55 Dems Sign Letter To Obama Opposing Social Security Cuts, Privatization

[t0dd]

Source: TPM

Over 50 House Democrats have now signed on to a letter, first obtained by TPM earlier this month, warning President Obama they'll oppose any effort on his part, or on the part of his fiscal commission, to cut Social Security benefits or privatize the program.

The letter was spearheaded by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It was originally cosigned by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Dan Maffei (D-NY), Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), and CPC co-chair Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). The advocacy groups P Street Project and MoveOn helped organize the effort to add signatures.

They will continue to round up signatures through tomorrow, before the letter goes to the White House.

"This is not an issue we should even need to debate as Democrats," says Grijalva. "The people of this country have had an agreement with the federal government for many years now - you give to your country during your career, and your country gives back during your retirement."

...

"It's absurd that we're even considering cutting the best social safety net program America ever created," says P Street director Shaunna Thomas. "We are going to keep building momentum for this letter and making clear that any proposal from this commission of millionaires that cuts Social Security is dead on arrival."

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/dem-letter-to-obama-opposing-social-security-cuts-privatization-at-55-signatures.php

[Blue Owl]

1. Cutting SS is such a dumb idea

Only the GOP could possibly get behind it.

[happygoluckytoyou]

19. RELATED STORY ON FOX NEWS.... linsey lohan failed drug test

[lovuian]

139. yes what is Obama thinking like a

Republican

[Journeyman]

2. Only 55? And how many may not be in office after January? . . .

I hope they all remain in office, but 55 seems a piddling sum for such an enormously important issue.

[defendandprotect]

8. Exactly ... gives us a good look at what's left of the "Democratic Party" ...

Wake up, America -- Wake up, DU!!

[pattmarty]

13. That's right. What about the other 200 that should be behind the............

............Dems landmark legislative piece.

[awoke_in_2003]

23. +1000. nt

[daleanime]

29. Hell yea...

if your willing to cut SS, your not a Democrat.:dem:






And you can take your small 'd' target and...

[Enthusiast]

94. My thoughts exactly.

Any Democrat that participates in voting for a bill with cuts or an increase in the retirement age becomes my enemy from that day forward. That includes a President that doesn't veto such a bill. They become my ENEMY!

[valerief]

35. Exactly my thoughts!!!! nt

[watajob]

87. Agreed

Just like the 60-some that solemnly pledged to vote against ANY HCR that didn't contain a "viable" public option. How'd that work out? Lyin' bastards! All of 'em!

[Usrename]

113. Yep!

[bvar22]

140. That was my first thought:

Only 55??........We are in real trouble.
This should easily be unanimous. No discussion needed!!!

Even whispers of Cutting Social Security and Medicare within the Democratic Party is a treasonable offense as far as I'm concerned.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[HereSince1628]

3. 50+

You were perhaps wondering why is there an Enthusiasm Gap?

[No Elephants]

31. Pres. Clinton: "What are you going to do? Vote your mad?"

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Raul Grijalva, rocks.

He is a very good example of what representative democracy can be.

[No Elephants]

30. He rocks, right up until he caves. Not impressed by foreplay when he doesn't close the deal.

Case in Point:


"The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog
House Liberals Write Directly To Obama: No Public Option, No Support
In a letter delivered to the White House moments ago, the two leaders of the bloc of House progressives bluntly told President Obama that they will not support any health care plan without a public option in it — and demanded a meeting to inform him face to face.

The not-yet-released letter — the first joint statement from progressives since news emerged that Obama might not address the public option in next week’s speech — is their sharpest challenge yet to the president, given the extraordinary sensitivity of this political moment. The letter urges him to mention the public option in his speech.

“Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Mediare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable,” reads the letter, which was sent over by a source. It was signed by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva, the two leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs,” the letter continues. “We cannot vote for anything less.”


Read more: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/house-liberals-write-directly-to-obama-no-public-option-no-support/

[speppin]

5. only 50 have signed!!!!

where in the hell are the others!!!

[Recursion]

6. Probably trying to get re-elected

And sensing that this pledge wouldn't help them do that this time around.

[pattmarty]

14. And, why wouldn't it?

[liberation]

25. So they can court the republican voters and those "moderates"

who think social security is the work of the devil.

The DLC and their army of howling monkeys figure that loyalty between Dem voters and Dem politicians is a one way street.

[Recursion]

116. Don't mix up the DLC and the Blue Dogs

There are only a couple of people who are in both caucuses (Jane Harman and some real back-benchers I've never heard of).

The NDN (which I think is what people mean when they say "DLC", since the actual DLC is just From, Bayh, and Ford at this point) has never made noise about cutting SS.

[quakerboy]

55. Because everyone knows that protecting social security is a

losing proposition in modern American elections. Duh!?!

[Recursion]

111. When half of the other party is actually explicitly talking about getting rid of it

Yes, the "third rail" phase is probably over.

