Being in denial about possible damage to Social Security by Democrats is harmful and wrong.

[madfloridian]

I have no idea what President Obama is going to propose in the SOTU, but Robert Gibbs has indicated that he will have something to say about the suggestions of the deficit commission.



So we will wait and see. But Obama's words so far have indicated he is open to big changes in Social Security...changes that may hurt present retirees.

Pretending that there will be no attacks on the program is pure denial. He appointed the deficit commission, he chose the two chairman. It is quite sensible to assume he approves of their findings. He had never indicated otherwise. In fact even in the new tax deal there is indication that we might be shocked at what is coming.

There was a blunt assessment of the effects of the tax deal on Social Security in a recent Palm Beach Post op ed. It was co-authored by Robert Weiner, a former chief of staff of the U.S. House Select Committee on Aging.

Under the radar screen, the new tax deal is threatening the livelihood of America's present and future seniors - to line the pockets of millionaires. If made permanent, a new Social Security "payroll tax holiday," reducing the "match" employers pay from 6 percent to 4 percent of salary, will drop the solvency of the program 14 years, from 2037 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At the same time, Congress agreed to increase high-end loopholes in the estate tax, exempting 39,000 estates worth as much as $5 million.

This bill puts in motion two devastating policies: lowering taxes for the rich and destabilizing the financing of Social Security. Without sufficient worker and employer matching money, which has kept Social Security solvent for 75 years and helped millions of Americans live out their senior years in comfort, the program could be doomed. Congress and the White House say they want to "protect Social Security's solvency," but this action does just the opposite.

The most dangerous aspect of the payroll tax holiday is that it could become permanent. The new philosophy in Congress seems to be "once a cut, always a cut." When the payroll tax holiday expires in a year, Republicans will insist on keeping it, just as they did with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

New tax deal threatens seniors

The fact that our party has considered a part of the deficit commission's plans that would harm present retirees and cut their benefits by 3% to 6% is quite breathtaking to me. No Democrats should defend such a thing.

The chairmen’s plan would increase the Social Security retirement age and limit yearly cost-of-living increases to the rate of inflation rather than of wage growth. The cut in annual increases would affect current retirees -- which was supposed to be off the table. Their benefits would go down by about 3 percent after they’ve been retired for 10 years, and about 6 percent after they’ve been retired for 20 years.

And the retirement age increase is just a particularly cruel way of cutting benefits. The age at which the elderly can retire on full Social Security benefits is already increasing to 67 by 2027. The chairmen’s plan would “index” the retirement age to increase in longevity, meaning it would hit 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075.

Dems should speak out against cutting benefits of Social Security

There is more on the Ten Flash Points in the Fiscal Commission report....a post by Dan Froomkin at Huffington Post. Each point is on a single page, so you have to move through the article.

Ten Flash Points In The Fiscal Commission Chairmen's Proposal

Here are a couple of them in addition to the one mentioned above about cutting benefits to present retirees.

It Would Cut Tax Rates For The Rich

What in the world is a proposal to cut income tax rates doing in a deficit-reduction plan in the first place? And what’s the need for it? Under the chairmen’s “Option 1” for taxes, individual income tax rates would decrease across the board -- but mostly for the highest bracket, where the rate would drop from 35 to 23 percent. The corporate tax rate, now 35 percent, would also be reduced, to 26 percent.

As New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman writes: “Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies -- goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.”

And another:

It’s Just What The Housing Market Needs

The version of the chairmen’s tax plan that brings the top individual income tax bracket down to 23 percent calls for the total elimination of all “tax expenditures” – including targeted deductions that have hitherto been considered in the best interests of the nation. The two biggest ones by far are the health insurance deduction for employers, and the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners.

There are many legitimate equity-related arguments to be made about the mortgage-interest deduction. But in the middle of a mortgage and foreclosure crisis, eliminating one of the most effective inducements for people to buy homes could well drive the housing market into an even deeper depression.

One more:

It Would Hurt Veterans And Servicemembers

Firedoglake’s David Dayen sums up the plan’s effects on servicemembers and veterans: “They want to add co-pays to the Veterans’ Administration and TRICARE, as well as pushing individuals covered by TRICARE into an employer policy. They also want to freeze noncombat military pay for three years. And, they want to end schools for families on military bases, instead reintegrating soldier’s kids into the public school system (because that’s so easy for a military family that moves every other year).”

Our president appointed two of the biggest deficit hawks around, two whose goal for years has been getting hold of Social Security. One of them even called seniors the "greediest generation."

I think the president put his trust in the wrong people, and he is failing to hear the voices of those who worked so hard to get him elected.


Picture from Huffington Post.

There should be no lectures, no warning to us to stop questioning what is going on in connection with a program that has been a safety net for seniors since 1935. There should be no denial that something is badly wrong in a Democratic party that would consider such proposals.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Amazing how many stories break on Twitter these days

Not to downplay the importance of this. But that was my first thought.

[midnight]

2. President has done a great job.....

Keeping the elite comfortable....

[DeadEyeDyck]

12. power base and $$$

[ooglymoogly]

71. He has also learned the pugs are the only group with the power

and expertise to fix and manipulate elections short of a landslide. He thinks he no longer needs us.

[lark]

80. He appointed the commission before the election!

This has been one of his subterfuge goals from the begining. Even during the campaign he promised to appoint a debt commission. He set the table to get what he wanted by appointing 2 huge SS opponents as the chairs. We've been had from the very beginning!! Any Dem who votes to take away working American's hard earned SS money is no Dem and will get no vote of mine. Any Dem president who pushes this is pushing his party to outer Siberia forever. I truly think Obama is our Trojan horse and gutting SS was the reason the corporatist media mavens were so totally soft in their coverage of him as a candidate.

[HillbillyBob]

93. l can promise riots if they take what little those of us have via SS

nt

[indepat]

109. You mean sorta like we've been sucker-punched in both kidneys and temples, then slapped

silly and senseless? ;)

[Jackpine Radical]

126. Yeah, and now we're going to attack.

Millions of us geezers descending on Washington, armed with wheelchairs, walkers, canes and oxygen bottles, gasping out revolutionary slogans and wheezing out chants from Chicago '68. A terrifying sight, surely enough to make any politician's blood run cold with fear.

[NeoConsSuck]

141. Dead On !!

I always thought the same thing. There is a reason why corporate media was always treating him so well, while the knuckle draggers were screaming he was a socialist.

[Lorien]

44. They were already very comfortable and always will be. He's making them more

powerful and us less so. He's taking away our ability to survive into old age.

[somone]

83. Not great. Extragalactically outstanding.

[DJ13]

3. "No Democrats should defend such a thing."

No real Democrat WOULD propose, support, or defend the undoing of the New Deal, which is the center piece of Democratic leadership in the 20th century.

Sadly what passes for Democrats now more closely resembles moderate Rockefeller conservatives than FDR Democrats.

And that extends from a small town Mayor up to, and including, President Obama.

[whathehell]

14. +1000

[Raine]

29. EXACTLY nt

[defendandprotect]

54. Democratic Party label is not something we can automatically rely on any longer....

obviously, when we have a Democratic president undermining Social Security

and Medicare --

It was no simple fumble, either, re passing universal health care -- it was a

purposeful back room deal by Obama with Big Pharma -- to prevent Medicare

negotiation on drug prices -- and with private Health Care industry to assure

them that single-payer would be kept "off the table."

Americans are suffering because of the lack of health care -- and the costs of

health care insurance -- 76% and more of Americans wanted single-payer/government

run health care and this is how Obama responded!

[Ken Burch]

99. Rockefeller Republicans were SHARPLY TO THE LEFT of today's Democratic Party

Jacob Javits would NEVER support any attack on Social Security at all.

[StarsInHerHair]

137. what moderate Rockefeller would destroy Social Security?

No what we have in Obama's entire team is something worse.

[closeupready]

149. Sure, because DLC Democrats are all multi-millionaires.

Of course they are going to sound like the patricians they pretend to be, but mostly fail when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are.

[BzaDem]

4. Anyone who thinks the payroll tax holiday harms SS in any way is absolutely in denial.

So while I would agree with the title of your post, I think it applies to a different set of people than you do.

[TBF]

5. Now you are just flat out lying. Anything to get him re-elected I guess.

I pray for a primary challenge at this point.

[BzaDem]

11. The trust fund is not losing one penny from the payroll tax holiday.

Though don't worry -- it is very doubtful there will be a viable primary challenge.

[ooglymoogly]

72. we will make one nt

[lark]

84. Keep those eyes closed tight and the rose colored glasses on.

Don't think it will help in the long run when your social security is hauled out from underneath you by the Repugs acting in complicity with Obama and other DINO's. Of course, they will only do this to people under 65 or maybe even 60, so if you're over that you have nothing to worry about. It's everyone else that will have their money stolen and given to the rich and the oil/industrial/wall st/bankers oligarchs.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[StarsInHerHair]

138. I just add them to the ignore list, ugh, hideously stupid-just how does

reducing what's going into the SS trust somehow not reduce what's going into the SS Trust?

[closeupready]

150. I put that one on ignore last week, and glad I did now.

n/t

[FedUp_Queer]

89. Exactly.

Now tell us all why it it is "not losing one penny."

[Enthusiast]

117. Primary challenger or not,

I will vote for someone else. And I will work to educate other voters on the true nature of Obama.

[ooglymoogly]

130. Hell hath no fury like a grass root scorned.

Hey there's a bumper sticker in the making

[NeoConsSuck]

143. No problem. I'll just vote third party

wsws.org will announce their candidate in the near future.

[DeadEyeDyck]

13. Yes, this is pandering to the right

[NorthCarolina]

7. Proof?? or add "IMO" to your subject line. nt

[kelly1mm]

9. Shouldn't you do the same as to proof? If you think that replacing

the 2% from the "temporary" tax holiday with funds from general revenues does not inherently change the dynamic of SS from a user pays system to a redistribution of income system (not that that would be necessarily bad, just that it open it up to even more political attacks)then you are IMO, in denial of what the future holds for SS and the political reality of the past 30+ years.

[BzaDem]

15. Oh yeah, that's why SS is popular. Because of the routing number on the checks that fund it.

You do realize that most people don't have a CLUE how these funding mechanisms work?

What would happen if everyone paid the same 6.2% payroll tax, but then the government wrote a check to you each pay period equal to 2% of your pay as an additional tax cut? Would that similarly "change the dynamic of SS?"

[kelly1mm]

17. Do you really think that is how this is going to play out? Have you

not been paying attention to politics for the last 30+ years? Do you at least recognize how this shift in funding COULD be used to undermine the system by those who do have a clue and would love nothing more than to dismantle it? Under the payroll holiday as it is or under your proposal, the problem is not the cut and or rebate itself. It is, rather, that the reduction in funds from the rate cut and/or rebate will be replaced with funds from general revenue, opening up the program to claims that it is no longer an insurence/pension system but rather a welfare program. For someone who seems to follow this regularly I cannot imagine you don't see this danger.

