an ongoing discussion

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:01 PM - Edit history (3)

[font color=indigo]This OP was a very at-the-moment reaction to Axlerod on the Rachel Maddow show. Since it was written there have been many threads with video and transcripts of what Axlerod was laying out, so the OP is superfluous.

People have conversations within this thread however, so I don't want to self-delete the thread, interfering with others. So I am just deleting the OP text itself.[/font color]

[winter is coming]

1. Hayes also pointed out the option of raising the cap.

All that Alter would say is that it "would never happen".

[patrice]

6. One word: Congress. nt

[Jakes Progress]

83. How many in Congress are

on record as favoring a cut in SS benefits?

And how does your one word make it okay for a Democratic president to champion cutting guaranteed benefits to the elderly as a means of balancing the budget when SS had nothing to do with the deficit?

Kinda silly.

[FogerRox]

7. Its a tax increase on the wealthist Americans. GOP will defend their masters

to their death, when it comes to a tax increase.
A network executive who makes 20 million would pay about 550k in additional FICA, but he would also get a 168k annual benefit if he retired today, with no cap.

Lets tax the rich thru income taxes (70% to 90% ?) and Cap gains (28-35), and not give them a check big enough to buy a custom Ferrari.

The only thing wrong with SS is the economy. Create jobs raise the min wage and we can watch the FICA roll in.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Please explain the 168K. That's from Social Security?

[Lochloosa]

12. Yeah..I didn't get that one..

[FogerRox]

106. Benefits are calculated from income See AIME Formula

The last COLA was accomplished by raising the cap from 110k to 113k. Anytime you raise the income cap you raise benefits. IF we Remove the cap, we make a 14k monthly check for an uber rich person. About 168k annually.

[cthulu2016]

13. Yes. Raising the cap is a cash flow measure, not charity.

Higher pay-in = higher benefits down the road, as it should.

But raising the cap gets more money in today to weather the baby-boomer bulge.

[JDPriestly]

68. It would not work that way.

Your benefit is in proportion to your contributions, but not to that extent.

[cthulu2016]

80. presumably the benefit limits would be changed as part of the move

since it would be politically nessecary

[JDPriestly]

81. I doubt that they would be changed by much. It would defeat the purpose

of raising the cap.

[FogerRox]

109. By current law, if all we do is remove the Cap, we create a 14k monthly check

See my other comments about job creation and the 2012 Trustees report

[JDPriestly]

116. If they can change to chained CPI, they can change the law that would

permit them to pay out $14,000 per month. $14,000 per year is not that much. Some people can get that much now. In fact, $14,000 per year is close to average.

[FogerRox]

121. remove the cap we create a 14k monthly benefit, 168k a year

[JDPriestly]

122. As I said, you could remove the cap and also place a percentage limit

on benefits. So that the top benefit is only a certain multiple of the lowest benefit, for example. There are many workable ways to do that.

[FogerRox]

123. IIRC the last bend point is 5%, cant go much lowerr than that, without being called a means test.

[avaistheone1]

126. JD, your understanding is correct. That is what Senator Sanders explained on

the Thom Hartmann Show when discussing the issue of raising the cap.

[HiPointDem]

139. you 'could' do lots of things. that's not how things work currently, however.

and why anyone would want to remove the cap & limit benefits to top earners, thereby turning SS into a welfare program funded overwhelmingly by the top 10% of wage earners is beyond me.

it's difficult to imagine a change that would be more likely to destroy the program.

[FogerRox]

108. IF we capSS benefits with a means test we just turned SS into a welfare program.

Yet if we create 20 million jobs @ 36k each, that equals 89.2 billion in FICA the first year, in a 15 trillion dollar economy, thats .6%, which is exactly what the CBO scored the SS shortfall at, - .6% of GDP.

Each annual report by the SS Trustees includes 3 cost based assumptions and a Stochastic Model:

High cost: TF exhausted by 2029
Intermediate cost: TF exhausted by 2033
Low cost: TF is not exhausted in the 76 yr projection
Stochastic Model: TF is exhausted by 2048

But the 2033 date is all we hear about from the media & the GOP.

SO if we create some jobs and raise the min wage, and in 10 years it hasnt been enough, raising the cap is still an option.

[FogerRox]

107. SO you bekive the GOP when they say SS is broke in 2033?

Well heres whats important to know, if you advocate to remove the SS income cap, as a fix. WE can leave it alone, and if in 10 years, job creation & increasing the min wage hasnt done enough...

Well then removing the cap is still an option.

But trust me, when the GOP says SS Trust Fund will be depleted in 2033... AINT going to happen.

In fact the SS Trustees Stohashtic model has a 97% confidence rate at 2048.

And by 2045 the vast majority of the Boomers will be dead. By 2050 assets grow slowly, by 2060 they grow much quicker, according to the low cost scenario. This is the path to SS being good thru 2090.



Each annual report by the SS Trustees includes 3 cost based assumptions and a Stochastic Model:

High cost: TF exhausted by 2029
Intermediate cost: TF exhausted by 2033
Low cost: TF is not exhausted in the 76 yr projection
Stochastic Model: TF is exhausted by 2048

But the 2033 date is all we hear about in the media.

Remember the job of an Actuary is to provide for a conservative financial assessment.

C-CPI gets deficit reduction not thru SS, but thru C-CPI cutting other programs and bracket creep on income taxes caused by C-CPI, a tax increase of about 65 billion thru 2023.