[No Elephants]

33. Protecting OASDI won't help with re-election? Are you kidding?

Cutting/privatizing OASDI is known as "the third rail of American politics" for very good reason.

Know who turns out to vote very consistently? People who are collecting OASDI.

[Recursion]

115. A lot has changed in 10 years

Actual candidates are calling for an end to the program and not being abandoned by their voters. Things have changed.

[ProudDad]

144. The only thing that's "changed"

is that things have been allowed (by the republicans and their corporate codependants...the democrats) to slide so far to the right that someone who proposes privatizing Social Security isn't ridden out of town on a rail...

[Jim Sagle]

37. Yeah, actually it WOULD help them. But hey, you knew that.

[defendandprotect]

7. FROZEN COLA's mean "cuts" in Social Security ... and other programs....

Only 55 Dems speaking out???

That pretty much gives us an idea of how much of the Democratic Party is left!!

We need a new presidential candidate in 2012 ... and if we can't recover this Democratic

Party we should recreate it OUTSIDE of the DLC/Democratic Party!

[NorthCarolina]

11. As does raising the retirement age.

I am in complete agreement with your assessment of the DLC controlled Democratic Party.

[libmom74]

137. I agree

defendandprotect but we need to start now, 2012 is not that far away. Progressive/liberal organizations need to take a good/honest look at this "Democratic" party and recognize that it has been co-opted be the DLC. There are still good true democrats like Grayson and Weiner and others but their numbers are dwindling. It is up to real small d Dems to take back the party or as you said recreate the party outside of the party that has been taken over.

[DirkGently]

9. Hmmm. Why do they think such a letter is needed?

[Vincardog]

12. If you have not heard of Obama's Cat Food Commission you have not been paying ANY attention.

[Faygo Kid]

20. +1

Bet on it: Cuts to Social Security and extension of tax cuts for the rich.

That's where we are as a nation right now.

[unkachuck]

63. "That's where we are as a nation right now."

....that's where our political leadership is right now....

[Enthusiast]

95. Yes, that's where the 'bought'

political leadership is. The American people want to preserve social security. And they don't want it crippled to pay for more wars and tax cuts for millionaires.

[DirkGently]

22. Check your sarcasm detection glands, please. 8)

[JDPriestly]

10. We don't have an overly generous Social Security system.

There may be countries in which the Social Security costs are just too great -- where the retirement age is too low, where the burden on working people is too heavy.

But that is not the case here. About 50% of people over 65 have some sort of disability. 65 is the right retirement age, and the average Social Security benefit puts the recipient just barely over the poverty level.

If we did not have Social Security, people would just suffer -- and the government would have to step in and support them.

I met a woman in her 80s in Austria who had been on a pension since she was 35. They had a program in which they simply encouraged people to leave the workforce and invited people to take their pensions early.

Our Social Security program is very conservative. There is no reason to change it.

What needs changing is our trade policy. We simply cannot import so much junk. We have to learn to make things ourselves -- to employ our working people to make things.

[awoke_in_2003]

24. "There is no reason to change it"...

you are correct, but Wall Street wants that money. Eventually, they will get it- they always get what they want :(

[sabrina 1]

68. I agree except for one change. SS benefits should be RAISED, no cut.

The money was saved by the American people and there was enough to raise benefits. But over the past two years they have already cut benefits by not giving retirees the cost-of-living raise.

It is unacceptable to even consider lowering benefits even for people under 58. It is not necessary. They are trying to make the American people pay off the debts run up by the wealthiest Americans and this should cause a huge outcry. I hope it does. And BEFORE the election, not after as they are hoping to do, devious, cowardly people that they are.

[Enthusiast]

96. I wish I could put you in charge.

But you say, "If we did not have Social Security, people would just suffer -- and the government would have to step in and support them."

I must say, I'm not so sure about that. From what hear from most social conservative pundits on TV they want to rely on private 'charity' to provide for these needs. Because, you know, the private sector is so much more capable than the government. :crazy:

[Better Believe It]

15. How many Senate Democrats will pledge to engage in a real filibuster or even a

"pretend, phantom" filibuster to stop the cuts?

Only 55 in the House are willing to go on record against the cuts. That is pretty low. We need 235 to go on the record.

And what about opposing the cuts that will be proposed for Medicare and Medicaid and the tax increases they may recommend that will mainly impact working people such as "value added taxes", a national sales tax, more user fees, etc.,?

[elocs]

16. Wow! 55 Dems. Out of how many Democrats?

That's a little less than impressive.

[swilton]

17. It will take more than 55 to stop this trainwreck

Obama only listens when the right puts up resistance a la public option, et. al.

[Skittles]

18. they must be "The Professional Left" n/t

[liberation]

21. Good for them. However, the fact that gutting SS is even an issue...

... when the Dems are controlling the White House, the Senate, and Congress is quote the eye opener for yours truly.

[NorthCarolina]

27. I should be a real eye opener for all Dems

and in fact, it is just that on many other Dem sites. Just not so much on DU since the conservative Dems have taken the upper hand and now determine the acceptable tone of discussions.

[emilyg]

28. For many of us it is an eye-opener

among other things.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Obama must be thrilled

Gives him something to triangulated against.

(Astonishing that he'd convene a commission to slash SS.)

[yurbud]

32. and disagreeing with this letter should be the kiss of death for any Dems career

[No Elephants]

42. If you're willing to let Republicans win.

The DNC and Democratic politicians protect incumbents, so good luck primarying any of them. Your next move is at election time. You can: stay home or vote third party, both of which will help the Republican candidate, or vote directly for the Republican candidate.

Any one of those three options is a very hard bullet for a liberal to bite (which is exactly why they feel tonfident disdaining us: "the left has no place else to go.")

[liberation]

66. The left can vote third party...

... it sends a clear message in an election where the Dems are fleeting a conservative candidate.

Frankly I have no clue what difference does it end up making as a liberal to hold one's nose to elect a conservative Dem, who will vote to gut SS, in order to prevent a republican, who will vote to gut SS, from winning. The only people I can see that actually mattering is those drawing a salary from either political party.

[sabrina 1]

70. Then call them before the election. If they are willing to play this game

and think they can win because people have nowhere else to go, then call their bluff. Why are we always in this position, on everything? How does it benefit the people to keep falling for this garbage? I am going to start calling them tomorrow and telling them that either they come out strong against any interference with the SS program, or maybe it doesn't matter if Republicans win. NOW is the time to let them know WE know what they are up to.

[No Elephants]

107. My liberal rep signed a letter on the public option. I contacted him every week anyway. My Sens

and the WH,too. I wish I had that time back almost as much as I wish I had my donations to Obama back.

[Crazy Dave]

122. 2nd'ed n/t

[yurbud]

88. Tea partiers have figured out how to primary incumbents

[No Elephants]

108. With boatloads of money from the likes of the Koch Bros. Know any filtihy rich liberals willing to

buck the Democratic Party, even if it means helping some Republicans into office?

Also, liberals don't have a counterparts for Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, talk radio, mass media ownership, etc.


Sorry, but I do believe Reply 42 set out our current options.

[yurbud]

136. even when primary challenges don't succeed, they can put the fear of God (or at least voters)

in craven corporate pols. Jane Harman trumpets her progressive bona fides on non-defense issues after every run by Marcy Winograd.

[yurbud]

138. if the ''New Democrats'' didn't like who can influence elections with media & money...

they could have fixed that when they had the supermajority in the senate, majority in the house, and the presidency. Instead, Hillary tried to court Murdoch during the primaries, and Obama collected a shitload of cash from Wall Street.

They are trying to become the corporate party of first resort as the GOP model of relying on aging white racists and fundamentalists becomes demographically untenable.

[yurbud]

89. what exactly is the good of having Democrats who vote like Republicans?

[No Elephants]

109. I'm describing the bullet. I am not telling you whether or not you should bite it.

"I have this convo with someone near and dear to me.

Me: What's the difference?

Him: In 2000, Nader told me there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans. After eight years of Bush, ya know what I concluded? There is a difference."

Maybe we have a lousy health insurance bill. Would a Republican even have attempted any bill? Ditto the financial reform bill. Bush vecoed a stem cell bill. He would never have even attempted repeal of DADT, even lamely and slowly.

So, even a New Democrat is at least incrementally better than a Republican. If that were not so, I would not have minded when Brown succeeded Kennedy, but I did mind. Do I wish the difference were much greater Damned straight, I do.

Again, I'm not telling anyone what to do in November, except I think people should vote, if only out of respect for our war dead from the Revolutionary War forward. (Yeah, I'm both a cynic AND a sentimental cheeseball.) Just saying it's not an easy decision.

[yurbud]

135. I will vote in any case, but the DLC grading on a curve argument defines deviancy down

much like the Bushies did with torture they said Saddam and ''the terrists'' did worse (and then someone helpfully beheaded Nick Berg in Iraq to underline Bush's point).

The DLC lie is that ONLY New Democrats will win in some places. The reality is, Obama, Rahm and the DLC back ''New Democrats'' even in states where they don't have to and a viable progressive candidate exists. Do you honestly think a progressive couldn't have won Ted Kennedy's seat?

[Enthusiast]

97. Plus one! nt

[Ignis]

130. In a sane world, it would be.

But here we are.

[harun]

34. Obama should EXPAND SS. Lower retirement, increase benefits. Call it job stimulous.

[daleanime]

40. You would think....

that would be a no brain-er, why force even a few hundred thousand extra people into a weak job market?

[jwirr]

36. Only 55?

[rhett o rick]

38. There are some here in DU that I am sure will go along with the Pres if he decides to cut SS.

They will bad mouth the mysterious "left" as being disgruntled if they try to save SS. Support the pres they will say. If he thinks we dont need single payer, oops i mean Social Security, then support his decision.

[sabrina 1]

69. You are absolutely right. I had a conversation with one of them two days ago.

Best to ignore such people, this is way, way too serious an issue to allow anyone to get in the way of protecting SS. And if the Dems do this, there will be no more 'voting for the lesser evil' nonsense. It is truly outrageous to even think of Dems going along with this rightwing attempt to get the American people to pay off debts they did not run up.

[Enthusiast]

98. Once they do this

what greater act of betrayal is left for us to fear? Will they fire up the gas chambers for the unproductive, the mentally and physically disabled?

[sabrina 1]

146. Good question. What is left to sell out on?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[NanceGreggs]

83. I had no idea I had ascended to royalty ...

... during my absence.

[No Elephants]

120. I assumed the reference was to Pelosi?

[NanceGreggs]

145. I've never seen Pelosi ...

... identified as "Nance" - it's always "Nancy".

[JeffR]

84. And I am curious if you could find your way from your ass to your elbow with a GPS.

Hint: your head's already up there, so your elbow shouldn't be too far behind.

[rhett o rick]

147. I was out of line and I apologize. nm

[Jim_Shorts]

41. Please,Please cut Social Security

I WANT TO GET THIS REVOLUTION STARTED.

It should never even be on the table.(makes me so mad i could bite my computer)

I say we lower the eligibility age to 50 and do away with the cap that would create jobs that we need. Lets take some of the money back that they have been stealing from us for years.

[stevedeshazer]

43. Who signed?

The letter is there, but no mention of the signatories.

:shrug:

[bertman]

44. Lest anyone be confused about President Obama's 'position' on cutting

social security, he just stated on his TeeVee Town Hall meeting that 60% of the budget is ENTITLEMENTS: SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID. He said that the American people can no longer expect the level of services we have had unless changes are made to THESE ENTITLEMENTS.

Not on fucking word about the bloated military budget or the ENTITLEMENTS of Big Bidness.

We are screwed.

[sabrina 1]

45. I hope he didn't really say that. Because if he did, he needs a lesson on exactly

who paid for the SS fund. It has NOTHING to do with the Federal Government funds. It is a separate fund. And if he is saying that, that means that he is pushing the Republican lie that SS caused the deficit.

I think it's time to start calling all Democrats whose names are NOT on that list to find out what they intend to do to save SS from being used to pay off the debts run up by bailing out Wall St. and their endless wars.

This is very bad news if this is the way he is talking about SS.

[bertman]

50. Watch the video of the Town Hall meeting. He didn't even make a

pretense of trying to protect "entitlements".

[sabrina 1]

56. I haven't watched the video yet but I will. First of all he, a Dem. President

should not even be using the word 'entitlements'. There is no question about who owns the SS fund. Republicans have used that word to make it seem that people feel 'entitled' to money for nothing. Every working American paid into that fund which HAS a surplus of over 2 trillion dollars. If the Government borrowed it, then they MUST pay it back. No way should the people who are OWED the money, be asked to pay themselves back for loaning money to someone else. It is a ludicrous idea.

SS benefits should be RAISED, not cut. The money is there and it would help the economy.

This infuriates me. It was infuriating when Bush tried to do it. But to see a Dem. try, it's just unbelievable.

[Enthusiast]

100. Did you ever get the feeling

the whole thing, from Bush trying to privatize social security, to Obama willing to go along with cuts, has been a well rehearsed exercise in smoke and mirrors? I ask you because I cannot escape that feeling.

[Zenlitened]

60. "I think it's time to start calling all Democrats whose names are NOT on that list..."

Absolutely.

[sabrina 1]

67. I'm going to start doing that tomorrow, starting with Van Hollen who

tried to avoid answering the question a few weeks ago. No Democrat should even hesitate when it comes to this. They are hoping to avoid it until after the election and then it will be too late. They need to know that this is one of the most important issues for voters BEFORE November.

[Enthusiast]

101. Give us a list. nt

[sabrina 1]

149. I will try to put one together over the next few days.

My computer is in for repairs so it may be a few days before I get to it.

[still_one]

57. When was this Town Hall meeting? Was it today. Do you have an exact quote? /nt

[bertman]

152. still_one, the town hall meeting was last night. If you want to watch

the whole thing, here's the link to the video on CNBC:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39272660

You may have to sit through an excruciatingly long ad in order to get to the town hall meeting, but it does have the meeting in its entirety.

The President's statements regarding "ENTITLEMENTS" is in answer to a question about the deficit that begins at 35:00 in. The specific allusion to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid begins at 37:14.

The President basically ties the growing deficit to those ENTITLEMENTS. Then, when the moderator makes a statement trying to pin him down on cuts in the ENTITLEMENT programs, President Obama gives a long, rambling answer that does not deny in any way, shape, or form that there will be cuts AND that lays out the scenario of "long-term" cuts that are going to have to be made.

