Ye of little faith, I remember when you were certain Obama would adopt Bowles-Simpson

[banned from Kos]

Political maneuvers are just that - maneuvers.

Obama 2012!

[mmonk]

1. Little faith or observation since they wouldn't exist without him?

[Kahuna]

2. Cat food commission...SQUAWK!!!! That's all we saw around here for ages..

Now, crickets.

[madfloridian]

31. It was HIS commission.

And we rose up against it. Bet he was surprised.

[freshwest]

50. There's been one under different nicknames since LBJ initiated TGS programs. All GOP talking points.

[sharp_stick]

3. I was reading on here earlier

about how Obama had already promised to cut SS and Medicare. There are many around here that are simply too sensitive for politics.

[jtown1123]

6. He didn't promise SS and Medicare cuts but he put them on the table. He also encouraged

other Democrats to do the same. That still doesn't fly in my book. Not at all.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. hush now, they are having their moment, do not disturb.

[gratuitous]

4. Only because that committee blew its deadline, too

So they came up with Bowles-Simpson II, the Super Committee. And now that the Super Committee has blown its deadline, we'll get Super Duper Committee. The handwriting's on the wall. The only "debate" anymore is how to make this palatable. The Democrats agreed to all kinds of draconian cuts that the Republicans wanted, and if the Republicans had been bright enough to get off their "no tax" hobbyhorse, they could have had practically everything they wanted, and restored the present tax rates six months down the line.

The only "maneuvering" going on is how to accomplish what they all want (cutting the last government programs that serve the needs of everyone instead of just the wealthy) while making it acceptable to enough low-information voters to get re-elected.

[jtown1123]

7. +1

[mmonk]

8. You win the prize.

[gratuitous]

16. Oh, and "What Digby Said"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/setting-terms.html

Republicans will be able to say quite honestly in their campaign ads that the Democrats want to cut social security and medicare and raise taxes.

Those are all very popular stands with the public.

Oh yeah, we're in for all kinds of rearguard action thanks to the Super Committee. With more to look forward to in 2012, and given the recent experience during the Great Cave-In of 2010, color me not sanguine about the prospects of Democratic resolve to stand up for all Americans.

[Octafish]

17. + another one

Who ever would've thought it possible?

[jtown1123]

5. This is NEVER going away. Wake up. Obama said last night he still wants deficit

reduction. Obama is the driving force being BS, supercommittee, and whatever other bs commissions to rape the middle class pop up from here on out.

[banned from Kos]

15. Who doesn't want deficit reduction? Its a matter of how and when.

He can kill the Bush tax cuts and force the GOP over his knee.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. I actually do not care at all about the deficit.

it doesn't bother me. Why does it bother you?

"He can kill the Bush tax cuts and force the GOP over his knee."

how'd that work out last time 'round?

[banned from Kos]

25. We spend $300 billion a year to service the debt? Wouldn't it be better spent on health care?

And it has to go up! (because we borrow more every year).

[girl gone mad]

38. That has nothing to do with the deficit.

We could easily pay down all of our debts if we wanted to.

We should be expanding the deficit right now.

The debt and the deficit are different concepts. You might want to learn that difference at some point.

[banned from Kos]

44. You desperately need a basic accounting class. Debt is accumulated deficits.

Simple as that (some non recurring items are added to debt).

We pay roughly $300 billion a year in interest on our $15 trillion debt. Some of that interest is paid to ourselves - SSA, Federal Reserve, etc.

[girl gone mad]

55. You can think of debt as accumulated past budget deficits..

which were funded primarily through debt issuance. Again, the debt and the deficit are two different concepts.

A deficit is simply government outlays in excess of government receipts. A sovereign currency government does not need to issue or accumulate debt in order to run a deficit. It simply needs to spend more money than it takes in. This is what the government should be doing right now, with the goal of restoring full employment and helping the private sector reduce its private debt burden.

No one should be arguing for deficit reduction at this point in time. It's bad economics. Reducing the deficit certainly won't help us reduce our debt ratio or expand health care, which was your initial assertion in this subthread.

Since you claim to understand accounting, please explain the mechanism by which shrinking the private sector surplus (public sector deficit) in an era of high unemployment and broadly underutilized productive capacity will bring about positive economic results.