[BzaDem]

18. Under my hypothetical, the tax cut comes from general revenue and not a penny gets diverted from the

trust fund. It is exactly like a flat 2% income tax cut.

I don't see how anyone could argue that this affects SS at all. It is literally a tax cut financed entirely by the general treasury. We're not talking about a reduction in the payroll tax -- we are simply talking about a rebate check every two weeks equal to 2 percent of one's income.

But that is exactly equivalent in dollar terms to what just passed.

I don't buy the "opening up the program to claims" argument. People are going to make whatever claims they want. The deficit commission already claims we need to reduce SS benefits to lower the deficit -- BEFORE the payroll tax cut was even proposed.

The determining factor is not whether claims are made. It is whether voters change their behavior based on those claims. And in this case, most people have NO idea we have a separate trust fund in the first place. How could such claims (which are ALREADY being made) matter if voters have no idea what they're talking about?

[kelly1mm]

20. If it was a 2% income tax prebate I supose that would be outside of

SS but would also be much more expensive as it would include all forms of income, no? Your proposal sounds like a cross between the Bush $600/$1200 stimulus and the MWPC that the payroll tax holiday is replacing. I know we are talking hypotheticals and all but thanks for expanding on that.

Where I disagree with you analysis is that while many have made arguments about cutting SS saying it was/is a welfare program, we were always able (up untill now) to say and prove that was not the case, that it is/was funded entirely from payroll taxes and thus, those recieving benefits payed for them. We have, in absolute terms, lost that argument and the moral highground that came with it.

[BzaDem]

21. I guess I just think the welfare program vs. not welfare program argument is an argument between a

tiny portion of the population who follows this stuff (like people who follow politics enough to be on DU). But this is a very small portion of the population.

Most people do not approve or not approve of Social Security because of its funding source, because most people have no idea what the funding sources are. Most people do not draw distinctions like we draw them. They approve of it because everyone gets its benefits (in approximate proportion to their income over their life). That's something they understand.

You are correct that the political viability might be affected if it were changed to a purely redistributive program (lower income people get the biggest benefits without paying anything in, richer people get no benefits after paying in a lot). But that would be because a huge group of people wouldn't be getting its benefits (and therefore would have no stake in the outcome of a debate about the survival of the program) -- not because of some artificial label assigned to the program. As long as the character of the program remains (in the sense that everyone who pays in gets some roughly proportional money out), I don't think the actual accounting mechanisms matter as much.

[kelly1mm]

22. OK, I understand your position and you are probably right, too much

"inside baseball" types of arguements that are not important to the majority of the populantion. Thanks for the good discussion! Goodnight!

[Hannah Bell]

27. it might not matter to mostbeneficiaries but it would certainly matter to those who pay the majority

share of income taxes, ie. the top 20%.

[defendandprotect]

56. 30 year right wing campaign to confuse the public re Social Security and how

it is financed has confused the public -- and the corporate-press has made

sure that those who don't understdand stay confused --

Social Security used to have advisors out speaking to the public -- usually

at their places of business -- so that everyone understood that it is an

"insurance" program for citizens. And, btw, an insurance program that would

be unreplaceable by any citizen via a private insurance company.

It isn't simply about retirement -- it's about supporting families when fathers

die -- it's about the disabled, etal.

Right wing propaganda does work -- especially when neither our corporate-press

nor Democrats respond to it to correct the confusion.

[jtown1123]

69. That's not true. People believe, rightfully so, SS is their money. They contributed & it belongs to

the people. This is why it is so popular.

[ooglymoogly]

74. 0 must be saying to himself...."thank god for my propagandists"

[BzaDem]

115. If you are referring to Obama when you say "zero," perhaps you are on the wrong message board?

You should check the URL bar in your browser.

[ooglymoogly]

124. Roit, roit, roit, Now just to wait for the tag team.

It seems on this post you are the square peg in a round hole.

[BzaDem]

140. Glad I could be of help pointing out those who use right-wing name-calling. n/t

[sirthomas66]

38. That would be different. That would NOT interrupt the intended

funding stream of the original program but it would give a tax cut paid for by general revenues. I hope to God people like you are in the front lines for Obama when the rage of the Democratic people marches and wheelchairs on him when the cut is announced. There will be blood everywhere, and even many former Democratic pacifists will be fighting arm-in-arm with both Republican and Independent retirees in the streets. The scream will be Cut My Lifeline and You're Gone! I fought for Obama when he was running but not anywhere near how I'll fight against him if he tampers with Social Security. We had our block discussion of this last night. Everyone is ready and EVERYONE will contribute to fight this horrible decision and the man behind it. And most are Democrats!

[defendandprotect]

59. Why aren't seniors protesting the end to COLA payments?

Isn't that the place to begin?

Seniors still seem not to be united except via AARP which is an insurance company --

If they get away with stopping the COLA payments, they are reducing Social Security --

every $1 anyone had pre-Bush is now worth about 50 cents --

they know that -- we all know that!