You can draw your own conclusion.

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but it's been a long day and I had a helluva time finding the full video of the town hall meeting, then locating the specific reference to ENTITLEMENTS.

[unhappycamper]

93. In comparison, 58% of the 2011 discretionary funds are for the military.

Contrast that with the interest on the national debt (7%) and the 2011 Education budget at 4%.

Whose zooming who?

[Recursion]

117. And discretionary spending is less than 1/3 of all spending

Absolutely eliminating all DoD expenditures still doesn't get outlays below revenues.



The "other mandatory" is mostly the VA, which one may or may not count as "defense".

[Zenlitened]

46. "This is not an issue we should even need to debate as Democrats,"

and

"It's absurd that we're even considering cutting the best social safety net program America ever created,"

Yup.

That this discussion is even taking place... it's just flat-out obscene.

[sabrina 1]

49. He is exactly right. Who ever thought that this would be even on the table

in a Democratic Administration? It is shameful that only 55 Democrats have signed that letter. But the writing was on the wall when Van Hollen refused to answer the question about how he would vote on cuts to SS. He became irritated when pressed and his excuse for not answering was that he had to wait to 'see the whole package'. Meaning, if SS cuts is part of the package, they will vote for it.

And if that happens, that will and should be the end of this current version of the Democratic Party. Who needs Republicans when we have Democrats willing to destroy a program that is the Cornerstone of achievements by the Democrats. They should be fighting like hell to keep anyone from touching that fund.

[still_one]

54. and where did Obama say he would slash Social Security? Where is that coming from? /nt

[Zenlitened]

58. We are having this discussion because Pres. Obama created the commission...

... and placed rabid anti-Social Security zealots within it. Simpson, Bowles. Peterson slinking around the shadows, up to his old tricks.

That's where its coming from, unfortunately.

[still_one]

76. Thanks /nt

[Enthusiast]

102. What conclusion can we draw from this?

What unmistakable conclusion can we draw from this? I'm afraid to say it.

[obxhead]

47. "this commission of millionaires"

That says volumes to me!

[NeoConsSuck]

48. Yes, let's guarantee

that the elderly will be dumpster diving at Micky D's to survive. They'll have their 401k's to live off of, won't they? Weren't those 401k's supposed to earning at minimum an 8-9% annual return? From where I'm sitting, it looks like the DOW and S&P are still lower than what they were during the Clinton administration. So even if a 401k participant played it really safe and only invested in blue chips, they would have seen negative growth in the past 10 years.

So the obvious solution to the corporate backed politician is to cut SS or privatize it. Like an earlier poster said, if Wall Street wants our retirement money, it's just a matter of time before they get it. I'm past the age that they could touch mine, but I worry for anyone younger than 50.

[pnorman]

51. There seems to be a "strawman arguement" in many of the responses on this thread.

Is it a "given" beyond rational refutation, that Obama is "in the pocket of Corporate America, and WILL slash Social Security?

In 2000, I subscribed to: "There's Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference Between....". In other words, I was a premature anti-Liebermanite, but I have since reconsidered my position. But how about some of you guys?

[still_one]

53. That is what I want to see, where did Obama say he would slash Social Security? /nt

[PoliticAverse]

61. Obama's August comments on Social Security...

Here are Obama's comments on August 18th of this year:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/18/remarks-president-a-discussion-with-ohio-families-economy

excerpts:

"I have been adamant in saying that Social Security should not be privatized and it will not be privatized as long as I'm President."
...
"So here’s the thing. Social Security is not in crisis. What is happening is, is that the population is getting older, which means we've got more retirees per worker than we used to. We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it. There are some fairly modest changes that could be made without resorting to any newfangled schemes that would continue Social Security for another 75 years, where everybody would get the benefits that they deserve. And what we've done is we've created a fiscal commission of Democrats and Republicans to come up with what would be the best combination to help stabilize Social Security for not just this generation, but the next generation. "
...
"But in the same way that Social Security has to be tweaked because the population is getting older, we’ve got to refresh and renew Medicare to make sure that it’s going to be there for the next generation, as well."

The question is what the commission will propose and what "modest changes"/"tweaks" are acceptable to him.

[sabrina 1]

72. That's nonsense. Back in the '80s preparation was made for the population

growing older. There is a $2trillion surplus in the SS fund. That problem was taken care of and paid for by American workers for the past two + decades.

He is backing of privatization, but he's saying nothing about cuts. The program will be fine if taxes are raised on the rich, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, the money spent on wars ends and several other options that are available to help pay back the Fed Govt's debt to the SS fund.

This statement from him is very troubling as it shows he is trying to push the idea that there is a problem with the SS fund, when in fact the problem is with the spending of the Fed. Govt which is an entirely different matter.

