President Obama has repeatedly said Social Security does not contribute to the deficit

[ProSense]

Here is Krugman in February: There Is Still No Such Thing As Socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid...And President Obama, I’m glad to see, knows that:

Dean Baker, also February: FactCheck Gets It Wrong on Social Security and the Deficit

FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenburg Public Policy Center, wrongly attacked a number of prominent Democrats for correctly pointing out that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. The people attacked, included New York Senator Charles Schumer, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, and President Obama’s Budget Director Jacob Lew, who had all correctly pointed out that Social Security does not contribute to the budget deficit.

<...>

President Obama: "Social security is not the source of our deficit problems." (Monday)

There is no reason to distort the President's position.

That's the Republicans' job: GOP attacks Dems from the left, accuses them of shredding `social safety net’

[MannyGoldstein]

1. So why is he trying to slash it or cut it or whatever it's called at the WH this week

Obama's repeated attempts to to tie Social Security "reform"/"strengthening"/gutting to reducing deficits prove that he just wants to help grab the Trust Fund for Pete Peterson and company. There's zero other reason to tie these together. Almost as soon as Obama took office, he appointed a "Deficit" Commission charged with getting Social Security under control. Sick.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20079911-503544.html">Growing signs Social Security, Medicare changes will be part of debt deal: "Time for old folks to eat their peas."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0707/Briefing-room-word-games-What-s-a-slash-versus-a-cut-in-Social-Security">Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

So, a reporter asked, what does “slash” mean?

“Haven’t you got, like, a dictionary app on your iPhone?” Carney replied.

Q: Well, it’s a word that you use instead of “cut.”

Carney: “Slash” is, I think, quite clear. It’s slash. It’s like that. (Carney makes a slashing motion with his hand.) It’s a significant whack.

Q: So it means a significant …

Carney: I’m not going to put a numerical figure on it.

Q: So it means a significant cut.

Carney: I think slashing is a pretty sharp, direct …

Q: It’s not the same thing as cutting – the point is, it’s not the same thing as “cut.”

Carney: It’s slash. (Laughter.) And I don’t mean the guitarist. (Laughter.)

Q: A pledge to not slash benefits is not the same thing as a pledge to not cut benefits.

Carney: I’m not – again, we’re talking about a policy enunciated by the president back in January, and that is …

Q: This is a diction you guys have chosen.

Carney: No, no, I get that, and we did choose it, and the president used it. But I’m not here to negotiate the semantics …

Q: Just so everybody understands – just so everybody understands, when you say “slash,” you don’t mean “cut.”

Carney: We have said that to address the long-term solvency of the problem – of the program, because this is not an issue that drives short- or medium-term deficits, that we would look – the president is interested in looking at ways to strengthen the program and enhance its long-term solvency that protects the integrity of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.

Q: Which is not the same thing as not cutting benefits.

[ProSense]

2. Um,

that's cute.

Again: "There is no reason to distort the President's position."

[MannyGoldstein]

11. What have I distorted? Be very specific, please.

Thanks.

[ProSense]

4. Oh, and

here is something to add, Carney Wednesday

<...>

Q Well, Republicans are saying that they can’t get commitments. I’m not in the room; I don’t know what the truth is. But Republicans are saying that they can’t get commitments. Mitch McConnell said that an administration official, which I believe is Budget Director Jack Lew -- he asked him how much would there be in entitlement cuts next year, and Lew said -- McConnell did not identify him, but it was Lew -- (laughter) -- and Lew said $2 billion, which is --

MR. CARNEY: I don’t -- actually that’s not talking about entitlements. And that is just a false moving of the chains here when we -- you got to compare apples to apples. The President has already committed to significant non-defense discretionary cuts that were embodied in the CR compromises that fulfill the fiscal year funding of 2011. And what the President is seeking and the commitments he’s made in terms of the spending he likes -- he would accept and seeks, in terms of non-defense discretionary spending, to lock in the savings represented from last year, represented in the CR, and to take them even further, and not just to have savings in one year.

But one of the reasons why he wants a big deal is because you can get a medium-size deal or a smaller deal, but that doesn’t deal with your long-term problem. Only a significantly sized deal in the trillions of dollars, between $3-$4 trillion is what we mostly talked about, over 10 to 12 years, that's the only way to really get at the problem of debt-to-GDP ratio -- to bring those costs in line so that we can get our fiscal house in order. That's what the President wants.

And he is willing to cut deeply in discretionary spending, carefully. He's willing to cut significantly in defense spending, if you do it carefully and maintain our national security interests. He's willing to reform entitlements and find savings there. And he's absolutely willing, of course, to make sure that it's balanced and that we find savings in our tax code.

<...>

FYI: Saving means stuff like this on the Medicare side.

Again, leave the distortions to Republicans.

[tekisui]

3. Yet, SS checks could quit going out on Aug. 2?

[ProSense]

5. What does that have to do with the OP?

It's fascinating that distortions are given validity, but showing that the President, in his own words and acknowledged by two well-respected economists, has repeatedly stated a fact is ignored.

[tekisui]

7. How does the deficit debate theaten the SS checks?

[ProSense]

9. It doesn't

Blowing up the economy does.

Krugman:

In about a month, if nothing is done, the federal government will hit its legal debt limit. There will be dire consequences if this limit isn’t raised. At best, we’ll suffer an economic slowdown; at worst we’ll plunge back into the depths of the 2008-9 financial crisis.

<...>

Not that the confidence issue is trivial. Failure to raise the debt limit — which would, among other things, disrupt payments on existing debt — could convince investors that the United States is no longer a serious, responsible country, with nasty consequences. Furthermore, nobody knows what a U.S. default would do to the world financial system, which is built on the presumption that U.S. government debt is the ultimate safe asset.

But confidence isn’t the only thing at stake. Failure to raise the debt limit would also force the U.S. government to make drastic, immediate spending cuts, on a scale that would dwarf the austerity currently being imposed on Greece. And don’t believe the nonsense about the benefits of spending cuts that has taken over much of our public discourse: slashing spending at a time when the economy is deeply depressed would destroy hundreds of thousands and quite possibly millions of jobs.

<...>

[jenmito]

8. Obama was trying to make people see the importance of

raising the debt ceiling in a way they can relate to, since the Repubs. keep saying that NOT raising the debt ceiling wouldn't matter. But Obama's admin. will NOT stop SS checks from going out.

[JoePhilly]

6. Stop trying to throw cold water on the outrage machine.

Obama is absolutely, positively, going to announce major cuts to social security and medicare at ANY SECOND!!!

Tick, tick, tick ... :nuke:

[Jakes Progress]

21. We noticed.

The new administrative meme is "major cuts". It has changed from cuts to major cuts because reality has struck.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[MNBrewer]

12. And why will he not THEN say

"Therefore, I will not be proposing changes to Social Security in conjunction with the deficit reduction plan"?

[atreides1]

13. Read this article

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113133/smaller-raises-for-seniors-smartmoney?mod=retire-planning


It's interesting.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Obama has repeatedly offered to cut SS and Medicare benefits.

Are you ok with that?

[jenmito]

15. Link(s)? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

18. It is possible that the googler is lying, but I doubt it.

No links for you.

I'm sure you are aware that whatever you want to call the administration's proposals to change social security and medicare as part of the "Grand Bargain" have been made, have been made repeatedly, and involve a reduction in benefits.

If you wish to debate the policy proposals honestly and seriously, lets do so. If instead you intend to play link games, or dicuss irrelevancies such as the OP, then no honest discussion can be had.

[jenmito]

19. Just as I figured-you have no links to back up your claims. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

23. So is it your claim that this administration has not made any offer to change

social security or medicare or both in any way that would reduce the real dollar value of benefits to any recipients, either current or future recipients?

