President Obama's position on Social Security

[ProSense]

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Here’s the situation with Social Security. It is actually true that Social Security is not in crisis the way our health care system is in crisis. I mean, when you think about the big entitlement programs, you've got Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. These are the big programs that take up a huge portion of the federal budget. Social Security is in the best shape of any of these, because basically the cost of Social Security will just go up with ordinary inflation, whereas health care costs are going up much faster than inflation.

It is true that if we continue on the current path with Social Security, if we did nothing on Social Security, that at a certain point, in maybe 20 years or so, what would happen is that you start seeing less money coming into the payroll tax, because the population is getting older so you've got fewer workers, and more people are collecting Social Security so more money is going out, and so the trust fund starts dropping.

And if we did nothing, then somewhere around 2040 what would happen would be a lot of the young people who would start collecting Social Security around then would find that they only got 75 cents on every dollar that they thought they were going to get. Everybody with me so far?
All right. So slowly we're running out of money.

But the fixes that are required for Social Security are not huge, the way they are with Medicare. Medicare, that is a real problem. If we don't get a handle on it, it will bankrupt us. With Social Security, we could make adjustments to the payroll tax. For example -- I'll just give you one example -- right now, your Social Security -- your payroll tax is capped at $109,000. So what that means is, is that -- how many people -- I don't mean to pry into your business, but how many people here make less than $109,000 every year? (Laughter.) All right, this is a pretty rich audience -- a lot of people kept their hands down. (Laughter.) I'm impressed. (Laughter.)

No, look, what it means is basically for 95 percent of Americans, they pay -- every dollar you earn, you pay into the payroll tax. But think about that other 5 percent that's making more than $109,000 a year. Warren Buffett, he pays the payroll tax on the first $109,000 he makes, and then for the other $10 billion -- (laughter) -- he doesn't pay payroll tax.

So -- yes, somebody said, "What?" (Laughter.) Yes, that's right. That's the way it works.

So what we've said is, well, don't we -- doesn't it make sense to maybe have that payroll tax cut off at a higher level, or have people -- maybe you hold people harmless till they make $250,000 a year, but between $250,000 and a million or something, they start paying payroll tax again -- just to make sure that the fund overall is solvent.

So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine. All right? (Applause.)

link

Protecting Social Security

President Obama believes that all seniors should be able to retire with dignity, not just a privileged few. He is committed to protecting Social Security and working in a bipartisan manner to preserve its original purpose as a reliable source of income for American seniors. The President stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.

link

Executive Order -- National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform:

<...>

Sec. 4. Mission. The Commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. Specifically, the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. This result is projected to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers. The magnitude and timing of the policy measures necessary to achieve this goal are subject to considerable uncertainty and will depend on the evolution of the economy. In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.

<...>

While making investments for future economic success, President Obama outlined the tough spending cuts to reduce the current deficit, and proposed a freeze in government spending for three years, excluding benefits from Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and benefits for veterans. He discussed the $20 billion in cuts for programs that are inefficient or have outlived their usefulness, and cuts for worthy programs that must be trimmed accordingly. "We have to do what families across America are doing: Save where we can so that we can afford what we need."

link

The President has said nothing about cutting Social Security nor has he implied that it. In fact, he is adamantly opposed to it.

[msongs]

1. obama weakens everything he proposes - aim low and settle for less nt

[ProSense]

2. Is that why

the bill got stronger?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

5. Excuse me? n/t

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

8. Yeah, I forgot that it's "cheerleading" to actually listen to what the President has to say

and it's a far more appropriate endeavor to delve into wild speculation and predictions of doom.

[depakid]

16. The President says a lot of things- and ends up doing, or acceding to, others -sometime preemptively

Alan Simpson looks like another incarnation of Ken Salazar and the MMS -or (count 'em) any number of other instances of what reasonable people and our constituencies can (and do) see as bait & switch.

People look around and at this point are rightly asking: WTF?

[depakid]

21. self delete

[cliffordu]

43. Yep, yep, yeppers.

[joe black]

17. Exactly

[bvar22]

34. Thats rich.

LOL
Your link first goes to your own post on DU which THEN goes to the Press Release (Marketing) from the people who wrote the bill.
...hardly impartial sources.
What do they say about people who quote themselves to support their position?

Even Dodd admitted that this much ballyhooed "reform" bill does NOT fix the core problems that caused the meltdown.
Seen in that light...."Did this reform solve the problem?", the answer can only be an unqualified "No"...this "reform" did NOT fix ANY of the major problems that caused the meltdown.
Isn't THAT how you spell "Failure"?

Specifically,

*It won't prevent the next meltdown and Tax Payer Bailout.

*It does nothing to address "To Big to Fail".

*It did nothing to re-establish the safeguards of Glass-Steagall

*It did nothing to bring transparency and accountability to the Derivatives Market.

*It gives MORE power to The Fed (a step in the WRONG direction.)

It is difficult to find an unbiased site that applauds this bill.
Most are in agreement that this bill is "reform in name only".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-16/regulatory-overhaul-won-t-stop-next-financial-crisis-say-levitt-breeden.html

For a good, well sourced analysis of this bill, I recommend:
"U.S. Senate Passes Fake Financial “Reform” Bill"
http://theglobalrealm.com/2010/05/24/u-s-senate-passes-fake-financial-reform-bill/

[Radical Activist]

15. The Senate weakens everything Obama proposes.

We're not going to move legislation left if we can't identify where the real problem is. Everything Obama proposes is to the left of what passes Congress.

[depakid]

20. That's demonstrably not true

Most recently, the administration intervened in Congress on behalf of exorbitant CEO compensation packages- and that's quite consistent with the attitudes expressed here:

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business and trumpeted the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies. He plans to reiterate that message when he speaks to the Business Roundtable, which represents the heads of many of the biggest U.S. companies, on Feb. 24 in Washington.