[sirthomas66]

67. My wife is a DON of a CNF and has been for 40 years. She says

they are afraid and think what they say is not important to the government. They don't have a voice, they say. In some countries as people get older, they are more respected. In this country they are treated like dog dirt. That is a good point you made about AARP. That is a strange relationship, between seniors and AARP, of which both my wife and I are members. AARP cares about money--that's pretty much it. They are associated with United Healthcare, which is in the top five of the worst insurance companies. I think getting pushed out into the water on a raft in the dead of winter may actually be kinder than what we do with seniors nowadays. The other thing about COLA is that it is inflation-adjusted, which is a tragic laugh. Because housing prices steep decline has kept inflation APPEAR low, it makes it look like everything is low, which is bullshit. Have you seen grocery prices. I have to pay $4.99 for my low carb cereal now, unless I go to Walmart, which I won't do since Homeland Security took it over. I'm telling you D&P, we had better get planning within or without DU, or we will be crushed.

[defendandprotect]

73. Thanks for the info ... though ...

don't know what "DON" or "CNF" stand for --

This government and GOP have always feared the rise of seniors -- problem seems to

be they are not united? Why the hell not?

Didn't know AARP was connected to United Healthcare!

COLA deal is just another part of the crime wave shooting through our economy/government.

If you are willing to shop at Whole Foods -- and many here don't like them any better than

Walmart -- they regularly put Arrowhead Cereals/organic bran flake type cereals --

Kamut and Mixed Grain -- on sale for 2 for $7 -- and sometimes 2 for $6 -- it's a regular

sized cereal box, not a small one.

[ooglymoogly]

75. They were behind the poison pill "Medicare part D" and heavily

pushed it because it benefited them; not by any stretch, their members.

[sirthomas66]

77. I know. Because of my wife's job, we discuss stuff like that

every night. You would not believe how crooked medicare is. And not just the government screwing the seniors, but the facilities screwing the government. I have actually seen copies of billing documents that are pure fantasy.

[ooglymoogly]

78. I was not speaking against medicare as a whole; every program has its cheaters.

I was speaking against AARP and the poison pill Medicare part D.

[sirthomas66]

79. Yes. I know. Sorry for the editorial.

[ooglymoogly]

125. No problem and welcome nt

[defendandprotect]

148. Medicare's main cheaters are pharmaceutical industry -- !! All of them!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

92. Another thing people confuse because they simply don't know is

Medicare and social security. They are not the same thing; however, because Republicans have duped the average American into hating any of the policies of the New Deal, you'll have seniors talking about how social security is broken and Medicare is no good.

People are actually being duped into arguing for and voting against their best interests.

This explains why their hatred for Obama and the Democrats in Florida led many of them to vote for Rick Scott, the very same guy who defrauded Medicare. And sure enough, he's another media darling and "rising star" in the GOP. :puke::puke::puke:

[Enthusiast]

120. Medicare is not crooked.

Doctors and the health care delivery system are engaging in fraud.

[sirthomas66]

131. Yes. I phrased that better, with poor reference to the subject of the

verb crooked. It is as you say. Charges to medicare may be as much as four to five times what they should be.

[sirthomas66]

76. Director of Nursing. Comprehensive Nursing Facility (Nursing Home)

[lark]

85. My mom and her friends are certainly complaining about COLA

or lack thereof. Of course, the media won't cover that, it doesn't fit in with their scenarios.

[ooglymoogly]

87. COLA and the assault on SS is why we lost MA. and in general

the entire last election. The liberals in the house were the only ones to keep their seats. The elderly vote from 50 on up is conveniently forgotten by media and the powers that be and that includes 0.

Unless we can primary 0 in the next election with someone who promises to restore SS to its hands off status the last election will pale in comparison to the slaughter of the next one. 0's cynical pitting the young against the old on SS is a lose, lose strategy for us if we do nothing about it.

[HillbillyBob]

103. The lack of cola has already affected me.

I am already about as frugal as can be. I WILL Not eat catfood.
Am I right they base that nonsense on stuff aside from food and fuel well those are the things that are going up. Gas around here is up by 70c a gallon to 310 regular last time I filled up, and kerosene since we are using that for heat because we cannot afford to get the central unit replaced and before it kicked it was too expensive to run. Kero went from 1.69 a gallon to 369 over the last 2 yrs. We are working to make the house more air tight and better insulated, but still have to have some kind of heat when it is getting down to 12 or 15 degrees at night.

I have written several lttes, directly to senators and rep about this and I get nice bland form letters back they dont give a fuck. Well the rep does and I sure will think hard about voting for Kay Hagan again.

[sirthomas66]

105. Sorry to hear that, Bob. As soon as the new year rolls, I'll be

out on the street organizing against Obama's destruction of Social Security. I'm sure I'll be in jail many times next year. Good luck to you.

[ooglymoogly]

113. I am sorry to hear of your circumstances

Have you checked into LIHEAP http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/ As you are on SS it would seem you qualify for a new heating plant + insulating your home and many other benefits relating to heat. Further you are eligible for food stamps and low income discounts on heat and electricity + a once a year grant of 800 to $1000 for heating costs. There is a fixed fee phone line called lifeline that you most likely are eligible for that is about $8 a month. These are the safety nets the pukes are trying to dismantle and tear down. It is these circumstances for which I worry most.

[StarsInHerHair]

147. Dept of Labor's Consumer Price Index CLAIMS cost-of-living hasn't risen

since 2008.......so NO SS cost-of-living raise for me.

[ooglymoogly]

111. Folks 50 and above are the largest and fastest growing demographic in the US

comprising well over 1/3 of the US population. This population comprises those nearing the age of retirement and those already there and will be further expanded by 2012. This is also the demographic that is more likely to vote. Less than 8% are wealthy beyond their homes and pensions. What do you suppose this will do to the 2012 elections visa vie the blatant and out and out assault on SS, the pensions and 401K's that have been pillaged and ravaged and ending up in the pockets of the rich.