[PoliticAverse]

74. The "$2 trillion surplus"

The problem is the "$2 trillion surplus" was taken in in the name of Social Security and spent on other things.
They left promissary notes (bonds) in its place.
If you want to spend some of that $2 trillion the government has to borrow (by selling bonds) to replace it.
Just recently the amount spent under Social Security has exceeded the amount taken in for the current budget and this
caused the Government to have to borrow money to make up the difference.

[Enthusiast]

103. We had to borrow

for the wars and Bush tax cuts. I contend that social security is more important to the lives of the American people than either of those massive wastes of money.

Whatever it takes. Increase the marginal rate to 75% or higher and cut the military to the bone.

One thing is for sure. We already paid for our social security once, we shouldn't have to pay for it twice.

[sabrina 1]

148. I am aware of all of the excuses for the Fed Govt trying to renege on

on one of its major creditors, which is the American people. Have they made these excuses to China, another of its creditors? Of course not. And it's an outrage that they should even be allowing the idea that they can do so to the American people from whom they borrowed money, to even be discussed. Nor will they, unless we allow them to.

The borrowed money is backed by the 'full faith and credit' of the U.S. Government. Stop making silly excuses for this. The Government has to pay its debts. As for the amount taken in exceeding the amount going out, you have that wrong. The SS fund has three different sources of revenue. Overall the SS fund took in a surplus this year even in these difficult times. You need to stop repeating talking points and do your own research. I and others have written several OPs explaining why what you just said is wrong. It is expected and planned for, that there will be times when one of the SS fund's sources of revenue will exceed benefits paid out. This is not unusual at all and has happened many times, and the fund still has a surplus.

The borrowed money must be paid back. This is the people's money, and it is the Govt's problem to make good on those bonds which they have so far never failed to do and will not do in the future. However, if people start buying into the nonsense that they just can't do it, then they will keep taking the money to pay their debts from the American people. And that is not only immoral, it is illegal. Please educate yourself. It is the ignorance of the public they are counting on to get away with stealing from the SS fund.

[PoliticAverse]

153. Who said the Govt is trying to renege on repaying the securities ?

Nowhere did I imply that the government was not going to repay the "Special Issue Securities" in the trust fund.
The point is that in order to repay the securities the govt has to borrow money.
According to the Social Security trustees in 2016 outflows would regularly exceed income causing the securities to
have to be redeemed. This would cause the Government to have to borrow money to to repay the trust fund. This
Government borrowing would add to the deficit. This is apparently why Obama's deficit commission is looking at the
Social Security issue now - without any changes in the Social Security program, starting in 2016 we'd be financing
some of each year's Social Security payments by borrowing money and adding to the deficit.

[still_one]

77. Appreciate the history, thanks. I would hope he doesn't slash or privatize /nt

[pnorman]

62. I invite these passionate doubters, to read this Town Hall dialog in entirety:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/20/remarks-president-cnbc-town-hall-discussion-jobs

Yes, just "words", but so is so much of the Obama-bashing I'm seeing here lately on DU.

[still_one]

78. I read it quickly but do not see where he says he will slash social security. Now I am not saying

it will or will not happen, but it sure seems that there is a presumed guilt before anything has been done or said, and that is not fair in my view

[Enthusiast]

105. The presumed guilt

is due to the nature, the make up, of the commission that Obama created. It is composed, not of economic experts, but of anti social spending zealots with a known history of being advocates of dismantling all social programs. Why would President Obama have created a commission with such a make up? See, many of us are mystified by this. And we have grown ever more suspicious.

[No Elephants]

124. Do you really expect a politician to flat out announce (during an election year, no less) that he

is working toward messing with Social Security? If politicians were ever anywhere near that straightforward, people would probably trust them a lot more than they do.)

Why do you think he appointed this commission in the first plaoe? And staff it as he did? (And see Replies 119 and 121.) And why do you think House DEMOCRATS, presumed guilt, as you put it, on the part of a Democratic President, to the point where they thought this letter was needed?

This reminds me of posters last year asking for a direct quote from Obama (not Gibbs or Rahm or Sebellus) stating he would sign a health insurance reform bill without a public option. His calling it a sliver in August 2009 was not hint enough for them. Well, guess what? He never did say about the public option what no President in his right mind would say and he did sign a bill without a public option. (Surprise, surprise, surprise.)

[liberation]

65. As usual when it comes to judge a person is not as much by what he says, but what he does.

Obama created this commission using an executive order. The commission is stuffed with right wing zealots and moderates, and almost not a single unabashed progressive or defender of viable public social services. It is not that far fetched to draw some troubling conclusions.

[liberation]

64. So it means you actually agree with Lieberman if you had to reconsider your initial opposition?

huh?