More: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKGZkktzkAlA

This is what reasonable folks of every stripe see as proof of the pudding-

How to change that? Simple. Start standing up and fighting for for traditional Democratic values.

[ProSense]

23. "the administration intervened in Congress on behalf of exorbitant CEO compensation packages" Wrong

The administration proposed and got the toughest curbs on excutive compensation ever written into a bill:

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Gives Shareholders a Say on Pay and Creating Greater Accountability

Vote on Executive Pay and Golden Parachutes: Gives shareholders a say on pay with the right to a non-binding vote on executive pay and golden parachutes. This gives shareholders a powerful opportunity to hold accountable executives of the companies they own, and a chance to disapprove where they see the kind of misguided incentive schemes that threatened individual companies and in turn the broader economy.

Nominating Directors: Gives the SEC authority to grant shareholders proxy access to nominate directors. Also requires directors to win by a majority vote in uncontested elections. These requirements can help shift management’s focus from short-term profits to long-term growth and stability.

Independent Compensation Committees: Standards for listing on an exchange will require that compensation committees include only independent directors and have authority to hire compensation consultants in order to strengthen their independence from the executives they are rewarding or punishing.

No Compensation for Lies: Requires that public companies set policies to take back executive compensation if it was based on inaccurate financial statements that don’t comply with accounting standards.

SEC Review: Directs the SEC to clarify disclosures relating to compensation, including requiring companies to provide charts that compare their executive compensation with stock performance over a five-year period.

Enhanced Compensation Oversight for Financial Industry: Requires Federal financial regulators to issue and enforce joint compensation rules specifically applicable to financial institutions with a Federal regulator.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

29. Here

Thought: "The administration proposed and got the toughest curbs on excutive compensation ever written into a bill"

Recognize it?

[Radical Activist]

31. He has facts.

That's usually a good precursor to original thought.

[girl gone mad]

87. There is a gaping chasm between what the administration claims to propose and what it actually does

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/21/white-house-guts-bil.html">White House guts bill that would rein in CEO salaries; you can stop them (boingboing)

Aaron Swartz has the news of how the White House is trying to gut a piece of legislation (passed by the House and the Senate) that would be key to reining in CEO compensation in large corporations:

The current financial regulation bill -- in a provision passed by both the House and Senate -- would change that by allowing shareholders with 5% of the stock to come together and propose additional names for the ballot. But the White House is trying to gut this proposal at the last minute, and they've done it in an incredibly sneaky way -- they removed the letter s from the end of the word shareholders.

Now instead of shareholders whose stock adds up to 3% coming together, you have to be a single shareholder with 5% of the stock all by yourself. And for most big companies, there just isn't anyone like that. Take GE, for example -- its biggest shareholder only owns about 3.4% of the company.

So by removing a single letter, they managed to make this provision completely useless.

You read that right, the White House pretended to be for this reform, and would like to take credit for being for it, but they single-handedly gutted it behind closed doors.

[Radical Activist]

27. It was true on health care, financial reform, energy, closing gitmo, and every major bill.

This is the third time I've seen you link to that one issue and I bet you've done it more often. It's a very weak argument if you have to keep going back to that one gripe.

You're not proving that Obama isn't liberal. You're proving that he isn't a state-socialist who wants to intervene in how much pay specific CEO's make. Even in your link he expressed liberal views...

Obama said compensation packages over the last decade haven’t always been commensurate with performance, and reiterated his call for shareholders to have a say in CEO pay. “That serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay,” he said. “Shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.”

Increasing share holder power is an important long-term goal that could lead to major changes in the economy. It's the sort of reform that would allow shareholders to stop many of the worst corporate abuses from off-shoring to environmental destruction. It's an anti-authoritarian way of getting things done without big brother Obama telling companies how much to pay their CEO.

You're welcome to argue that he should act like a socialist but I don't agree that the failure to be socialist makes him a conservative.

[depakid]

30. That's also demonstrably false

and as disingenuous as your nom de plume and your avatar.

[Radical Activist]

33. What exactly is false? The fact that you wrote nothing must be the answer.

Nothing I wrote is false but you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Che didn't think a Cuban style revolution would happen in the US either. Pursuing one is a waste of time. I don't claim to be an authoritarian state-socialist and I don't waste my time crying that the chances of having a Marxist President are slim to none.

[depakid]

41. It's gotten to the point where it's not even worth arguing

I'll leave to our readers to come to their own conclusions from the posts.

[whatchamacallit]

61. +1

[bvar22]

37. Maybe if The President...

...would stop campaigning FOR the same people who obstruct him in the Senate, the problem would clear up?

[Radical Activist]

39. It might help.

Either way, pressuring and changing the Senate looks like the most important priority if we want to move legislation left.

[ProSense]

40. What about the people holding Lincoln's derivative bill up as the

second coming of greatness. Seriously, before the bill was finalized, every progressive blog made the claim that the President opposed it and was siding with Wall Street.

[bvar22]

47. They had to toss "something" to poor Blanche.

They HAD to give her something to run on in November.
The shameful support for the openly Anti-LABOR, Anti-Public Option candidate in the Arkansas Primary has outraged a good percentage of loyal Arkansas Democrats who are needed at the polls in November. As it stands NOW, things don't look good for Blanche and the Democrats in November.

This is a political move...to give her something, anything, she can hold up and say "See, I really DO like those in the UnderClass", though the politically informed will know this is just a sham.

BTW: I live in Arkansas.

[girl gone mad]

86. Everybody knows it will be watered down by the regulators.

Wall Street is laughing about it, trust me. They know it's a joke.