One thing the SST dont account for, as Boomers retire, that will tighten up the job market, traditionally this should make employers bid higher for labor. Many economists predict significant wage growth from now until 2045-2050 when the Boomers will statistically be dead.

[HiPointDem]

131. raising the cap *is* charity, unless you adjust benefits accordingly. the highest earners would

be paying most of the cost of the program.

not to mention that raising the cap would give them lots of new money to borrow into the general budget, again postponing repayment of the near THREE TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT already owed.

why the rush to do something *now,* when exhaustion of the trust fund isn't projected until TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW? And may not happen AT ALL?

[FogerRox]

105. The max SS benefit is computed from your input. Raise the cap, and you raise benefits.

[Honeycombe8]

102. There's a cap on benefits. You mean removing the cap on benefits?

Currently, the cap that is taxed is based on the cap of benefits....we're at the max, I think. Any more tax on the wealthy...that is not Social Security, because they will not receive one more dime in benefits. It is just increasing their taxes.

Unless you're talking raising the benefits cap. Which sort of defeats the purpose of raising the FICA taxes on the wealthy in the first place.

[FogerRox]

111. Benefits are not capped, but income is, currently at $113,700.

Just raised from 110,100, the COLA was achieved by raising the cap, from 110 to 113, a 1.7% COLA IIRC.

SInce benefits are caculated from income and income is capped at 113k its a defacto cap on benefits.

Capping benefits is a means test, its welfare, FDR didnt want to make welfare, "the Dole" was not popular then or too much now.

WE can remove the cap, and cap benefits, or we can get just about the same revenue from creating 20 million jobs at 36k each in infrastructure spending.

Which sort of defeats the purpose of raising the FICA taxes on the wealthy in the first place.

...thats a very good point, and thats why I prefer to create jobs, raise the min wage and watch the FICA roll in, VS any major changes to SS.

[Honeycombe8]

112. Social Security benefits are capped. There is a max. annual benefit. nt

[FogerRox]

120. Which is created by the income cap

move the income cap you move the benefit

[Honeycombe8]

124. You said there is no benefit cap. I pointed out that there is, so that would have to be increased...

which wipes out any benefit from raising the income cap.

It's a catch-22.

The only way to benefit from raising the income cap is NOT to raise the benefit cap. If you don't raise the benefit max, then it's NOT a Social Security tax for those folks whose taxes were increased. It's just another tax to be spent on what would then be an entitlement...opening up the door for privatization.

[HiPointDem]

133. lifting the cap while keeping benefits the same = top earners pay for most of the program & get

nothing in proportion back = welfare program = politically unsound program.

peels off the support of the top 10-20%, the fraction of the population whose support is crucial.

hello, private accounts.

you want to destroy SS? Keep on talking about raising the cap.

SS taxes are paid by LABOR. Income taxes are paid by CAPITAL.

You want to hit 'the rich'? Make them repay the nearly THREE TRILLION they already owe to SS. Don't give them even *more* money from labor that they can 'borrow'.

[FogerRox]

137. Its difficult to discuss this when some dont understand the fundamentals, like AIME etc

And proposing to raise the cap is admitting the GOP is right: SSTF will be exhausted in 2033.

And some of these same people tend to discount job creation and wage growth over the next 20 yrs.

Boomers retire, and they are removed from the labor market, this creates upward wage pressure. FACT.

Last year the CBO said the economy would create 12 million jobs.... thats a wee bit of FICA right there, about 40% - 50% of the CBO scored shortfall of .6% of GDP.... FACT

It should be real fricking obvious that job creation means more FICA. But no !

[FogerRox]

136. Legally there is no benefit cap,

Benefits are raised by raising the income cap.

Its not clear to me you understand that. AM I not understanding your comment?

[HiPointDem]

132. The cap on taxable earnings is raised nearly every year, and so is the maximum benefit. It's

the max taxable earnings that determines the max benefit, not the reverse.

[ProSense]

2. Somehow

"Barack Obama thinks that Social Security Benefits are TOO LARGE"

...I doubt that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022619436

[Demo_Chris]

28. Nonsense. It is self evidently true.

If he did not believe they were too large he would propose other means of fixing social security (assuming one believes it needs fixing at all).

[Armstead]

30. You spin so much you confuse me

Are you in favor of Obama's plan? ("I doubt that.&quot

Or are you critical of it? By posting an old video of Obama contradicting what he is saying now and posting Bernie Sanders.

Your cut and pastes seem to contradict each other.

[grahamhgreen]

41. Only someone who wants to starve granny to pay for war would be for Obamas plan.

[Honeycombe8]

103. Well...you know there are provisions for the oldest recipients that exempt them.

So granny isn't going to be 80 or anything.

Not that that makes it okay. Just sayin'....the rhetoric is getting a little off the wall, exaggerating the thing. It's bad enough as is.

[grahamhgreen]

115. If u have a kid when your 21, and she has a kid at 21, ur a granny at 42!

I think it's the denial that's off the wall!

[Jakes Progress]

84. That is that poster's job description.

[AverageJoe90]

71. I don't believe that's his intention.

But will his rope-a-dope backfire? God, I hope not.

[MichiganVote]

3. Its always the same recipe for disaster. Screw the young, screw the old.

Its the fault of old people that George Bush deposited us in two wars?