[banned from Kos]

62. You are repeating me on debt and deficits - however you slip in this "sovereign currency" deal

Yes, we possess such.

First, deficit reduction can take the form of tax increases and not necessarily spending cuts. With that out of the way lets pursue your real point.

It seems you are suggesting monetary policy as stimulus. I'm fine with that. The Fed has done that by buying Treasuries and agency debt.

Now I don't really know what Chartilism is (MMT) as I am a classical economist (really just a finance grad). If you are suggesting the Fed just plop a trillion or so into the Treasury as stimulus WITHOUT protecting its balance sheet - that is conversation I can deal with.

It certainly is possible.

[girl gone mad]

57. I hope you will answer at some point.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Nobody is offering to spend anything on healthcare.

That isn't even off the table, it is under the floor. Instead various measures of austerity in the midst of a prolonged recession are being passed around. I refuse to support any of this crap.

[girl gone mad]

24. Deficit reduction is an idiotic ploy.

It's reckless and dangerous to be pushing for a reduction in the private sector surplus when we face so many deflationary pressures.

It's also cruel and heartless to push for a reduction in the private sector surplus when our unemployment is hovering at 20%.

[jtown1123]

28. Yep. Also, Bush tax cuts caused the majority of the deficit. Until those expire, everything else

is a ploy to cut entitlements at the expense of the rich.

[jtown1123]

29. Yeah but that's not going to happen. We're stuck with Bush tax cuts. Obama already dropped the ball

on that

[Marr]

9. Obama offered cuts. The dysfunctional GOP found itself incapable of saying "yes",

mostly because they've empowered a collection of morons from the Tea Party. So it was kicked down the road with this "super committee", which also isn't working out.

Obama and the rest of the political establishment did their damndest to cut Social Security and Medicare, and I have no doubt they will continue to do so. The fact that their orchestrated 2-year plan failed to bloom as they'd hoped it would is hardly redeeming.

[nineteen50]

10. Its a good cop bad cop shell game

the leaders of both parties want the same thing, whatever
corporate America wants.

[JoePhilly]

11. How could you forget ... its been predicted endlessly ... during every

significant piece of legislation.

The roar builds ... and then ... nothing.

My favorite is the screaming that "Obama put SS and Medicare on the table!!"

The problem with that argument is, those programs exist, the GOP hates them, and so, they are always on the table. That and tax cuts are the only ideas the GOP has.

[jtown1123]

13. How long before it comes to fruition? The only reason it hasn't happened yet

is because of the significant pushback and outcry. Why on earth are we in a place where we need to plead and beg a Democratic President and to stop offering cuts to these programs?

[JoePhilly]

26. If Obama is trying to kill those programs, he sucks at it.

Bush called to privatize social security long before Obama threw his hat in the ring.

The GOP is always going to go after SS and Medicare ... it is what they do!!

And its good for the American people to see them attacking those programs openly.

[jtown1123]

30. Is it good for America to see Democrats offering them up for cuts? I'm not following your line of

thought.

Americans love these programs and vehemently oppose cuts to them. So why are Democrats muddying the waters here? It is good policy and politics to reject cuts. Period. All Democrats offers are going to be used against us.

[JoePhilly]

35. The Dems are not the ones muddying the water on these programs.

That is the point.

The GOP, with a complicit media, uses the deficit as a scare tactic to get Americans to be willing to cut these programs in major ways. They attack the government and blame SS and Medicare.

You said "Americans love these programs and vehemently oppose cuts to them" ... the polling on this puts the numbers (depending on where you look) at about 60% (protect) to about ~40 (cut).

In reality, those numbers SHOULD be 90% (protect) to %10 (cut) ... because very few in the 90% can survive old age, retirement, and medical costs on their own. Maybe 10% can (and even that's probably a high number).

You can't just say "those are off the table" because the GOP and the media will continue to try and expand that ~40% (cut). This is what Grover Norquist started decades ago.

Most of us (DU) want these programs expanded. But we don't have a majority who is for that. And so you can't have that discussion with them "off the table". Every time a Republican proposes vouchers, or some other nonsense approach ... that is a fight we WANT to have.

We want the 60% (protect) to become 60% (expand) and then get as much of the 40% (cut) to become, at a minimum (protect).