[NorthCarolina]

37. I think you misread who I was responding to

I am absolutely against the 2% tax holiday for SS, and the mixing of SS revenues and the general fund. The poster I was responding to indicated that "anyone who thinks the tax holiday harms SS is in denial", and I was asking him/her for proof demonstrating that his assumption is true.

[salib]

36. Excuse me, but do you understand the meaning of the word "denial" here?.

Being In denial is a phrase used to describe those who insist upon something even though the recognized facts do not support it.

What does that have to do with a discussion of the 2 percent tax holiday? You guys had a discussion and informed each other of each person's "hypothetical". Again, who is in denial?

However, being in denial about the quite possible direction this SOTU speech could take and SS "reform", is truly dangerous.

[Ken Burch]

101. And with THAT, BzaDem starts the "gutting Social Security is no biggie" meme

We always knew you'd step up and fight for the corporate-Republican line, like with the tax surrender and like you will do with every other right-wing Obama choice.

If ANY change is made in Social Security, it will kill it.

[RetroLounge]

142. +1000

RL

[Jackpine Radical]

127. I have never seen the word "denial" used before

in such a precise instance of projection.

[OHdem10]

6. Can one call him/herself a Democrat and support such notions???

[defendandprotect]

60. The Democratic label now is only as good as the actions behind the label....

and as we can see from the things Obama has been doing since the election

labeling oneself a "New Democrat" seems to be a reversal of what the label

used to mean . . . ?!

[pa28]

8. Oh yeah, the deficit commission recs.

Maybe he's referring to Congresswoman Schakowsky (a member of the commission) who made an alternate recommendation which has exactly the same legitimacy as Simpson's unapproved document.

Schakowsky: With respect to Social Security, Schakowsky said today it made no sense to scale back the program.

"Addressing the Social Security issue as part of the deficit question is like attacking Iraq to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks," she said. "There is simply no relationship between the two and attempting to conflate them does a grave disservice to America's seniors. "With respect to Social Security, Schakowsky said today it made no sense to scale back the program."

I really hope I don't need to use the sarcasm tag here BTW.

In any case SS is just a side show here. The center of gravity that vested interests are paying attention to is the massive tax cut and net benefit the wealthy will receive while the rest of us "share sacrifice".

As your OP indicates. What the hell is a massive tax cut for the wealthiest doing in a deficit reduction plan? We need to question and criticize now because consensuses are being built and decisions are being made. Once this comes out in the President's SOTU it's going to be too late.

:grr:

[truedelphi]

16. Every word you write rings true.

Especially the outraged section about "What the hell is a massive tax cut for the wealthiest doing in a deficit reduction plan?"

I am afraid that the way things look, regarding our President and most of the Democrats in congress, is that anything that cheers up rich people is somehow and by definition something that "helps" reduce the deficit. I mean, all the jobs that will be created, right!?!

All this must have been laid out inside some sort of Dictionary of Economics written by Grover Norquist.

And while Jane Hamsher got criticised for her holding forth with Norquist on one solitary position, Obama and the other top Dems are using Norquist's playbook to define about every economic item coming from the WH and the halls of Congress.

The only time the necessity of doing some deficit cutting is brought up is when it applies to the Grover Norquist notion of drowning all social programs for average people in a bath tub.

[Enthusiast]

122. PLUS ONE! nt

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[OhioBlue]

19. Well, I will k&r for the effort and thought you put into the post

I do disagree with your assumptions... I think some of us can wait to see what the President's proposals are without being in denial.

[Kurovski]

23. Where's my guillotine?

I know I left that damn thing somewhere...

[eridani]

28. And the tumbrils have gone missing too n/t

[Kurovski]

42. I think they're now used in Afghanistan.

to cart around all those pallets of American cash.

[Sirveri]

24. Maybe he'll talk about the glass floor they wanted to set up for SSI dependents

The one that would have established a minimum payment of 125% above the poverty line for retirees.

[Hannah Bell]

26. ssi = supplemental security income & is welfare funded from the general budget, not social security.

not sure what the relevance is.

"retirees" don't get ssi unless they're indigent & have no other means of support. and typically are over 65.

[Sirveri]

34. My apologies, I meant Social Security. Source text below.

But thanks for letting me know what that acronym stood for, I always thought it meant Social Security Insurance. In any event I thought this particular recommendation was pretty freaking awesome, so I'm wondering which of the two guys put it forward.

RECOMMENDATION 5.2: REDUCE POVERTY BY PROVIDING AN ENHANCED MINIMUM
BENEFIT FOR LOW-WAGE WORKERS. Create a new special minimum benefit that
provides full career workers with a benefit no less than 125 percent of the poverty line in
2017 and indexed to wages thereafter.
Social Security reform must ensure that the program can continue to meet its basic mission:
to prevent people who can no longer work from falling into poverty. The Commission
recommends creating a new special minimum benefit which provides full-career (30-year)
minimum wage workers with a benefit equivalent to 125 percent of the poverty line in 2017
and wage-indexed thereafter. The minimum benefit would phase down proportionally for
workers with less than 30 but more than 10 years of earnings.

[CLANG]

68. This part is telling:

"Social Security reform must ensure that the program can continue to meet its basic mission:
to prevent people who can no longer work from falling into poverty."

Does this mean the only way we will get SS is if we are literally too old or sick to work? Does that mean I have to work until I'm disabled or dead?

