Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Republicans AND Democrats Lining Up Behind Major Changes To Social Security

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 09:54 AM
Original message
Republicans AND Democrats Lining Up Behind Major Changes To Social Security
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/republicans-and-democrats-endorse-major-changes-to-social-security.php#more


Is there a new, bipartisan consensus forming on Capitol Hill about whether (and how) to scale back Social Security benefits? A surprising number of signs point to "yes" -- and that has many progressives looking ahead a few months to what they believe could become a serious fight.

Several of the most powerful members of the House -- Republicans and Democrats -- have recently voiced real support for the idea of raising the retirement age for people middle-aged and younger as part of a larger plan to reduce long-term deficits, inching closer to what not too long ago was the third rail of American politics.

(...)

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer explicitly put the idea on the table as well in a speech last month. "We should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to lifespan," Hoyer said.

He echoed House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who put it this way: "With minor changes to the program such as raising the salary cap and raising the retirement age by one month every year, the program could become solvent for the next 75 years." One month a year may not sound like much, but if you're 30 years away from retirement, that adds up to almost three years.

In the House, though, Nancy Pelosi is the linchpin, and she's not nearly as enthusiastic as her colleagues. But, notwithstanding the enthusiasm gap, she also left the possibility of raising the retirement age on the table. When asked about it by TPMDC at her press conference last week, she criticized the plan, but mainly to say she disagrees with putting Social Security on the chopping block ahead of other measures. "Why they would start talking about a place that could be harmful to our seniors -- 70 is a relative age," Pelosi said. "Around here, there's not a lot of outdoor work or heavy lifting. But for some people it is, and 70 means something different to them. So in any event let's talk about growth, lets talk about how we can reduce spending, lets put everything, those initiatives: promoting growth, tightening the belt, looking at entitlements. But let's not start on the backs of our seniors."

There's one catch, though. Last week, Democrats included a rider to the supplemental war spending bill that will force the House to vote on a forthcoming fiscal reform plan, if the Senate passes it first. That package is being put together by President Obama's deficit and debt commission, and will be ready to go after the midterms. Pelosi had already pledged to give the package a vote, so perhaps nothing has really changed. But in a way, she also tied her own hands: if the Senate passes a broad tax-and-entitlement reform package at the end of this Congress and her own caucus is willing, she can't stop the Social Security reforms she thinks should come last.

(...)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Just as long as the poor "defense" contractors don't suffer!
And, of course, the corporate bailouts...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. Screw Workers to Save the Banksters!
yes indeed that is a party that motivates me to go to the polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. So although Nancy Pelosi denied it, TPM feels the need to fan the speculation
In the House, though, Nancy Pelosi is the linchpin, and she's not nearly as enthusiastic as her colleagues. But, notwithstanding the enthusiasm gap, she also left the possibility of raising the retirement age on the table. When asked about it by TPMDC at her press conference last week, she criticized the plan, but mainly to say she disagrees with putting Social Security on the chopping block ahead of other measures. "Why they would start talking about a place that could be harmful to our seniors -- 70 is a relative age," Pelosi said. "Around here, there's not a lot of outdoor work or heavy lifting. But for some people it is, and 70 means something different to them. So in any event let's talk about growth, lets talk about how we can reduce spending, lets put everything, those initiatives: promoting growth, tightening the belt, looking at entitlements. But let's not start on the backs of our seniors."


Her statement does not leave open the possibility.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. After the HCR fraud where I feel we were played for suckers, especially in regard to a public option
why should I feel assured that they will protect the people's interests?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. There are things in this bill that are equal to the public option
The public option was designed to stimulate competition and bring down cost.

The non-profit plan operated by the OPM in the exchange will have the same impact. In addition, there is this

Ensuring Free Choice
Effective January 1, 2014

Workers meeting certain requirements who cannot afford the coverage provided by their employer may take whatever funds their employer might have contributed to their insurance and use these resources to help purchase a more affordable plan in the new health insurance Exchanges. These new competitive marketplaces will allow individuals and small businesses to buy qualified health benefit plans. Starting in 2014, Members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges and all Americans will have the choice of buying insurance through them, too.


People need to stop focusing on words and look at the actual effects of legislation. Also, the bill includes federal funding and support for state single payer plans, so I don't even know why the public option is even being discussed. If anyone wants to improve upon this law, a public option adds nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
37. Reading over the OPM, it's not designed to bring down costs to employers .......
it's just a way of funneling money to the private sector.

The way it works is pretty simple. The OPM is responsible for setting up contracts with health insurance providers via the government. So, if I went the OPM route, I would pay the insurance provider a lower premium, but the government would pay the rest.

It's a huge win for the insurance companies. So, to be fair, these really are not non-for-profit groups, they're just a clearing house.

The public option was a vastly different animal in the way it structured the finances. Insurance would of been purchased by a government provider at a lower cost and been a true not-for-profit organization. None of the money would of gone to existing insurance companies. This scared the hell out of rethugs because they knew it would become popular and deflate the cost of health insurance.