I agree this is creates a great deal of tension, but my concern is that if Dems avoid the fight, we'll continue to lose ground.

When I was in my 20s, in the 80s, the GOP was predicting that SS would be dead soon. And that some one like me, would never see a dime of that SS money. I almost believed them. But as I dug into their plans, on my own, it became clear to me they were full of S**t.

Sadly, too many are falling for it. That's why about 30-40%, depending on the polls used, think cutting those programs is a good idea. And I think they are falling for it, because too often, only the GOP engages the topic.

[jtown1123]

36. The most recent polls I've seen (Celinda Lake & GOP Pollster) do not reflect your numbers

Across the board, no matter political affiliation, people vehemently oppose cuts.

So saying that Democrats supposedly winning votes over suggesting cuts is absolute nonsense.

See some highlights of the recent Bipartisan Poll (Progressive Celinda Lake and GOP's Bob Carpenter:

Opposition to cutting Social Security & Medicare is strong across party lines with 82% of Democrats, 73% of Independents and 58% of Republicans against cuts to reduce the deficit
A wide margin of all Americans, 94% of Democrats, 82% of Independents and 64% of Republicans, would prefer to raise taxes on the wealthy than cut Social Security and Medicare
By a 3 -1 margin, self-identified "fiscal conservatives" of both parties oppose cutting Social Security benefits to reduce the deficit and by a 2 ½ -1 to one margin, fiscally conservative voters oppose cutting Medicare benefits to reduce the deficit.

Link: http://www.ncpssm.org/nocuts/memo%20NCPSSM%20Super%20Committee%20Poll%20f%20092111.pdf

Also

A national sample of 1,000 adults polled last week shows that while Washington's fiscal hawks try to downplay the proposal's impact by calling it a "technical" tweak Americans simply aren't buying it. They understand that switching to a Chained-CPI, as proposed by some on the Congressional supercommittee, will permanently cut COLAs for generations of middle class Americans, making it harder and harder for them to make ends meet. The survey found:

72% oppose changing the COLA formula for deficit reduction, including 74% of Democrats, 73% of independents, and 70% of Republicans.


Voter backlash for Congressional members who support changing the formula for deficit reduction extends across party lines. 69% of Democrats, 56% of independents, and 52% of Republicans say they would be less likely to vote for their Member if they support this COLA proposal.


Link: http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/new_poll_cutting_colas_release/

There are at least five other polls that show these numbers to be accurate. I actually believe Democrats took a beating in 2010 because they were not differentiating themselves from Republicans on these issues. Just look at Kathy Hochul's win a GOP district in NY's 26th. She ran against the Paul Ryan plan and it worked.

Campaigning on cutting benefits it AWFUL politics.

[JoePhilly]

40. You are joking right?

The group running the polls you refer to is called ... THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE

I have no issue with that group ... but as their name indicates, they have a horse in the game, so to speak. They have a specific outcome they want.

This is the latest poll from CNN ... http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/11/21/rel19a.pdf

If you scroll to question 9, you will see that the "willingness to make major changes to SS and medicare" was 41% (should change), 57% (don't change) ... which is roughly about what I said was the common finding.

And if you re-read what I wrote, I also said that yes, you could find other ranges. But picking one that is an advocacy group is pretty weak.

Also ... you said this ... "So saying that Democrats supposedly winning votes over suggesting cuts is absolute nonsense."

I did not say that. And I would love for you to go back through what I wrote and provide the specific sentence or sentences from which you draw that false conclusion. At no time did I suggest that Dems would win votes by suggesting cuts. What I CLEARLY said is that you will not be able to debate an expansion, if you won't engage the GOP because you took the entire topic off the table.

And so then sadly, you finish with ... "Campaigning on cutting benefits it AWFUL politics." Which again, I did not advocate. But Rick Perry and Mitt would be proud of your parsing.

I've tried to be totally straight with you ... but apparently, you are not interested in an honest discussion and would prefer to misrepresent what I said.

Which is fine. The bottom line is still the same ... all of those screaming that Obama is "about to kill SS" are yet again wrong.

[jtown1123]

43. Celinda Lake and Bob Carpenter are some of best pollsters in the Biz

No matter who commissioned them, their reputations are on the line here. Why would they lie? You can look at their methodology and how the questions were worded if you're so inclined. Also, Bob Carpenter is a REPUBLICAN pollster, yet he still got the same results as progressive Celinda Lake. So there's that.

