Strong indications that Obama really does want to cut Social Security benefits

[brentspeak]

Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), head of the House Democratic Caucus, is actually forced to demand that the leader of the party not work with the GOP to cut benefits.

The New York Times editorial board also understands what's going on: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/opinion/sunday/misguided-social-security-reform.html?_r=0

[Buzz Clik]

1. No quotes from Obama saying,...

..."I want to cut Social Security benefits"? No?

[Enrique]

2. no, he doesn't say it like that

the republicans don't say it like that either

[Buzz Clik]

3. We just assume the worst.

[bvar22]

5. The President has stated unequivocally the Social Security has NOTHING to do with The Deficit!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[MannyGoldstein]

22. But that was a more liberal president.

So it doesn't count.

[bvar22]

28. America was a much more Liberal country way back then.

Now, they say we are a conservative nation,
and, in a democracy, our national leadership must reflect those conservative values,
and we, as good Democrats, must support our Party Leadership
without regard to our personal values no-matter-what...., or we get Romney,
or something like that.

Somebody explained that to me on DU not so long ago.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around that and get with The Program,
but I can't quite get the hang of it.





[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[MannyGoldstein]

29. More than two-thirds of Americans don't want to cut Social Security

About two-thirds want Medicare for all.
More than two-thirds want to raise the minimum wage.
More than two-thirds think the rich should pay much higher taxes.

We're a Liberal nation. But we have right-wing elected officials.

[bvar22]

33. No, No...That can't be it.

You're just trying to confuse me with Right Wing Talking Points like these:

* 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

* 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

* 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

* 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/


...but, you see,
all those facts and figures are just like the dinosaur bones.
Those were put there by Ralph Nader to test our blind faith.

You have just got to believe that America IS a Conservation Nation,
and then it all makes perfect sense.

[NashvilleLefty]

4. Yes, they do. nt

[Enrique]

6. Paul Ryan says he wants to save Medicare and Social Security

they all do:

“Our plans actually save these programs, they make no changes for people in or near retirement, they strengthen Medicare and Social Security for a generation,” Ryan said.

[truebluegreen]

7. And, certainly, if a politician doesn't say it in so many words

he can't possibly mean it.



For me personally it is a huge red flag when a spokesperson says "We have no intention of SLASHING benefits." Edited to add: A chained-CPI cost-of-living increase to Social Security payments sounds like a little thing, and maybe do-able and Obama keeps shopping it around--on his own initiative. In reality it appears to be a quick and easy but massive cut to the Federal budget (Savings!), even tho SS doesn't add a penny to the deficit and is solvent for decades.

Sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Like Obama, and some posters on this topic.

*edited for clarity

[TheProgressive]

10. Social Security is *not* Federal Spending

We, American workers, pay every cent of Social Security. We pay the benefits and the cost to administer the program.

So, I ask, why does our government think we want less of our money?

[truebluegreen]

11. I believe I said that.

So if you want to ask, ask the government, not me.

[TheProgressive]

23. 'In reality it appears to be a quick and easy but massive cut to the Federal Budget"

I was keying off the statement about the 'massive cut the federal budget'.

Social Security is not in the Federal Budget and therefore must not be considered
federal spending.

[truebluegreen]

24. "must not be" is not the same as "isn't"

Oh, it is to you and to me, but not to those who are sniffing around SS cuts as a way of cutting the deficit. That was actually my point.

[TheProgressive]

25. News media, pundits, and politicians all use 'government spending'

Yes, words do matter, and their phraseology of gov spending is
pur propaganda.

So, TrueBlueGreed, I was just emphasizing that SS isn't gov spending. That;s all!

Regards.

[99Forever]

18. Yeah, sure...

... because a politician wouldn't EVER spin their words to avoid actually saying what they really are planning to do....

[indepat]

8. I never dreamed BHO wanted to cut Social Security benefits until Messrs.

Bowles, Simpson, et al were picked for a commission to do just that while doing nothing substantial to reduce the Federal debt or eliminate the gross unfairness/inequities in the tax code.

[Autumn]

9. I never believed Obama wanted to cut Social Security benefits until he offered the pukes

the chained CPI. When SS has NOTHING to do with the deficit. And now I sure don't trust him on SS in any way, shape or form.

