Social Security splinters Democrats in debate over reining in budget deficits

[babylonsister]

Social Security splinters Democrats in debate over reining in budget deficits

By Lori Montgomery, Thursday, March 24, 8:11 PM


With momentum building to rein in record budget deficits, Democrats are sharply divided over whether to tackle popular but increasingly expensive safety-net programs for the elderly, particularly Social Security.

A growing number of Democratic lawmakers say they are willing to consider controversial measures such as raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for wealthier seniors as part of a compromise with Republicans to cut spending on the programs and stabilize them for future generations.

But senior lawmakers such as Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) are lining up against them, arguing that tampering with Social Security would harm the elderly — as well as the political fortunes of Democrats hoping to maintain control of the White House and the Senate in 2012.

The dispute, long simmering behind the scenes, is poised to erupt into public view. Reid has scheduled a rally Monday on Capitol Hill to show “support for Social Security and opposition to cuts in benefits,” according to an e-mail sent to liberal activists. And House Democrats this week signaled their intention to use Social Security as a cudgel in next year’s elections by launching an ad campaign accusing 10 GOP lawmakers in swing districts of plotting to cut the program.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/social-security-splinters-democrats-in-debate-over-reining-in-budget-deficits/2011/03/24/ABDpApRB_story.html

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. The split is between DINOS and real Democrats

n/t

[totodeinhere]

14. To win elections we have to be a big tent party. IMO separating Democrats into

"real Democrats" and DINOS is not helpful.. Besides that, just who gets to decide who the real Democrats are? I bet if you asked ten Democrats who "real" Democrats are you would get ten different answers.

[Vinnie From Indy]

29. You could not be more wrong!

The fact is that the Democratic Party is already the big tent party. That big tent has as it's foundation the very social programs that a small group of Democrats wants to attack.

You write,
"just who gets to decide who the real Democrats are? "

That would be other Democrats of course. In fact, the lines could not be more clear! The vast majority of Democrats do not favor attacking THE hallmark program of progressive achievement in this country. Our party is doomed if we allow the same corporate and special interests that own the GOP to acquire our party as well.

In short, this is exactly the time to focus on those Democrats that are willing to turn a blind eye toward the massive giveaways to the wealthy and the vast sums being sucked by the MIC while offering that our nation's financial health can only be improved by attacking the working class, the poor and the elderly.

[vroomvroom]

33. You sir are an embarassment. nt

[totodeinhere]

35. LOL. I've had much worse than that said about me. n/t

[msongs]

2. incredibly stupid dems : "No SS cuts no how, no way" see how easy that is? Then raise the

income cap. Insolvency issues solved: "It's right that wealthy people pay their fair share"

[Armstead]

5. Bingo.

[RC]

17. Living-Wage-Jobs in this country would help quite a bit also,

[golfguru]

19. If living wage jobs could be created by a decree

then we must be living in Camelot.

[Armstead]

20. Not a single decree -- But policies can move towards that

Pushg up the minimum wage,m support thge goals of organized labor, don't reward corporations for outsourcing and other policies could collectively at least set the stage for a move towards a restoration of the concept of the Living Wage.

[golfguru]

21. Especially rewarding corporations for outsourcing

Is it correct Obama said during the campaign he would stop that ? If yes, what is he
waiting for?

[Armstead]

26. You get no argumnent from me on that

My response was to your statement that a decree could not bring a livable wage.

[dionysus]

30. true, but we have nowhere close to the votes to get a cap raise through right now.

good luck in the house with that.

[Autumn]

3. A growing number of Democrats say they will not vote

for Democratic lawmakers willing to consider compromise with Republicans on Social Security. They might want to consider that.

[liberal N proud]

4. All those who are willing to cave the GOP propaganda need to be thrown out

They all need to be kicked out of Washington because they no longer represent the people and they are no longer Democrats.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate farm labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. There numbers are negligible and they are stupid."

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/1954

Well, the time has come when they are making the attempt and it is no longer a splinter group which include not millionaires but billionaires. They are no longer negligible but have grown to be menacing in size.

[Autumn]

9. Time to clean out the tent

big old elephants shitting all over in there.

[bluethruandthru]

10. and that quote - from a republican!

If Eisenhower were still alive, he would be considered a very liberal Democrat!

[damntexdem]

6. Useless bags of shit = any Dem senators who would cut SS.

First they allow the Repukes to increase the deficit by retaining the tax breaks for the rich. Now, they want to STEAL from those of us who've paid into SS.

[RoadRage]

7. I guess I'd rather have SS a few years later then not at all...

but that's just me. I'm only 32.. so frankly, I don't really expect to see it in my lifetime anyway. But, if my choices are at age 70 or Never - 70 sounds pretty good. So, that might be the reason some of your younger democrats are willing to conceed on this.. the difference between 65 and a few years beyond that is so far down the road right now it's not exactly a huge priority.

[Moral_Imagination]

8. you've been brainwashed.... n/t

[RoadRage]

12. Ahh.. nothing like the opinion of an invisible face on the internets... NT

[Moral_Imagination]

13. SS isn't going anywhere...

"I don't really expect to see it in my lifetime anyway"

this means you have bought into the RW talking point which has been pushed since SS started. The only way SS goes away is if its voted out of existence and that will never happen.

