All of the talk of President Obama cutting SS, wanting to cut SS

[bigtree]

Such bullshit. Where has the President cut Social Security or proposed cutting or weakening Social Security?

I thought the line from critics was that he would go along with benefit cuts from the SuperCommittee. Now that the committee has collapsed and that prospect as moot as it was false, critics are still claiming that payroll taxes have to be kept high to support and preserve the program.

Never mind that no other tax cuts are tied to the preservation of some program or the other. Never mind that the SS trust is being funded out of general revenue as if the tax cuts never happened. Let's just keep insisting that taxpayers need to make up for Congress' negligence and refusal to make the solvency of Social Security a budget priority and don't deserve the tax relief the TEMPORARY payroll tax cut provides.

Let's just let republicans off the hook and act as if none of the general revenue is available for Social Security. Why should the payroll taxes be held hostage to Congress' refusal to make the program permanently solvent?

Pres. Obama today said he wants to cut the payroll tax by another percentage point for workers, at a total cost of $179 billion, and cut the employer share of the tax in half as well for most companies. Social Security will continue to be funded at current levels.

So where is this assault by the President on Social Security supposed to be coming from? It just doesn't exist. It's just an unbelievable and demonstratively false talking point for folks who can't seem to find time or interest to confront the real enemies of Social Security -- the ones who openly and directly call for it's demise; like republican John Cornyn claiming he's concerned about the tax cut's effect on entitlements. Never mind that he can't seem to find any other tax cut (for corps. or his rich friends) that he believes will have the same effect.

What republicans are really worried about is that funding Social Security at the levels required to keep the program solvent will take away from their ability to feather their own taxpayer-advantaged pet projects, like defense spending. For those actually concerned with the life of Social security, it makes no sense at all to demand payroll taxes be kept high to keep republicans from having to choose between the social obligation and some weapons program in their state.

A payroll tax cut is a good reminder to Social Security's critics that it is an obligation of government that is to be treated proportionally to other priorities in the general budget, not balanced on some artificial notion that the payroll taxes are the only revenue available for the program. Now, they have even more impetus to make the proper choices. We should hold them to those, not deny middle-class Americans the tax relief they need and deserve.

[MjolnirTime]

1. Watch out, he'll announce it during his next speech I tell ya!

:sarcasm:

[Enrique]

2. the Simpson-Bowles Commission

both Simpson and Bowles are big bright red flags.

[bluestate10]

3. I tell you. I am weary.

Anyone that has ever debated a rightwinger should not how rightwingers shift the basis of debate and yell stuff as fact that is patently untrue. Yet I come to DU and find nothing better from people that call themselves liberals. IMO, I prefer to fight the battle without holier than thou types, at least then, I clearly see the knives that I must parry.

[Doctor_J]

4. "Members of my party have become too tied to entitlements"

When has the president ever told a crowd that SS doesn't contribute to the deficit? Is he unaware of that fact?

those of us who like SS bash everyone who wants to dismantle it - Cornyn AND the DINOs. Your statement that "we never find time to criticize Republicans" is a DINO talking point that is a blatant lie.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[bigtree]

9. republican sympathizers claim folks never criticize republicans?

okay.

Maybe you can explain why the focus is on a payroll tax cut instead of the republicans' refusal to make the preservation of the program a priority? The money is coming from the same pot as everything else we spend on. Putting all the emphasis on the payroll tax ignores that fact and let's republicans like Coryn claim that the tax cut puts the program at risk, when it's actually the budget priorities his party insists on that threaten the deficit and the funding for these social priorities.

[DCBob]

5. The misinformed outrage is shocking. It reminds me of what the RW does.

They exaggerate an issue to the point its totally false and then complain about it incessantly as if its the truth. I expect it from the GOPers but not from our own side.

[Edweird]

7. Is there some kind of contest to see how many RW memes you can cram into an OP?

You have my vote for now, but the week is still young...