This is just sick. And the rich, including Obama, will walk away whistling with their hands in the pockets of the elderly. It would take less than 5 years for lobbyists to restore the tax loopholes for the wealthy. It would take an entire generation to restore SS levels for the elderly.

This is a joke. We don't live in a democratic society anymore.

[grahamhgreen]

43. "whistling with their hands in the pockets of the elderly" - great line!

[duffyduff]

49. Look at his public education policies and then try to argue with a straight face

that he is bluffing on SS or Medicare.

He isn't. It's entirely consistent because he wants to give that money over to Wall Street and the billionaires who are supporting him.

He believes in austerity despite the fact it will make the economy worse. He is Chicago School through and through.

[Honeycombe8]

104. It's not screw the young. It's to benefit the young. It's only screwing the SS recipients...

and some other groups. (There are exemptions, and disability recipients are exempted for 15 years.)

[MichiganVote]

110. Oh now I've heard it all. So these people pay into a system for decades

take an economic buzzcut for the youth who HAVE decades yet to work and be productive? AND the SS system hasn't even caused this bullshit? In fact the government has been "borrowing" from the SS for decades. That's BS. And besides Sugar, if you think that taking a few hundred a month from Granny isn't going to hurt these Seniors, you're mistaken.

So thank god we can exempt those on disability. That's only like half the country. Good luck getting yours.

[Honeycombe8]

125. You need to learn to read. And don't call me "sugar." That is condescending bigotry.

First...I'm probably old enough to be your mother. I'll be getting Social Security soon.

Second, I SAID it hurts the elderly, but helps the young. The purpose is to preserve the benefits for the younger generation. At least that's the stated purpose.

The disabled are exempted for 15 years. Why that should upset you, I don't know.

[Laurian]

4. Axlerod pissed me off to the point

that I sent an email to the White House while listening to him. Jesus, these people are out of touch!

[Lifelong Protester]

5. Me too! And this baby boomer has been paying in to SS

for over 40 years. I'm not eligible to collect 'full' benefits for another 8 years.

I'm sick of the meme that 'boomers' are the reason that SS has to be re-worked. Really? Who the heck has been paying in all these years? Is it too much to ask that SS is there as it HAS BEEN PROMISED?

[Marr]

16. They already "fixed it" for the Boomers during the Reagan years.

They raised the FICA tax specifically to pay for the upswell in numbers-- or so they said. As soon as the time to pay out rolled around, the whole political establishment, from right to left, suddenly decided we just can't afford it because, oh no-- so many Boomers!

[Lifelong Protester]

19. Exactly.

Every 'adjustment' is blamed on the boomers. Sick of it, aren't you?

[MichiganVote]

93. Yup, We've been trailing the Reagan generation of boomers all our lives.

[Skittles]

96. us late boomers

are being hit from all sides - they keep changing the rules when there's less and less time for us to correct the damage

[Hoyt]

17. Your payments went to folks your parent's age. Not right, but a fact.

That's why I'm for doing things that help today's young workers. Whatever it takes to keep the three who will be paying my SS benefits, employed and relatively happy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. Doubled the tax to pay for both...so boomers paid for parents and pre-paid their own

benefits. Talk about not right......proposing to cut pre-paid benefits......

[Samantha]

67. That is correct, and that is where the funds in the Social Security Trust Fund came from

I was listening to Jonathan Alter on Chris Hayes' show tonight. He mentioned the number of baby boomers retiring and the crush it was putting on the system. When the reform was accomplished around 1983 or 1984, it was decided the Boomers would have to overpay their premiums in order to finance the huge onslaught of retirements when the Boomers started to retire. After the onslaught of retirements were finished, so it was said, the system would never face another crisis because there would never be another huge drain because the birth rate in subsequent generations born was considerably lower.

The truth not spoken is that if Uncle Sam makes withdrawals against that Trust Fund, the Government must sell a like amount of U.S. Treasury Bonds to cover the withdrawal. In this economy worldwide, that is not easy to do any more. I learned this information from Timothy Geithner himself. So it does appear that Uncle Sam borrowed against those funds to finance two wars and Medicare Part D (read gift to the pharmaceutical companies) and now cannot pay it back as it is needed.

So Social Security payments are too large? Right.

Sam

[daybranch]

73. difficult?

Treasury bonds have been selling at a premium for the Government. Our currency being the safest in the world and our economy considered the most stable, we do not have the trouble you mention according to Bernanke. Are you sure you have your facts right? My info may be dated a bit, but things can be complex and I have not heard we are having any difficulty selling bonds to foreign investors.
As for Uncle Sam borrowing against social security, this started with Gerald Ford I believe, who allowed the General Fund to use the excesses of social security receipts. However the accounting is maintained by the treasury department.

What the heck do you mean , Uncle Sam cannot pay it back? That is why we paid taxes and why the rich need to contribute more in taxes. We can do what we have a will to do. Stealing social security receipts is not in the interest long or short term of the US. Raise the taxes and pay our debt to the retirees. We always hear about paying down the debt but the discussion quickly turns to ripping off old people because we cannot return their money without rasisng taxes on the rich. My heart bleeds for them.

[Samantha]

82. Geitner said exactly that in an interview on cable

It was difficult to sell at this time government bonds and that as funds are withdrawn from the Social Security Trust Fund, they would have to be replaced by selling a like amount in bonds.