Here are some other polls to back me up here:



1. How to Lose the U.S. Senate: Vote to Cut Social Security and Medicare-SOCIAL SECURITY WORKS. 8 of 10 senior voters and 7 of 10 Independent voters strongly oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit. Slightly lower percentages strongly oppose cutting Medicare. These programs are essentially core values held by the public; politicians cut them at their peril. http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/HowToLosetheSenateCutSS&Medicare%20FINAL.pdf




2. Voters’ Attitudes Toward Social Security in Key States for 2012-SOCIAL SECURITY WORKS. Findings from five statewide surveys of likely 2012 voters in Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, & Virginia Commissioned by Social Security Works. http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/report.SOCIAL%20SECURITY%20WORKS.%20Combined%205-State%20Media%20Version.fREV_.061511.pdf

3. Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits-PEW RESEARCH CENTER. Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are rather than taking steps to reduce the budget deficit (by 60% vs. 32%). http://www.people-press.org/2011/07/07/section-2-entitlements-vs-deficit-reduction/

4. CNN/ORC Poll-CNN. 64% of Americans oppose major changes to Social Security and Medicare. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/10/rel13d.pdf

5. Maintaining benefits more important to most Americans than cutting deficit, poll finds-LOS ANGELES TIMES. Nearly twice as many Americans say it is more important to maintain the benefits from entitlement programs than it is to cut the budget deficit, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released Thursday, the day President Obama and top congressional leaders met to discuss budget and debt issues. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/07/news/la-pn-deficit-talks-pew-poll-20110707

6. Poll: Middle-class pain necessary, but widely unpopular-WASHINGTON POST-BLOOMBERG NEWS. Fully 81 percent of adults think that to reduce the nation’s budget deficit, the middle class will need to make financial sacrifices. At the same time, just as many Americans oppose reducing the deficit by cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits (83 and 82 percent, respectively), and 79 percent oppose raising taxes on the “middle class.” About half support cutting military spending (51 percent), while a heavy majority supports raising taxes on households with incomes upward of $250,000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/poll-middle-class-pain-necessary-but-widely-unpopular/2011/10/07/gIQAMksvaL_blog.html

7. 19 Different Polls Show That Americans Support Tax Increases To Cut Deficit-POLITICSUSA. Despite what the GOP keeps telling us, Bruce Bartlett has compiled a list of 19 different polls taken since January that demonstrate that Americans support increasing taxes in order to reduce the deficit and inequality. Americans may not love tax increases, but they understand their necessity for deficit reduction. http://www.politicususa.com/en/polls-taxes-deficit

8. Sixty-two percent support raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy if that’s the only way to get a debt-ceiling agreement in Congress. As Democrats and Republicans wrestle over spending and deficits in advance of an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling, most Americans want their political leaders to compromise rather stand their ground, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll… But 52 percent say they oppose making changes and cuts in Social Security and Medicare if that’s the only way to get an agreement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43813173/ns/politics/t/poll-americans-want-compromise-debt/#.TrgZFXKo2so

9. Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense-GALLUP. Entitlement programs are of particular concern, given the looming impact of the aging baby boom generation, the oldest members of which are now turning 65. Despite this, 64% of Americans interviewed in the Jan. 14-16 USA Today/Gallup survey are opposed to cutting government spending for Social Security, and 61% oppose cutting Medicare. Meanwhile, 57% of Americans oppose cutting government spending for national defense. A majority of Americans also oppose cutting education, anti-poverty programs, homeland security, aid to farmers, and funding for the arts and sciences. Foreign aid is the only area out of the nine measured that a majority of Americans agree should be cut. http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/americans-oppose-cuts-education-social-security-defense.aspx



------------------------


The question you refer to is incredibly vague in that CNN poll. What does "change" mean? Get higher benefits? Fix the short fall? Change the COLA? Lack of specificity in the question is deceiving.

