General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders: where is Obama on Social Security?
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=6346bbaa-e8a5-44bb-9d3c-af5af4126bafDuring the past four years, President Obama has been largely silent on Social Security. The White House even failed to rebut alarming reports last year that Obama was considering Social Security cuts as part of a "grand bargain" with Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Unlike Obama, his Republican challenger's stance on Social Security is much clearer. Mitt Romney wants to begin the process of privatizing Social Security. He wants to gradually increase the retirement age to 68 or 69. Romney also favors slowing the growth of benefits for persons with "higher incomes." Under a plan floated by Romney's allies on Capitol Hill, someone making about $45,000 a year today who retires in 2050 would receive 32 percent less in annual Social Security benefits than under the current formula. By that definition, the top 60 percent of all wage earners would be considered "higher income."
"It should come as no surprise that Republicans in Washington and Gov. Romney want to slash Social Security. The truth is Republicans have never liked Social Security and they have been attacking Social Security since its inception," Sanders said.
"The question, however, that millions of Americans are asking themselves today is where President Obama stands on Social Security. Unfortunately, he has been largely silent on this issue since he has been in the White House and during this 2012 campaign."
Social Security has not contributed to the deficit or national debt. It has a $2.7 trillion surplus and will be able to pay 100 percent of promised benefits to every eligible recipient for the next 21 years. Even with no changes, there will still be enough funding to pay more than 75 percent of promised benefits after tha
pnwmom
(108,996 posts)The President is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Securityand securing the basic compact that hard work should be rewarded with dignity at retirement or in case of disability or early death. Thats why he has called on Congress to work on a bipartisan basis to preserve Social Security as a reliable source of income for American seniors and as a program that provides robust benefits to survivors and workers who develop disabilities. He believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced and he will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations. The President also 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.
Strengthening Retirement
In addition to protecting and strengthening Social Security, President Obama will make it easier for Americans to save on their own for retirement and prepare for unforeseen expenses. Currently over 75 million working Americansabout half the workforcelack access to retirement plans through their employers. The Presidents budget lays the foundation for all Americans to participate in retirement accounts at work, proposing simple rules and automatic enrollmentthat will automatically enroll workers in IRAs who, until now, havent had a workplace retirement plan, while allowing them to opt out if they wish.
SNIP
Lots more at the link . . .
eridani
(51,907 posts)What about opposition to further raising the retirement age?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Obama created the Simpson-Bowles "deficit" commission, coincindentally (!) headed by the two most outspoken foes of Social Security. He has repeatedly lied about the original purpose of Social Security, and his administration has produced and publicized wildly misleading figures regarding the program's financial health, figures that assume the US economy will get worse than it is today and stay that way for good in order to pretend that the program will have a shortfall decades from now.
Obama's not as awful as Romney: but his willingness to throw millions of seniors into poverty in order to win the label "postpartisan" and to shower the 1% with more trillions is appalling.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The OP repeats the common assertion that, a few decades from now, revenues will suffice to cover only 75% of the benefits owed under current law. It should always be noted that that's merely a projection, and a pessimistic one. Projections for so far in advance are obviously just approximations. There's good reason to believe that the projection showing a Social Security shortfall is inaccurate.
Raising the cap is a good idea, but the best thing we could do for Social Security right now would be to enact a large-scale stimulus program (yes, deficit financing) and spur more economic growth. We need to get fewer people taking early retirement because they can't find a job, and more people paying into the trust fund from their employment income.
indepat
(20,899 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)It has been done in the past and I see no problem doing it. If congress refuses to pass it their toast, and so is any politician that wants to cut it. Of course we have the lies out there and MSM is all to happy to promote them. Stupid people in this country believe them and vote them in office.
SS is not broke and can be fixed easily.
Cutting SS for anyone making $45,000. in 2050 is insane. Cutting SS 32% today would lead to poverty and if anyone thinks prices aren't going to rise by 2050 their insane. America will truly become a 3rd world country.
As far as raising the retirement age it depends on the type of work you do. If you sit at a desk all day that's fine. Think of a 70 year old roofer, construction worker, etc. They used to die at their jobs because they had to keep working until they died or kids could afford to take care of them. I am appalled that this is even considered by our politicians. You know, the folks that sit around getting bribes from lobbyists and are multimillionaire's when they leave office. They sell their soul and don't give a shit about their people.
If I was a young person today I would be getting out of this country. Of course that must be chosen carefully. One needs to avoid finding ones self in a country America chooses to go to war with. Denmark/Netherlands might be off the US radar for drone attacks, at least for now.
Now in the past it seems folks think I am from Canada. NO I have Newfoundland dogs (hence the name Newfie) so I have every right to speak out about this shit.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I'd take a compromise on that, though.
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)A lot of us worried about the "grand bargain" rumors. A lot of us would be reassured to hear Obama repeat what he said in 2008 in support of "removing the cap" on the payroll tax. The position statement leaves too much room for the "third way"/Democrats for the Leisure Class refugees to drive a truck through our minimum level of dignity for the retirement years.
eridani
(51,907 posts)President Barack Obama
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
202-456-1111 - ph
202-456-2461 - fx
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
309 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-2152 - ph
202-228-0400 - fx
Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Democratic Whip
http://www.democraticwhip.gov/content/email-whip
1705 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-4131 = ph
202-225-4300 - fx
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Democratic Leader
http://www.democraticleader.gov/contact
Office of the Democratic Leader
H-204, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100 - ph
Democratic National Committee
http://my.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
And of course your own representatives.