[girl gone mad]

85. Not true.

The bill to audit the Fed ended up being much stronger than the White House wanted it to be.

[Xenotime]

42. That's not fair to speak of the President in that way.

He is doing the best with what he has been given. When you come in after Bush, it's tough to get things moving again. There is only so much a person can do.

[bvar22]

62. Not fair to The President???

As a Working Class American and a strong supporter of Organized LABOR, I don't think it is FAIR for the White House to campaign for openly Anti-LABOR Senators who brag about obstructing the Democratic Agenda, then ridicule Organized LABOR after their Anti-LABOR candidate wins,... and THEN ask me for my money and support. :shrug:

[SunsetDreams]

75. Did you really read all of those in 2 minutes?

I'm impressed

[unhappycamper]

3. Want to strengthen the economy?

Get out of the sand box - it's costing us $200 grand a minute.

Cut the military budget from one trillion dollars a year to say, $302 billion. Make sure that the VA is fully funded and that they get the military $$$ before Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, L3, Triple Canopy, General Atomics, etc. etc. etc.

[Scuba]

13. +1,000

[Oceansaway]

6. K&R...n/t

[moriah]

9. Thank you for posting this.

Perhaps people will call what I'm saying cheerleading, but I've been rather disappointed in many threads here lately. It doesn't seem like there's any way to please people. Suggesting taxing the wealthy at a rate a least a little closer to that of people who are making less than $109k a year so that Social Security will be there when I retire? That's a great idea! It was a great idea in 2008, too! So why do so few people see it as a great idea now?

Oh no. Obama has fallen off of his pedestal. He didn't live up to all of the huge expectations of people who thought that the president and his administration actually had super powers and that once he stepped into office that things would magically change overnight and make us all into shiny happy people holding hands. So now he's being attacked in a way similar to the way people here attacked Bush.

People, no president is perfect. No politician is perfect. And when you expect perfection, all you end up with is disappointment. The most you can expect is progress, and the solution that sounded so great in 2008 *is* progress.

As my grandmother was fond of saying, "Some people just won't be happy, not even if you hung them with a new rope."

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. That's good, but it means nothing to us.

If Social Security is to be preserved, it'll require pressure from the public - regardless of what candidate Obama said.

[jaxx]

11. Thanks for pointing out the truth.

Once the media gets going and listens to the right wing the wrong information from them suddenly becomes real to the people. This says no, the President isn't out to cut your SS benefits. It says tax the people making more money to pay into it. That ought to frost the repukes.

Last summer it was death panels. This summer it's going to be take away SS. Scare the voters is on the move again. I always wonder what people get out of blowing things out of proportion to attract attention to the bottom of the barrel where they hang out. Freakin weird.

[midnight]

32. Last summer the conversation shifted from single payer/public option to

death panels. The majority of people wanted at least a public option, and Obama said that is what he wanted too. Then he said he never said that. So some are concerned about what Obama is really going to allow those deficit hawks to do with a program that has been serving the poor and elite. If he is going to remove more money from the elites payroll that would make perfect sense, but all this is worked out in private meetings so its hard to know what is going to happen and the media is printing what they are told to print, and may or may not being getting the real story either.

[jaxx]

45. The media prints what they can spin a story into. Nothing less.

Meetings are good for throwing things against the wall to see what sticks, but this group isn't going to dictate SS. And no way is congress going to gut SS. It won't happen. The rightwing would love to, but even they know they're toast if they do so...that's why it still exists. I'm not going to debate the President with you, it would be futile.

[w4rma]

12. And since the campaign Obama has fired his entire economic team and replaced them with DLCers. (nt)

[moriah]

14. While the suggestion was first made in 2008, that town hall quoted was in 2010

Wow, he's saying the same thing that he said when he was running? That's rather ... unusual in comparison to our experience with the previous President...

(Fixed grammar and clarified.)

[Radical Activist]

18. Social Security is the most unfair, regressive tax.

This change needs to happen. There's no excuse for low wage workers paying a huge portion of their check in payroll taxes to subsidize wealthy retiring boomers. That's what Social Security does right now.

[moriah]

22. Well, I can say my mom was a boomer, but not wealthy....

So I'm happy to pay my Social Security taxes even if it won't be there for me, so that the burden on me to support her is lessened.

But what you said is exactly why his suggestion in the campaign was so on point, and I'm glad she is still standing by it as of February 2010, when that town hall quoted happened. If they increased the cap for Medicare taxes too, that would help a great deal in keeping that fund solvent as well.

One big issue is nursing home care expenses, which are mainly footed by Medicaid. My grandmother was smart after Grandpa died -- she transferred the title to the house to Mom before she got sick herself. QMB spend-down helped a great deal when she did get sick, and when she had to go into a nursing home she had no assets for Medicaid to seize. But it's a really sad state of affairs that a person has to do that just to get nursing home care.

But it would probably be cheaper for Medicaid and Medicare to pay for home health aides than to pay the $4100 a month my grandmother is costing the state while she is there. They made the decision to admit her because Mom is an only child and she had to keep working -- she couldn't stay home to take care of her. Granny has epilepsy and osteoporosis -- bad combination, has cost her several broken bones (including both hips). She had to have someone around the clock. They ought to pay for more home health services and save the nursing home beds for those who really need them for more than just supervision.

[Wounded Bear]

28. Please stop saying that.....

"So I'm happy to pay my Social Security taxes even if it won't be there for me"

Perpetuating that myth feeds into the RW agenda. The proper attitude is that it WILL be there when you retire. Let's figure out how to do that.

