Skip to main content

View Diary: There will be no default on the national debt (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That is a mis-characterization (4+ / 0-)

    of the President's position.

    The President no more wants cuts to SS than anyone here on this site.

    If the President has a position that we might argue with, it is simply his apparent belief that he must get a deal almost at any price.

    It is fairly clear that if the President felt he had a free hand, to mold policy as he sees fit, then we would have had a much bigger stimulus, the American Jobs Act and some form of Public Option in the Healthcare Bill.

    I think he underplays the strength of his hand, and I think it is for two main reasons.

    He trends towards "centerism" as a political philosophy, and he surrounded himself with Washington Insiders, and Beltway Democrats both in Cabinet and as advisors.

    But to suggest that he wants cuts to Social Security is simply wrong. It would not be wrong to suggest that we might get them anyway.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:01:25 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hayate Yagami, Aspe4, JesseCW

      when he's been talking about cutting it since before he became president, and has offered it up for cuts on 3 separate occasions...then the most likely explanation is that he wants to cut it (even if only to "reduce the debt" or some other faulty reasons).

      •  I'm fairly confident (4+ / 0-)

        that lots of people will disagree.

        However, did you miss it when Obama insisted that SS was no part of the Debt?

        There are many people that simply hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest.

        There are also things we can, and should criticise the President for, but suggesting that he wants to cut SS is not one of them

        He put the suggestion on the table, and I agree, that was shocking and should be resisted.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:24:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  he said it isn't part of the debt (0+ / 0-)

          but he keeps trying to cut it anyway. there are other reasons he might want to cut it besides the debt, such as "strengthening it", or getting a "grand bargain", or other such nonsense.

          But listen, you refuse to pay attention to both his words and his actions over many years, because you simply don't want to believe it.  So I'm pretty sure there's no use discussing this with you any more since it's clear you are only going to believe what you want to believe.

          •  SS Does Affect the Debt (0+ / 0-)

            It doesn't increase it though. The SS surplus, by law, must be invested in treasury bonds. When the chained CPI happens, the lower COLA will mean increased revenue for SS that will be invested in treasury bonds so that's less money the gov't has to borrow from foreign countries or from private individuals. Thus it will appear as if they've cut borrowing since more of it will be intra-governmental, i.e. from SS. That's the only reason I can think of that the Dems and Repugs want to enact chained CPI.

            Most of the late 1990's budget surplus was from increased SS payroll tax payments.

            "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

            by Aspe4 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:23:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site