When the generated surplus monies were as governed by law diverted to that trust fund, bonds were issued as IOU's. The literal dollars were spent by the government. When George W. Bush left office, he had 10.5 Trillion Dollars in debt kept off the general ledger. The public never even realized this until when President Obama announced shortly after he was elected, that he was moving that amount onto the general ledger so all of the American people would know where things stood. Part of the reason our deficit has grown so much is because of the interest on that debt.

The U.S. Government has also borrowed funds from the Government Employees Pension Plan. The first time I knew about this was when it was publicly announced we would do this following 9/11. I called my brother and told him. He recently retired from the State Department. Another time I heard we would do this when we hit another economic calamity -- it might have been one of those times when Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling.

I do not know if these funds have yet been restored, but I do know I chronically hear government employees' pensions are too high -- just as we heard today Social Security payments are too high. Do you really think that is a coincidence?

Sam

[delrem]

86. That's very ... interesting. OK, alarming.

"When George W. Bush left office, he had 10.5 Trillion Dollars in debt kept off the general ledger."

Did all of that 10.5 Trillion belong to W.? Or does this travesty belong to earlier administrations also, Dems and Reps? Important: when did it start?

Clearly, US wars of choice (aggression rather than defense) have been paid for by this. How long has this been going on? How many people realize that this is a direct transfer from their trust fund into the accounts of, e.g., Haliburton, and Blackwater/Xe/Academi, and that they are being told, by politicians from both parties, that payment is due NOW?

What does this say about the US economy, considering that *nothing* is being changed at the top w.r.t. these war/military outlays that are sucking dry an american people which, when there's nothing left of them but husks as in a spider web, will have to go elsewhere to feed?

[delrem]

87. Jonathan Alter...

there's something about this fellow that reminds me of "Steven", the chief of staff at Candyland in Django Unchained. To be sure the suck up of Jonathan Alter is totally toward his masters, whatever race/class/sect/ethnicity/religion/ whatever they may be, but I don't think that makes Jonathan different from Steven.

[Dragonfli]

95. It seems interesting that SS is the only creditor they don't HAVE to pay back

When our other creditors learn that The treasury bonds sold to the SS trust fund that were backed by the full faith and credit of the US do not have to be paid back, will it help our credit rating? I know these special bonds are not to be traded publicly but they ARE backed by the full faith and credit of the US, since the bonds we sold to China are sharing the same apparently meaningless attribute of "being backed by the full faith and credit of the US" I think we should pay back our trust fund and screw them, since it is optional now to pay back debts to some/any of our creditors.

I mean, if we are going to screw over a creditor why would we choose to screw over our elderly and disabled by robbing their trust fund rather than some other hapless mark that thought our credit was good?

[Samantha]

113. Do you know that the largest holder of US debt is its American citizens -- not China, not Japan

not any foreign entity, just the American people. Uncle Sam could slash its deficit by a huge chunk with a few controversial maneuvers. That is why you have to watch every move. The Government has also borrowed more than once from the government employees' pension fund. Now we are hearing Government employees' pensions are too large. Is that a coincidence?

Sam

[Dragonfli]

114. It sounds more like theft than coincidence, good advice to watch every move. /nt

[bvar22]

36. Bogus BS.

"Your payments went to folks your parent's age."

If that were even close to true,
we would NOT have a multi-trillion dollar surplus in Social Security today,
would we?

As Boomers, we paid for our parents
AND ourselves.

[delrem]

88. Correct. That person doesn't understand the concept 'insurance'. nt

[grahamhgreen]

45. Wrong. Those payments created the SS trust fund.

[JDPriestly]

70. No. Hoyt. The baby boomers paid extra. Reagan assured us that

what we were paying would pay for our parents and that, once they were paid for, the excess would be placed in the Social Security Trust Fund for the baby boomers' retirement.

George W. Bush spent the Social Security Trust Fund on his two stupid wars, his tax cuts for the rich and then the broken banks.

When we who are not retired or about to retire are starving in our cold one-room apartments in our 90s, we will be thinking of George W. Bush and his two stupid wars, the tax cuts he gave his buddies and how he let the banks steal from the taxpayers.

And then we will remember Obama who dealt the final blow to Social Security.

[Hoyt]

89. Current benefits exceed inflow. I did not say all this is right.

It's like cancer, we don't deserve it - but griping and claiming it ain't right does little.

If I could take several trillion dollars out of bush's arse , l would.

[JDPriestly]

97. We may yet take several trillion dollars out of places like bush's arse.

I am more and more a fan of Bernie Sanders.

And Elizabeth Warren. And Alan Grayson.

My heroes at this point at least with regard to economic issues.

[socialist_n_TN]

98. We could take several trillion dollars out of the offshore bank accounts.....

of the wealthy pigs that BENEFITED from that theft of SS funds and give it back to the ones it was taken from. But we've got to have the will to do it. Because our "elected" representatives surely won't.

[unrepentant progress]

8. If the President had wanted to reassure me today

All he would have had to have done is explicitly spell out what those "protections" are supposed to be, and detail the exact chained CPI formula they plan to use. Instead we just get vague platitudes based on nothing real.

[babylonsister]

9. Sigh. THE SKY IS FALLING!!

Yea, Axelrod pissed me off, too.

I don't think it's gonna happen, me and Ezra Klein and a bunch of other people.

[Armstead]

32. Then why the hell did Obama even bring it up?

Bringing up unpalatable shit is supposed to be the Republicans' job.