[moriah]

38. That I agree with you on -- figuring out a way to fix it.

But what I said is honestly how I feel. I see so many people my age bitching about paying any social security taxes at all because they can't see how it benefits them. In my case, not only is my mom approaching retirement age, but my dad who died in July of 2009 had been on disability -- making it where he wasn't totally dependent on me to pay his rent. I know several widowed parents who are able to take care of their children from Social Security death benefits. It may not be helping me right now, but it is helping THEM now. But some people are just too shortsighted to see that... and they're the ones who fall for the RW agenda.

[Hannah Bell]

79. it doesn't need to be "fixed". it needs to be repaid $2.5 billion dollars.

[moriah]

83. .... and if we do only that, just how long will it last?

The trust fund stands at about $2.5 trillion right now. That's 1/100th of what we've got that we need to get put back into the fund. Yes, sure, it does need to be repaid, I'm not disagreeing with you there at all.

But is that really going to make social security last much longer without either raising taxes or cutting benefits? Will it make the trust fund reserve last even a year longer at current benefits? Believe me, I much prefer the idea of raising taxes on people who are making over $250k a year so that they pay at least somewhat closer to the percentage of income into social security, FICA, and Medicare that the ones of us making less than $109k do, instead of cutting benefits from an already small check.

But if you can't see that it does need to be fixed... Wow.

[Hannah Bell]

84. you're talking about forecasts of 30 years into the future. i suggest

that making adjustments now simply ensures the money will never be paid back, & puts more money into the hands of people who want to "borrow" it to ensure exactly that result.

you already gave them nearly three trillion dollars (& the trust fund is actually forecast to peak at over 4 trillion) -- why would you give them more until they paid back the rest?

there's no need to do A DAMN THING right now to solve a problem that's predicted to occur THIRTY YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

That's the mistake we made in 1983, & it didn't help a goddamn thing except the billionaires who got the tax cuts.

[moriah]

88. I'm really, really damn confused right now.

Are we looking at the same data?

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/TR06/II_project.html is what I've been looking at.

I'm not suggesting a bit of borrowing from the trust. I think the trust needs to stay out of the hands of anyone, and especially out of the stock market!

Thirty years down the road might seem a long time for you, but it's when I'll turn 60 and be trying to plan retirement, and a lot of how I plan it will be based on whether or not that check is there. There are others who will be older, and others who are younger and they'll have barely a chance in hell of getting anything out of it at the current projections.

Pay the trust back the money that's been borrowed from it, don't borrow any more, but if we don't start trying to fix the problem it's going to be much harder to do it down the road. And you might see the social security trust fund as benefiting "them", but I see it as benefiting me and the people I love who are either current beneficiaries or will be in the future.

[Hannah Bell]

90. I'll assume you're young & naive. I was young & naive thirty years ago when reagan pulled this same

scam the first time.

We were told: you're a big generation, so you'll pay extra now to "prefund" your retirement & save social security forever.

yes, forever. that's what reagan said.

now it's time to collect -- & we're told there's not enough money. benefits must be cut, retirement age must be raised, more money is needed.

all that prefunding apparently did no good for anyone but the top 1% who "borrowed" most of it in income tax cuts and don't want to pay it back.

if you're young & naive, you probably don't know that historically, social security was set up as a pay as you go system; each generation funded the ss of the one before them out of current tax collections, not out of some bogus "savings" in a giant trust fund.

the trust fund contained 1 year's outgo or less.

now it contains about 5 years' outgo, & still forecast to increase to over 4 trillion dollars, which would be about 8 years' outgo.

the only problem is, since excess social security collections, by law, HAVE TO be borrowed into the general budget in exchange for US securities, "paying back" the 2.5 trillion means it has to come out of income tax revenues.

But the top 1% who "borrowed" most of the money as tax cuts, don't want to pay. And certainly the working class, with 10% unemployment, don't want THEIR income taxes raised either.

So who's going to pay?

This "crisis" is just another scam to ensure that capital never has to repay what they got & can keep "borrowing" more, RIGHT NOW.

That's why they're so insistent to solve a "crisis" that MIGHT occur 30 years in the future.

They want more money NOW, so they can borrow it.

Why do you want to give them more money?

Oh, & btw:

1. Even according to the bogus forecasts, which have been wrong more often than they've been right, social security will pay out MORE in real benefits in 2037 than it does today.

2. The only way you won't get anything out of it is if you let them keep running these scams & their approved "fixes", each one of which slowly whittles away at the program, moving it toward privatization.

3. even if that 30-year forecast is dead on the money, all the stupid fixes they're talking about now can be put in place then & achieve the same result. In fact, the projected shortfall on scheduled benefits (which are higher, in real terms, than today's) is about $1.50 extra in taxes a month.

[moriah]

92. Okay, maybe I do need you to enlighten me, because I'm still damn confused here.

Please tell me just where you are getting your math here? I at least provided my sources and asked if you were looking at different data, but it seems like you're just throwing numbers around without citing.

But actually, historically, the Social Security Trust Fund had *13* years outgo in it in 1950, 11 years after the trust fund was started. And as of 2008, we have 3.4 years of outgo in the trust. (See http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html if you want to know where I'm getting *my* numbers.) There were times when it ran into some serious trouble, and when it was finally declared a crisis in 1982 we had less than 20% of yearly outlay in the trust...

Also, you said before it was 2.5 billion they owed to the trust, not 2.5 trillion.

I'm going to stop arguing numbers with you because you can't seem to keep them straight. But you wanna know something?

What Obama is proposing is to make the top 2% pay for this, not you or me. Unless, of course, you make more than $250k. (See link quoted by Slate.com writer at http://www.slate.com/id/2243529)

So I really don't see why on earth you'd oppose the people who benefited from those tax cuts you said were stolen from social security being the ones to pay for the shortfalls predicted later on.

[Hannah Bell]

94. the billion was a brain fart. i'm well aware of the correct figures; read my journal.