[truebluegreen]

12. +100 nt

[indepat]

14. Bho imo seems to have gone further to promote bi-partisanship than anyone in my memory

although Rethugs have figuratively knifed him in the back and pissed on him at every turn notwithstanding he, imo, has governed from right of center from day one, continuing junior's wars and most of his policies, tax cuts, non-prosecution of bankstars, et al. That said, I support BHO a 100 to one over any Rethug, now or since Ike.

[forestpath]

15. Neither do I.

[Robb]

13. This time, for sure.

I mean, when has the New York Times editorial board ever gotten it wrong?

[pasto76]

16. oh jesus here we go again

please. find something else

[Comrade_McKenzie]

17. ...

[Number23]

32. I second your snoring man

Everything about this thread is so predictable. The OP, the people rec'ing, even the tired vaudeville at the top of the thread between the same usual actors trying to convince somebody (ANYBODY) that they know what the hell they're talking about. As if we haven't heard this BS before and that it wasn't dead wrong the first 100 times.

Definitely - worthy.

[KittyWampus]

19. Strong Indication That Some Elements Want To Attack/Disrupt The Left From The Left

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022185393

[MannyGoldstein]

20. This president has a fetish for cutting Social Security

Whether it's appointing Tony Soprano to guard the cash register Simpson and Bowles to lead a commission on cutting government spending, or having Timmy Geithner make absurd assumptions about future GDP and productivity in order to show that Social Security will pay reduced benefits several decades from now, or making up fabulous tales of how Social Security did not start as a program for retirees, or all of the other stuff, it's pretty clear he's got a compulsion to deliver the Trust Fund to Pete Peterson and the rest of the Predator Class.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Beccara is an un-serious Firebagger who doesn't understand politics

and the New York Times are terrorist radicals who want to burn it all down!!!

Nothing but EmoProgs trying to hurt OUR President and paint Democrats as the same as Republicans!!!

How many times is this? Dontcha ever get sick of being wrong? Social Security hasn't been cut! If a President was trying cut Social Security they would! President Bush wasn't trying to privatize Social Security, that was mad chess skills, son! If he was REALLY trying to do it, it would have been done. He was just playing Lucy to the real privatizer's Charlie Brown, see.

[patrice]

26. Well, indetrminate means that either eventuality is EQUALLY probable.

[Demo_Chris]

27. To understand who Obama works for look at what he has already done.

For example, Obamacare. Or if that's too complicated and you are still buying into the spin, look at how he handled the Deepwater Horizon.

[ProSense]

30. "That is not to say that Social Security should be off the table. "

That is not to say that Social Security should be off the table. There are reforms that are eminently sensible, if only the political will could be found to enact them. But reducing the COLA is not a sound idea now and may never be...the Bureau of Labor Statistics develop a statistically rigorous index to track inflation as experienced by retirees. A more informal index from the bureau that looks at the effects of inflation on the elderly shows that the COLA is too low, not too high, in part because of medical costs. But the number of households sampled is too small to be sure.

A rigorous index would settle the issue of whether the current COLA adjustments are high, low or about right. The fact that some policy makers are willing, even eager, to move ahead with changing the COLA without having developed a more reliable gauge only feeds the impression that they are trying to get away with an unjustified benefit cut.

In the meantime, there are other, well-researched reforms to Social Security that the administration and other policy makers could pursue. For instance, it is well understood that upper-income people live longer than the less affluent. The formula for determining Social Security benefits could be gradually and modestly adjusted to reflect those longer lives, while making the system more progressive and cutting spending. Another sensible reform would be to raise the level of wages currently subject to the Social Security payroll tax, so that it better reflects the income gains of top earners over the past several decades.

What's the point of this editorial?

No, Social Security should "should be off the table." Any discussion about strengthening the program should be separate from deficit negotiations and should never be mentions in terms of "cutting spending."

If they're going to mess with COLA, it should be result in an increase in benefits. They NYT is suggesting raising the age for high-income earners is a good proposal?

One thing everyone agrees with is that raising the cap makes sense.

[greatauntoftriplets]

31. Predictable....

[kentuck]

34. The President could alleviate these concerns....

...if he wanted to.

He is taking the left for granted.