[RoadRage]

15. No, I haven't bought into any RW talking point...

I'm simply preparing myself financially for the idea that there might not be SS when it's time for me to retire. It's something that a lot of people my age might want to do.. because there is no downside to it. If there IS SS when I retire - YEAH!!! More Money! If there ISN'T SS when I retire - who cares.. 'cause I've been stocking away savings my whole life to prepare for it.

If you sit around waiting for creatures in congress to make your life decisions for you - you'll always end up screwed. Take them into your own hands.. and then it really doesn't matter if 40 years down the road the RW talking points were right or wrong - you're still covered.

Would I like Republicans to be wrong? Sure? Will I count on it? No.

[doc03]

23. How old are you and do you think you will be able to sock away

enough money to retire without SS?

[doc03]

24. I'll tell you something about socking your savings away

for retirement. I have a pension and saved and now that I am retired I found I am getting penalized for it. You will find if you work hard and play by the rules and try to have a decent retirement the SS you were supposed to get will eaten up by taxes. Like some on this board like to promote "means testing", it's already going on..

[karynnj]

16. Key words, "I'm only 32"

Two things:

1) Companies may not give workers the choice to continue working even until 65 and once laid off it would be very hard to get a comparable job when you are over 60 (and some might add, 50). What do these people do with no income stream for many years?

2) While working at professional and managerial jobs might be within the capability of many over age 65, many jobs requiring physical labor are not easily done after you are near that age.

(These two are even made worse as they are not independent. It may well be because of 2), that many of the people companies lay off at that age are people who they can honestly argue can not do the job as well as they did before (or as well as current young people.) These may be the people least likely to have enough savings to live off of until SS kicks in.

This is why raising the cap and applying it to earnings from capital, not just wages, are subject to to the tax is a better, fairer idea. (I suspect the counterargument is that it moves away from being "insurance" to something more like a progressive tax.)

[RC]

18. Wait till the time come to retire.

I had to wait a year to retire. It was a long year.

[doc03]

22. I am happy I was able to retire 62. Maybe you have an office job

or a job you actually like, I don't know. I bet one thing if you actually have to work for a living you will be ready to retire at 62. Besides that I was laid off at 61 with little hopes of getting called back and no jobs. So sometimes working to you are 70 isn't as easy as you may think.

[LiberalFighter]

25. Do you think 70 is an appropriate age for those working in factories, construction, etc?

How many employers will continue to employ anyone at that age when they can hire someone younger at starting wages?

How many will die between age 65 and 70 resulting in fewer receiving SSI?

How many will be unable to enjoy retirement because the age has been increased to 70 and by that time their health causes them to live in nursing homes, hospices, or other less than desirable accommodations.

Who else suffers because retirement is extended beyond 65?


Considering that pension plans are almost nonexistent, 401k's require active participation and is really only an effective program if the participant has participated since they started employment, and many don't have the resources to plan for one's retirement especially with a family do you expect to win the lottery to make up for Social Security?

[polichick]

11. Whether they're foolish Dems or fake Dems, theThird Way is the...

...biggest threat to the party imo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=638077&mesg_id=638077

[AtomicKitten]

27. The only acceptable change is raising the cap.

It's about time the filthy rich paid their fair share.

[dionysus]

28. just raise the fucking cap already! which is much easier said than done, they couldn't pass that.

[hulka38]

36. How can that sensible and fair liberal idea

become politically viable if Democrats won't even discuss it as a possible solution? Democrats do not advocate for liberal ideas. They don't push. That's a huge part of the problem and a source of liberal aggravation and discontent.

[Arkana]

31. As long as the leaders are on the side of "no fucking with Social Security",

then nothing will happen to it.

[StarsInHerHair]

32. this shouldn't even be a question, instead ask what HAS created this defict?

& then CUT THAT.







duh.





really.

[CreekDog]

34. Write those equivocators letters telling them they'll never get one airport named after them

not one "this highway cleaned up by ----- --------, politician"

not one ribbon cutting will they be invited to

not one scholarship will be named after them


if enough of you, of us, make this kind of stink (maybe you could get a garbage truck named after one or two of them), you hit them where they live. to them this is a popularity contest and they think they win popularity (among those whose opinions they care about --no, not yours) by screwing you or at least talking like they are trying to screw you.

well that kind of popularity gets you talked fondly of by the David Broders (RIP) and other kinds of people that get stuff named after you.

don't let them get their scholarships, the wings at colleges named in their honor (these guys probably voted to cut funding for higher education anyway), don't let them get their ribbon cutting for a highway named after them without a really loud protest decrying it --and warn those who would honor them with it that you will be there with others and will be very, very, very loud.

no taking this stuff sitting down.

if these people can't stand up for us, then i guess we have to stand up to them.

[Geoffrey_Lebowski]

37. The cap each year should be based on 1% of take-home of highest paid person in US

So if, last year, the highest personal income was some hedge fund dude who made $100M take-home, then the cap is set at 1% of that, or $1M, for this year.