[grahamhgreen]

48. He hates our grannies and loves the hoarding class.

[neverforget]

58. Well at least he didn't offer an increase in the retirement age.

Seniors need more money, not less. This is insane.

[cthulu2016]

62. That would be a tough lift because it is already going to 67

(in current law)

[neverforget]

65. But Republicans want 70. Obama should offer 70 so he can

look brilliant and play rope a dope and chess and whatnot. He would be really popular with Third Way Democrats and Beltway Talking Heads.

[Whisp]

10. bullcrap.

another friggen ground hog day/week/month on DU.

As always, next week or in the near future all of this hair on fire stupidity will fade away when it's realized that it's the media selling crap, as usual, and the gop wrapping it up in bows.

omg.

[TheProgressive]

14. First, Obama is 'selling this crap'...

And let me ask... If all us real democrats/progressives/liberals just kicked back and not said a word...?

What the fuck do you think they would think? Obama: "See the professional left are silent so cut SS (suckers)'.

[cthulu2016]

15. Your beautiful mind shall remain untroubled.

[Whisp]

47. this so reminds me of when Obama 'cut Medicare'...

the frenzy and blood squirting and raging going on for weeks and weeks.

yeh, he did, but the cuts were done to The Providers and not the recipients. But no, no, no. Obama mean. Obama keel pore folks!

So excuse and forgive me I won't pay much attention to the pogo stick jumpers until something Actually Happens in writing.

good lord.

[grahamhgreen]

50. Read his budget. It is in writing. How do you feel about raising the cap?

[Whisp]

51. Is it a done deal, signed and sealed? n/t

[cthulu2016]

55. Its failure will not be due to Obama. He has agreed to it.

If congress passes his budget exactly as offered he will sign it.

I don't expect Congress to cooperate at all but that doesn't mean Obama doesn't support his own budget.

[Whisp]

57. and it doesn't mean that you know what the President is thinking either. n/t

[cthulu2016]

59. I'm not a mind-reader, but why should I have to be? Why assume everything he says is a lie?

[Whisp]

63. A lot of what he says is misunderstood, he's not a liar, but nice try. n/t

[cthulu2016]

66. He's a professional communicator. I am fluent in English.

But I return the compliment... nice try.

[grahamhgreen]

92. 1) Yes: "something Actually Happen(ed) in writing", 2) Do we agree raising the cap is better?

[socialist_n_TN]

99. When it's a "done deal, signed and delivered" isn't that a little late....

to complain about anything? I think I'll do my complaining BEFORE it's a fait accompli.

[cthulu2016]

53. A lot of DUers were saying that?

Odd... I don't remember much ruckus here over the "$700 billion medicare cut" thing.

In fact, it was eviscerated... universally recognized as a baseless Romney talking point.

Maybe I was reading all the wrong posts.

[Whisp]

56. way before the Romney thing. in the hatching of it, not the aftermath.

same group of people jumping up and down screaming...

[cthulu2016]

60. Fair enough. A lot of stuff was said during the healthcare debates...

...including a lot of stuff against the ACA that I did not agree with. The ACA is better than nothing and I support it.

[Marr]

27. The media and the GOP?

Obama has been selling this. Over and over.

Chained CPI has been a Third Way/Corporate Democrat policy goal for a long time, and making it happen would be, in that crowd, a real feather in Obama's cap. If he doesn't manage to make his big project happen, however, he is most certainly not absolved.

[patrice]

18. Think goddamit!!! Corporate Personhood: if DAVID AXELROD said a NEW CONGRESS could raise the cap,

that would be THE KISS OF FUCKING DEATH to any new congressional candidates contemplating such a goal, because CORPORATE PERSONS would know whom TO TARGET ABOVE ALL OTHERS since their agreement with the very well connected David FUCKING Axelrod would make them a particularly serious threat of success on winning a congressional seat and becoming a significant threat to them by Raising the Cap.

What David Axelrod says is not like what you or I say; people in powerful positions have to be extremely careful about what they say in public.

For god's sake, ask "WHY???" HONESTLY now and then, put away your biases and actually wonder why people say or don't say things, instead of putting them in a predefined category and reducing all possibilities to that. Believe it or not, the entire world and everything that can happen around a president doesn't ALL fit our categories for it.

[Laurian]

21. What? We can't take our President or his representatives at their word?

We have to try to figure out some convoluted reason that he may not mean what he's saying? I'm ready for some Harry Truman straight talk. To hell with this chess playing bullshit.

[cthulu2016]

23. When the best defense is "It is all lie..." one loses hope and interest.

[patrice]

33. You know darned well that Presidents aren't kings & CONGRESS WRITES THE LEGISLATION. nt

[Laurian]

37. He is considered the leader of the Democratic Party.

Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

For him to promote a policy so contrary to Democratic Party principles greatly weakens our position.

And I do not appreciate it one bit.

[bvar22]

40. That is the most lame rationalization ...

...for the President abandoning the New Deal and offering to Cut Social Security I have read to date.
Everybody is stupid but you and The BOG.

Congratulations.

[JDPriestly]

75. That should be true.

The Constitution authorizes the House to initiate revenue bills.

But Obama took it upon himself to propose a budget and included the chained CPI in it. He did not have to do that.

He could have left it up to Congress. But he chose not to.

He could have left the chained CPI out of his budget proposal if he had to provide one.

He could have waited until the Republicans proposed it and until the public reacted and then decided what to do.

