The president said it again: Our problem is with Social Security and Medicare.

[jsr]

It's not the short-term deficits, it's long-term obligations like Social Security and Medicare.

He just said it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. So, it's obvious that we still have some major work to do here.

He is wrong about these.

VERY.

[randome]

4. He's right about the projected expenditures.

The question is can we get taxes or the contribution rate raised to deal with it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[leftstreet]

12. Expenditures from rich people raiding it?

Maybe they could start paying back what they've taken?

[randome]

15. The 'raiding' is only on paper but you're right, it should never be used for ANYTHING else.

It was supposed to be a 'locked box'. But health insurance is projected to be a major concern so raising taxes in some way seems like the easiest and fairest way to take care of that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[leftstreet]

18. You have to buy your own insurance. It's not Medicare

Less than 20% of Americans will be accessing the exchanges - fewer than that will qualify

The ACA is a program for purchasing insurance. It's not nonprofit Medicare

[randome]

23. But the President was talking about SS and Medicare.

That's what needs to be 'fixed' as in raising taxes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[leftstreet]

25. Yes. You brought up private insurance

saying they'd need to raise taxes

I didn't understand the correlation

But the President is wrong, SS and Medicare don't need to be 'fixed' as they are self-funding and separate from the almighty budget. Rich people need to start paying back what they've 'borrowed' and learn to keep their hands off it in the future

[randome]

28. I meant 'health insurance' as in Medicare, not ACA.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

But I do think SS and Medicare are projected to be paying out more than they take in so raising the FICA cap or raising taxes some other way seems to be the best way to take care of that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[bornskeptic]

45. Medicare is not self-funded and never was.

The Medicare portion of payroll taxes only goes toward Part A(hospital) coverage. Enrollee premiums only cover around a third of the cost of Part B (medical) coverage. The rest is paid from the general fund, which also contributes to Part D (prescription drug) coverage. While Part A is entirely paid from the trust fund and current Medicare tax, the trust fund will be empty in a decade or so unless something is done about it.

[RebelOne]

53. We Medicare recipients are paying for it.

I pay $105 a month and that just covers Parts A and B.

[Yo_Mama]

101. Both programs are running a cash flow deficit.

2026 is the current exhaustion date for the HI fund. That depends on continued cuts to benefits, so it is not clear it will last that long.

DI is going to be exhausted in 2016, at which time the current belief is that they will move money from the SS trust fund to keep funding DI. If they do not do that, people receiving disability benefits will have cuts of 15% or more by the end of 2016.

If they do that, the SS trust fund will be exhausted in 2033. Or thereabouts.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

But the central point is that when trust fund assets are "tapped" to pay on these programs, what actually happens is that debt which was not marketed before has to be issued on the market. Right now the Fed is buying the debt, but it cannot continue to do this for 20 years. 4

This is beginning to add up fast.

[sabrina 1]

34. No he is not. SS has enough revenue to cover its obligations, thanks to the American Working Class

who own that fund, to for the next 30 years or more without doing anything, even under these worst of economic circumstances.

We the People are Creditors of the US Govt. No amount of pretending that the US Govt DOESN'T owe the American Workers who lent them over Two Trillion Dollars to pay for their Gambling Debts, their illegal Wars and the egregious Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, is going to work. THAT is what the Tea Party wants, and they are going to have one hell of a fight trying to get it. From the people. And any politician who caters to their criminal attempts to turn that loan into theft from the people, will find themselves in the same position any politician who ever tried, including Bush, found themselves in.

It has been interesting watching all of this. How we see that Dems can STAND UP and refuse to COMPROMISE when they want to. I can't wait to see the same backbone now when the real reasons for all of this become clear. They will, I am sure, REFUSE to compromise on this most important issue, SS.

No Chained CPI for them now. Obama has shown he doesn't need to compromise at all. And on SS he will have a vast majority of the population behind him when he explains the FACTS about SS to the public and exposes their REAL goals here, to implement AUSTERITY and cut benefits when in reality we need to INCREASE benefits, and force the Govt to pay its debt to the SS fund as it plans to do with all of its other creditors.

Enough of these centrist lies about SS. I am thrilled to see the opposition already in place to any hint of trying to use SS as part of the Deficit debate. SS did NOT contribute to the Deficit and does not belong in any discussion ABOUT the Deficit.

[JEB]

54. Yeah, what Sabrina said. Could not agree more.

Don't attack or steal SS.

[duffyduff]

97. He doesn't know what he is talking about, only repeating what his puppetmaster Peter J. Peterson

tells him to say.

Stay the fuck away from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and yes, public education.

[Enthusiast]

117. PLUS ONE!

Well said.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

129. He has never supported raising the cap. Not once!

[randome]

130. Well, he should.

And if a sizeable dent in the GOP has been made because of the shutdown (which we won't find out about until 2014), then maybe that will be a viable option.

