Skip to main content

View Diary: Lawrence O'Donnell : EPIC comments on Obama v FDR on SocSec (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And COngressional Dems in 1983 (signed by Reagan) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and Clinton and Congressional Dems when he introduced the tax on Soc Sec benefits for any senior making over $34K per year.

    I just got sick of typing it out.  Its all the same.  Minor adjustments to protect solvency and long term benefits.

    Been done many times and the country has not crumbled to dust.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 07:04:25 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  why do you avoid the word cut? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Those were all Social Security cuts.

      Can you defend THESE cuts on the merits?

      Why not try?

      •  And O'Donnell plays the same game (0+ / 0-)

        If it is ok, why not describe the "adjustment" accurately? Why not call it a cut?

      •  Yes.. they are cuts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        LOD used that word several times.

        These were all CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.  (See, I even put it in caps for you.)

        President Clinton, relying solely on Democratic support from Congress where Tom Foley held an EIGHTY-TWO seat majority in the House and George Mitchell had a 14-seat majority in the Senate, imposed a severe CUT to every single Social Security recipient that made over $34k per year.  Not a projected reduction in future increases, but an active cut in there received benefits.  

        I actually was not following politics in 1977 or really much in 1982. So I would need to research the rationale and after-effects of those cuts.  I can't say I have a policy position on these things.  That was not the point of this diary anyway.

        I would love to see more analysis on the policy implications of this and not the "Obama did a bad thing" gnashing of teeth and rending of garments game.

        Politically I see it as a dicey balance between trying to look like we are the ones addressing real world issues vs. suppressing our base who think this is something never ever to be contemplated ever never ever.  

        But policy wise, 0.3% decrease in benefits (with a lot of the lower income and veteran SocSec recipients exempted anyway).  I'm not sure that is the Armageddonesque scenario that will have us stepping over the strewn corpses of starved elderly across the fruited plain.

        And at a base level, I guess I'll really want to analyze a law when one is actually written and not including as a bullet point in a ideology document.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 07:42:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton (0+ / 0-)

          RAISED TAXES, he dd not cut Social Security benefits.

          •  Which is not to say (0+ / 0-)

            he did not want to. He probably did.

            What stopped him from doing it?

            The Third Rail you scoff at.

            BTW, justmy2 says Carter INCREASED benefits which changes that change entirely.

            I suggest those of us not familiar with that one - you, me and LAwrence O'Donnell, should probably do our homework before commenting on that one.

            I DO know what happened in 1983 and in the Clinton "reform."

            1983 cut benefits by raising the reitrement aga but it also raised FICA taxes (which, as I say, was not a good reform as structured because of the regressive nature of the tax.)

            But my principal beef with you and O'Donnell is bringing FDR into it.

            That was dishonest.

          •  You are smarter than that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fou, pistolSO

            DO NOT sit here and say that putting a conditional 85% tax on Social Security benefits, thereby forcing Seniors making over $34k to pay back some of their preciously un-reduced benefits is not a cut.

            That is duplicitous from the word GO.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 08:33:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  let me clarify that - I typed too fast (0+ / 0-)

              I did not mean "an 85% tax", I meant "a tax on 85% of".

              I know how the deal worked, it used to be 50%.. Clinton raised it 85%.

              Armando is just irritating me this morning so I didn't proofread that appropriately.

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 09:03:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Are you serious?! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            If CCPI is a cut, then so is raising taxes on benefits.

    •  You assume those cuts were ok. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, puakev

      One of the worst deals was raising the tax on social security in the 80s.  It was regressive and done at the same time that rich people were getting tax cuts.

      As a progressive, leftists, liberal, whatever, I want to expand social secuirity.  

      I understand the argument you are making, but there are reasons to oppose chained cpi on its merits.

      Chained cpi would not cause the country to crumble to dust, but it would cause pain to many, and it is terrible optics for Democrats.  

      I guess we will agree to disagree on this.  Take care.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 07:27:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site