I'm hoping that the chained CPI dies in Congress.

[patrice]

127. He took the lead on that in order to pair it with a powerful poison pill, Universal Pre-K, which has

strong appeal to, what, at least half of that 47% whom Romney and his friends have so much contempt for that they hate Universal Pre-K. So it was a poison pill for Romney et al, and now those 47%-ers KNOW that the GOP doesn't want them to have Universal Pre-K and the ones who didn't care that much about Universal Pre-K one way or another know sequestration is still on track because REPUBLICANS refused to accept something they wanted from PO, Social Security modification, so they must not have cared about sequestration.

Additionally, all of the hubub advertises more widely that there were jobs and Universal Pre-K in Obama's budget than if he had done something less controversial than CCPI.

Reactionaries never play their own game. Why don't more people have at least a general perception of what complex high stakes negotiations are like? No one knows any corporate attorneys? Has never read about that sort of thing or seen movies or tv series like Damages?

https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&rlz=1G1SNNT_ENUS412&q=business+negotiation+movies&oq=business+negotiation+movie&gs_l=igoogle.1.0.0i22i30.2559.8331.0.12895.26.12.0.14.14.0.85.778.12.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.FcXliZdQxpc

Do people really think negotiating with the enemy in highly complex situations with multiple political dimensions is just like talking to anyone else?

http://www.negotiations.com/case/

[JDPriestly]

128. You are right. Most people have no clue. Obama has no clue.

[patrice]

135. You think he's not using focus groups and poling data like so many other presidents have?

Why would he NOT avail himself of that information? Aren't people complaining constantly about the government's access to ALL kinds of information?

You think he doesn't have various financial modelling tools at his disposal of the same sort that any financial planner has, the sorts of things that can view/filter data in any way you can think of? Have you ever worked around any kind of really big knowledge base?

Could you tell me a little bit more about why you think "Obama has no clue"? I really don't understand. He could have a clue that is more OR less incorrect, but I'm wondering how you know the probability of error in what Obama knows. Please tell me more.

[Marr]

34. I love it. So the fact that they only offer corporate solutions is proof

that they're on OUR SIDE!

Ooookay.

[patrice]

38. We are expected to be the ones on our side, while they do their jobs that happen to include a bunch

of other people who also put them there, some of whom differ with us on this issue along economic class lines. I don't like that, but I'm NOT going to pretend it isn't true. Their jobs ALSO include a whole wide variety of other issues that they are expected to deliver on, not just this one issue, and ALL of those issues are connected to one another by what happens, i.e. what we do and what they do on any given issue affects one or more of the other issues.

It's not a simple as people pretend it is, especially when there are waaaaaaaay too many passive people in this country who don't know crap about most of the issues and don't pay attention to what's going on.

[Marr]

54. So no more "brilliant rope-a-dope", huh?

That was a lot of word soup that basically boils down to, 'he only hits me because he's stressed out'.

Fuck that. I'm not going to excuse or forgive any politician who makes such an earnest, sustained attempt to cut Social Security benefits, and I think any Democrat who does is a sucker.

[neverforget]

61. Just dopes who thought this is a good strategy.

Have a Democrat offer a cut to SSI and then....profit!

[xtraxritical]

69. I don't understand a thing this Patrice is saying.

[patrice]

129. Try asking a question. nt

[JDPriestly]

74. Sorry. Patrice. But all I can say is excuses, excuses.

Here on DU, we all know better than that.

Any member of Congress who votes for the chained CPI will face a firestorm.

I spoke today to a party stalwart, and even she was upset about it. She is normally a huge, huge Obama supporter. But not today. Not about the chained CPI.

More people rely on their Social Security benefits just to survive than a couple of DUers realize.

Obama and Axelrod stepped on a hornets' nest on this one. And they don't yet realize what a big nest it is. Obama and the Democratic Party will get stung real bad this time. Real bad.

The chained CPI is an outrage, and announced on a day when the stock market goes up enough to make headlines. That's a slap in the face to every lower middle class American between the ages of 45 and 110.

[Cleita]

20. I think we should sent Hekate's thread to him on how to

eat on practically nothing. Ask him if he and his guests would be willing to live for a week on a food stamp and food pantry diet. The savings tips here are from people who can still function. What are the physically dysfunctional and disabled supposed to do, to grow this food, haul those big bags of rice from CostCo, cook from scratch?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022650430

In this thread are tips on making coffee from chick peas, egg free pancakes, how to survive on lentils, chick peas and rice with little fresh food because of the expense or not being able to refrigerate. How to mix powdered milk with fresh milk so it doesn't taste so bad. Many, many other tips.

While he and his Republican guests dine on a green salad, steak and sautéed vegetables, and discuss how they are going to screw over the poor, disabled and elderly, I'm sure Michele is thinking about getting healthier food to everyone who can't afford it.

Oh, and here is the original cat food thread with lots of information on how many of our own DUers are trying to survive with little money.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2649504

[bhikkhu]

22. Doesn't his actual proposal raise benefits for those most in need?

As they are more than offset by the changes in the supplemental payments? As well as exempting means-tested government benefits from chained cpi, that's a fairly simple way to do it.

Not that I expect any of this to ever make it through congress - as it would actually work, and it would reduce income inequality, which is one good test of any policy change. Of course, we can also do nothing.

[cthulu2016]

26. Myself, I reject turning SS into a welfare program

Others may disagree.