There is nothing to be gained by railing for a raise in the cap when you know it has no chance of surviving. There is only political capital to be needlessly wasted.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[AnotherMcIntosh]

133. No he shouldn't. That would be a betrayal of the rich and the trickle-down theory.

[randome]

135. Betray away!

They'll get over it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

140. Pssst, not everything is about 'political capital'. In fact to a vast majority

of the people in this country, it is so minor an issue that if you were to approach one of them with THAT as an excuse for NOT doing what is the right thing to do for the benefit of the people, they would think you landed from another planet.

I keep seeing this being tossed around.

Here, let me explain. When someone is elected to Congress their job is to represent the people's interests. Their goal should be to go there for TWO YEARS and do the very best job they can EVEN IF IT MEANS staying for only one term.

Nowhere in the job description does it say 'they need to work on preserving political capital so they can keep their job, no matter how badly they do it, for another term'. The fact that this IS what most of them do is WHY they are among the most unpopular entities in the country.

So, supposing we ignored the partisans, the political operatives, the 'inside DC' crowd who have failed so miserably, who have proven how WRONG they are over and over again, and began doing things in the NORMAL way, someone get a job, they do the job. No Think Tank lingo, which is so stale and meaningless at this point it really is time to toss in the nearest dumpster.


Here's what will happen. When people see someone actually fighting for them and their interests, when they begin to see small improvements in their lives, when they see corruption being addressed rather than bailed out, when they see programs like SS OFF THE TABLE with no excuses, they will reelect those who do the job they were sent to do.

We haven't tried that yet, we've been fed all this inside the beltway garbage about 'political capital' and 'political strategy' etc and it has failed miserably for a vast majority of ordenary people.

The ONLY capital that matters or should to an elected Rep is to do his/her job for the people, honestly and with integrity and zero concern for the ramblings of political operatives who serve no purpose whatsoever for anyone but themselves.

Time to try something new. Elected officials doing their jobs for the people not their corporate sponsors. It just might catch on after a while.

[NCTraveler]

2. Link.

I missed it. Those are words that should never come out of a democrats mouth.

[jsr]

8. A transcript should be available shortly.

[NCTraveler]

14. Thank you.

At work and miss a lot during the day. I would like to see the way he worded it. It wouldn't be the first time he mentioned these programs as if they were broken. When entitlement reform comes up, the opposition is going to be able to use the leader of the democratic partys own words to bolster their case.

[jsr]

24. Here is a link to what he just said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-oct-17-remarks-on-shutdown-deal/2013/10/17/3eff02b6-3738-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html

There's a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes affect how lot of members of Congress see the day-to-day work that's supposed to be done here...

Let me be specific about three places where I believe we can make progress right now.

First, in the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, a budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further. At the beginning of this year, that's what both Democrats and Republicans committed to doing. Senate passed a budget. House passed a budget. They were supposed to come together and negotiate. And had one side not decided to pursue a strategy of brinksmanship, each side could have gotten together and figured out how do we shape a budget that provides certainty to businesses and people who rely on government, provides certainty to investors and our economy, and we'd be growing faster right now.

Now, the good news is the legislation I signed yesterday now requires Congress to do exactly that, what it could have been doing all along. And we shouldn't approach this process of creating a budget as an ideological exercise, just cutting for the sake of cutting. The issue's not growth versus fiscal responsibility. We need both. We need a budget that deals with the issues that most Americans are focused on, creating more good jobs that pay better wages.

And remember, the deficit is getting smaller, not bigger. It's going down faster than it has in the last 50 years. The challenge that we have right now are not short-term deficits; it's the long-term obligations that we have around things like Medicare and Social Security.

[sabrina 1]

39. Great, it was expected. So here's the obligation they have around 'things' like Medicare and SS'.

They need to make sure that the US Govt honors its obligation to REPAY the TWO TRILLION DOLLARS it owes to the SS FUND.

They need to refuse any COMPROMISE to Centrists, TP morons et al regarding any cuts, Chained CPIs etc that any of them have the gall to even suggest.

SS is fine.

Raise the cap.

End the wars and stop borrowing to pay for them.

End the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy.

RAISE SS BENEFITS to ensure the fund goes to those who own. This would create a stimulus to the economy without costing the Fed Fund anything.

I hope this is what he means when he talks about 'obligations around things like SS'.

[KoKo]

80. Who knows what he means it changes..but, Recommend. The fix

is Simple they carry on because the Heritage Group and Petersen Foundation want it ended.

Obama takes the middle. He waits to see what they will do and if the "Lefte that he always disses at every time he has a chance will MOBILIZE and STOP HIM!

OMG...it get's so tiresome. If so many of our lives were not at stake I'd pull covers over my head and get under the bed until it was safe to come out.

Which probably means I'd die under that bed waiting.