[bigtree]

10. bullshit

[Number23]

18. I love how your attempts to put the spotlight on the Repubs who want to kill SS

and highlight the president's NON-attempts at killing SS are considered "right wing memes."

Highlighting Repub wrongdoing and discussing how the Dem president is NOT trying to kill SS is considered "right wing" by some here. I have to wonder if some of the folks who type this stuff even read what they write before they hit "post message." They certainly don't seem to understand it...

[bluestateguy]

8. The anti-Obamaites always insist that surely he has a plan just right around the corner to cut SS

And when it never materializes they move on to new conspiracy theories.

[woo me with science]

11. Don't try to rewrite history. That is flatly untrue.

OF COURSE President Obama put Social Security on the table, through the chained CPI. And OF COURSE he defended benefit cuts. We were all there watching, for pete's sake.

Here's your reality sandwich:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130

[Lasher]

31. Very good contribution.

It's one thing knowing this truth, and yet another to go to the trouble to dig up and present the clear evidence as you have done. Thanks.

[eridani]

12. Why do we have to put up with ;this right wing bullshit?

Social Security is NO FUCKING WAY being funded from general revenue. By law, FICA money may not be used for anything other than benefits. The surplus is in T-bills because you can't just keep a few trillion in a checking account.

Cutting employer contributions is utter insanity. Ihe only relevant factor in hiring is increased demand, and there is no point in giving those employers with increased demand an extra windfall.

When are you going to admit that Social Security cuts were "on the table," which they never should have been? Just because the negotiators couldn't agree does not change the moral and political abomination of the offer.

[bigtree]

16. The current and proposed FICA tax cuts

. . . don’t directly affect the long-term health of Social Security, because the revenue that normally flows direct to the Social Security Trust Fund is being reimbursed out of general revenue.

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/09/09/would-obamas-payroll-tax-cut-hurt-social-security

The SuperCommittee cuts were NEVER on the President's table.

[PSPS]

13. Sorry, but you're wrong on many points

1. Every report I read, including many today, about what was "on the table" with the sooper dooper committee, said that Social Security was there.

2. The SS trust fund is certainly not being funded out of general revenue. In fact, it can't be. It's prohibited by law. It's only source of funding is FICA or the payroll tax. That's the way the act reads and the way it has always been. This is also why Social Security has never contributed anything to the deficit.

3. Every attempt to whittle away at the FICA stream (Obama's ridiculous "tax holiday") is nothing but an attempt to make it insolvent so it can be "privatized" right into the pockets of Wall Street. They're salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on that $3 trillion. That money was taken out of people's wages, like a savings account. I don't know about you, but I don't want the banksters stealing my lifetime of contributions.

4. Where is this assault by the President on Social Security supposed to be coming from? Besides his apparent willingness to let it be "on the table," it's his harebrained "payroll tax holiday." That will have no effect on the deficit because the FICA stream doesn't go into the general account. The proffered "rationale" behind it is that it is supposed to "put more money in everyone's pockets" and, thus, apparently gin up the economy. This reasoning is silly because an extra 3% isn't going to do anything worthwhile and it's like borrowing all the money from your retirement plan before you retire.

I could go on, but you get the point. I know none of this will change your mind.

[bigtree]

14. To prevent Social Security from losing tax revenue

To prevent Social Security from losing tax revenue, Congress mandated that revenues be transferred from the general fund to the Social Security trust funds to make up for the tax reduction. This is provided for in section 601 of the Tax Relief Act, which reads in part, "There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted."

http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/a/Reduced-Social-Security-Withholding-For-2011.htm


"The current and proposed FICA tax cuts don’t directly affect the long-term health of Social Security, because the revenue that normally flows direct to the Social Security Trust Fund is being reimbursed out of general revenue.

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/09/09/would-obamas-payroll-tax-cut-hurt-social-security

[PSPS]

25. That's exactly my point

Obama's insane "holiday" allows Social Security, for the first time in its history, to receive revenue from the general fund. Hence, it becomes subject to "deficit hawks" who will then claim it can't be sustained and must be dismantled.