The trust fund started collecting $ in 1937.

The first monthly benefits were paid in 1940.  Before that
there were only about 50,000 lump-sum payments.


Trust fund holdings as ratio of payments:

1950: 13
1951: 7.9
1952: 7.6
1953: 6
1954: 5.5
1955: 4.2
1956: 3.8
1957: 3
1958: 2.6
1959: 2 

Average: 5.56

1960: 1.9
1961: 1.6 
1962: 1.3 
1963: 1.2
1964: 1.2
1965: 1  
1966: 1
1967: 1.1
1968: 1.1
1969: 1.2

Average: 1.26

1970: 1.1
1971: 1
1972: .98
1973: .83
1974: .75
1975: .64
1976: .52
1977: .41
1978: .33
1979: .28

Average: .684

1980: .21
1981: .16
1982: .15
1983: .14
1984: .17
1985: .22
1986: .23
1987: .32
1988: .45
1989: .68

Average: .273

1990: .88
1991: 1.0
1992: 1.1
1993: 1.2
1994: 1.3
1995: 1.4 (surplus revenues = 15% of total revenues)
1996: 1.6
1997: 1.7
1998: 1.9
1999: 2.2

Average: 1.42


So looking at 5 decades 1950-1999, I make that:

TF ratio < 1.0 = 20 years
TF ratio < 1.5 = 20 years
TF ratio > 1.5 = 10 years


i.e. during the majority of the pre-reagan years, the TF ratio
was < 1.5 & in no period except the post-reagan one was
there a steady increase in inflation-adjusted TF dollars.


In inflation-adjusted (2005) dollars: 

Year           Current $ (Mils)       2005 $ (Mils) 

1943               4,820                   55,709 
1953              18,707                  132,760 
1963              20,715                  129,015 
1973              44,414                  199,960 
1983              24,867                   48,434 
1993             378,285                  507,152 
2003           1,530,764                1,611,323 
2005           1,858,660                1,856,660 



2000: 2.5 (surplus revenue = 27% of total revenues)

2005: 3.5 (surplus revenue = 24% of total revenues)

2008: 3.86 (surplus revenue = 22% of total revenues)



"Obama is proposing is to make the top 2% pay for
this"

uh, no.  One of the proposals is to lift the cap on taxing
WAGES.

The "top 2%" make most of their money from CAPITAL
income, not WAGES.



The truly "rich," the ones who got more than half of
the Bush-era tax cuts, won't be touched.

Bill Gates doesn't get a paycheck anymore; all of his income
comes from CAPITAL.

Warren Buffett gets a $100,000 paycheck.  The rest of his
income comes from CAPITAL.


High income WAGE EARNERS & small businesspeople will take
the hit.  

Social Security doesn't tax CAPITAL.


The fact is that from 1940 to 1999, the trust fund contained
< 1.5 years outgo in the majority of years.

The fact is that the boomers paid in extra for 30 years, which
set up the whole "there's just iou's in the trust
fund" attack & the current "deficit
commission" attack.  

You're proposing to extend the same scam another 30 years.

The fact is that the original legislation set up a pay-go
system with a 1-year cushion.

There's no reason for anything more -- except to
surreptitiously tax workers to pay expenses that should be
paid through the income tax, & thereby give tax cuts to
the rich.

Retirees' incomes ALWAYS come from the surplus production of
current workers. 

 

[moriah]

96. Thank you for pointing to your journal.

I did want to make sure of something, however -- are you saying that 2.5 billion, or 2.5 trillion, has been stolen from the Trust Fund? I just want to make sure.

Insofar as wages vs capital income, you might want to take a look at this pretty page of spreadsheets from the IRS.

Of the over 18,000 income taxes filed in 2007 where people had over 10 million in adjusted gross income, over 14,000 of those returns reflected income from salary/wages -- which would be subject to social security taxes. Those people made over 90 billion in salary/wages in total according to the IRS. Averages out to about six million in wages per tax return claiming 10 million in total income.

But I'd be fine with people in the highest tax brackets pay an extra 6.2% into the regular budget instead of social security, if you're pretty much saying it's all going into the same boat -- which you seem to be saying.

[Hannah Bell]

97. About $2.5 trillion is currently owed to the Social Security Trust Fund.

As the TF represents a debt, money borrowed from surplus SS collections & the interest on that debt.

CBO projects (as of March) that the TF will grow to nearly 4 trillion by 2020.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Iekej-fCfucJ:www.cbo.gov/budget/factsheets/2010b/OASDI-TrustFunds.pdf+oasdi+trust+fund+balance&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjNI8N-yJflm4gm6ttNROUD2em58eJjdOM5KAS_8oh0UmgmGxr3c_iqvLHnhRn3Uu_ZqMnBcCKzCSqYNPWZyVr-O64rtOMK1CYjzV1OMv-Rjq-ALC_Dc5qA9x6hN4D4WkP2Wzvm&sig=AHIEtbQ4ADJw9izbbHrjeBGE0gaMgvokOA


Social Security currently taxes between 83-90% of all wage income. The cap is raised regularly (nearly every year) to maintain that ratio.

Social Security DOES NOT, & never has, taxed CAPITAL INCOME.

The richest fraction of the population (such as Warren Buffett & Bill Gates, neither of whom get wages over the current cap) make most of their income from CAPITAL.

It's of no moment what *you're* "fine with". The question is what big capital is "fine with". And what they are "fine with" is soaking workers to pay off their gambling bets & allow them to keep borrowing from the SS surplus.

The Bush tax cuts, most of which went to the top 5%, contributed more to the current deficit than both wars.




Please explain why Social Security taxes need to be raised now to pay for a projected shortfall thirty years in the future.

Please explain just that one point.

