DU has an understandable reluctance to change Social Security/Medicare, BUT:

[David Gill]

Do you seriously think these programs are perfect? What if Obama were able to make deals that increased the solvency of these programs, didn't affect benefits, and actually moved the country forward?

http://www.politicsundelivered.com/2011/07/convincing-liberals-to-change-social.html">This is what I'm thinking.

[EFerrari]

1. That isn't what is happening here. No sale.

They want to cut benefits, period.

[Poll_Blind]

7. +1

PB

[SharonAnn]

30. He'd have to raise the Social Security cap and SocSec and Medicare FICA contributions

That would strengthen the two programs and just bringing Social Security back into applying SocSec contributions on 90% of wages would be a huge benefit. That percentage has eroded over the years.

[Chan790]

35. Bullseye. n/t

[TheWraith]

48. No, he said that they would NOT cut benefits.

Saying anything else is, again, hyperspeculation.

[Donnachaidh]

2. ....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 'didn't effect benefits' :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Monkeys will fly out of Eric Cantor's butt before anything close to that happens....:sarcasm:

[PA Democrat]

3. I'd LOVE to see a plan that did not cut benefits.

That's NOT what is on the table according to all reports coming out of DC.

[David Gill]

14. That doesn't mean Obama can't take it to the public and PUT IT on the table

[PA Democrat]

19. If that is his intention, what's he waiting for?

[David Gill]

24. Maybe a Democratic party that would have his back

Right now there are a large number of liberals that think any proposal that so much as MENTIONS SS/Medicare is a stab in the back. He isn't appealing to their ideals because they aren't going to support it either way.

[PA Democrat]

25. Care to cite a poll? Because that sounds like total BS to me.

[David Gill]

38. You don't remember hearing about the bundlers vowing not to help Obama if he changes SS or Medicare?

[PA Democrat]

44. Keep trying. The threat was over CUTS not "changes".

http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_obamamedicare/?source=ywsc

[Luminous Animal]

28. Bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

32. What does SS have to do with the Deficit??

And how would cuts to that program help bring down the deficit?

Presumably all this is about reducing the deficit, right? So, explain why SS is part of any discussion about the deficit?

[David Gill]

36. Actually if you read the article, most of the changes I suggest for Social Security increase revenue

[sabrina 1]

45. Yes, but that doesn't explain why something that is completely

unrelated to what we are told is the problem, is even mentioned in the same discussion.

It's kind of like what was done in the run-up to the War in Iraq. Every time one of the propagandists went on TV, when they weren't outright lying, or the lies weren't working anymore, they never mentioned 9/11 without mentioning Iraq in the same conversation, deliberately and falsely creating the impression that there was some connnection between the two.

There is ZERO reason for SS to be mentioned at all in these discussions, absolutely zero. SS is fine, it is the Fed Budget that is in trouble which is a whole separate thing.

So no matter what ideas there are for SS, good or bad, introducing a completely unrelated issue into this debate makes zero sense, unless of course there is some kind of agenda! That would be the only reason, to try to connect the two, falsely.

And why would any Democrat agree to do that??

[customerserviceguy]

47. Deficit or no deficit

Medicare and Social Security are going broke, in that order. They'll completely dissolve all by themselves if nothing at all is done.

Yes, trust funds, yadda, yadda, yadda. The only way those IOU's (Bernie Sanders' words, before they were mine) will get redeemeed is if we run budget surpluses to pay them off, or Congress allows them to be replaced with fully marketable Treasury securities, that are then sold on the open market. They'll probably have to be sold at a discount, making that 2036 date for Social Security to run out of money even closer.

Yes, they're using the word 'deficit' to mask the situation, but changes are still needed to insure any possible chance of solvency. The combination of the baby boomers and lower-paying jobs for Americans will produce a vicegrip on the program that will crush it if nothing is done.

We simply do not have the political will to raise taxes and/or cut spending enough to bring about the balanced budgets that would pay the trust funds a single dime.

[sabrina 1]

51. Here we go again. Tell me, what about China??

Are China's treasury bonds going to be sold at a discount also?

And we do have the political will to raise taxes. The politicians may not, but the American people certainly do and those politicians are going to have suck it up.