[still_one]

52. One question, did Obama indicate he was going to cut social security or try to privatize it?

If this administration or ANY Democrat cuts or privatizes social security, they will NOT get my support

[sabrina 1]

71. He has given in on privatization, at least that is what he says NOW, before the

election. But he has said nothing about SS cuts. Nor have most Dems. That is why this letter was necessary. We KNOW what the Commission is proposing, and instead of coming out strongly against any proposed cuts, Dems are remaining silent. They should not be allowed to do that. Which is why people need to start calling them. I guess they think we won't notice until it's too late. Wrong!

[still_one]

79. ok, however if he has actually given in on privatization, then the Democratic party is toast

Especially, after the financial situation, and the lack of real reform that HASN'T been put into place

[sabrina 1]

151. Sorry, I think I was not clear. He has backed off privatization, mainly because

of the uproar they were facing after Alan Simpson's revelations about what they were planning in terms of SS. I believe they are going to drop trying to privatize SS for now. I think, once they realized they could not dare to do that under a Democratic administration, they thought that by making that guarantee, we would not notice that they are not making the same guarantee about cutting benefits and/or the retirement age.

There is simply no need to cut SS benefits at all. In fact they should be talking about raising them as the people's fund has done so well and there is enough money to do that right now.

[lonestarnot]

59. DOA! Damn straight! K & R

[dflprincess]

73. I wonder where are all the apologists who usually jump on threads about cutting Social Security

to tell us we're "jumping to conclusions" and "making up stuff" about the Catfood Commission?

Apparently not so quick to say the same things about members of Congress who have the same concern.

[still_one]

80. I don't know about apologists, but if it happens, and it is due to the Democratic leadership, then

we will witness the total failure and fall of the Democratic party, which eventually, if the country survives, a new Democratic party that stands for the principles of FDR

[Enthusiast]

106. It will be over.

The Democratic Party will stand for nothing.

After the Republicans were thrown out of office in 2006 and 2008 why would Democrats want to become more like them? I don't get it.

[bvar22]

142. "...the total failure and fall of the Democratic party..."

That is already scheduled for 2014 when MILLIONS of Americans will be forced to BUY worthless Health Insurance that they can't afford to use.

ALL the Republicans have to do is sit back and say, "YEP. We opposed it."
The Democrats won't be electable for a generation.

[YankeeLeft7x]

75. Left-Wing Movement to Save Social Security is Necessary!

In the same way these right-wingers are angry, it is URGENT that the liberals and left-wingers get busy in saving Social Security and other social programs....

If these issue or issues like this one cannot mobilize a mass movement from the left-liberal side, then NOTHING EVER WILL....

Wake Up Liberals!!! The time for sleeping and continued inaction needs to END NOW!!!!

[Hardrada]

81. Citoyens! Aux barricades!!

Smash our corporate nobility!!!

[johnaries]

82. Well, yeah, like many of us have been saying all along

even IF somehow 14 of the 18 members can finally agree to some major cuts in SS (and that is a BIG "IF"), if the cuts are radical they still won't pass the House.

In the meantime, the Fiscal Commission may actully be able to come up with some half-way decent ideas that may be incorporated in future bills.

Seriously, PUMA's claim it will gut Social Security. Tea Baggers say it will increase taxes. Neither have done their homework.

[liberation]

86. Hmmm. Appoint a commission via presidential order in order to be trashed by the house.

Hmmm. fascinating.


What this silly strategy is supposed to achieve, it is beyond me, but I am sure it is some brilliant move of 3D chess is surely to be missed by people like me who are constrained to 2D chess capabilities.

[Vidar]

85. If Obama makes a serious effort in that direction, my next presidential

vote goes to some third party.

[snot]

90. K&R'd

We should take back the tax cuts given to the rich for the last 30 years -- that aggregate number's got to be astronomical -- before we cut Social Security. Why should it ok to rescind our agreement with the masses, but not with the rich?

[Jim_Shorts]

91. WHAT is this president thinking !

When he say's "changes could be made" what he really means is i want to raise the eligibility age. (which IS a cut in benefits). Now they could just raise the cap (which would tax the rich) but we ALL know that isn't going to happen just by looking at the makeup of the commission.

We have had the largest transfer of wealth IN THE HISTORY OF MAN, with the top 1% taking 8% of the total income 15 years ago to taking 24% now . To cut even more working class benefits is idiotic, obscene, unconscionable and suicidal to the democratic party.

btw there IS a 2.2 trillion dollar surplus in treasury securities (which is just as good as cash unless we abandon life as we know it in the United States)

It is and always has been about class warfare throughout the history of the United States and the lower classes almost always lose.

[exboyfil]

92. btw there IS a 2.2 trillion dollar surplus in treasury securities

This presupposes that the Social Security Trust Fund is going to be treated like any other Federal creditor. I think we are in the process of testing that assumption. The fact that Social Security is even being discussed in terms of deficit reduction is a really bad thing. It is one of the few programs the Fed is running that is not in immediate trouble. Now if the discussion was Medicare.