[moriah]

98. Because I would rather pay for my check now....

... than to leave it on my kids and grandkids to have to pay it for me.

[Hannah Bell]

99. they're going to pay regardless. that's how the scam (of making workers pay twice) works. nice

dodge, though.

workers' retirements always come out of current workers' surplus production -- in reality.

you can't prefund retirement except indirectly -- by investing in education, research, technology & resource conservation to make future workers more productive.

& strange that the only answer to my question you can come up with is about *your* wishes, rather than the established 70-year design & operation of the program -- which has always paid for current retirees by taxing current workers.

[moriah]

102. You asked for one reason, I gave you one.

So checks will continue with perhaps 75-80% of what they would be scheduled to. So if that difference is going to be made up, which would be better? Hitting my kids and grandkids for a huge tax increase, or a smaller one over time, that I could be helping out with too instead of leaving it all on them?

Why are you arguing with ME, anyway, when the first thing I said on this thread was that I was happy that it was taking care of the people now, and the reason I said fixing it was a good thing was because someone else disagreed with my assessment that I was happy it was at least taking care of my mom, my dad for while he was on disability, and my friends who have either lost parents or lost spouses? Why aren't you yelling at them and telling them it should be a pay as you go?

I'm done with this, sweetie.

[Hannah Bell]

103. lol. why are you calling me "sweetie"?

i'm arguing with you because i disagree with you.

this is a discussion board.

i didn't ask you for "one reason". i asked:

"Please explain why Social Security taxes need to be raised now to pay for a projected shortfall thirty years in the future. Please explain just that one point."

you can't answer the question i posed.

because the only answer is: to take more money from workers so capital doesn't have to repay what they already stole.

and to free up more money to keep paying them their bond interest, their tarp bailouts, their fucking war.

paying now does not a damn thing to help your grandchildren.

all it does is rack up more debt in the social security trust fund, and when your grandchildren come of age, the same scam will be recycled on them. there will be 15 trillion, 30 trillion, whatever, in the "trust fund", and it won't be enough -- because it's all debt, excess payments from workers "borrowed" into the general budget & funneled to the rich & the projects of the rich.

[moriah]

104. I wanted to show that there were no hard feelings.

As there shouldn't be, since this is just a discussion board -- but it's easy for tempers to get heated, and I wanted to clarify my feelings.

But I am still done with this.

[Hannah Bell]

78. oh, baloney. social security provides 100% of income for 1/3 of recipients & more than 50%

of income for 2/3 of recipients.

[joe black]

19. After the health care horror...

I can't imagine why anyone would completely trust Obama.

[Lasher]

24. Well here's something else he said about Social Security

"And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it’s going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system. I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to do that and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way." - Barack Obama, on the eve of the PA primary, 04/16/08

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm

And yet, 2 years later he formed the Catfood Commission by Executive Order.

My point is, as it turned out it didn't matter what he said about this back then. And since this is so, it is prudent to view these statements with skepticism.

[moriah]

35. See post 14.

If the so-called "Catfood Commission" can implement the idea he first mentioned in the campaign and still wants to do as of 2010, more power to them! Remember, Clinton worked to decrease the deficit too. He did it more by increasing taxes on the wealthy than by cutting costs. If done right, it will make the rich suffer, at worst, having to buy a smaller private jet... and make sure people DON'T have to "eat cat food".

So my conclusion: We need to encourage them to do it right!

[Radical Activist]

49. That's a big spin you're making.

You have to put the comment in context. He was running against a candidate who wasn't saying how he would fix social security. Obama did say how he would fix it and he's still saying the same thing today as he did then. It wasn't about forming a commission. It was about honestly saying up front what you plan to do. Obama did that and he hasn't changed his position.

[Lasher]

77. I don't know how much more context you could possibly need.

I furnished a direct quote and linked to a credible source where the exchange with Hillary is chronicled. As you could have seen there but obviously did not, the exchange ensued:

Must capture new revenue; no new Social Security Commission

OBAMA: We’re going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can’t get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it’s going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system. I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to do that and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.

CLINTON: With all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do.

OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, and also raised the payroll tax. So Sen. Clinton can’t have it both ways.

And here is a link to a transcript of the entire debate, so that you can not read it either while continuing to accuse me of dishonesty in order to perpetuate your willful delusion.

[Radical Activist]

91. So, Obama was criticizing Hillary for not specifying what she would do

beyond forming a commission. It wasn't the act of forming a commission that was the issue. It was her failure to be specific about what she would or wouldn't do and hiding behind the commission concept.

Obama was specific about what he planned to do. So far, Obama hasn't backed down from his position on SS. If he takes an idea from Hillary and uses this debt commission to propose something different than what he campaigned on then I'll join everyone else in calling bullshit. But so far the commission, which is looking at a variety of budgetary issues, hasn't done that.

[Lasher]

100. Or maybe that was Orly Taitz impersonating Obama during the debate.

So it was Orly who said that, not Obama. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[flamingdem]

25. Thanks for your sense pro! nt

[bvar22]

36. Want to really FIX Medicare?

Let everyone BUY in to it.
Open it up to every American citizen.
As it stands now, only the sickest and most expensive to care for are allowed in to Medicare....
If the risk pool is expanded to include the healthiest Americans, the overall cost would drop in addition to saving the 15% - 30% that the For Profit Health Insurance Industry is skimming off the top.

[MadHound]

44. Yeah, but Simpson and other members of the Catfood Commission have mentioned cutting benefits,

With Social Security they're disguising that by calling it a raise in the age eligibility requirements, from the current 67 to seventy or more. With Medicare they're actually talking about cutting benefits.

And all of these recommendations and "solutions" are being discussed and refined right now, to be brought up in December, after the election of course, for an up or down vote. And we the people will have no input.

