Skip to main content

Roosevelt Signs The Social Security Act: President Roosevelt signs Social Security Act, at approximately 3:30 pm EST on 14 August 1935. Standing with Roosevelt are Rep. Robert Doughton (D-NC); unknown person in shadow; Sen. Robert Wagner (D-NY); Rep. John
Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act

While the odious chained CPI cut to Social Security benefits has been fought off, there's a longer-term, more successful battle against Social Security that's actually been terribly successful. More than a decade's worth of cuts to the Social Security Administration's has curtailed the SSA's work with the public, and is undermining the program.
The loudest battles over Social Security are about potential benefit cuts like the recently vanquished "chained CPI" proposal. But another, less noticed fight has been going on for years. It's aimed at undermining Social Security through systematic budget cutting by Congress of the operating budget of the SSA, the agency charged with providing customer service to the public.

The SSA has received less than its budget request in 14 of the past 16 years. In fiscal 2012, for example, SSA operated with 88 percent of the amount requested ($11.4 billion).

"It's part of a raging fight by conservatives to get rid of the government's footprint wherever possible," says Nancy Altman, co-director of Strengthen Social Security, an advocacy group.

One glaring change: that annual statement you used to get that provided your earnings to date and estimated your monthly benefits is gone now. It was an important educational tool for Social Security, and a reminder that you are paying into a secure retirement fund. The statements are still available, but you have to be able to go online or visit an SSA office in order to get it. So far only 10 million people, just 6 percent of the workforce, has signed up to get the online statements.

That's not all that's been sacrificed, though. Staff has been slashed down to 62,000 from a peak of 70,000 in the 1990s, and since 2010 field offices have been consolidated, from 92 down to 46. This, as any Republican will tell you when they're trying to convince you that Social Security must be cut, as the population is getting older and more and more baby boomers are becoming eligible. Wait times at the field office for help have increased 30 percent in the last year, and the busy signals on the toll-free phone line have doubled in the same time frame. All that combines to frustrate the public. What's particularly galling about this long-term chipping away of SSA funding is that it is funded by our payroll taxes, the same funding stream for Social Security benefits and shouldn't be subject to budget cutting. What's more, the SSA is remarkably efficient, with administrative costs that are just 1.4 percent of outlays.

These cuts have made it harder for SSA to do the simple things a government service should do for taxpayers, like providing paper proof of Social Security numbers for people applying for jobs or social services. Which is all part of the larger Republican plan to discredit, and destroy, government. That's the plan the deficit fetishists, including far too many Democrats, have signed onto.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 10:49 AM PDT.

Also republished by Social Security Defenders and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  My theory on the end of the statement is that (26+ / 0-)

    they don't want you to have something official in hand with future projects to compare with how they want to cut it in the future.  It's all part of the screw them in the fine print with technical changes scam.  

    I'm just really fed up with the Democratic Party's lack of commitment on this issue.  At least the Republicans warn you.  With Democrats you have to read all the footnotes.  Then we keep getting reminded that Hooray!! Old People are going to die!! Then everyone will vote for Democrats!!

    Don't count on it.  

    •  The Last Thing They Want is Everyone Voting Dem. (11+ / 0-)

      What they want is just enough people not voting R to preserve divided deadlocked government, so the Dems aren't under pressure to do anything.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 11:15:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Last Thing They Want is a program (15+ / 0-)

        middle class Americans can agree to support.  The last thing they want is a middle class.

        •  But (5+ / 0-)

          Every step of the way, the middle class has supported the policies that are phasing out the middle class. This generation is weirdly myopic, not grasping how our anti- poor agenda has been wiping out the middle. They call out to Rebuild the Middle Class! Out of what? We looked at the policies and programs that took the US to its height of wealth AND productivity from FDR to Reagan, and chose to reverse course. To save our country, we would need to backtrack all the way to Reagan's deregulation frenzy, restoring reasonable restraints/taxation on corporate powers. We need to impose heavy financial DISincentives on using shipping our jobs out, for example, and strengthen wages AND workers' rights. We would need to provide aid to prevent the jobless from being pushed out of the market entirely (you can't get a job without a home address, bus fare, phone). Instead of this, we get a meaningless cheer-leading session for whatever remains of the middle class.

          •  Reagan did have *one* good idea (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The notion that we should have more engineers, scientists and other professionals.

            Then, Bush the Greater took office and went with the service economy model.
            Pity, we could have had an R&D economy. We design it, let the cheap labor build it, save for the high end.
            Nope, we have to service the 1%.

            •  Nope, we have to service the 1%. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              By 'service' you mean suck their Dick$ as well.