[LaydeeBug]

15. "Our sacred cows are on the table", anyone? DAMN!!! nt

[bigtree]

17. whose table?

who's cows?

[Zorra]

19. You can't really blame folks for thinking this. The links below

are from supposedly reliable media sources. There are literally hundreds of them. Propaganda or not, this is how the media portrayed it to us. Personally, I don't believe the President will cut Social Security.

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

Plan’s Focus on Social Security Taxes Reflects Its Modest Ambitions

WASHINGTON — The centerpiece of President Obama’s job-creation plan, a proposal to further reduce Social Security taxes, is emblematic of a package of modest measures that some economists describe as helpful but not sufficient to lift the economy from its malaise.

In his speech on Thursday night, Mr. Obama asked Congress to cut the amount that workers must contribute toward Social Security benefits, extending an existing measure, and to reduce, for the first time, the matching payments that employers are required to make.

The cuts, which would deprive the government of about $240 billion in revenues next year, are the largest items in the president’s $447 billion job-creation plan, which includes payments to unemployed workers, incentives for companies that hire workers and increased federal spending on infrastructure. All of the measures will require the support of Congressional Republicans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/us/politics/09tax.html?pagewanted=all

Labor angered by Obama's willingness to cut Social Security in debt ceiling deal

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/170557-labor-angered-by-obamas-willingness-to-cut-social-security-

Why Is President Obama So Anxious to Cut Social Security?
Monday 22 August 2011
by: Dean Baker, Truthout | News Analysis

On his tour of the Midwest last week, President Obama again indicated his interest in cutting Social Security. He repeated a proposal that his administration first put forward in the debt ceiling negotiations: he wants to cut the annual cost of living adjustment by 0.3 percentage points.

This cut may sound small, but it adds up over time. A person in their 70s who had been getting benefits for ten years would see a reduction of 3 percent. By the time they were in their 80s, the cut would be 6 percent. And if they lived into their 90s, their benefit would be more than 9 percent lower as a result of President Obama's proposal.

http://www.truth-out.org/why-president-obama-so-anxious-cut-social-security/1314019361

[bhikkhu]

20. Which are you going to believe - Fox News, or your own lying eyes!

...but seriously, as far as I remember the accounts of how Obama wanted to cut Medicare and Social Security came in the midst of the debt-ceiling negotiations, in the form of "several independent sources" who were supposedly on Boehner's team when it was supposedly put on the table.

So we were led to believe, according to GOP insider sources, that Obama was insisting that Medicare and Social Security cuts be thrown into the budget cut mix, and the repugs declined the offer. Somehow, something doesn't ring true there...

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Obama: "We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs...

"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security." - http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president|President Obama 2/22/2011>

And then there's http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1631283">Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

And Obama's Catfood Commission, exquisitely designed to recommend deep cuts in benefits.

And the cooked numbers that Social Security is going broke (see my sig). Social Security has $2.6 trillion in the bank, and that number is growing rapidly: it's expected to hit $4 trillion in the next decade or so. The 1% want to steal it from the 99%, and Obama has tried mightily to do that for them.

[Rex]

30. Don't expect any kind of rebuttal.

This is 'cherry pick' night! :rofl:

[Marr]

22. I really don't know what the Obama fans are crowing about today.

I honestly don't. The fact is that the political establishment-- including Obama-- has been maneuvering to cut Social Security and Medicare for years now. The groundwork for this most recent campaign was laid down by Obama's "Deficit Commission".

Obama went out on a political limb to get it done a few months ago during the phony "debt crisis"-- putting Social Security and Medicare on the table. The GOP proved too dysfunctional to take "yes" for an answer, and so we got this "super committee", which also failed to achieve it's stated goal.

This isn't over-- and you have absolutely nothing to crow about.

[bigtree]

23. this isn't 'crowing'

I'm subject to the same debate you are. I see a lot of speculation that doesn't appear to be based in any current reality. That point is worth highlighting amid all of the criticism surrounding the President's payroll tax cut extension proposal.