We'll see what happens, but the fact that the administration is taking this route to cutting deficits and debt rather than cutting back on military spending or cutting out the tax loopholes for the corporate and wealthy, that says a lot about this administration's priorities, none of it good.

Personally, I became convinced that I would never see a dime of SS by the time I was old enough to get it. Too many people in government dipping their hands into it, leaving worthless IOU's. This was a bipartisan rip off job, and now that they've stolen all the money, now they say SS has a "problem" that we have to pay for. When will somebody call them on their greed and thieving ways?

[Radical Activist]

51. So we don't allow discussion of controversial ideas and only talk to people we agree with 100%?

That's not how you build the support needed to pass major legislation in Congress.

There was never an IOU for SS. It has always been a system of current workers paying for retired workers.

[w4rma]

54. Who is discussing alternatives to gutting social security on the Catfood Commission?

Don't be hypocritical, Radical Activist.

[Radical Activist]

56. It has three of the most liberal members in Congress.

I don't know what the views of all the members are. As I wrote in another post, are we supposed to only make assumptions based on the members we don't like and ignore the others?

[madfloridian]

59. Only 3 out of 18 are nominally "liberal"?? Really? Why so few?

This was a commission appointed by a Democratic president. Why so few on the "liberal" side.

And did you see Hensarling and Coburn and co-chair Simpson whose stances are well known?

I think a Democratic president should pay more attention to our side of the aisle than theirs.

[Radical Activist]

68. I don't know how many are liberal and I doubt you do either.

It has three of the most liberal members of Congress. I didn't claim those were the only liberals on the commission. I don't know where most of them stand. You're jumping to conclusions again.

[madfloridian]

71. You just defined them yourself, my friend.

Those are the only 3 we could hope would be on the side of saving SS. And I don't know about them.

[Radical Activist]

72. How about SEIU President Andy Stern?

I bet he might be liberal. I don't know about the others. I'm not going to make assumptions based on pulling shit out of my ass. Try it sometime.

[Hannah Bell]

81. he's a member of congress? who knew? now who are the two other "most liberal" congresspeople?

[Lasher]

101. They have secret identities.

I heard one of them is posing as a mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper.

[Hannah Bell]

80. who would those be?

[MadHound]

60. You really don't have a clue, do you?

Approximately forty years ago the government started raiding the Social Security lockbox for cash they wanted to run their wars and whatnot. In exchange they issued a series of Treasury Bonds for the amount that they took out. IE a pile of IOU's.

As far as allowing discussion of controversial ideas, yadda yadda, you're simply setting up a strawman. The reason that this is so controversial is that they would be cutting benefits that you and I already paid for with OUR money Yes, this is OUR money we're talking about, not the government's, but ours. Would you really simply consider it a controversial idea if the government raided your retirement fund? Of course not, but that is exactly what they're proposing to do with SS.

I find it astounding that Democrats are willing to follow the lead of somebody who is proposing the cutting of SS benefits, I guess it's Okey Dokey, so long as that person purports to be a Democrat:eyes:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

63. +10000!!!!! Thank you for stating it's so succinctly.

[Radical Activist]

67. The only thing I've paid is the benefits of current SS recipients.

The idea that there's anyone with an account or fund they're paying into that can be raided is a fantasy.

Who exactly are you referring to who supports cutting benefits? Obama hasn't.

[girl gone mad]

89. lol. Where do you get this stuff?

You might want to learn a little about monetary operations before you make yourself sound like an even bigger fool.

With respect to the US Social Security Trust Fund, there are two components of total US public debt:

1. The debt held by the public as a result of the “total net amount borrowed to cover the federal government’s accumulated budget deficits” – that is the government just borrows back what it spends.

2. The debt that is held in so-called government accounts which is “the total net amount of federal debt issued to specialized federal accounts, primarily trust funds (e.g., Social Security)”. Under US law, any surpluses that the trust fund has have to be invested in “special federal government securities”.

At the end of 2009 about 36.3 per cent of total US public debt outstanding was held by intergovernment accounts. The US social security system set up during the Great Depression requires that specially identified payroll taxes be levied to help pay for social security. If there is an excess of revenue raised in any year it goes in to the Social Security Trust Fund which is the responsibility of the US Treasury.

Normally revenue exceeds payouts and the law requires that the surpluses are invested in “special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds” which mainstream economists take to mean that the payroll taxes (that is, the Social Security Trust Fund) “finance” US federal government net spending (deficit).

The Trust fund can be supplemented from the US government at any time they like (subject to legislation). The only time this has happened was in 1982 when according to the Annual Report the assets of the Trust Fund were close to being depleted and the US Congress allowed the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI), which is the largest of the funds to borrow from elsewhere in the federal system.

The bottom line is that US federal government can always fund its social security obligations and any other nominal obligations that it faces.

[Radical Activist]

57. And Obama has proposed cutting tax loopholes,

increasing taxes on banks, and spending less on two wars. I don't think you paint an accurate picture.

[madfloridian]

46. His actions in appointing privatizers to the debt commission speak louder

than words.

He is a smart man, and he appointed a bunch of people who want to sell out Social Security.

He should never have let Alan Simpson anywhere near that commission.

[madfloridian]

48. The make up of the commission tells it all.

http://www.alternet.org/story/146183/obama_packs_debt_commission_with_social_security_looters?page=entire

"After the defeat of the Conrad-Gregg commission, groups defending Social Security had little time to rejoice before Obama resuscitated the plan, creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform by executive order. While the Commission's proposals will not be limited to an up or down vote in Congress, it's otherwise exactly as Conrad-Gregg envisioned, and Pelosi and Reid have promised to put them to a vote before the end of the current session of Congress.

Obama's deficit commission is actually much older than Conrad-Gregg. Its history as a vehicle for reforming Social Security goes back to 1981, when it was given life under President Ronald Reagan as the Greenspan Commission (guess who chaired it). The commission's first act was to raise Social Security payroll taxes across the board and lower benefits via changes to cost of living adjustments. Bill Clinton revived the commission many times during the '90s, each time with a slightly new name and slightly new members, always stacked to recommend partial privatization, which critics on the left mocked as "a solution in search of a problem." But Clinton thought it politically risky to proceed with its recommendations on his own, and in a little-known chapter to that story, his chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, helped negotiate a secret pact with Newt Gingrich in late 1997 to unite behind the commission's proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age and begin privatization.

.."As the New York Times confirms, in establishing the group Obama has once again adopted a course favorable to his economic advisers and their Wall Street friends over the objections of his political team. How much of the usual looting this will involve remains to be seen. They seem to be proceeding carefully. Earlier, following Obama's recent spending freeze announcement, an anonymous official told the Times that spending cuts would start with earmarks in order to earn goodwill with the public, and then move on to more "popular entitlement programs."

[madfloridian]

50. Here's the list of members on the commission. Speaks louder than words.

These guys are in charge of "fixing" Social Security. It's rather chilling to me. A couple seem ok, but even Durbin warned us "bleeding heart liberals" what was coming. :shrug:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)

David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)

Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)

Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.)

Andrew Stern, former President, Service Employees International Union

[Radical Activist]

52. Three of the most liberal members of Congress. Awesome!

Oh wait, we're only supposed to jump to conclusions based on the conservative members and not the liberal ones. Right?
:eyes:

[madfloridian]

53. Durbin said bleeding heart liberals would not be happy...

and said Social Security would be on the table.

Oh never mind....it's a done deal just like education.

And we will defend these "reforms" to the death because they are being done by a Democratic administration.

Now that is just sad.

[Radical Activist]

55. The only quotes I can find were about the debt generally, not Social Security.

More spin.
The left hasn't had any trouble speaking out when we disagree with Obama and I don't believe this issue will be any different.

[Catherina]

64. And here's the exact context and quote for you Mad

Co-chairman Alan Simpson, along with Dave Camp, Judd Gregg, Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo, made statements supporting cutting or privatizing Social Security. Sen. Richard Durbin told "bleeding-heart liberals" to be open to Social Security cuts. Alice Rivlin co-authored a 2005 report titled Restoring Fiscal Sanity that advocated $47 billion in entitlement cuts, including an "increase in the retirement age under Social Security."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/commentary/commentary-hands-off-social-security-there-are-better-769878.html

By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The co-chairman of President Barack Obama's deficit reduction commission said Tuesday that Obama would endorse its findings, including politically toxic tax increases and painful cuts to retirement benefits that the president was unwilling to propose on his own.

...

“Conservatives on this commission need to open their minds to the safety net in our country and the troubling plight of many working Americans,” said panel member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “And the bleeding-heart liberals on this commission have to open their mind to what it takes to inspire competition and economic growth in our economy and make real sacrifices to strengthen our nation.”

...

But the options for curbing the deficit _ cutting spending on popular entitlement programs and broad-based tax increases _ are so politically toxic that the only way Obama and his Democratic allies controlling Congress are willing to take them on during this midterm election year is through the commission.

The powerful seniors' lobby AARP issued a news release warning it to "Take Social Security Off the Table for Deficit Reduction

...

From the article "Deficit panel leader says Obama will OK findings" http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1937572&nid=111

And there you have it ladies and gentleman, the elderly and the poor can subsidize the free ride of the rich courtesy of our Democratic Majority.

[madfloridian]

65. Thanks for that.

I was going to look for it and hadn't found time.

"“And the bleeding-heart liberals on this commission have to open their mind to what it takes to inspire competition and economic growth in our economy and make real sacrifices to strengthen our nation.”

[Catherina]

66. You're welcome. Thank you for your objectivity and perseverance n/t

[Radical Activist]

69. So no direct quote from Durbin suggesting cuts to SS.

Especially since his comments were about a debt commission, not a commission specific to social security.

Don't you ever question it when the media only quotes half a sentence and never provides the full context?

[Mimosa]

76. They claim there's been no increase in cost of living

So seniors S.S. payments have been frozen. I go to the grocers over the past year and see that prices have been rising.

[Catherina]

93. I can't believe the lies they tell us to our faces.

Everytime I shop for food, I'm astounded at the bill. I don't know how people on a limited fixed income do it. It scares me about getting old in this country, it really does.

[L0oniX]

58. It's the total military spending that is driving the country into the ground.

No one gets it. Bring the cost of the entire military and all its operations down to a little more than the second largest in the world.

[Whisp]

70. thanks. lots of talk here that Obama is going to gut SS.

Your excerpt is what I recall him saying about social security.

Do the critics have an updated speech of Obama's that we are missing, where he is going to let gramma starve because thats the kind of guy he is?

[earth mom]

73. Social Security is NOT BROKEN. Obama should know that. nt

[TheKentuckian]

74. He adamantly opposed mandates and the taxing of benefits too.

He swore to uphold the Constitution but maintains Bush's Army of the Executive without oversight from Congress and has ordered the extra-judicial murder of a United States citizen.

He also ordered the catfood commission by his own Executive order and loaded it with enemies of the New Deal and corporate big wigs.

[tsuki]

82. He stood behind transparency, but this Commission is locked up tighter

than a Cheney Energy Commission.

[laughingliberal]

95. I heard President Obama at a town hall where he spoke to this.

I sincerely hope he sticks by it when the Cat Food Commission headed by Alan "I hate all old people except me" Simpson comes out with their recommendation to raise the benefit age to 73 and cut the benefit amounts.