Skip to main content

View Diary: If I had a nickel every time I read a story of Obama cutting Social Security.... (375 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because we might need cuts later, cut now? (14+ / 0-)

    That is what you said. I disagree both with your premise and your conclusion. There are options that solve the projected problem without cuts, and the chained COLA is a cut.

    You and OP think we should pressure Obama and then accept whatever happens as the best deal he could get. You are ignoring the fact that he OFFERED the SS cut, as opposed to having the R's insist on it.

    It's one thing to accept some Republican things-we-don't-like and it's another to have a Democratic President propose cuts to Social Security.

    We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

    by Urban Owl on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 09:21:26 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  History says repubs will be in the WH 'later'. (4+ / 0-)

      Wouldn't you rather have necessary tweaks done under a Dem?

      •  My impression (11+ / 0-)

        is that Social Security needs no "tweaking" to pay out 100% of projected benefits through something like 2037. I would be willing to bet said benefits that (1) at some point between 2017 and 2036, another Democrat will be elected to the Presidency, (2) over the next twenty-five years, the US economy would have the capacity to strengthen SS without "tweaks," by raising the payroll tax cap, and (3) a Republican attempting to make the sorts of changes Mr. Obama is would encounter tremendous difficulty in doing so.

        •  I guess I'd rather have the fix beyond 2037 since (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv, worldlotus

          that's roughly around the time I'll be retiring.  You make it sound like it's far away.  That's the retirement years for most 30 something's.  I'd like to know it's solvent not up until I retire,  but through my retirement.

          •  Increase the cap, solvent forever (3+ / 0-)

            Plus once all of us boomers die, there is no longer an problem anyway.

            The chained COLA is an insidious cumulative cut in benefits that would mean you would get lower payments. It is especially mean to anyone who lives a long time.

            We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

            by Urban Owl on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:24:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Believe me I'm not arguing for, but I do want to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              worldlotus

              A) hear the entire risk benefit analysis and B) hear it from the President himself that he has put it on the table.  Granted, I hope this isn't some dead of the night legislation this time.  We should have a chance to process what is being voted on.

      •  No. Here's why. (6+ / 0-)

        Republicans depend on older voters, which is why they have NEVER cut Social Security or Medicare.

        Social Security does not need cuts, period. It does not contribute to the deficit and should not even be on the table.

        The possibly necessary tweak should be eliminating the cap.

        The essential policy is to get people back to work at a living wage. That and Climate Change are the urgent issues, not some possible shortfall 20+ years from now.

        We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

        by Urban Owl on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 10:42:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have no problem with him NOT cutting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Arlys

          SS.

          I'm simply offering a point of view (not original to me) that makes sense to me.

          "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

          by Yasuragi on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 10:50:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You forget Bush (4+ / 0-)

          and his (widely supported among Republicans) privatization of Social Security. They are the real threat to SS and Medicare, not Obama.

          47 is the new 51!

          by nickrud on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 11:33:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  All talk (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

            Not one bill was introduced. They want to privatize Social Security, but when they proposed diverting the contributions of young people to private accounts, they were faced with a gigantic hole in the budget to pay for those already getting Social Security, and they sure weren't going to propose cutting payments to older people.

            The Republicans would like to kill SS, if they can do it and blame the D's. They will not do anything if they have to own it. If the R's lost a bunch of older voters, they would be really doomed.

            We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

            by Urban Owl on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:29:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Not true (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv, worldlotus, jan4insight
          Republicans depend on older voters, which is why they have NEVER cut Social Security or Medicare.
          Republicans have cut Social Security -- what else do you call the increase in the full retirement age for Social Security that was passed under Ronald Reagan?

          That's not theoretical, it wasn't just a bargaining chip -- it was an actual, concrete cut that happened under a Republican president.  Unlike anything that's happened under Barack Obama so far.

          Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

          by TexasTom on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:23:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's realistic to recognize that SS is (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, Aquarius40, FiredUpInCA, mmacdDE

      laboring under a statistically heavy load right now; that the system is probably unsupportable for much longer.  My conclusion is the same as coolelegans: that he made a minor offer of something that would need to be done anyway -- knowing that the system will be refueled by new, younger workers flooding the country, and those cuts would be negligible.

      I'm not saying I like any of it.  So please don't put words in my mouth.

      And I have no idea what OP you're referring to.

      "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

      by Yasuragi on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 10:48:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Social security is not in trouble. (12+ / 0-)

        Right now, the trust fund is in surplus, from all of us boomers having paid into it. The problem, if there is one, is a projected shortfall in 20+ years. Social Security should not be part of he deficit discussion at all.

        The chained COLA is a cut that does NOT need to be done anyway. It is also not a "negligible" cut.

        OP = Original post, in this case, coolelegans.

        And just for the record, I did not say you liked anything. I could ask that you refrain from putting words in my mouth, but that seems a bit snarky.

        We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

        by Urban Owl on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 11:06:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site