, cut our benefits, and keep corporate welfare increasing.
Shmucks, the whole lot of them.

[Jackpine Radical]

160. I can't give you a simple "Yes" here.

What I need to say is "Jesus H. Christ, of course!"

In other words,

"Fuck, yes!"

"Goddamit, you bet yer patootie!"

[james0tucson]

164. No

I'd support a cold reset of the social security system.

Refund the amount that everyone has paid into the system directly to them, and end the program.

[Paper Roses]

166. S.S. is a contract with the government. We are owed the results

of our years of contributions.

That the subject is even being discussed scares me. What are we to do, sue the government 'en masse'?

Like others. My husband and I paid for in for about 50 years. He collected for about 3 years before he died. I now get his benefit which is a little larger than mine. Of course, my payments went away, never to be seen again.

This whole debate stinks. What are recipients to live on, air? It is my only income and as it is, things are a constant juggle.

Many folks in DC are being very short sighted about this issue. When every house lived in by an old timer goes on the market in order to generate food money, real estate will dive. The housing market will bottom out, nothing will sell because there is just too much on the market.

Lets not forget, who will pay the bills. No $$ for utilities, food, phone, taxes, medical care etc.

Unbelievable that our lawmakers are so stupid.

[Crunchy Frog]

169. yes.

[eilen]

171. Social Security cuts are unacceptable. Period.

anyone here that does not agree to that premise needs to do some serious introspection as to where exactly their ethical and political leanings truly lie.

[ProudDad]

172. FYI - smokescreen for even worse crap

Case in Point:

"Making It Easier for Doctors to Get Away with Malpractice Is an Insane Way to Cut the Deficit

"It was just a lone sentence tacked on to the very end of a long New York Times article. The story focused on a recent report from President Obama's bipartisan commission on reducing the national debt. "Panel Seeks Cuts in Social Security and Higher Taxes" was indeed about cuts in Social Security and proposed tax increases -- the things most pundits jump on. But the last sentence caught my eye: " would limit malpractice awards, long a Republican goal."

"Huh? What has limiting malpractice awards -- and all but doing away with them if you read the fine print -- got to do with the national debt?"

http://www.alternet.org/story/149029/making_it_easier_for_doctors_to_get_away_with_malpractice_is_an_insane_way_to_cut_the_deficit