Seriously?

[jenmito]

28. Yup. It's my claim that Obama has NOT "repeatedly offered to cut SS and Medicare benefits."

And unless you can prove otherwise, it remains my claim.

[Vattel]

33. The change in the eligibility age for Medicare has been all

over the news. And see post 16 for a change to SS that involves cuts in benefits.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Right. So we have no basis for honest discussion.

A simple google search indicates that this administration has made repeated offers to change Social Security and Medicare as part of Obama's "Grand Bargain", and that those changes would reduce the real dollar value of benefits - which is why they are being proposed as part of the Bullshit Debt Crisis - to recipients. If you continue to pretend that this has not happened then we are living in two different realities that intersect enough for both of us to communicate on DU, but perhaps that is all, or one of us is being less than honest in this discussion.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. And for the record

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve said that reducing the deficit will require shared sacrifice. We know -- we have an idea of the taxes that you would like to see raised on corporations and on Americans in the top two tax brackets, but we don’t yet know what you specifically are willing to do when it comes to entitlement spending. In the interest of transparency, leadership, and also showing the American people that you have been negotiating in good faith, can you tell us one structural reform that you are willing to make to one of these entitlement programs that would have a major impact on the deficit? Would you be willing to raise the retirement age? Would you be willing to means test Social Security or Medicare?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve said that we are willing to look at all those approaches. I’ve laid out some criteria in terms of what would be acceptable. So, for example, I’ve said very clearly that we should make sure that current beneficiaries as much as possible are not affected. But we should look at what can we do in the out-years, so that over time some of these programs are more sustainable."

[jenmito]

39. You're being "less than honest." NOWHERE are there quotes of Obama

repeatedly offering to cut SS and Medicare benefits as you claimed. Since YOU made that accusation, YOU need to back it up with a link. And in your next post, he said NOTHING about cutting SS and Medicare. NOTHING.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. "I’ve said very clearly..."

"I’ve said very clearly that we should make sure that current beneficiaries as much as possible are not affected."
Our President.

Spin away. Who do you think you're fooling?

[woo me with science]

42. Your patience amazes.

Not only has he brought up changes to this bedrock social program affecting millions of Americans when there was absolutely no reason to bring it up, he has chosen to bring it up during a manufactured crisis, throwing it in with legislation that must be acted on within a couple of weeks, after closed door sessions in which the American people cannot observe or participate.

Everybody is talking about the outrage of what is being done. We are losing sight of the additional outrage of HOW it is being done.

[jenmito]

43. That says nothing about Obama wanting to CUT benefits. Try again. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

45. "want"? I don't know what Obama "wants", I know what he has

said is 'on the table': cuts in medicare and social security. As reported extensively, and as clearly stated in the press conference last week.

[jenmito]

46. Link to him saying CUTS to SS and Medicare are on the table? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

47. again?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=712855&mesg_id=713532

[jenmito]

48. Again, he doesn't say that at all. Try AGAIN. n/t

[Vattel]

16. Have you been following the news?

He has offered to cut medicare benefits and social security benefits. (http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/obama-draws-fire-for-chaining-social-security) Is it just a bluff? I don't know, but the offer was out there.

[AtomicKitten]

20. He has not advocated cutting benefits to SS or Medicare.

No, President Obama Did Not Propose Cuts to Medicare and Social Security Benefits

Over the past week, there has been significant caterwauling and criticism of President Obama by some on the left who claim that the President has proposed to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits as part of the debt ceiling negotiations. There is a major problem with those complaints, however – they are not true. In fact , our President has time and again made clear that he will not accept benefit cuts to those programs but, instead, wants to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Help remind voters of that fact by Sharing this post on Facebook, etc., and by writing a letter to your local newspaper editor thanking President Obama for standing up for Medicare and Social Security.