I also think it's worth noting that nothing close to what critics are warning about has ever reached the President's desk, nor emerged in any budget proposal from the administration; I don't think it ever will.

[Lasher]

32. Go ahead and move that goalpost.

Your OP has been demolished.

[bigtree]

35. meh

I had my say. You can't refute me claiming something might happen in the future. Fact is, there hasn't been ONE budget proposal from the President asking for ANY of the cuts folks are accusing him of wanting so badly. Further, not ONE piece of legislation containing the cuts has landed on his desk.

All you have to show for your guesswork here are echoes of your own propaganda.

[Major Hogwash]

24. And then he'll take your guns!!

The next meme from the NRA.

[ellisonz]

26. No Not the Pizza!

How could the NRA let them take away my pizza? That's my favorite vegetable!

I've been holding that one in for weeks.:)

[freshwest]

27. MSM belongs to the right and is the sole source of info, repeating their lies constantly.

[jeff47]

28. So much wrong in one OP. It's impressive.

Such bullshit. Where has the President cut Social Security or proposed cutting or weakening Social Security?

President Obama, 7/22/2011: "We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

There's also the deficit commission, where Obama selected people who advocated cutting Social Security in the past.

There's also reports that it was Obama, not the Republicans, who put Social Security cuts "on the table" during the debt limit negotiations. Not from anonymous sources, nor Republicans, but Democratic congressmen.

critics are still claiming that payroll taxes have to be kept high to support and preserve the program.

Well, if Social Security is "in crisis", which is the meme flying around Washington, then any reduction in payroll taxes deepens that crisis.

Personally, I think concerns about Social Security solvency are like Congress during WWII being concerned about balancing 2015's budget. Which is one of the primary reasons I'm not happy with Obama continuing to put cuts "on the table" to fix a problem that likely doesn't exist.

Let's just keep insisting that taxpayers need to make up for Congress' negligence and refusal to make the solvency of Social Security a budget priority and don't deserve the tax relief the TEMPORARY payroll tax cut provides.

Lovely strawman. Perhaps you should instead think about the stimulative effect of a 2% higher paycheck. Because that's all the payroll tax holiday is. 2%. Median household income is about $50k, so the median household gets $1000. That's $83/month. And it's only temporary. That's not going to change spending habits.

On the other hand, one could work on something like unemployment insurance instead, which will change spending habits. As in some people would actually have money to spend instead of being broke. Or you could "go big" and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Then you'd not only get stimulus spending in a devastated market segment (construction), but you'd also end up with assets that provide benefits for the next few decades.

Instead, we're paying the median family's cable bill.

Let's just let republicans off the hook and act as if none of the general revenue is available for Social Security.

Damn us for wanting to follow the law! If only we would ignore that pesky law that keeps the trust fund and general fund separate. Like Obama asked us to.

Also, remember that once you break down that wall, the money is not required to only flow in one direction.

Pres. Obama today said he wants to cut the payroll tax by another percentage point for workers, at a total cost of $179 billion, and cut the employer share of the tax in half as well for most companies

So now it's 3% larger paychecks. Ooooooooooh. And businesses who won't hire due to lack of demand will find it 3% cheaper to not hire due to lack of demand.

So where is this assault by the President on Social Security supposed to be coming from?

You'd have to ask Obama. We're responding to his own words.

can't seem to find time or interest to confront the real enemies of Social Security -- the ones who openly and directly call for it's demise

There's more than one way to kill a popular program. One way, which the Republicans keep doing, is to directly assault it and demand it's immediate removal. Doesn't work well.

The other way is to de-fund it for a long time, then means-test it, then lower the limits on the means test, then "reform" it away. See: Welfare. De-funding started under Reagan, and it was finally killed by Bill Clinton. It's now only available for a limited time in your life, and only if you're busting your ass at menial labor. You used to be able to use it as a crutch while bettering yourself via school/training, so you didn't need support any more. But ol' Bill yanked that away to give us TANF. Those non-existent Cadillac-driving welfare queens were just getting too much easy money.