[NCTraveler]

116. Excellent post. I agree 100%.

"SS is fine. Raise the cap."

While I disagree with some things Obama has said about SS in the past, this is something he should be able to get behind.

[DCBob]

42. For sure there are challenges with long-term obligations regarding medicare and ss.

any idiot knows that. The numbers simply dont look good long term and the solutions wont be easy and will be very hard to get any agreement across the aisles or even within the aisles.

[haikugal]

3. Great...

here it comes. Nothing about the billions we spend on the MIC, right.

[newfie11]

17. +infinity

[Scuba]

20. + another infinity

[Myrina]

30. and nothing about the 1% and corporate tax dodgers shortchanging the country ...

ARGH!

The Grand Bargain truly IS what he wants.

[Enthusiast]

118. It's never mentioned.

Even though there is no justification for a military a fraction of its present size.

[LondonReign2]

5. As Denis Leary would say, Two Words:

Raise Fucking Taxes

Problem solved

[awake]

6. He said that because we need to insure that these programs get stronger

We can improve Social Security and Medicare without destroying them, let us not be afraid

[sabrina 1]

41. SS is one of the strongest Fiscal programs we have right now. All it needs to ensure it remains

that way is for the Govt to end the outsourcing of jobs, to create new jobs, to raise the cap so that everyone is paying into it. But even without all that, the SS has shown a surplus every year even during these awful economic times.

So why is THIS the issue the president chooses to mention when there are actual economic problems such as the egregious amounts of money this country has thrown away in Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other secret wars we are funding around the globe?? This makes zero sense if the Budget is what they are trying to address. The SS Fund is NOT party of the General Fed Budget. Therefore it should not be a part of this discussion other than to acknowledge the Two Trillion Dollars the Fed Govt borrowed for its wars and needs to pay back.

[progressoid]

7. Grrrrr

[L0oniX]

9. Well if you are planning on giving away more jobs then the tax revenue will continue to drop.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

10. It's an excellent speech, meant to unite. Getting pissed defeats the point. nt

[awake]

11. Thats right he is being the President of all of america not just us here

[BluegrassStateBlues]

26. Yep. This OP is divisive and part of the problem. nt

[magical thyme]

27. there is good reason to be concerned.

he very specifically put social security and medicare up for grabs. Everything up to that point and after those 2 sentences was spot on.

He very specifically talked about caring for children and other vulnerable dependents. He left the elderly off the initial list, and then fumbled and garbled his words about caring for the elderly. I mean that literally. When somebody is speaking clearly, and then suddenly stumbles over their words due to their mouth tightening and freezing up, it tells me there may be an internal conflict between what they think and what they are having a hard time saying.

If he had a track record of supporting lifting the cap that would be one thing. He does not. He has very clear and very consistant about favoring cutting Social Security benefits through chained CPI.

[GreenPartyVoter]

103. +1

[Enthusiast]

119. +2

[fredamae]

128. +3 Nailed it! n/t

[stillwaiting]

131. +4 nt

[KoKo]

60. Not reallly...He chastised "extremists in both parties"....Dissed Bloggers and Media.

Pretty divisive from what I heard. I'd like to hear his definition of what "Extremists on the Left" stand for. What policies do they have that make them Extreme? Is he talking about the Progressive Caucus in the US House? Are those the extremists?

Why is it that he always puts the Left of the Dem Party in the same sentence as the Right of the Repug Party? He does this in most of his Press Conferences. Out on the Campaign Trail he loves everyone he looks happy to be talking to folks from all kinds of persuasions. Yet when he dons his Presidential Suit...he lectures from the pulpit.

Why should Democrats on the Left be considered in the same sentence as the Rabid RW Teaparty who just shut down our Government. When has the Left done anything like that? Even Code Pink doesn't have that power.

[GreenPartyVoter]

104. +1

[Enthusiast]

120. Very well said, KoKo.

There is no extremist "far left". As far as I can determine the president means those that want to preserve social security and medicare without cuts as extremists. Just my impression.

[Egalitarian Thug]

88. Rather, pissing off your audience misses the point. I suppose now we're going to

have to endure three years of President Bad Cop so the authoritarians can pretend to be good guys...

If even a third of the nation ever wakes up, give me a call.

[merbex]

13. I cannot stand this constant attack from the Tea Party AND from WITHIN, aka, the neo-liberals

It's exhausting, it HURTS Americans, and it poisons the atmosphere because people see that no-one ( or very few) are working for sustaining programs that actually HELP.

Statements like this, less than 1 day after that crap we all went through ended and it's exactly why people say :it's BOTH Parties.

So sick of this shit.

[dixiegrrrrl]

38. I don't understand your ire.

He pointed a real long term problem.
LOTS of people have pointed out the same problem, I was reading about as early as the 1970's.

That is ALL he said, in the OP...long term gov. obligations are a problem.