[Sirveri]

152. Based on the rest of the proposal no.

Looking at the entire proposal it's kind of a mixed bag. I dislike where they wanted to set the bend points for the benefits, and also that they wanted to index retirement age to changes in life expectancy. But I do like the glass floor, the one time boost for people who make it to 85, the raising of the max limit for payroll tax withholdings, and the hardship exemption at 62.

[Jackpine Radical]

129. The confusion is natural since the program is administered by SocSec

but does not use SS funds. It is funded by separate legislation.

[eridani]

30. An expensive dressing does NOT make a poison ivy salad edible! n/t

[Hannah Bell]

25. i think the second half of his term is going to be all about deficit/debt.

no sticks left.

[niceypoo]

32. He has no interest in deficit reduction

If he did, he would not have extended the Bush tax cuts. The rich always get a pony and we pay for it under this guy.

[blindpig]

31. Perhaps....

the Democratic Party ain't what many liberals/progressives(and Freepers!) think it is. The temporary banner of the New Deal has been struck, it's back to business as usual. It is a matter of historical perspective.

[Hoyt]

33. So the bad recommendations will be enacted, and none of the good -- Public Option, military cuts,

Increases in SS benefits for low income workers, etc.

I think we better get working on the deficit and national debt. The Commission offered some proposals that should be considered -- many will be discounted/scrapped, others will be changed, still other ideas will be added. Well, let's hope something gets done, rather than just waiting until we do end up in panic mode and we have real reason to go apoplectic.

[fascisthunter]

35. I'd hope most were intelligent enough by now to Realize Obama will side with the rich Again

at the expense of the majority who isnt rich... ahhhh democracy: one person, one vote, equal representation

[Lorien]

46. His usual propagandsts are hoping that most here aren't at all intelligent enough

they have to work a lot harder these days to sell complete bullshit. Who are we supposed to believe? Them, or our lyin' eyes?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

39. You are so right, MF -

We have to be vigilant against tampering and LOUD in opposition. What scares the crap out of me is he will not need many Dems to pass such changes -- most of the GOPers and DLCers/Blue Dogs will gladly give him all the votes he needs to make devastating changes if he wishes. :( The liberals/progressives will be left out in the cold on this.

[sirthomas66]

40. Yes. The man has no respect or allegiance to Liberals and can get all

the votes he wants from the traitors in the party. BUT, many of us are workerbees and can stop many liberal votes for him from not only liberals but also center and right Democrats--and Indies. Once we let everyone know what is going down others will join us in great numbers. This will be our only vehicle with which to win. But here is going to be the big rub. Let's suppose we collectively determine that Obama is going to put the screws to Social Security. I mean more than now; I mean he actually states his plan. What happens on this board when we individually decide to do actions adverse to Obama and are summarily banned? I've wondered that for years, even before I started posting here. Suppose an issue came up so against Democratic principles that liberal Democrats would have to stage open rebellion against their Party. What would happen here?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

41. Banning.

It has happened already. :(

At some point everyone will have to decide whether they are big "D" or small "d" people and then act accordingly, regardless of the outcome.

[sirthomas66]

48. Roger that. That's how I'll proceed. Thanks for the honesty.

[defendandprotect]

61. Think DU has to decide what it is going to be about ... a party label or small "d" democracy ...???

[SidDithers]

43. You should have stopped with "So we will wait and see"...nt

Sid

[madfloridian]

47. No, I should not have stopped there at all.

If they were not planning harm, someone would have spoken out.

And their use of the "shared sacrifices" tells me all I need to know.

There is a time and place to stop defending and start questioning.

I am fighting against many of the same things now that Obama is president that I did when Bush was president. Now that is scary.

[Dawgs]

53. Is that how we fight for what we want?

Especially when one of our leaders is hinting about doing something so hurtful? "wait and see"?

Okay. Good plan.

[defendandprotect]

62. A large number of Democrats in Congress warned Obama in a statement

that if he plans harm to Social Security they will fight him --

However, haven't heard much about that recently -- that was two months or so ago.

Corporate money has a way of creating silence!!

[xchrom]

45. recommend

[JDPriestly]

49. Goodbye Obama. This is the end of any semblance of

a presidency you ever had.

These are draconian measures. Too broad a cut of the American people will suffer from this. There are just too many of us who rely on Social Security for our bread and butter.

Change America's trade policy, not its Social Security policy.

Stop importing.

Stop outsourcing.

[defendandprotect]

63. ... and stop the wars and warmongering bankrupting the nation for imperialism...!!

[earcandle]

50. Perhaps they want the intelligent class, the well educated class to die out sooner?

Those of us that were invested in from 1950 to 1970... will
our world collapse for us? 

[bobthedrummer]

51. I'm not in denial that we, the small people are living in A CULTURE OF DEATH-k&r n/t

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Phlem]

55. But, But, But

He passed the repeal of DADT, and a whole bunch of other legislation the we see being paraded around here like a list of trophies. He's perfect! Everything's just fine! Don't mess with the color of the sky in my world!!! :sarcasm:

-p

[BrklynLiberal]

57. Pessimists do get as disappointed as optimists..

I am hoping for the best..but...trying to prepare for the worst.

[Jakes Progress]

58. La la la la la la. They can't heaaaaarrrrrr yyyyyoooouuuuu.

[grahamhgreen]

64. The obvious solution is to increase the cap on SS, and

return to the tax rates on the rich that we had in the fifties - when the country was in it's hay day economically.

Also, I'd like to be able to put my 401k monies into SS, for an increased guaranteed return.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. Raising the cap on SS is something that I heard Obama say repeatedly during the campaign.

If he did that, it would solve many of the issues, perceived and real.