What republicans are really worried about is that funding Social Security at the levels required to keep the program solvent will take away from their ability to feather their own taxpayer-advantaged pet projects, like defense spending.

No. They fundamentally believe that government is evil and can never do anyone any good. Medicare and Social Security are in the way of that. Because they are very popular and do a lot of good. They demonstrate that Republican orthodoxy is fundamentally wrong. They must be destroyed to maintain Republican orthodoxy.

For those actually concerned with the life of Social security, it makes no sense at all to demand payroll taxes be kept high to keep republicans from having to choose between the social obligation and some weapons program in their state.

Actually, those of us paying attention have noted that Social Security's demise is 40 years away, and has been 40 years away for the last 20 years. We're not concerned about the trust fund. What we are concerned about is politicians who want to "fix" the problem via "reform". Like we got with welfare.

A payroll tax cut is a good reminder to Social Security's critics that it is an obligation of government that is to be treated proportionally to other priorities in the general budget

We've seen how Congress prioritizes obligations in the general fund. That's why we're so insistent that Social Security not be connected with the General Fund. I don't want it to be an obligation equal to everything else. I want it to be a higher obligation that they can not touch. I don't want to give them the option of reducing Social Security payments so that they can build the next monument to themselves. Or fight the next Iraq war.

Now, they have even more impetus to make the proper choices.

This is Congress we're talking about. They are not in the business of making the proper choices. They have not been for at least three decades.

We should hold them to those, not deny middle-class Americans the tax relief they need and deserve.

You are talking about $125/month for the median family (3% of $50k/yr). So what, your stimulus plan is for the median family to splurge and add Showtime and HBO to their cable TV?

[Rex]

29. Wow you really pwned the OP, line by line.

Pooned! :rofl:

[Fumesucker]

34. +1

[woo me with science]

36. Now that

was a worthy evisceration.

[bvar22]

38. Well Done, Sir.

PWNED!

:patriot:

[sendero]

33. What you don't get..

.. is that Democrats have NEVER talked about doing ANYTHING to SS, they left that (wisely) to Republicans. It doesn't MATTER how modest or reasonable his proposals might be, Americans don't trust the details of any legislation because they know they cannot trust the news media or congress to be honest about them.

Even the payroll tax cut is a BAD IDEA that will be used in the future to justify cuts to benefits.

In the name of "reaching out to the other side" Obama is GUTTING the Democratic brand.

[bvar22]

37. Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11."

Conyers added ""My response to him (President Obama) is TO MASS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROTEST THIS."

This declaration is significant both politically and morally as Conyers is not only the second most senior representative in the House, but was also the first member of Congress to endorse candidate Obama. Conyers doesn't merely draw a moral "line in the sand' but he presents a candid picture of violent contrasts between himself and the first African-American president.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html

I will take Rep Conyers word over yours.
Conyers has a great track record of representing the Working Class,
AND he was THERE.

Unrec for Bogus claims.

[bigtree]

41. never in ANY budget proposal from the President

That's where I'd expect to see such a proposal if the President truly had it out for Social Security as critics claim.

[bvar22]

42. I initially penned a snarky response,

but erased it,
and instead wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.

There is a fire in the fireplace,
and a turkey in the oven.
My wife & I are profoundly grateful,
and remembering those today who are hungry & without shelter.

bvar22

[SidDithers]

39. K&R. I remember reading right here on DU that Obama was going to cut SS by 22%...

I don't think that was a very accurate prediction, but it was taken as gospel by many posters.

Sid

[gulliver]

40. Anyone who likes SS and weakens Dems in any way...

...is plain stupid. Since Obama is not being primaried anyone who is reasonable, intelligent, good natured and respectable should now refrain from criticizing him. The rest of you can have at it. Your criticism helps him.