I am not trying to twist your words, but I thought you implied earlier that Democrats had to put these programs on the table because half of the public, according to some poll you never cited, were open to benefit cuts. That doesn't jive with the polls I've been reading for the past two years. If I am wrong and you never said that, I apologize. I looked back at what you wrote and you said that the GOP keeps bringing up these programs so Democrats have to respond. I say, Democrats should say, we will not cut these benefits during deficit negotiations. We will look at solvency and adequacy in the proper committees so we make decisions that are best for beneficiaries, not the deficit they didn't create.

Barack Obama is willing to cut Social Security. He has offered the Chained CPI in deficit negotiations. I am not sure why you think he isn't willing to cut SS. This has been documented already.

[JoePhilly]

45. Thanks for proving my point.

BTW ... Nice copy paste ... did you even read what you posted?

#4 in your list refers to the same CNN poll I mentioned.

#8 says 52% support SS changes.

#9 says 64% oppose cuts.

#3 says .. 60% versus 32%.

Those numbers are all right in line with what I said.

Depending on which source ... its roughly 60-40.

And you again twist my words ... I did not say Dems had to put these on the table ... I said they are ALWAYS on the table because the EXIST, and the GOP hates them ... and the media is happy to oblige the GOP.

As for Obama's willingness to CUT SS ... apparently he sucks at making it happen. There have been many opportunities for him to cut it BIG TIME, not just around the edges, I mean major cuts.

And yet, nothing.

I'm not saying that any one should not call their representatives, not call the WH, not keep demanding NO CUTS ... I'm simply pointing out that much of the screaming on this topic is nothing more.

[TheKentuckian]

48. By avoiding the fight implicit legitimacy is given to the cut movement.

You can't win avoiding the contest and then you add to that a significant chunk of our people leading the bandwagon from powerful posts and the cut movement is spurred along.

[sabrina 1]

18. They should have taken off the table. That is what the people

wanted. Instead, there have already been cuts, two years of no COLA based on the lie that there was no inflation. So the elderly and the disabled already helped pay for the gambling debts of Wall Street, while the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy were extended.

What is it you do not see about this picture? This is the same 'austerity' program the IMF/World Bank is forcing down the throats of Europeans, even though it failed. It is meant to save the Bankers at the expense of the people. And just about everyone in the world now knows it. So give up on the excuses, no one on the planet is buying them.

[SidDithers]

20. 2012 COLA is 3.6%...nt

Sid

[JoePhilly]

27. Do you know what year the formula for COLA was placed into law?

1975.

Here ... http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html

Blaming Obama for the lack of COLA increases in 2009 and 2010 is pretty ridiculous considering the law that governs them has not changed in more than 30 years.

And again, as long as these programs exist, they are on the table.

Or ... Do you think the GOP and the media will stop calling for them to be cut? Dream on.

The entire purpose of Bush running up the debt was to reach a point at which the GOP and the media could SELL cuts as the only solution.

Also ... most of us would argue that a better approach to (1) Lower the age where you can buy in to Medicare (or just all everyone to buy in), and (2) increase / remove the cap on income exempt from the social security tax.

But you can not demand that these programs be OFF THE TABLE, while also demanding that they be CHANGED in the manners I just described.

But the bottom line again ... for all the endless screams that Obama is trying to kill SS and medicare, its just not happening.

[jtown1123]

39. Yes we can ask for them to be off the table in deficit discussions.

How can we get adequate reform if we are trying to ram Social Security cuts into timed deficit deals and proposals?

Why not allow the committee that handles SS to take a year or two, get input from actual Social Security experts and not deficit fetishists, so we can get reform that actually benefits us all instead of harming us?

No one is suggesting these programs should never be reformed. But we want this done in fair manner that is done in good faith for what is best for the programs. This was accomplished in 1983 and it can be accomplished again.

[JoePhilly]

42. No comment on the COLA point?

Oh well. At least we've taken that off the table.

As I said before ... these programs exist, the GOP hates them, and the complicit media will put them ON the table no matter which Dem is President. And they will sell ending these programs.

I sincerely do not believe that the Dems can step away.

Most Americans don't know what to believe about the financial state of SS. They've been lied to by the GOP and the media for years.

This is the most recent CNN poll ... http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/11/21/rel19a.pdf

Go to question 9.

41% support significant changes. 57% want no changes.

Those numbers should not be so close.

But they are because we have been allowing the GOP to demonize those programs.