The manufactured outrage began when the Obama Administration announced last week that Social Security and Medicare were both “on the table” in the debt ceiling negotiations. Some voices on the left interpreted that to mean cuts to benefits, and those voices were immediately amplified by a conservative media that is always eager to spread discord among progressives. The assumption that President Obama was proposing cuts to benefits, however, ignores the fact that steps that do not involve benefits cuts can and should be taken to strengthen Social Security and that steps to rationalize health care spending can reduce Medicare costs without cutting benefits.

The attacks on President Obama also ignore the fact that he has stated repeatedly that he is interested in finding ways to put Medicare and Social Security on stronger financial footing without cutting benefits. For example, in his press conference earlier this week about the debt ceiling negotiations, our President said the following about Medicare and Social Security:

continued at link

[AtomicKitten]

26. + What the president has said on SS and Medicare:

Edited for link: This is from the link above.

In his press conference earlier this week about the debt ceiling negotiations, the President said the following about Medicare and Social Security:

And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation

-- snip

And what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. And if you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and we look after the most vulnerable, then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term.

-- snip

With respect to Social Security, Social Security is not the source of our deficit problems. Social Security, if it is part of a package, would be an issue of how do we make sure Social Security extends its life and is strengthened? So the reason to do Social Security is to strengthen Social Security to make sure that those benefits are there for seniors in the out-years. And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.

-- snip

With respect to Social Security, as I indicated earlier, making changes to these programs is so difficult that this may be an opportunity for us to go ahead and do something smart that strengthens Social Security and gives not just this generation but future generations the opportunity to say this thing is going to be in there for the long haul.

Now, that may not be possible and you’re absolutely right that, as I said, Social Security is not the primary driver of our long-term deficits and debt. On the other hand, we do want to make sure that Social Security is going to be there for the next generations, and if there is a reasonable deal to be had on it, it is one that I’m willing to pursue.

These statements in support of Medicare and Social Security are quite similar to ones that President Obama has made previously. For example, just last week the President gave an interview to reporter Jean Enersen from KING-TV in Seattle in which he made clear that he wants to strengthen and “preserve intact” Social Security and Medicare and that he would not accept anything that “dismantles or weakens” Social Security and Medicare.


Similarly, in his April 2011 The Country We Believe In speech, President Obama stated:

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Now, here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer. Their plan essentially lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market.

In Feburary 2011, White House senior adviser David Plouffe made clear to the media that:

As the President said in his State of the Union, he views Social Security primarily as an issue about shoring it up for the long term as opposed to a deficit issue,” Plouffe said. “And we talked a lot about this as far back as the campaign, but are very clear that if there are proposals out there that are acceptable, that don’t reduce benefits, don’t slash benefits, that don’t affect current retirees, the President is open to proposals that would shore the system up in the long term.

In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama made clear that:

To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

And last summer, President Obama celebrated the 75th anniversary of Social Security by discussing in his weekly address the importance of honoring Social Security, not privatizing it.

In short, President Obama has a long track record of protecting Social Security and Medicare benefits for current and future recipients while also trying to develop policies that will preserve those programs’ fiscal solvency by reducing overall health care costs. Let’s support those efforts by informing the public that the President is on our side when it comes to protecting and strengthening Medicare and Social Security.

[Vattel]

32. Wow, that ignores the fact that

he did offer to raise the eligibility age for Medicare to 67. And he did offer to "chain SS."

[AtomicKitten]

34. Aren't you always talking about trial balloons?

Call it that or call it calling the GOP's bluff.

It worked. President Obama out rope-a-doped them.

[Vattel]

38. You might be right.

But I haven't seen a lot of evidence that his offer was just a bluff. I suspect that it was sincere, but I don't know for sure.

[grahamhgreen]

17. Wrong! He said on 7/11/11: "Social Security is not the PRIMARY driver of our long-term

deficits and debt." http://bit.ly/mRNGMR

So, he did say it was a driver of the deficits and debt.

Sorry, you are wrong on this one, Prosense, but good effort, I'm glad someone still thinks this guy is not a complete sleazeball con-artist baby killing scumbag! (I kid the Obamabaggers, I kid! I kid!)