I will save my ire for any incorrect solutions that he comes up with.

[merbex]

44. Good for you - I'm tired of the obfuscation

Would it kill him to just say what he means without all of us trying to parse meaning?Resorting to reading tea leaves? Or turning all of us into Kreminologists analyzing who gets to stand on the balcony on May Day i.e who he appoints to the Simpson Bowles Commission?

Swear to God - last neo-liberal I will ever vote for

[KoKo]

83. I agree...why wouldn't a Democratic President stand with the Dems who Elected Him!

Instead since he was Inaugurated with MY and other Progressive Dems Support...he's done nothing but Diss us! Right after his Inauguration Rahm Emmanuel was out Dissing the Left then Robert Gibbs (one of his campaign managers and his early Press Spokesperson was out calling us names) and in almost every Press Conference or Statement he never gives up a chance to put Progressive Dems like the US House Dem Caucus and Code Pink PLUS ( Environmental/Anti-Franking/Anti American Invasions of Sovereign Countries and those agains Monsanto's Genetic Altering of Seeds/Unfair Trade Agreements done in Secret) Activists in the same Group as the REPUG RW TEAPARTY TERRORISTS!

Why would a Democratic President go after a Wing of his OWN PARTY? What's Wrong with Him? He should be ashamed of himself and called out about it!

[duffyduff]

99. Neoliberalism is EVIL, EVIL, EVIL

It's worse than the phony Tea Party because BOTH political parties subscribe to a discredited and debunked political "philosophy."

[newfie11]

16. Raise the damn cap! Enough said! Nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. Eliminate the damn cap. Problem solved!

[dkf]

22. Medicare is the much bigger problem.

[PETRUS]

64. Nah.

Medicare is not a problem. The problem is the power the providers of medical goods and services have within the government, and how it's used to keep prices high. The cost of health care in this country is way out of line, and the reasons are political.

[dkf]

70. Isn't that the truth!

Irony is we could have done single payer and fixed everything but Dems still won't touch it.

[PETRUS]

71. No politician wants to piss off the big donors.

Only direct action on a massive scale can begin to compete with the political clout of the 1%

[dkf]

74. We haven't begun to educate people on this subject.

[closeupready]

81. And we shouldn't enable their cowardice.

Rather, we should call them out and shame them.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

77. plus one.

[Chan790]

85. In so far as universal healthcare remains a goal...

Medicare is the easier problem to solve.

A nice universal single-payer or national-health-service healthcare (not insurance) solution renders both Medicare and the subsidy system of the ACA redundant. Old people just become people in the system to be paid for by younger people who will in turn be paid for by younger people when they become older people. No profits driving cost of care up, good cost-containment, no rationing of care. This is why we need to continue to press for the ACA to be the starting point and not the solution.

How do we fix Social Security so easily?

[HooptieWagon]

19. Translation.....

"My Wall St backers really want to get their hands on that money".

[sabrina 1]

43. And they don't want to have to pay back the trillions they borrowed from the SS Fund.

[HooptieWagon]

51. Yep, that too.

[frazzled]

29. Only if you're trying to sensationalize what he said

Nice try with the scare headers.

First, we know what the president's position is on long-term deficits. There is no problem with short-term deficits. That's standard (liberal) economic positioning.

Second, the president ran on this position. Don't act shocked.

Third, let's take Social Security and the chained CPI question, which is the biggest issue for us here. Obama is not out on a limb on this one in terms of liberal policy. As you know, the two biggest liberal think tanks have endorsed it. We may disagree, but it's not some "conservative" plan that he's adopted (the conservative plan would be to kill Social Security). And there are arguments to be made for it. They are not about Social Security per se but about how we can raise revenues for the government in general, which benefit all, and can sustain other programs that help the poor. So unless you think we can get tax hikes from the Republicans to help fund everything the government does (in which case you are hopefully naive), one way to raise substantial revenues is through chained CPI, which affects many things in the codes. They argument--which I'm not asking you to buy (I may not buy it myself, and it's certainly not my preference) goes like this:

The case against moving to the chained CPI is easy to make: It represents a real cut to seniors’ Social Security benefits, which has so far been a non-starter. Even advocates of the switch acknowledge this. But since we may have to swallow it, it’s worth laying out the best progressive argument possible in favor of the chained CPI. We’re not saying it’s right, but it’s a case that should be made.

And the argument does exist. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, one of most well-respected liberal think tanks on policy analysis, has endorsed the change. As has the Center for American Progress, Washington’s most powerful liberal think tank, which recommended the chained CPI in its comprehensive Social Security reform plan.

...

On its own, the chained CPI is unquestionably bad, but as part of a deal to raise taxes, extend unemployment benefits and do the other good things Obama wants to do, and if it includes major mitigating tweaks, it can be made almost palatable.

First of all, it’s important to note that the CPI formula doesn’t affect just Social Security. Rather, it appears in hundreds of different places on both the revenue and spending side of government. Almost every government retirement, disability and income-support program pays annual cost of living adjustments that are linked to the CPI. On the tax side, dozens of elements, from the standard deduction to limits on contributions to 401K plans to the earned income and child tax credits, are adjusted every year based on the CPI.

The whole point of the CPI is make sure benefits keep pace with inflation on the one hand, and to ensure that people are paying enough taxes as inflation changes on the other hand. So while the chained CPI cuts benefits, it also raises revenues in a way that’s palatable to Republicans. The change is estimated to save about $220 billion over 10 years, $72 billion of which would come from increased tax revenue.

Moreover, both CBPP and CAP, along with many independent economists, believe the chained CPI is a more accurate measure of inflation than the current index, called the CPI-W. The CPI is calculated by measuring price changes in a basket of 250 common consumer goods, but only the chained CPI takes into account that people shift their buying habits in response to price changes. Adjusting for that, the chained CPI grows about .3 percent slower than the current rate.

Liberals rightly note that this substitution effect isn’t really true for the very poor and very old, who spend a disproportionate amount of their income on non-substitutable goods like healthcare and housing. That’s why the only acceptable way to shift to the chained CPI is to include exemptions for some of the most vulnerable groups.

There are two major changes necessary. First, add a bump in benefits to the very old, who are more likely to have high healthcare bills and to have exhausted their savings that supplemented their Social Security income. Second, exempt Supplemental Security Income, which serves the poorest, disabled and blind but still often leaves people below the poverty line. SSI benefits should actually be increased, but that would require a different effort, so it should at the minimum be exempted from the CPI change.

Obama has indicated that he will demand these changes.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/the_progressive_case_for_the_chained_cpi/

[sabrina 1]

46. What nonsense. We don't need 'exemptions'. Every person who paid into the fund did so the same way

people pay into any Insurance Fund and every one of them earned the revenue they were promised, no matter what their financial situation is.

The Chained CPI represents CUTS to SS. Period. You do not CUT people's Insurance depending on their finances.

SS had zero to do with causing the Deficit, it has no place in these discussions and a vast majority of the American people want no cuts to benefits. In fact, benefits should be RAISED since that money belongs to those who contributed to it.


No one is fooled by these games. We know what they want, what they have always wanted, what the Dem Party always tried to prevent, and no Democrat should COMPROMISE one iota on SS.

Eliminate the cap, create jobs, stop BORROWING FOR WARS AND WALL ST. Pay back the trillions owed to the Fund and SS is good for the next one hundred years.

No 'tinkering' with funny numbers with this fund. It doesn't belong to the Govt, they have zero right to take a dime away from those who paid into it, period.

These Third Way policies need to go the way the TP needs to go and Dems need to stand up against ANY attempt to tinker with one of the most efficient and successful AND life-saving Programs EVER.

[frazzled]

52. Sorry that you didn't fully comprehend the issues here

I just post the information; you are fully welcome to have whatever view you wish.

But honestly, you missed the more general economic argument here. Which matters.

[sabrina 1]

56. As a Democrat I assure you I have educated myself fully on this issue, a cornerstone of Democratic

achievements over the past century. All these proposals are simply newer versions of the old Heritage Foundation attempts to get their hands on yet another public fund and anyone who has studied the historical assault on SS since its inception, recognizes them. And the answer to all of them should be 'NO' from anyone who claims to be a Democrat.

[Enthusiast]

123. The President says, "We have to eat our peas."

But the military industrial complex has eaten no peas. And they won't eat any peas.

[hardcover]

110. Sabrina has it right

and we should all demand no compromise on something we paid for all our working lives.

[sabrina 1]

111. Exactly, thank you!!

[pottedplant]

63. Center for American Progress and Center for Budget and Policy Priorities are linked

to Pete Peterson's Fix the Debt. Hardly liberal, despite your attempt to portray them as such. Eroding SS based on the position of a think tank, that which claims to be liberal or not, is foolish. Find out who funds them.

Maybe we can start saving money by not handing it over to Boeing. I understand they were caught overcharging for parts (again) and then using old parts in helicopters...something to the tune of 16 billion.

[frazzled]

72. No, Slate called them liberal, as does every other arbiter of such things

It's also how those institutions describe themselves.

Here is a list compiled of the NY Times of think tanks—conservative, liberal, and centrist. Read it and weep:

http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/think-tanks/?_r=0

[Oilwellian]

102. ROFLMFAO n/t

[Enthusiast]

124. The "arbiters of such things" are allied with Pete Peterson.

Your explanation for "those institutions" might fly with Fox "News" viewers but it won't fly here.

[gopiscrap]

108. Welcome to DU

[Hoyt]

84. I'll take Chained-CPI along with reduced Medicare cost sharing, programs that help the young, etc.

If that is what it takes, as long as there are protections for those on shortend of SS scale.