In my opinion, what we want is ~60% of the people not just wanting to "maintain" the programs, but to "expand" them. And then, that ~40% who wants to significantly change them ... we want to move as many of them as possible into "expand" or at least "protect" as we can.

You can't do that if you leave the field.

And then as I said, we can't leave the field anyway ... the GOP and the Media will simply beat these programs to a pulp, until that ~40% number gets high enough to kill those programs outright.

[sabrina 1]

41. What do those programs have to do with the debt/deficit, corruption

that robbed this country's treasury? They do NOT belong on any table where those are the issues, because they have zero to do with them.

And Democrats should make that clear, they should be educating their constituents as to what is going here. The deception of attempting to link these things is not working anyhow, is it? The people turned out to be much more informed, despite the efforts to keep them scared and ignorant, than our government expected.

Anyone tied to cuts in these programs under the lie that they are somehow connnected to the corruption that is responsible for this country's, and the rest of the world's, problems right now, will not be reelected. See the people on the streets all over Europe, in Australia, Canada and here? They KNOW they are being lied to.

Benefits should be INCREASED and those who stole the people's money should be prosecuted and their ill-gotten money retrieved in order to pay the bills they ran up.

[SidDithers]

12. I remember reading how it was certain - CERTAIN!! - that Social Security would be cut by 22%...

don't think that's happened yet, has it?

Sid

[jtown1123]

14. What on earth are you talking about? 22% is the predicted future funding shortfall n/t

[SidDithers]

19. A particular poster here said over and over and over and over and over again...

that Bowles-Simpson recommended a 22% cut in SS, and because Obama didn't reject that recommendation, it was certain to happen.

That's what I'm talking about.

Sid

[jtown1123]

22. Ahh. Bowles Simpson did cut SS but not by 22%. n/t

[JoePhilly]

32. Here is my rough list of how frequently this has been predicted as a forgone conclusion.

By an array of different folks ... in many threads, almost always bursting into flames about how evil Obama is.

1) When the Bowles-Simpson committee was created.
2) And again after it produced a recommendation that did not obtain sufficient support.
3) Just before Jan 2010 state of the Union. Obama was definitely going to announce it for sure.
4) In Feb 2010 when Obama produced his desired budget. Obama was absolutely going to announce it here.
5) In April when Obama gave a speech on Deficit reduction. Obama was positively going to announce it here.
6) During the summer months prior to the debt ceiling fight. Obama was going to use the default risk to sell killing SS.
7) The minute the "super committe" was announced. This secret group would carry out Obama's secret plan.
8) Right after the members for that committee were announced. Yup ... its coming now!!!
9) Regular drum beat since leading up to this week. Every news burp since lead to another flip out.

And so, here we are ... it still has not happened. Not even close.

But hey ... we've got almost a year until the elections ... still a chance that Obama will enact his secret plan.

Let's cross our fingers!!!

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

47. SS benefits should be RAISED! The people paid enough into

that fund over the years, and they provided trillions of dollars that now should be paid out to them in RAISES. The fact that this is not happening, together with two years of no COLA increases, means that cuts, major cuts, have already been made.

Not to mention that raising the SS benefits of the elderly, who earned them, and the disabled will stimulate the economy.

We know what is going on here, so don't waste your time trying to defend it. These programs do not belong in this discussion and they are only there because the goal is to NOT raise benefits as should be happening, to cut wherever possible, either by raising the retirement age or some other way, and the eventual goal, to get that money into private hands.

Try defending this somewhere the people are not informed. They cannot deceive people anymore, it's just not possible. Get these programs OUT of this discussion and give the people the money they earned. We're not buying any of the lame arguments defending this.

[JoePhilly]

51. If these programs are not part of the discussion, how do you RAISE the benefits?

Again ... the COLA formula was set in 1975. Trying to blame Obama for that formula is like blaming him for Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground.

There is no way to raise these benefits if you take them OFF THE TABLE.

If the Dems disengage on this ... the GOP and the media will continue to sell the lie that these programs must be CUT to save America. And they will do so unopposed.

And even more people will conclude that these programs are destined to fail, and so we should just end them now.

Try to remember that the majority of Americans don't even vote.

[sabrina 1]

53. They are not part of this discussion about deficits/debt and

should not be on THAT table.