[Raksha]

133. Yes, raising the cap is the logical thing to do,

which is EXACTLY why they won't do it. They will try like hell to avoid even discussing it. Raising the cap will be "off the table," and anyone who even tries to raise the issue on the talk shows will get shouted down. Just wait and see if I'm not right! Us little people and seniors aren't dying fast enough to suit the PTB.

[Overseas]

65. I agree. But I still want to pretend that my Democrats would never do that.

Even though I've already experienced many deep disappointments.

Surely not! Surely not! -- that's what my heart says, even after seeing the committee recommendations that are so very Republican. Why would Democrats participate in ripping holes in our social safety net when millions are unemployed, being evicted and uninsured?

And the answer seems to be that multinational corporations are more powerful than national governments these days, as they demonstrated by funding tea party clone groups to distort public dissatisfaction to be against government instead of the great failures of privatization and deregulation.

[defendandprotect]

82. What you're seeing is the results of corporations infiltrating Dem Party over last 40 years ....

and more -- they didn't do that so things would remain the same!!

We have been given candidates over last decades who were more and more to the right --

until now we're pretty much the right wing party -- and GOP is the radical right wing party!

It's also the result of 40 years and more of pre-bribed and pre-owned candidates!!

[sabrina 1]

66. No real Democrat would tamper with SS nor would they

support the lie that SS has anything to do with the Deficit.

Maybe this will be the test needed to identify those who really are Democrats and those who are not.

Thank you for your post, madfloridian. At least they should know we will not be fooled no matter what nice words they use.

[ooglymoogly]

70. KR. Though you are going a little too easy on 0.

He has orchestrated this, and you have forgotten he has already taken half a trillion (about 1/4) of the SS trust fund to pay for the bogus Wealthcare boondoggle. This is about as dangerous a man to the Democrats as could be imagined. He is Bush heavy and flying under the Democratic flag and unless countered, he will destroy the Democratic party. He is a disciple of the loopy simpleton Milton Friedman who ushered in RR and brought the neocons to prominence and who is the excuse and panacea for criminal greed and trickle down; who has been proven wrong so many times it is sickening and downright scary that we as a nation can never learn.

[defendandprotect]

81. Obama turns out to be pretty much "just the opposite" ... !!!

[nckjm]

86. The Future of Death Panels

No job
No unemployment
No health insurance
No social security
No Medicare
No Medicaid
Mortgage interest deduction gone
Home equity gone
Pensions gone
401K turned to ashes
Work till 70 years old

Just a long, miserable "waiting for death"...empty, staring ahead.

A government provided "end of life" counseling session...which would you prefer - death by starvation? death by untreated disease? Hypothermia, perhaps; it feels just like going to sleep. Please let your family know your preference.

Or perhaps, just a block of ice...

A future no one would have imagined.

A future already in the house. In the closet. Waiting. Don't close your eyes.

[Raksha]

134. I guess a lot of people would call that post paranoid.

I'm not one of them...I call it prophetic. I'm on a SS widow's pension which is currently my sole source of income. I should have seen the writing on the wall when I didn't get a COLA two years in a row, because food and fuel costs aren't figured into inflation. Maybe I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but I sure as hell see the writing on the wall now. And I'm scared...really scared. And very, very angry!

[Karmadillo]

88. Are we willing to make him pay a price commensurate with the damage he is doing? If not,

we are complicit.

[MessiahRp]

90. If he talks about cutting SS benefits or making dramatic changes to it at SOTU he's DOA in 2012

His poll numbers will drop 15-20% overnight if he is idiotic enough to do that (and considering his Right Wing alignment on propping up public over private institutions, I don't doubt this as a possibility at all) and he'll never recover. And frankly if he wants to do this, he should just up and find a new party to back him because then he will be wide open for a primary whipping.

The blindly loyal that say his weak action on HCR and the Tax Cuts are not long term issues and think the man is teflon are in for a RUDE awakening when they see the public repudiate him for going after the third rail, Social Security.

Rp

[Little Star]

95. Don't worry, he'll use double speak that will allow people....

denial. I don't trust him and I don't trust congress either.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

91. I'm not in denial. And I ain't making excuses. I simply wish to WAIT and see

what is actually being proposed before becoming hysterical.

I just think it's nuts to believe that the Democratic Party would go along with a "sinister" president who promises cuts to social security. I can't see the party going for that. And if they do, it's not only about Obama; it's about the entire Democratic Party and I will no longer be a Democrat. That's for sure.

However, I honestly believe that the hatred shown to this president is taking its toll on this forum. Day in and day out there's something else.

Why not wait and see what's being put on the table rather than resort to hyperbolic assertions about this or that.

Let's see what's on the table, then blow a gasket if there is a proposal to cut social security (other than what the commission recommended). I just don't believe it and I won't until I SEE it with my own two eyes.

(And please. No lectures. And don't send me the commission report, either. I have it. And in fact, my students and I have discussed the recommendations at length, with a few of them writing about several of the recommended cuts.)

[hulka38]

94. Why wait at all?

Why not simply admit to yourself now that whatever justification they give will be good enough for you?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. Because that's not how I operate. Sorry. I don't do knee-jerk reactions

without having understood why I'm jerking in the first place.

I want to see the plan first! You can go crazy all you want. Threaten to vote against Obama. Whatever you choose. It's still a free country. Do you! This is how I choose to deal with this situation. This is not Freeperville where we all think and act alike just because we're members of the same political party.

I think my own thoughts. I walk my own walk. If I don't want to freak out like the rest of you, then you'll have to deal with it.