Heck, the ACA is closing the donut hole on drugs which will morr than offset a Chained-CPI over ten years or so.

I think people are being shortsighted on this, but I understand why. There are lots of ways to skin the catfood commission recommendations.

[Cleita]

86. I can't believe you believe this.

Many of us aren't on a lot of prescription drugs but would be very adversely affected by CPI anyway.

[Hoyt]

90. Many of us are though. And 15 years or so from now, if economy does not improve,

there are going to be a lot of folks - particularly young folks - who are going to get tired of living in squalor, and old folks will be easy target.

If we do some comprehensive things to improve economy, spur jobs, reduce health costs, help poor, etc., we will all be better off. Not saying Chained-CPI is nessary, but I don't mind having it on table. I'd heck of a lot rather have it on table now than under some Republican austerity administration. But that's just me.

[Cleita]

91. So you think that doing it on the backs of the poorest

and most helpless segment of the population is the way to do it?




How about making billionaires pay more taxes? They really won't miss the money.

[Hoyt]

92. Did I say that? Did I not say earlier "as long as there are protection . . . . ."?

There are lots of poor people in this country, and we ought be debating what to do for them, not drawing lines in the sand over something that has very little impact in shortrun. And, in longrun if economy doesn't change, we are all going to be in a load of hurt.

[Cleita]

93. Most of those poor people are on SSDI and other govt programs that

are up for negotiation as entitlement reform. It's BS and you shouldn't even entertain the idea of lessening them or getting rid of them altogether.

[Hoyt]

96. Didn't say a thing about getting rid of anything, or even reducing anything.

We aren't getting anywhere. Anyone on SSDI would not be impacted by chained-CPI. None of the proposals kicked around - even the catfood commission - would do that. In fact, they recommended increasing folks at that level.

Take care.

[Enthusiast]

122. Liberal think tanks?

I don't think so.

[grasswire]

31. NO, our "problem" is with MILITARY EXPENDITURES!!

GEEZ.

[B Calm]

40. I agree, it's really getting out of hand.

[GreenPartyVoter]

105. So true! Now there's the real "third rail," eh?

[awake]

32. Simple "fix" of the long term problem with Social Security

Tax the 1st $115,000 of all income sources not just wages. This will bring in the necessary additional income to keep it going way way into the future. As it stands right now only workers income is taxed and corporation, investors and owners get away without paying into the system.

[awake]

33. Simple "fix" of the long term problem with Medicare

Allow anyone under the age of 65 to buy Medicare ins.

[TBF]

36. Thank you -

rather than playing with the insurance companies this should've been done on day 1. Obamacare (ACA) is fine and I'm glad people are getting coverage at lower cost. But there definitely was a better solution out there. Better for the 99% anyway.

[awake]

67. It is not too late to add the option of buying into Medicare

While a single payer is the best way to go in the end by allowing people to buy in to Medicare we let the "market" decide and I bet in a short time everyone will realize the best option is Medicare part E (Medicare for everyone).

[TBF]

35. He's been saying it since the first state of the union address -

the problem is that the jackasses in congress took our $$$ and spent it on warmongering. THAT is the problem.

[MineralMan]

37. I listened to the speech. What you are implying is a distortion of

what he said. You are aware that the speech can be watched at whitehouse.gov, right? You do know that there is a transcript that will be available.

You either weren't listening, or you're deliberately taking what he said out of context. Which is it?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. They let the President take his victory quarter lap...

before they started throwing bricks again.

[MineralMan]

50. It's funny, too. Having listened to the President's remarks,

I heard something completely different than what the OP is implying. What I heard was that the President wants to strengthen those programs so they'll continue to be there in the future. And he didn't use the word "problem" in regard to them, either.

As I said, either the OP wasn't listening or it's something else. I hope he/she was just not listening. I really do.

[Samantha]

87. Paul Ryan says the same thing - the Republicans want to strengthen these programs

The way a government reflects its true priorities is the way it spends its revenue. I think a majority of the people in this Country, including moderate Republicans, like Social Security, Medicare and even support Medicaid and food stamps, unemployment for those who need it.

The CPI which has been applied to Social Security benefits is not and has not been a true increase to reflect the actual cost of living increase. There is a CPI-E (Elderly) which should have been applied to determine these raises since the spending of the elderly is totally different than those younger. But no, they simply used the same CPI, and now want to short the COLA even more. Considering that Baby Boomers overpaid their FICA since 1982 compromise (in other words for decades) and have accrued a huge surplus, now is not the time to be trying to tell us we need cuts.

President Obama answered the question while he was campaigning about how he thought Social Security should be stabilized (this was the 2008 run) and he responded words to the effect "that one is easy." He thought the cap should be lifted.