What we need is leadship, that is all. The US Govt has assets, it also has creditors, you can't make your creditors pay YOUR debts, that is ludicrous.

And explain please how cutting SS would do anything to bring down the deficit?

What is going on is that the bill is finally due and the wealthy have cost us trillions of dollars and now they do not want to pay their part of the bill. We can't afford them anymore, or the wars or the Pentagon's bloated and most wasteful budget among other things.

Why are you caving to these criminals?? Which is apparently what Obama is doing. And which is why we need strong leadership right now, to deal with the bought and paid for shills in DC who need an adult to put a stop to their garbage.

SS is fine, the Govt will have to pay its creditors, and if it doesn't, we won't just have SS to worry about.

Unless of course there are things we do not know and they have committed even worse crimes than we are aware of.

[customerserviceguy]

54. Possibly

China bought them on the open market, and when interest rates go up, any T-notes or bonds that China wants to sell will be discounted accordingly. Of course, they can avoid a discount by holding them to maturity, but then they forego any higher rate of interest that they might expect to gain if they simply cashed out and reinvested somewhere at a higher rate of return. The Social Security trust fund doesn't have that option, right now their securities are non-negotiable, and even if Congress allowed a swap of them for fully tradeable T-bills and notes, they'd have to start selling them off immediately to cover the gap between SS outflows and FICA tax inflows.

As to what political will the American people have, they seem to have expressed it pretty clearly through their election choices for the past couple of hundred years. Bush the Elder broke his "read my lips" pledge, and we saw what happened to him. I feel that the only reasons Bill Clinton survived 1996 was the combination of the lackluster candidacy of Robert Dole, and the continued prescence of the gadfly Perot.

I'm not in favor of true cuts to Social Security. I do think that the chained CPI is not a terrible idea, it would have very little effect on people who collect for only 10-15 years of retirement, and if you go beyond that, then Social Security has been a damned good deal for the retiree. I'd rather see a modest increase in the cap, indexed for inflation, unlimited employer FICA with no cap, and a staggered retirement age for full benefits, depending on the physical difficulty of one's job. I've mentioned many of my ideas in our discussions before.

Can we afford the wealthy? Perhaps not, but they can afford to buy Congress.

[sabrina 1]

66. Why are you focusing on SS to get money from to

pay off Wall St's debts?

This is simply astounding to me.

The Govt has assets, it has debts, it will have to cash in its assets, like, 'no more free ride for the wealthy' eg.

Focus on the Pentagon Budget, which actually DID contribute and continues to, to the deficit. It is bankrupting this country.

Forget SS, the poorest Americans own that fund and they want their money back so they do not have to worry about starving to death.

SS did not create the Deficit, it does not belong in this discussion. What does belong in it are things like the free ride the wealthy have been given, the shameful, wasteful Pentagon Budget, the lack of jobs, the cap being so low on SS taxes.

When the Fed Govt takes care of its business, SS will not just be fine, it will be good for decades.

[customerserviceguy]

74. I've not mixed up the two

We need revenues, especially from those most able to afford it, to pay off this country's staggering debts. If you recall last December, I was in favor of NOT extending any of the Bush tax cuts, even if a deal could have been brokered to exempt the folks under $250K. But the administration, and the lame duck Blue Dogs buckled as soon as an extension of unemployment benefits was put on the table. Now, that extension is nearly up, and we still have a sick economy.

Medicare and Social Security have their own separate problems. Yes, the word 'deficit' is used as a smokescreen to attempt to sugar-coat the bitter pills that we all will have to swallow to fix these programs, but it's undeniable that their financing won't last. The magic money that you think is in the trust fund cannot simply be withdrawn, as from a piggy bank, but it has to be either borrowed from someone else, printed up out of thin air, or paid for by budgets that run surpluses.

Since it would take more financial fortitude than any Congress in my lifetime to raise taxes and/or cut spending to the degree needed to redeem the Social Security trust fund specialized securities on the schedule that the funds will be needed, the latter possibility is just not going to happen for quite some time, not until we have totally emerged from this recession. If we do ever crawl out from under it, the inflation that is likely to result will make the couple of trillion in the fund look like chump change. It just won't be enough to cover payouts, we'll need to raise FICA taxes.