Call me all kinds of names, flame away, whatever you want. I'm not going down this road until I see what's being proposed.

[madfloridian]

100. Why so angry?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

104. I'm angry? Projection, much? You started a thread that demeans

anyone who doesn't think and react or agree with you, and I'm angry?

Wow, you sure do have nerve.

Your arguments would have had more bite and credibility to them had you presented them in such a way that didn't offend others on this forum.

But what happens is that the way you presented the argument, the tone of your OP, turns off those who would have ordinarily been open to hearing what you had to say.

I'm not angry. The anger is coming from your side. In fact, the anger has been on DU for many, many months now.

Every little thing that is stated by the administration or Democrats; every little story or non-issue is blown up 100 times over on this forum.

No, I'm not angry. I'm trying to be reasonable. I'm even open to hearing what you have to say, but the way that you presented that information turned me off.

[madfloridian]

108. There was nothing "demeaning" in my post. Your anger is your own problem, not mine.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

110. And how you choose to deal with this issue is yours. I'm not angry.

In fact, I'm quite happy. I don't get angry from what's posted on a message board.

[hulka38]

106. You're ascribing behavior

like "crazy", "freak out", "flame", "hysterical" and ready to "blow a gasket" onto me and I guess others in just the two posts that I've read. I just want to tell you that I'm feeling quite calm right now and I haven't seen anyone behaving remotely the way you describe. It doesn't seem like a very measured and calculating way of operating. If you're looking for knee jerk and hyperbole you may want to hold up a mirror.

[madfloridian]

97. Your reply seems to imply I am not as knowledgeable as you are.

I would really really hate to think you meant that.

In fact it IS the Democratic party with the think tanks leading it that have been proposing private accounts for years...and this seems the first step in that direction.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

102. Interesting. That is exactly what you are doing in your OP. Anyone who doesn't

react the way you think she ought to is in denial. You have no idea how arrogant and demeaning that sounds. So, my response to you is this: don't come at me with this high and mighty attitude that if I don't react the same way, something is wrong with me; or, I'm misinformed; or an "Obamabot" or whatever.

I choose to deal with this situation as I see fit. I don't need to be ridiculed because I'm not blowing a gasket on a freaking forum.

I'm merely sticking up for those of us who don't disagree and who think that this OP is very condescending.

Again, this is not Freeperville. We don't all agree. We don't all think, act and speak alike.

You and others on this thread feel the way you go. Fine. But don't be condescending to others who aren't reacting like you think we ought to be reacting.

[madfloridian]

107. Wow.

Very sad reply that we have come to this.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

112. If that's how you want to view it, then perhaps so. We don't see eye to eye

on this issue, so I guess there's nothing left to do but to agree to disagree.

[Kurovski]

114. The fact that you perceive dissent or disagreement as "hatred"

leads me to question the accuracy of your perceptions overall. Hatred has very clear tags, disagreement is not one of them, no matter that you may choose to ascribe those motivations to another DUer. It is in fact against the rules to designate that as a motivation in an argument or discussion, not the least of the reasons being that it is counter-productive.

It is also manipulative bullying. It is employed by the right-wing and was used during BushCo's disastrous intrusion on America. It is designed to shut down discussion. It is designed to create group-think. It is just...terrifically ugly...and I will continue to alert on it whenever I see it.

What would be worse is if it was a calculated attempt on your part, and not just merely an inability to discern actual hatred.

Do you understand the difference between the the DLC and the DNC? Do you recall the line of Howard Dean about which wing of the party he represents?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[sulphurdunn]

118. "I think the president put his trust in the wrong people,..."

No. The president is one of the wrong people.

[Poboy]

121. Your reply got in just before mine, so I will just say again, I agree.

He is in on it.

[ooglymoogly]

123. +1 you beat me to it

[Hannah Bell]

132. furthermore, they're all the wrong people.

[Poboy]

119. "I think the president put his trust in the wrong people"

I think you're pulling punches a bit here, as I think you too intelligent, and the president too slick, to truly believe HE is the one who got flim-flammed.

[ooglymoogly]

128. And again rightly put. nt

[StarsInHerHair]

135. looks like suicide may be the only way out to avoid homelessness if SSI

or regular SS is cut.

[Still a Democrat]

136. Again, some don't understand political reality

A commission made up of just liberals making liberal recommendations would be dismissed by Republicans. They control the House, and the Senate margin is thin. The President can't simply declare what will and won't be changed.

Let's see how dramatic changes will be. But it's pretty clear to me Democrats will be fighting to minimize those changes, and we need to direct our venom and pressure toward the Republicans.

[4dsc]

139. Weak leadership at its finest. nt

[DeadEyeDyck]

144. It is as simple as Payments in less that Payments Out n/t

[upi402]

146. Rich folks are off the FICA hook after $107K a year income

If we just ended the tax break for the rich in just this one loophole alone, things would be better. Just like the Bankruptcy law and EVERYTHING else - it's warr on the middle class.

So I need to find a way to make $106,800 a year so I get a damn break? I guess we don't need a break when we make crap wages.

[sulphurdunn]

151. I guess the payroll deduction

reduction is a much bigger deal for rich people and big employers than it is for working people. Gee! Imagine that!

[RetroLounge]

145. K&R

:hi:

RL

[lonestarnot]

153. Looks like already a done deal. 2% reduction announced. It's done.

[upi402]

154. End the FICA CAp tax break for the rich!

:patriot: :kick:

[woo me with science]

155. Recommended earlier. Kicking now. nt