Out social safety net programs should be protected at all costs. I think, speaking for myself, that should be a priority for this Country. Even talking about cuts while there are so many wealthy people total avoid paying incomes taxes, huge corporations (many of them) do the same, that is where we need to start. Take a look at lost revenue from just those two sources, start recouping it, and perhaps then Uncle Sam will have the funds to pay back what it borrowed from the Social Security Trust.

Additionally, Medicare has a trust fund but we never hear anything about funds ... odd, isn't it?

Sam

[Enthusiast]

125. Both the President and Nancy Pelosi have suggested Chained CPI as a mechanism for

"strengthening social security".

[AnotherMcIntosh]

134. It's going to happen.

And then we'll hear more of "Would you rather have McCain?" or "Would you rather have Romney?"

Or some other excuses.

[Enthusiast]

136. If it happens before the 2014 election it will

prevent the Democrats from gaining seats. They might well lose seats as a result of Chained CPI.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

138. He's like a prize fighter that holds a palooka up in a clinch so that the round won't end.

[uponit7771]

66. +1

[phleshdef]

47. Math is math. The government OWES Social Security a lot of money.

And Medicare obligations are projected to go through the roof in the next decade.

You can't ignore that these are problems that we have to find a way to deal with. My answer is of course to raise the cap on Social Security and start cracking down on overpricing of medical services.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

49. The other alternative...

Not so much an alternative as a complimentary approach, is to invest in jobs and infrastructure. Put the tax rates back to Clinton-era levels, stop spending money on military adventures overseas, and start rebuilding our roads, bridges and power grid.

Jobs = Funding for Social Security and Medicare.

[Enthusiast]

126. +1. Stop outsourcing our manufacturing jobs as with the proposed TPP.

We know the solutions.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

137. Maybe he has too many Republican advisors. Too many in his cabinet and elsewhere.

[duffyduff]

100. The federal government can't go broke. Obama is repeating Cato Institute, Peterson lies

because neolibs are the ones who back him.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. Our "problem" is with the private health insurance industry telling us what to do.

Our "solution" according to our Party Leaders is to make sure everyone who has been denied employer coverage purchases private insurance, because that way we can compel the poor to purchase private insurance without having to pay for it.

That way, according to the Washington Monthly which did an extensive piece on this "reform" movement 6 or so years ago, insurance cos can have a captive market of "choice" buyers to offset the cost of paying for care for the destitute now that we (and by we I mean Democratic elected officials) are actively demolishing public hospitals.

[NYC_SKP]

142. I thought about you whenI came across this:

Hope you're well!

[JoePhilly]

57. This is it!!! Here it comes!!! Any second!!!

Again.

[Rex]

59. Yes, the govt needs to put back the 2.4 trillion

dollars it 'borrowed' from SS. There is a problem.

[lonestarnot]

109. Yes they do need to put it back.

[SoCalDem]

65. The "problem" is that the DC legislators have stolen the money in those funds

for DECADES.. Reagan made the Boomers PREPAY our "benefits" at the same time we also had to SUPPLEMENT the retirements of our own elders...just as we were entering our own higher earning years (and starting families).. He also saw to it that things we used to be able to deduct were phased out..

Congress had a big-ole slush fund that they could not resist and has been replacing OUR MONEY with I.O.U.s ....and now they seem truly surprised that so many of us lived long enough to actually WANT what we prepaid for all these years..

bastards

[GeorgeGist]

68. This is why we can't have nice things.

[pnwmom]

69. Social Security has a problem

that could be solved by eliminating the ceiling on the Social Security tax, which currently stops at roughly $100K in income.

And medical costs, which affect Medicare recipients and everyone else, must be brought down. There's no good reason the percent of our GNP spent on medical care has to be so much higher than in Europe.

[kentuck]

73. Stop paying FICA taxes and see what a big problem it is.

Social Security borrowing and foreign borrowing have made the wealthy very happy for the last 30 years. That means they did not have to pay any taxes or very little in taxes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Here's an idea - eliminate the cap on SS tax, and put a bit more of FICA towards Medicare

So that the SS fund gets a tiny bit more, overall, to help keep the fund going for, say, a decade more, but with Medicare, the fund that will run out far sooner, the main beneficiary.

And make capital gains and dividends pay the same amount into SS and Medicare.

[NuttyFluffers]

76. time to open the Overton window to the left again: harm SSI and Medicare and I support impeachment

this applies to EACH. AND. EVERY. POLITICIAN. NOW. AND. FOREVER.

try me. touch the electric third rail of politics. it'll pop your trial balloon every time.

[Deep13]

78. psst. Mr. President. over here!

tax the rich

[closeupready]

82. "Our"? Um no, Your. Most people don't have a problem with it.

Raise taxes, if necessary. Expand coverage.