[bhikkhu]

29. Wouldn't raising the cap do the same thing, in principle?

Meaning - not the same thing at all as chained cpi, with or without adjustments to the supplemental, but that raising the cap would further abstract the size of the benefit to an individual from the size of that individual's contribution?

[cthulu2016]

35. Not conceptually. Raising the cap would lead to some HUGE SS benefit checks down the road

We have a huge bulge in benefits coming up from baby-boomer retirements, and this low-job economy isn't helping much.

Raising the cap would force high-earners to buy-into SS with a lot more money today, which we need, and they would get deservedly big checks when they retire later on.

There are policy wrinkles in the thing already that cause high-earners to get a relatively worse deal from SS and raising the cap would magnify those, but I don't favor that at all.

I am all for welfare from general revenue... I'm pretty much a socialist.

Big since SS is so popular largely because it is not perceived as a welfare program I don't want to monkey with that more than we must.

[JDPriestly]

78. There is a relationship between how much you put into Social Security

and how much you get out, but the maximum is not that high. That would not have to change. It would be preferable to cutting Social Security for the middle class via the chained CPI.

[HiPointDem]

134. We don't have to monkey with it at all, so why you keep insisting we should is a mystery.

[loyalsister]

76. Would conceptualizing it as insurance do that?

As you and FDR stated:
<We must not allow this type of insurance to become a dole through the mingling of insurance and relief. It is not charity. It must be financed by contributions, not taxes.>

In this talk it seems he was proposing an insurance program.

Last June I said that this winter we might well make a beginning in the great task of providing social insurance

Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject. First, the system adopted, except for the money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits

At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:

1. Unemployment compensation.

2. Old-age benefits, including compulsory and voluntary annuities.

3. Federal aid to dependent children through grants to States for the support of existing mothers' pension systems and for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected, dependent, and crippled children.

4. Additional Federal aid to State and local public health agencies and the strengthening of the Federal Public Health Service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so called “health insurance,” although groups representing the medical profession are cooperating with the Federal Government in the further study of the subject and definite progress is being made.

As Governor of New York, it was my pleasure to recommend passage of the Old-Age Pension Act which, I am told, is still generally regarded as the most liberal in the country. In approving the bill, I expressed my opinion that full solution of this problem is possible only on insurance principles.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#exec

I

One thing that he could not be anticipated is the eventual cold blooded disposition of the insurance industry. It
has been modified several times. It is really difficult to dissect all of the rhetoric to be certain of what he meant. Regardless, it has chained over time.
People who paid little or nothing into SS receive benefits. Disabled at 24, I receive SS disability. I ave two aunts who were never employed, but do receive benefits. It is more complicated than I can understand at this late hour. I do know that there are a number of ways of looking at it. I am skeptical and hopeful that that there is something behind it that I am missing. I am going to reserve judgement for now,

[JDPriestly]

77. Those "supplemental payments" are actually just a transfer of

obligations to take care of the needs of those who now receive less than the $11,900 per year that is the poverty guideline maximum FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SOCIAL SECURITY.

That concept imposes a burden of Social Security that has heretofore been on the general fund.

That is one of the most objectionable aspects of Obama's proposals. It's really, really sneaky.

I wonder whether Obama has figured out that it is a transfer of burdens from the general fund to Social Security.

This plan will deplete the Social Security Trust Fund even more than it would be depleted without the chained CPI.

It's just really, really ugly on Obama's part to do this to people.

[bhikkhu]

85. Both sources come from the SS trust fund, originating in FICA payments...

Both social security benefits and supplemental security (SSI) benefits. They both come out of the same trust fund, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[sabrina 1]

130. If he wanted to do that, all he had to do was to propose raises in SS. There is enough money,

in the SS to raise everyone's benefits, which would stimulate the economy. We don't need charity, the people paid for this fund. What he is doing is what SS was never meant to be, a 'welfare program' which it is NOT.

This whole thing is so sickening. Shameful that a Democrat would do, just because, as he said 'Republicans asked him for it'.

[jwirr]

24. There IS something we can do - raise the cap. But I think what Jonathan Alter was saying is that

this option will not pass in this congress. I think he is right.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

39. (Posted in wrong spot!) Social Security, Obamacare and this summer's debt-limit debate

I just read this and am still digesting it:

The Secret Republican Plan to Repeal 'Obamacare'
And why the fight is far from over.
By Chris Frates

Updated: March 28, 2013 | 6:09 p.m.
March 27, 2013 | 7:30 p.m

....

McConnell, a master of byzantine Senate procedure, immediately realized that, as a tax, the individual mandate would be subject to the budget reconciliation process, which exempted it from the filibuster. In other words, McConnell had just struck upon how to repeal Obamacare with a simple majority vote.

....

Of course, Republicans are doing their best to highlight and stoke the kind of constituent anger that would force Democrats to tweak the law. In fact, if Democrats come under enough pressure, Republicans believe they might be able to inject Obamacare into the broader entitlement-reform discussion they are planning to tie to the debt-limit debate this summer.

But that is a long shot. If Republicans hope to completely repeal the health care law, they have to start by taking back the Senate in 2014 and would likely need to win the White House two years later. Still, some Republicans think the politics are on their side.

....