[Hubert Flottz]

99. Mess with SS and be a one term fool.

Wondering what would finally ignite the political powder keg this country has become? I think SS is the issue that will put the people in the street.

The choice is simple...rich man's wars, or taking care of our own.

[nicky187]

104. Wow.

Democrats with 'nads.

[bobburgster]

110. Social Security Cuts.....

Might as well walk off the gang plank if he supports the cuts.

[Usrename]

112. Is this the same 50 dems that were going to get us single payer?

I'll bet it's the same folks who swore they wouldn't support HRC without single payer.

[Red Knight]

141. Yep. I bet you're right.

Signing threats means nothing. In the end--it's what you do--not what you say.

Right, President Obama?

[Dawgs]

114. WHY IS THIS EVEN NECESSARY!!

Once again the Democrats fuck up an issue that should sweep them into a super majority.

They should be signing a letter to promise to raise the payroll tax to cover ALL income.

WHAT THE FUCK!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

EDIT: Tie it to a bill that lowers the medicare and retirement ages and it's a huge win for Democrats.

[Honeycombe8]

118. So...why would they sign a petition about something that is not in the works?

A political stunt?

There is not one iota of evidence that the W.H. is considering privatizing Social Security.

Cuts in SS? Of course. We have known for decades that was coming. But I think we should let the Repubs do it, when they get control of Congress. The Dems don't need to be the ones to do that.

[PoliticAverse]

119. Geithner's Comment from May, 2009...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54B62Z20090512

"The President explicitly rejects the notion that Social Security is untouchable politically and instead believes there is opportunity for a new consensus on Social Security reform".

[No Elephants]

126. Geithner does not speak for Obama on fiscal matters, any more than Sebelius speaks for him on health

matters.

:sarcasm: (see Reply 124)

[PoliticAverse]

121. The 2016 issue.

Several people wondered what the reason was for Obama dealing with Social Security now, considering the trust fund isn't suppose to run out until 2037.
The answer is apparently the 2016 issue.
In May of last year the Social Security trustees projected that in 2016 the program would start regularly paying out more money than it takes in in payroll taxes ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30698248/ ).
This will require the Government to borrow money to redeem the "Special Issue Securities" in the Social Security trust fund.

"the longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be." - Timothy Geithner.

[Crazy Dave]

123. I think, just like with unemployment, the numbers are worse than they admit

We all know the real unemployment numbers are double what the official ones are and I have no doubts that social security has much less life left in it that the current numbers show.

[pleah]

125. Wow! Only 55? Thought it would be more.

K&R for the wonderful 55.

[Jefferson23]

127. 55? Sad, but at least we have that, I guess. n/t

[NJmaverick]

128. I oppose killing off all seniors over the age of 90

just wanted to go on record and bring attention to myself. After all how cruel would it be for there to be death panels that killed off seniors past a certain age?

[Crazy Dave]

131. No need for official death panels

The government will just let the seniors fend for themselves with the other homeless for food and a bench to sleep on. They'll get beat up, robbed, starve to death or die off in the winter. Their children will only be working for $8 - $10 an hour if they're lucky and won't be able to take care of them so out in the street they go.

[NJmaverick]

132. You sure you got that right

I heard they are going to use rings that change colors like in Logan's Run.

[Crazy Dave]

133. Or maybe they'll be the world's major food source like in "Soylent Green"

[xchrom]

129. recommend

[RedCloud]

134. Why should we even get to this point where "our" president needs to be reminded, I chide.

[ProudDad]

143. Back in the day it would have been 250 who opposed and signed! (n/t)

[sabrina 1]

150. Yes, this shows more than anything else, what has happened to the Dem.

Party and that people are not just imagining it.

[TheWebHead]

154. 55 ain't much

especially when it appears more likely than not in the house Dems will be in the minority. I'm not ideologically wedded to opposing privatization for the simple fact that the SS trust fund is not backed by tangible assets, and the only way to ensure the money we're paying in will be there in the decades ahead would be to have accounts with tangible assets in our possession, like treasuries, corporate bonds, or equities.

These (Social Security Trust Fund) balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=1209&type=0&sequence=1

[PoliticAverse]

155. "raising taxes, borrowing, or reducing benefits"

The CBO summary highlights the future choices to be made:

Raising Social Security taxes either by:
Raising the payroll tax for everyone
or
Raising the CAP amount that the taxes are applied to (Obama has indicated he favors this choice).

Cutting benefits either by:
Reducing the amount promised to be paid in the future to recipients
or
Reducing COLA amounts
or
Raising the age of eligibility

Running up the deficit by borrowing money to pay benefits.

From the SS trustees 2010 report summary ( http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html ):
"The 2010 Trustees Reports describe large long-term financial imbalances for Social Security and Medicare, and demonstrate the need for timely and effective action. The sooner that solutions are adopted, the more varied and gradual they can be."