[Jakes Progress]

22. Gamesmanship and wordplay and sentence parsing.

You can put your spin anywhere you want. You get all the support you need to cherry pick quotes and put a spin on them, but I've watched the speeches.

If it has no effect on the debt, then why has administration offers to change benefits been a part of the "bargaining" plan? Does he just feel like cutting senior benefits for the fun of it?

[JoePhilly]

25. Same predictions were made for the State of the Uniuon speech in

January. Then no Boom. No cuts.

Again in February during the budget proposal ... again, no boom! No cuts.

Again in march during a prior speech on debt and deficits ... still no Boom!! No cuts.

But THIS time, its definitely going to happen.

Yup ... any second.

Cover your ears, there's going to be an earth shattering KaBoom!!!!

[Jakes Progress]

27. I'm not the one with my ears covered, or my eyes.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

41. Have you considered taking your own advice?

you can put your own spin anywhere you want You get all the support you need to cherry pick quotes and put a spin on them, but that does not make your opinions into fact

over a period of time he has said they both are on the table, he has stated he will not accept anything that weakens benefits, he has said he want to strengthen benefits, and he has said that he wants to look for ways to make the two programs more efficient by reducing costs and waste.

The above is what most people who support Obama have been saying, can you tell me exactly what the supposed spin is(aside from spin you are trying to convince people are factual), reducing costs and waste is NOT a bad thing but it does require the programs to be on the table.

[Jakes Progress]

49. What spin?

I just said what you said. Obama has said they are both on the table. The usual gang finds a few words here and there, leaving out the more damning lines to say that Obama will not offer up SS or Medicare. I say he has said they are on the table. Once on the table, what will happen is up for grabs. Sure he has said he won't "substantially" change the benefits or "drastically" affect premiums, but those aren't exactly inspiring words given his past pronouncements and what eventually came from them.

And if SS is does not affect the debt, which was the subject of the OP, then why is he offering to make the programs more efficient as a part of the debt talks. Doing away with waste is fine. Reducing costs how? That is the crux and the the point the usual gang don't address. It's like the health care bill. The point of it was to reduce costs. It doesn't say it will reduce costs to the user of the benefits. Most of the program was meant to reduce costs to the government, which translates in the real world to more paperwork for the beneficiaries in order to avoid paying money out. I deal with that kind of paperwork for people every week. Texas has the most arcane and convoluted paperwork to qualify children for benefits. The goal is to avoid putting kids on the roles.

I don't "not support" Obama. I don't support his method of dealing with republicans. He is stuck in a mode that would have been fine in 1954. Right now it is a guarantee that we move further right than the country wants.

[swilton]

24. So why did he put it on the table?

[jenmito]

29. He put EVERYTHING on the table so he looks reasonable, unlike the Repubs. So he LOOKS reasonable

and the Repubs. look UNreasonable.

[ProSense]

30. I don't understand why he doesn't

just come right out and say: "Social security is not the source of our deficit problems."

Everyone will rejoice!!!!

[jenmito]

31. He did...

which is shown in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=707236&mesg_id=707236 ;) and we SHOULD all rejoice. But some obviously don't like facts.

[woo me with science]

37. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

The chocolate ration has been increased.

[Marnie]

44. So why did he decrease SS deductions 2%

Is he trying to make it part of the deficit?

Since the 2% wasn't added to the income tax or gas tax or any other source of federal tax income what was the purpose? It was not enough of a savings for anyone but multi-millionaires to make any difference in consumer spending.

So what was it for?

Maybe pure ugly politics? So Obama can say that he gave all Americans a tax decrease? A decrease that hurts SS over the long term?

Obama is doing his damndest to set his supporters against his opponents while he stands aside and watches.

Personally, I would never knowingly vote anyone into office whose intention was to use me as a tool and as cannon fodder and cheap amusement.