That money belongs to the people, not to the Govt. Why is that so hard to understand? They cannot bargain away what is not theirs.

Congress can surely do more than one thing at a time. Talk about the corruption that created the deficit and discuss what to do about it, fine.


They can also take up the separate issue of why SS benefits are not being raised considering the benefits to the economy and the fact that the money was provided by the people to cover their needs when they retired.

What they are doing is attempting to conflate the economic disaster with the Social Safety Programs by combining the two and it is NOT fooling anyone.

[JoePhilly]

54. To the average American, they are part of that discussion.

Most Americans do not actually understand what you think they understand.

You said ... "Why is that so hard to understand? They cannot bargain away what is not theirs."

Look, when you pay taxes ... that money goes places. Sometimes to places you don't want them to go, like IRAQ ... right? You and I get that.

Most Americans understand that their tax dollars don't always get distributed exactly as they want. Its the messy part of our democracy.

Most of them see SS and Medicare in the same light. Once you give the money to the government, and let them distribute it, in a sense, it is no longer yours. You can't direct it.

Its also important to note that the structure of SS is such that you may not get out what you paid in ... even as it stands now. Imagine a husband and wife who pay in for their entire lives. But they both die before collecting. The government does not figure out what they paid in and pass it to their heirs. It goes back into the bucket.

Your last sentence is correct. And they are fooling MANY. That sentence is what Grover Norquist has been doing for more than 2 decades. i've been screaming about him and this GOP plan for years. And yet, his name has never really hit the press until this week.

I think that's great ... get him on 60 minutes ... declare that his pledge is what stopped a "balanced" approach ... stop playing defense, and go on the offensive on this. Let's have the fight now, not after President Romney and GOP majorities in the House and Senate "fix" it.

[sabrina 1]

56. Yes, but to fewer and fewer of them. I was one of those who

wasn't all that focused on those programs, never having had to use them. I did know that if it was not for Democrats, the elderly could starve for all the other party cared, and the disabled could die etc, so I depended on Democrats to make sure to protect programs that helped the most vulnerable Americans. I never heard a Democrat talk about cuts to those programs, until recently. And that is why I took the trouble to learn more about them. And I am not alone. People are waking up and realizing they have to be informed or they will be sold out.

The SS tax is specifically for people's retirement years, even I knew that. And most people do get that. In most polls on these programs, an overwhelming majority do not want them cut. Ordinary Republicans, not the insane kind, like Medicare and SS and many even like Medicaid. So the support for these programs crosses party lines.

To simply accept that when we entrust money designated for a certain purpose to those we elect, they will betray that trust, is not something we should even consider accepting.

They must be constantly reminded that if they attempt to use money intended for the most vulnerable people, they will pay a political price. It is that attitude, from the people, that has protected these programs up to now.

And now considering that first time, Democrats are caving, it is even more imperative that the people refuse to accept this as they always have in the past.

[Angry Dragon]

33. Let us wait and see what he does.............

Up to now everything is just words ......... I see no action at all from anyone

[JNelson6563]

34. It's a big picture thing.

I appreciate the eye to the long view. :toast:

Julie

[Rex]

37. A call out thread? How classy.

:eyes:

[The Magistrate]

46. By One Classy Dude, Sir....

"For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."

[Rex]

52. Maybe that is why the OP was banned from Kos?

http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/the-hunting-of-the-snark/chapter-08.html

:rofl:

[suffragette]

63. Very good read, Sir

and think it's likely apt as well.

[fascisthunter]

58. lol

:crazy:

[SomethingFishy]

59. Thank God...

they are only cutting Medicare and not Social Security. And at least with Medicare they are cutting not only benefits but payouts as well. Yeah let me run right off to the voting booth and cheerfully cast my vote for the first Democrat to cut fucking medicare.

You must be so proud!


You know, I will vote for Obama but there is no fucking way I'm gonna be happy about it.

[jpak]

60. Yup and K&R Obama 2012!

:bounce:

[Better Believe It]

61. He will. Right after the election .... win or lose. Obama has already agreed to massive cuts.

Over a trillion dollars worth in non-military programs and he did his best to cut a deal with Republicans for over two more trillion in cuts in social programs.

But, the grand deal didn't work out this time.

Wait until right after the election.

They still have until December 2012 to cut a grand bargain.