In the meantime, Republicans will continue to, as GOP Sen. John Barrasso put it, “try to tear (Obamacare) apart.” And the GOP suspects it might get some help from moderate Democrats less concerned about protecting Obama’s legacy than winning reelection.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-secret-republican-plan-to-repeal-obamacare-20130327

It may not pass because of the reason bolded above. Rs can then campaign on Obama/Democrats being willing to cut Social Security. In 2014, we'll have a redux of the 2010 death panels, only it will be Granny trying to survive on cat food. They take control, and Social Security will be *that* much closer to being handed over to Wall Street vultures.

[Iliyah]

79. Yeah I know about this and its sad because GOPers

do not have a viable alternative, therefore, over approx. 150 million will lose medical coverage, and the pre-existing condition persons will be dropped like a hot potato. SSI will be turned over to Wall Street and I give it less than five years before its lifeforce is sucked out. Medicare/Medicaid (Medi-Cal in Cali) will be no more. The Safety Nets will either be diminished and/or gone (food stamps).

Sequester: Meals on Wheels cut back at least 30% - 50%. Same for Head Start. Cancer patients being denied. School lunch programs - gone. People layed off. Federal - furloughs, and many many more.

Pres O ask for the 1-2% pay their fair taxes. No per GOPers, BUT, we want cuts like SSI and Medicare and maybe we talk. GOPers, cuts are not deep enough. GOPers, no to revenue. Congress are the budget makers they hold the purse.

Offer cuts to SSI and Medicare. . . .GOPers will never accept any budget plan that Pres O presents. Attacks from the left, middle, rights and others on Pres O. Key, GOPers attacking him on cuts hurting the "seniors" not the poor but the seniors. SSI and Medicare is safe. Phew. . . .

[DJ13]

72. will not pass in this congress

That excuse only works if the person saying it buys into the propaganda that SS needs fixing now.

We actually have 27+ years to raise the cap and keep benefits the same.

Theres no rush, we can wait until theres a better congress.

[jwirr]

91. Of course but in the mean time these little fixes can do a lot of damage.

[socialist_n_TN]

100. So don't do ANYTHING now. I swear, WHY.......

IS THERE SUCH A RUSH WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION TO DO SOMETHING NOW? It's like they think "Do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong". Hell this fucking sequester (call it what it is-austerity) is the result of a, to borrow a phrase, "hair on fire" attitude on the part of the Obama administration to do SOMETHING, when doing NOTHING would have probably resolved this two years ago. And more than likely resolved it IN OUR FAVOR.

Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something that's wrong.

[jwirr]

119. I think that is what I was saying - that all this conceding little changes is going to hurt SS and

Medicare a lot worse than just working for raising the cap.

[FogerRox]

138. Becasue top earners get hit hard

Some of them are Dems, even liberals. A network exec making 20 million would pay in an additional 550k in year one. And if retired in year 2 would get a 168k annual benefit. SO they wont support it. and the GOP wont support it.

When the GOP says SSTF will be exhausted in 2033, that aint going to happen. Ther Trustees issue 4 scenarios, High cost 2029, Intermediate cost 2033, low cost, trust fund is not exhausted thru 2090, and a Stochastic model: 2048.

The CBO scored the SSTF 75 year shortfall at .6% of GDP, well if we returned to New Deal spending on infrastructure, that would create about 23 million jobs.

20 million jobs at 36k each would add 89.2 billion in FICA. Thats .6% of GDP.

We can close the same SSTF shortfall, that the cap would close, by creating jobs, raise the min wage. IF in 10 tens years thats fixed 2/3rds the shortfall, well raise the cap to 90% of income and that fixes the rest.

The GOP is wrong, SS is not broke, not will it be.

[on point]

42. Obama wants to cut Social Security?? He CAN'T be SERIOUS!!!!

[duffyduff]

46. Yeah, he is. Just like the good neoliberal he truly is.

He's the Margaret Thatcher of the U.S.

[In_The_Wind]

90. As an old baby boomer ... I hope that Obama isn't serious!

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. No he doesn't. n/t

[DirkGently]

52. Yep. Rachel said it must be politics, but it IS policy. Obama wants SS cut, period.

This is not the first or second time Obama has lumped SS in with spending issues and the deficit. He is either onboard with the Republican framing, or he is willing to commit to pretending he does.

I liked the little blanch Axelrod did when Rachel said that Obama "will feel the ground shift beneath his feet" on this one.

[ReRe]

64. I didn't like Chris Hayes anyway...

... not going to watch him at all anymore. When I heard him use the word "Middle", i.e. middle of the road, as if it was the best thing since sliced bread, that was it. "The middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos." (Jim Hightower quote.)

Primary the DLCers out and elect Real Democrats into a veto-proof majority in 2014!

Then we can show PO how to be a real Democrat.

[99Forever]

94. K&R

[elleng]

101. Bull Shit.

and axelrod said it was not 'doable.'

That is all,

[sabrina 1]

118. Axelrod is a moron. That is part of this WH has always concerned me. The man is ignorant,

should be fired and would be by any Democrat who actually wants Democrats to win in 2014.

He is no doubt at least partly responsible for the current disaster.

And he hates 'the left' so what is he doing in a 'left' administration?

What a tragedy it is that out of all the super bright, smart, intelligent Democrats there we get this ignoramus appointed to a position that is so way above his IQ abilities.

Are there any Progressive Dems in the President's Cabinet btw? All I ever see are people I would never, ever vote for, Monsanto CEOs eg, representing this administration.