I support cutting the military budget, I think even Republicons are sick of paying for no-win wars. They're driven crazy by all of the so-called 'nation building' that is a euphemism for stuffing the Swiss bank accounts of whatever group of gangsters we've propped up as puppet leaders for the interim. They know that as soon as we leave, the various factions are just going to battle each other bloody, and will destroy all the nice toys that the American taxpayer has built for them.

However, you can't just dump servicemembers out into the streets, not with this rate of unemployment. That was one of the key reasons behind the post-WWII G. I. Bill, it let colleges and trade schools absorb our returning victorious armies, then let them seep slowly back into a rising economy. Plus, look at the stories this week about how people are being let go from the thirty-year space shuttle program, if defense spending is cut way back, we'll see more items like that anywhere there's a defense plant. It needs to happen, but it's not going to do anything good for unemployment figures in this country.

Americans don't "own" that SS trust fund, all they individually have is a right to collect something from it on a monthly basis if they are qualified to do so. Die before you retire, and your heirs don't get a monthly check. With a 401K or an IRA that a potential retiree actually owns, there's something to leave to your family. And in order for the US Government to take care of its business in a way that doesn't destroy the rest of what's left of the economy, it will have to bring the gap between spending and taxes down to the zero point. Like it or not, it's all tied together.

[dawg]

4. You can only do that by repealing the laws

of arithmetic. Unless you raise the funds going into the system, you can only make it more solvent by reducing the flow of funds out of the system. Either tax hikes or benefit cuts - there is no other way.

[dkf]

10. Yup. Add to that the tax hikes they will need to take care of our current spending and wars...

And it may simply be too prohibitive.

[David Gill]

12. You don't think the government could negotiate better rates with hospitals and pharmaceutical

Companies?

[dawg]

16. Oh, I'm sorry I was totally zeroed in on Social Security.

With Medicare, there is great potential to cut costs by negotiating drug rates. The doctors and hospitals are already getting screwed pretty hard, but there is fat aplenty that could be carved from the pharmaceutical companies. But that seems to be the "real" third rail of politics these days.

[David Gill]

29. Yes. I DO suggest somewhat of a "benefit cut" in SS, but a progressive one, that increases the %

taxed as income for the top earners. Also I suggested changing the Social Security tax from a regressive system. Right now income above $107,000 isn't taxed for SS. That means lower income groups pay a higher percentage of their wages. We could increase the long term solvency of the program by switching to a flat or progressive system.

[customerserviceguy]

50. How about fixing the formula for the maximum benefit?

If you raise the cap, under the current law, you raise the maximum benefit, too. I'm not against raising it at all, but I'm in favor of cutting it down a step, like the benefit calculation is done today. The minimum wage worker collects a higher proportion of Social Security to his wages than does the top earner near the cap.

Also, how would you feel about making the sky the limit for the employer's share of FICA? If a megabank wanted to pay its' CEO ten million dollars in salary to run the thing into the ground, why not have them pay the FICA tax percentage on all of that ill-gotten money? The bonus is that it wouldn't have to raise the maximum benefit for the CEO.

Further, we need to index both the cap, and the steps of income used to calculate Social Security benefits to inflation, the same way the tax brackets, standard deduction, and personal exemptions are today. If inflation roars back, we'll all be considered minimum wage employees at the current cap level in about 20 years.

[David Gill]

20. We can stop overpaying doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies

Every year Congress passes the "doc fix" to delay the enactment of a cap on Medicare payments passed under Clinton. This law limits physician rate increases to the growth of per capita income. It was a good idea when it was first passed; it's still a good idea.

[customerserviceguy]

56. How do you fix the problem

of doctors opting out of Social Security? Even if a doctor stays in, he or she might well decide to limit the percentage of Medicare patients in their practice, because they need a fairly high proportion of full-fare payers to allow them to afford to take care of Medicare patients.

It's for this reason that I'm trying as hard as I can to build up the HSA that I started last year. I think there's a definite chance that I might not find a doctor willing to treat me someday.

If the answer is to force doctors to accept any and all Medicare patients who show up at the doorstep, expect goodly sized numbers of them to leave the profession, my opthamologist cited the squeeze from Medicare as his reason to retire this last year.