So, in the long run, this does nothing to bring down soaring health care costs, nor does it create competition from for profit corporations. They're going to get your business one way or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. just wait for the big speech
you'll see Obama really wants the public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. "public option"
is now a useless term.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. it's useful for reminding people
reminding people about previous assurances to just have faith in Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Reminding them of
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. and when our Social Security is gone
you'll be here to tell us we still have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Social Security isn't going anywhere. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. it could have been gone under Bush
we still have Social Security today, not because we just trusted it will always be there, but because the Democrats blocked Bush's privatization plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. "but because the Democrats blocked Bush's privatization plan"
Edited on Wed Jul-07-10 10:47 AM by ProSense
Yeah, now it seems the spin is that Democrats agree that Bush was right.

Let's just conflate the Dems and Repubs' position on Social Security. Why wait for the MSM to do it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. I am actually surprised that no one has suggested changing Medicare
eligibility age to 66 or 67 or 70.

Guess that will be next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. tons of people have proposed that
raising the Medicare age has always been on the table, most recently in Paul Ryan's "roadmap".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
36. just as useless when Obama used it while running for office, apparently. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. How is a contsruction worker or landscaper supposed to work when they are 68 or 69?
Lawyers, fine...but heavy lifting jobs? Get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. ok senior . . . could you please turn around and bend over . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. I'm not sure how living Longer corresponds to should work longer.
Many people at 65 simply don't have the desire,
energy or drive for all that any more.

Besides a few years of that and people will
complain that people should retire earlier
because we need the jobs for young people.

This is a no win scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. The solution is simple, send those people who are 65 or older to Iraq or Afghanistan /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
7. Limited choices
Raise Taxes
Raise age
Give the money to Wall Street in the hope they don't steal it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. You forgot continuing to pursue unending wars /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. As usual Obama is on the sidelines.
he quite clearly said in a campaign event I was at it is simple raise the cap. It's time for him to lead on issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Maybe because he doesn't oppose raising the age which is why we don't hear very much
from the administration


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Actually I don't think that is such a bad idea either.
If we can get a dramatic raise in the cap and a modest age raise I'd go for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. Why?
Why are you so willing to give up years of your life in return for something that should be in place anyway? There should be no cap. And no one should have to work past 65 unless they want to. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joe black Donating Member (514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #15
29. Oh really.
At 70 a person may get to draw one or two checks before they drop dead that's just great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
34. I don't agree with you. For one thing the problem isn't ss it is congress who has been stealing, er
Borrowing from ss to fund things they should not use ss for

I guess they need to spend more money on wars and THEIR retirement

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
40. People may live longer, but they are not necessarily in good enough health to work!
Think about what you are proposing. It sounds nice as long as you are young and feeling full of health. Longevity has increased but so has cancer and alzheimers and a host of other health issues. A system based simply on everyone working into their upper 60s simply will end in terrible suffering for a mass of people who fall through the cracks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. You are right, and really what we need is a lowering of the medicaire age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
22. And the snowball gets bigger.
"It's just a commission - they'll just make recommendations!"

"It doesn't matter if the Republicans are for it, they're in the minority"

"I'll never pass, they don't have the votes"

"We can't control those Blue Dogs"

"Obama isn't a king!"

"Working until you're 70 will be GOOD for you!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
26. the president is a millionaire, no biggee to him nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
41. You understand the connection.
Edited on Wed Jul-07-10 09:32 PM by Go2Peace
I wish more did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joe black Donating Member (514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
28. Pelosi
Talking out of both sides of her mouth. I'm shocked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IOKIYAL Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
30. fearmongering Part Deux
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. It's in black and white in front of your eyes!
Denial Part Infinitum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
31. "America under Bush became a plantation. By the time Obama leaves, it will be a penal system."
TPMDC reader comment:



http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/republicans-and-democrats-endorse-major-changes-to-social-security.php#comment-4000051

In my mind, this is the first shoe to drop following the Citizens United decision by the supreme court.

So now we see how this all plays out: The Supreme Court goes out of it's way to make corporate payola unhindered in the campaign process; Corporations have vastly more money than individuals to donate; Politicians realize that they absolutely cannot become re-elected against the will of the politicians; suddenly even democrats are for dismantling Social Security.

It retrospect, the 2000 election was a coup, perpetrated, in part by the Supreme Court. Bush pushed $7 trillion dollars from 120 million families (the median family income declined 5% during his first four years) onto 10,000 wealthy families creating a gravity effect in our politics that gave us a compliant Obama four years later. Bush put radical fascist jurist on the supreme court, and they gave us Citizens United.

America under Bush became a plantation. By the time Obama leaves, it will be a penal system. We are watching our country rot and fall apart right before our very eyes.

A revolution would be nice, but that requires communication and organization and that requires money, and you can see that none of these things are ever going to come back together.

My Brothers told me, when Obama was elected, that he would ruin the country. I quit talking to them at that point (they after all were republicans) but they turned out to be right.

I thought he was FDR, but he turned out to be a fusion of Hoover and Buchanon and Harding and the last emporer of China.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
32. Democrats and Republicans lined up to fuck everyone in sight.
Except the Banksters
Insurance Companies
Wall Street
War Criminals
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
35. Hell we've got people chomping at the bit to raise the age right here
Imagine how popular such sentiments are with wanting to hide massive theft from the trust fund and to serve the royalists in the "centrist"/Reich.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
38. knr - "I do not know anyone who is thinking of retiring at 70" ...
House Majority Whip James Clyburn

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-10 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
39. How come our government officials never trim their own benefits?
Sure, they will trim their *employee's" benefits, but NEVER their own! Bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC