Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney's real (but ebbing) debate bounce (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  he said no cuts - only tweeking - SS NOT in any (8+ / 0-)

    real threat.  The Rs will cut it.  they will use deficits as a bogus reason.

    •  "tweaking" means "cuts" (7+ / 0-)

      President Obama specifically put cuts on the table and agreed to them in the whole "Grand Bargain" debacle.  He's likely going to cut it over time by changing the way it's pegged to inflation.

      Much different than the horrible things Romeny/Ryan want to do to it, for sure, but it's in truble even with a President Obama in office.

      •  'tweaking' does not mean 'cuts' (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        estreya, Loose Fur, Delilah, George3

        be sensible can you for a change and remember who WILL actually make cuts

        the so-called grand bargain is history...................

        •  Bet on it: tweak to Obama means cuts to Mitt. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          George3

          Romney will say they mean the sme thing ... and he wins Florida with Obama's concession, which neutralizes the concerns.

          We're talking debate points and perception, here, not "history."

          Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

          by TRPChicago on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 01:21:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To most politicians tweaking is cuts. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            George3

            The only tweak I would do is remove the cap on SS taxes. You make 10,000,000 you pay SS tax on it all. It makes zero sense to do otherwise.

            •  Fine. But that will produce more money .... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              George3

              ... than SS will need. So what do you think Congress would do with that boodle? If it went to fund Medicare, super. But you need a very different House to get that deal through.

              SS was sold as a contributory system. If you take off the cap, it becomes something else. That is the argument against what you propose.

              I happen to agree with what you propose. After all, if SS is in that much trouble, that is how to rescue it. But SS is not in trouble in the short term and Medicare is. Most SS recipients, I believe, also receive Medicare, so it would not be a practical stretch to combine the two. Doing so, however, would rock the political universe.

              Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

              by TRPChicago on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 04:37:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's your opinion. We all agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

                Obama doesn't; and if he does, he's going to do it anyway because  the automatic cuts are still out there for right after the election, and Obama and a lame duck Congress will be dealing with them.   He promised not to "slash" Social Security.

                If money is speech, then speech must be money. Call your mortgage company and pay your rent now.

                by dkmich on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 05:32:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I don't see how it makes it non-contributory. (0+ / 0-)

                You're going to have to explain it to me, I'm not getting it.

                Also... lockbox.

                •  RE contributions and locked boxes ... (0+ / 0-)

                  The SS funding concept was that it was self-financing. People's contributions paid for their eventual withdrawals so payments were related to benefits. (Not totally. It wasn't like a bank deposit but if you lived long enough, you got benefits calculated according to what you'd paid in.) If you remove the cap on contributions but do not increase the benefits accordingly, the system becomes something that is not so linked to contributions. That bothers some people.

                  As for the lockbox notion, SS was supposed to be some sort of "trust fund," with the contributions safely stashed away and protected against access for other purposes. Well, they aren't. The government "borrows" money from one account to pay off another. No trust fund, no lockbox, no matter what the rationalizing rhetoric is. Just like government employees' pension money, the SS contributions made by people and their employers are bookkeeping entries. There's no pot of gold sitting there untouched.

                  Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

                  by TRPChicago on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:29:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks for explaining. (0+ / 0-)

                    As to the first part about self-financing, was that ever really true? I mean as opposed to the ideal or a slogan?

                    I'm not sure how many people actually believe that the SS taxes they are paying right now, are what they'll be getting back later. I think it's more likely people view their contributions now as their KEY to getting money later (and how they figure what you get back), but most view it as paying for the present retirees. I'm still not sure how removing the cap so all income is taxed by SS changes either what you or I said.

                    Heh, obviously. I don't know if it should be that way and while obviously as long as the government has monopoly of force they can do what the want, perhaps efforts should be made to make it harder to borrow against the SS revenues. Since our borrowing costs are currently negative and might remain low for some time it might be something to look into.

                    Full Disclosure: I have no faith in SS, but my parents will be needing it.

        •  no (7+ / 0-)

          the grand bargain is NOT "history".

          see bernie Sanders' warning last wekk that the Dems are still planning on doing it if President Obama wins a second term.

          •  and you know this to be true, how? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishingwell, George3

            Yes Bernie Sanders is a good man - but is he right?

            Remember your true opponent

            •  there's evidence (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DSPS owl, George3

              that this is what's going to happen (Obama's past history of trying it; Sanders' warnings; President Obama's refusal to promise no cuts whenever the subject comes up; etc).

              there's zero evidence that president won't do it.

            •  Your true opponent is the 1% (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              loveistheanswer, George3

              that owns Washington.  You know, the makers not the takers.  

              Timmy Geithner wants tweaks cuts to Social Security.  Obama is going to listen to Geithner  just like he listened to Gates and Jobs on public education.    Obama has telegraphed his position on Social Security and entitlements.   You know, "shared sacrifice".   Now where did we hear that?  Oh yeah, out of Bill Clinton, Obama and the rest of the establishment Democrats.  

              If money is speech, then speech must be money. Call your mortgage company and pay your rent now.

              by dkmich on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 05:38:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Good grief, let him know (6+ / 0-)

        how you feel about Simpson-Bowles, about the "Grand Bargain," about "tweaking" (which does, indeed, mean cutting; he's only agreed not to "slash" Social Security), about expressing agreement with Romney--and Ryan.  We are continually asked to donate to the campaign; we deserve some commitment here!  Not just for seniors, but for their children and grandchildren, and their neighbors across America.
        www.whitehouse.gov  Or 202-456-1111.

      •  Of course it means cuts.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        George3

        Just like obtuse can be substituted for stupid, tweaks can be substituted for cuts.   He promised not to "slash" Social Security, he didn't promise not to cut it.   If he was going to "add" or "increase" Social Security, he'd be shouting it.     Obtuse.

        If money is speech, then speech must be money. Call your mortgage company and pay your rent now.

        by dkmich on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 05:29:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site