[ZombieHorde]

5. If they find a cheaper way to the paper work, that is great,

but we are concerned about the actual benefits.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Tell Mr Roarke and Tattoo hello for me.

The TeaPubliKlans are not about to increase revenue or increase the sustainability of these programs and neither is Barack Obama.

[NightWatcher]

8. this is all a ploy to weaken them, then privatize them so the theft can take place

and the coffers looted

[Paper Roses]

9. Don't know where you are going with this but::

The government needs to leave well enough alone. If cuts are made, things will go from bad to worse for SS and Medicare recipients.

[denverbill]

11. Completely different conversation.

The annual deficit right now is 1.4 trillion dollars. Social Security and Medicare currently contribute virtually NOTHING to that deficit. If you change SS & Medicare, it won't have any impact on the deficit for years. It will have a major impact down the road, but nothing today.

Social Security and Medicare didn't CAUSE the deficit or the debt. They are funded separately and neutral to the current deficit.

The cause of the deficit and the debt are Reagans and Bushs tax cuts, 3 unfunded wars, an unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan, and the recession.

Fix the deficit first, then we can talk about SS & Medicare.

[dennis4868]

13. you will not find any buyers to what you say....

on DU...that goes against the Obama narrative here....even though that is exactly what Obama is trying to do.

[CBGLuthier]

15. Is reducing and delaying benefits an improvement over ANYTHING?

How come our god damned army can be fucking solvent but anything that helps the poor is just too damned expensive. Is it because our god damned army uses supplies made by god damned corporations and make god damned billionaires richer and richer and richer every time they pull a trigger or push a button.

But fuck us if we want health care. Fuck us if we want what we have been promised our whole god damned lives.

[damntexdem]

17. They're not perfect -- they should be expanded, made more generous.

But that's not in the current cards.

The current debate is not about "reform" or "strengthening" them -- it is about attacking or destroying them.

We don't have an "understandable reluctance" -- we have an unyielding opposition, as we MUST.

As to the FICA tax, the cap should be raised or eliminated, which would fully fund SS (and greatly help with Medicare) for the foreseeable future. Is the FICA tax regressive? Here's the issue, it may be flat; but the benefits paid out give more in proportion to what's paid in for poorer people than for the better off (that's why raising the cap would help not just now but for decades to come). Or another way to see it is that the tax is flat up to the limit of the income taxed but zero above that -- so, for example, someone making twice the current cap pays only half the rate of someone making the cap or less. In that sense, the FICA tax is very regressive -- which could be fixed entirely by eliminating the cap.

[Blecht]

23. [phone] (nt)

[David Gill]

39. Eliminating the cap is exactly what I suggested.

[Angry Dragon]

18. And what is this grand plan??

Hard to tell behind locked doors

Is this the way politics in this country should be played out??
A couple of people sitting behind locked doors, that are giving up nothing,
deciding how the rest of the country should live.........
And then give congress 2 days to vote on the damn thing ........ I call bullshit

OPEN THE DAMN DOORS AND LET THE PEOPLE SEE!!

[kenny blankenship]

21. I'd say Obama is undermining SS+M/M & any tax deal he makes will be unmade by NEXT Bush preznit.

It is worthless to pretend he is not talking about cutting these programs when he speaks of "preserving" them, and it is a LIE. You will not find many sheep here left to shear - or ready to listen to lies about how they're supposed to praise him for the sharpness of his knife.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. 'Bye

[Doremus]

26. Unrec. for RW spew.

[David Gill]

40. Read what I actually wrote. They are a progressive ideas. No rw spew.

[customerserviceguy]

57. I appreciate your courage in starting this thread

There are lots of people here who think that Social Security Santa will just go on forever, without seeing the harsh economic realities of the situation. When you see the combination of permanently lower wages (proportional to what the last two generations received) and the giant wave of baby boomers headed for their Social Security benefits, you have a scenario where the present-day underfunding of the hand-to-mouth Social Security System will always be inadequate.

I agree that using the word 'deficit' when discussing Social Security reform is extremely misleading, but with our government dependent on a FICA surplus to permanently 'borrow', we can only expect them to at least find a way for SS to live off it's own income. Changes must be made to insure solvency, or the whole thing will fall apart like a poorly repaired jalopy.

I'd much rather have our side produce the solutions, the Republicons ideas will not look anything what we would find remotely acceptable.

[Scuba]

27. I'm all for changing both...

Medicare for All

Eliminate the cap on SS earnings, and create a SS tax on capital gains.

[David Gill]

42. Eliminating the cap is the first thing I suggest in the article.

[neverforget]

31. Negotiating with insaneT-Bagging Republicans that want to KILL both

programs is NOT going to STRENGTHEN them. Period. End of story. They've wanted these programs destroyed since they were first implemented. Republicans could NEVER have done this on their own. It took a Democratic President to put them on the table as a negotiating tool to extract possible measly tax increases at some point in the future that have yet to be negotiated.

[Horse with no Name]

33. Why is it that people that I have never seen post before

somehow think they can "educate" me?

[LWolf]

34. Nothing is perfect.

Social Security would pay more, and begin at an earlier age; every citizen with an income would pay into it at an appropriately progressive rate, if it were anywhere close to perfect.

Medicare is FAR from perfect. If we had a great health care system, a national, universal, publicly financed CARE system, we might not even need Medicare.

Neither begin to approach perfection. That's no reason to degrade the benefits they do offer. They need improving, not limiting.

[girl gone mad]

37. How exactly do you increase solvency from 100%?

[David Gill]

41. Long term solvency. The programs needs to be able to support all the baby boomers down the road.

[sabrina 1]

46. The program IS solvent enough to take care of

all the baby boomers until approx. 2075 and beyond, without doing anything to it. The Baby Boomer generation took care of their own retirement. There is currently a surplus of over 2 trillion dollars available in the trust fund.

That surplus will increase, nearly double by 2023 eg, even in a bad economy. Payroll taxes are not the only source of income for the fund. The interest on the Treasury Bonds, even last year when there was a shortfall due to unemployment, combined with the two other sources, still produced a surplus.

Now is when you probably tell me how all that is there are IOUs.

The American people are creditors of the Fed. Govt, like China.

The SS fund has zero problems, unless the US Govt defaults on its creditors, and if that happens, all of its other creditors will have the same problems. Are we cutting benefits to China? Are we even talking about China? And if we are talking about SS why not China?

So, the SS fund and China are in the same boat. Is the US Govt going to default on China, because if it isn't, then it isn't going to default on the American people.

These debts the Govt has can easily be taken care of.

I can give you a list of what can be done if you like.

But, blaming a creditor to whom you owe money, for your debt, is ludicrous.

The Govt. has to pull up its bootstraps, it can't afford to play war games anymore eg, and start acting responsibly so that its creditors, including the American people, don't have to worry to about those Treasury Bonds.

I still don't understand why you are connecting SS with the debt, it contributed nothing to the debt. That was created by tax cuts for the wealthy, by all of our wars, and by the financial meltdown.

[customerserviceguy]

60. Comparing the Social Security trust fund to China is a fallacy

The Treasury securities the Chinese hold are fully negotiable, tradeable on the open market, and can be redeemed for any currency in use on the planet. The IOU's (yes, that's basically what they are) are simply not.

Here's a way to focus you on the difference: T-bills and notes are like my auto loan, if I don't pay it, I can lose my car. The specialized securities held by the Social Security trust fund are a bit more like my credit cards, if I don't pay them, I might have a judgment in a court case to pay, but if I don't have wages that can be garnished, or non-exempt property that can be seized, then that judgment just sits out there until it expires.

I'll admit, it's not a precise analogy, but it still serves to illustrate my point. The trust fund that you think is there exists only because the US government pretends it still matters.

[sabrina 1]

63. Anything backed by the full faith and credit of the US Govt.

is not like your credit card, sorry.

[customerserviceguy]

69. As I said

it's not a perfect analogy. But the securities the trust fund holds are only redeemable at the whim of Congress. We're going to run out of accounting tricks to make up the shortfall between inflow and outgo pretty soon now.

Then, we will see what the full faith and credit of the US Government means when it's self-dealing. Congress can negotiate any repayment terms (or lack of them) that it wants. You don't have a fair bargaining arrangement when the same party is on both sides of the table.

[girl gone mad]

52. The program will always be completely solvent..

as long as we have a fiat currency.

[customerserviceguy]

59. Social Security pays out more than it takes in

Do you really need me to find you a reliable link for that fact?

[girl gone mad]

61. Itt's completely irrelevant.

The Social Security system can never become insolvent when the government has sovereignty in its own currency.

[customerserviceguy]

70. I guess that would be one solution

Print money. Lots and lots of it.

Then, chained CPI or not, you'll be printing way, way more of it just to keep up with the inflation it will create, and we'll become Zimbabwe.

[aquart]

43. Thank you for your concern.

I will treat it with the consideration it deserves.

[JDPriestly]

49. He proposed a program that would have increased the solvency

not affect benefits and move the country forward in the pre-2008-election debates. Lifting the cap on the Social Security tax was, I believe, his promise then.

But the proposal he made to Republicans would cut benefits.

And that is why DUers including me oppose it.

Cutting benefits is not the way.

The benefits now are on the average $1200 or less per month.

Think about paying rent, food, clothing, transportation (the cost to shop for groceries as well as an occasional visit to distant children?), utilities (necessary and rising rapidly in general) and the ever-increasing health-care costs that seniors cannot avoid on that amount of money.

There may be communities in which that is an easy task, but there are many communities in which it is impossible.

And food, utilities and health care costs are bound to rise quite a bit in coming years. So, Obama's proposal is completely and absolutely unacceptable for American families.

When grandma and grandpa's Social Security checks no longer stretch far enough, the kids will have to pitch in and possibly live with their parents. That is not how Americans have lived in recent generations. And most American homes are not large enough to house several generations at a time. That is not the way they are built. We are going to end up with a lot of seniors living in what used to be the basement or the family room (hopefully not on the roof).

[SoCalDem]

53. Here's the fly in the ointment

SS was "fixed" waaaaaay back when Reagan was in charge.. We Boomers got tagged BIG TIME just as we all flooded intot the job market..the plan was to:

(1).....INCREASE benefits for the people then retired (our grandparents)

(2)....INCREASE & SAVE for the eventual retirement of our parents (MANY of whom already had pensions through their workplace/unions)

(3)....PRE-PAY for our own retirement when it was time for us..

We got TRIPLE-SLAMMED and stayed slammed for our entire worklife..we also got outsourced, downsized, de-unionized and many of us are augmenting elderly parents' incomes, in addition to helping support grown children who cannot afford to leave the nest.

What happened was THIS:

As the money piled up, our senate/congress got sticky-fingered and spent it all as fast as it came in, instead of truly setting up a trust fund that was earmarked for ONLY SS/Medicare. Because the extra money made it look like we were rolling in dough, the legislature kept giving money to their buddies so they could stay elected.

It's like when you cash your paycheck and throw a big party instead of paying the car payment or house payment...hey you felt rich for a while with that money..

[Blasphemer]

55. That could never happen with GOP control of the house

I am all for positive changes to social programs but any dealings with the GOP will not result in those types of changes. They do not fundamentally believe in keeping those programs strong. If the Democrats regain control of the house and keep the Senate, then MAYBE a discussion can begin in that direction.

[cottonseed]

58. DU is full of activists. It is not their job to budge. Like the Tea Partiers...

it is their job to not budge one bit on things they are fighting for. If they did, they would not have a position to advocate from. The President, and people who need to govern do not and cannot govern that way. So the President gets flack. That's understandable.

[David Gill]

67. I know. Just thought it was a worthwhile conversation!

[madfloridian]

68. It isn't.

He wants us to eat our peas and shut up.

[indurancevile]

62. not until they pay back the 2.6 trillion.

[readmoreoften]

64. Ooo slick attempt.

No thanks. Thanks for your concern.

[mmonk]

65. Funding anything is a choice.

Why don't we change the tax structure so the rich pay more similar to the past when nobody was talking about gutting social programs?

[lonestarnot]

71. Oh fuck that.

[elleng]

72. Yes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. People mistake means for ends, tools for goals

It is the calling card of all fanatics to invest in the means what they hope for in its purpose.