[ProSense]

89. Here's what the President said:

<...>

And remember, the deficit is getting smaller, not bigger. It’s going down faster than it has in the last 50 years. The challenges we have right now are not short-term deficits; it’s the long-term obligations that we have around things like Medicare and Social Security. We want to make sure those are there for future generations.

So the key now is a budget that cuts out the things that we don’t need, closes corporate tax loopholes that don’t help create jobs, and frees up resources for the things that do help us grow -- like education and infrastructure and research. And these things historically have not been partisan. And this shouldn’t be as difficult as it’s been in past years because we already spend less than we did a few years ago. Our deficits are half of what they were a few years ago. The debt problems we have now are long term, and we can address them without shortchanging our kids, or shortchanging our grandkids, or weakening the security that current generations have earned from their hard work.

<...>

We hear all the time about how government is the problem. Well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. Not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital role in caring for our seniors and our veterans, educating our kids, making sure our workers are trained for the jobs that are being created, arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. It plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. It helps folks rebuild after a storm. It conserves our natural resources. It finances startups. It helps to sell our products overseas. It provides security to our diplomats abroad.

So let's work together to make government work better, instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse. That’s not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self-government. You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country is about.

Transcript: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023871486

Also, Democrats are going into conference with a budget that ends the sequester and rejects chained CPI.

Wonkbook: Five reasons Republicans lost — and one reason they won
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023869945

Sanders Named to Budget Conference
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023870099

[Demo_Chris]

94. If he goes for Chained CPI I will support privitization or repeal

No point bothering with it. I see no sense contributing to a program that will be worthless by the time I am old enough to collect. Might as well cancel SS immediately and be done with it.

[morningfog]

95. Shock Doctrine/ Starve the Beast is action.

[duffyduff]

98. Yep. And it's both political parties responsible for this

because the billionaires, hedge fund crooks, and neoliberal policy makers are calling the shots.

[bkkyosemite]

106. Fix SS and Medicare?

Anyone making (retired) $250,000 or more does not get Medicare or Social Security checks. That would be a great deal of money and no need to take from those who use their SS to literally eat food instead of cat food.

[Oilwellian]

107. How can our long-term obligations to SS be an issue...

when it has a $2.6 trillion surplus and serves as a creditor for our debts today? Hmm, I wonder.

[madville]

113. We will have to cash the trust fund in over the next two decades

So the Treasury will have to come up with that money over time, most likely by issuing fresh debt to replace what is being cashed in.

The OASDI trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033 and the SSDI trust fund will be depleted by 2016. If they let SSDI dip into the OASDI trust funds as the law allows, ALL trust funds would be depleted by 2023 and expenditures will be more revenues.

We need more revenue, like raising the cap and more employees/employers paying through new job creation. Waiting until the last minute to make changes will be disastrous.

[madville]

112. There is a problem, here is the link

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

The annual trustee report summary, give it a read.

OASDI funding is projected to be cover current liabilities until 2033, when the trust fund will be depleted and revenue will not cover expenditures.

SSDI will deplete its trust fund in 2016 on it's current path.

It is written into the law that once the SSDI trust fund is depleted, they have the option to cover payouts by dipping into the OASDI trust funds. If that occurs all trust funds are projected to be depleted by 2023.

I turn 62 in 2040, some changes will definetly have to be made way before then for it to survive close to it's present form. The sooner the better, waiting until the last minute will be a huge disaster as we've seen lately out of Washington. Above all else we need more revenue.

[Hoyt]

114. Good post. Worse, those projections are based on rosier economic projections

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2013, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

than we are currently experiencing.

But we'll screw around until there is no choice but to do something rash. If Republicons are in charge, I know what solution will be.

[randome]

121. Facts mean nothing to some of those on this thread.

"Everything is fine!" they proclaim. Then turn around and say 'lift the cap'. Why would you need to lift the cap if 'everything is fine'?

Thanks for the facts, madville and Yo Mama!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Lasher]

141. You seem to think depletion of the trust fund will be a disaster.

It will be spent as planned on obligations while boomers inflate the numbers of beneficiaries. We paid extra SS taxes for three decades to build up the trust fund so that SS would be secure. If the trust fund is not spent on SS benefits, that is how it gets stolen.

[joshcryer]

115. Obama's been a deficit hawk from day one.

The only reason nothing has been passed gutting Social Security and Medicare is because he wants credit for doing it.

[annabanana]

127. and our problem with SS and Medicare IS . . .

That it is not well enough supported by the vast pools of wealth rotting in the coffers of the transnational uberrich.

[winter is coming]

132. I wouldn't want to try to repeat that while intoxicated, but you're absolutely right. n/t

[Corruption Inc]

139. We have to give lying criminal repukes credibility to continue the left/right paradigm fraud

Otherwise, the criminals would have to be tried for their crimes and politicians don't have the leadership ability to do it, they'd rather just exploit the current corrupt system for their own gain.

Sad but true in our era of corruption.