              Even Dianne Feinstein wanted her chainedCPI sucked. (If it was for the good of the cuntry.)  

              I for one, don't think old people without car elevators need companionship. They need to be isolated and studied to determine what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use. - Mitt Romney

              by luerwulf on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:43:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Romney's Statement (0+ / 0-)

                Yes this would represent the attitude of Romney and most other republican politicians.  Discard the worked-out poor Retiree then give $88 million in Substities to the Kock brothers.  We really need to overturn  "Citizens United"

      •  really (0+ / 0-)

        when it was time for my social security I went to the office and noticed there were few seniors there. it appeared to me most and many were young were there for the money.

        that said Americans have wars to fight so something must be cut to keep the industrial military complex and the intelligence complex intact.

        take the money from the seniors and the young it is the American way. christian thing?

        Jesus time for a return trip this  time make it America ok.

        I attend a fundamentalist church with a friend often and they offer once a year a blood pressure  check and most if not all voted against universal health care for all.

        they actually think a  free blood pressure check once a year is some kind of christian thing.

        all empires if not defeated in a war self destruct from arrogance, selfishness and arrogance.

        •  Social Security office (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Didn't it occur to you that young people go to the Social Security office to pick up and submit  forms for elderly and disabled people?  They are the representatives (their children or case workers) of those whose health makes it difficult to do this, themselves.  Also, many younger workers need to stop off at the Social Security administration for a wide variety reasons, from obtaining new Social Security cards to printouts of their records.

        •  Social Security office! Not just for the elderly! (5+ / 0-)

          Conservators have to frequent SS offices for the people they are conservators for (my boss goes there a couple of times a month as she is a conservator for a several elderly people.)  The last time I was there, I was 32 and changing my name because I got married.  The number of young people you saw really means not a lot.

          Also, this thing you're doing where you're getting angry that the "young were there for the money" isn't a good idea as it plays right into the Republican playbook of divide and conquer.  Social Security helps a lot of people who desperately need it and pointing fingers in an accusatory manner is not smart.

          •  Technical point: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            "conservator" is a state concept.  The corresponding term of art for the SSA is "representative payee".  Been there, done that, but they didn't give me a T-shirt.  I'm not complaining.  They were overcrowded and understaffed, of course (thanks, GOP!) but very efficient.

        •  I'm glad that you asked them why they were there (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JuliathePoet, Rita5018

          And didn't guess a reason.

          My wife and I have been to the social insecurity office several times in our lives.
          First, when we got married, as she had to change her name. Then, we had children and registered them. How evil of us! It was all for the money, you know!
          Most recently, it was so my wife could get disability. She was certified as disabled, but since I own a house we're not living in (it had every bit of copper wire and pipe stolen while I was deployed), she isn't eligible to collect.

          It isn't often that I feel the urge to slap an elder in the back of the head, but today is one of those less than a handful of times.
          Out of over five decades of life.

          •  Disability Eligibility (0+ / 0-)

            Your wife must have applied for SSI.  SSI is income/asset restricted.  SSDI does not have those restrictions.  I get Social Security Disability Insurance program payments, so I know this for a fact. The SSA doesn't care if I own a home, or other assets.  I could win the lottery and it wouldn't affect my SSDI payments.  The only thing they would care about would be if I was working.  But if I could still work, I wouldn't be getting SSDI, and I would much rather work than receive SSDI because I made a heck of a lot more from working.

        •  Didn't we pay for this "contract"? (0+ / 0-)

          I paid into Social Security from my first after school job and for over 5 decades. I paid into Medicare. Now that it's time, I'm taxed 100% for what I paid into Medicare and Social Security. As I recall, I never got a dime of interest on either program. I'm also paying for back up insurance.
          If the GOP want to continue to gut this program, why not gut it for those who never worked a day in their lives? If the GOP want to revoke, or be in breach of contract, fine. They can pay me back every dime I paid into both programs and with reasonable interest for 5+ decades. I'd live better than I do now. While they refuse to tax much of the money the 1% make in investments, they'll gladly rob us and tax us twice.
           Just as the GOP robbed the Postal workers and gutted great jobs, in a program that never cost tax payers a dime: this GOP only wants to take the money we paid, interest free, to subsidies the Koch's life style and those like them. They don't mind out of control Military contractor fraud in the billions, but give back the money we paid for decades, to them, makes us "takers"?? Really?
          Instead of it being politically correct to call us Moochers, why don't we call the GOP what they are? Parasites that will do and say anything even if it insults our intelligence as they do nothing and take from the public they are supposed to 'serve" every thing they can get for free, including their own pensions( also free on us).

    •  I would urge ALL OF US (8+ / 0-)

      to share that page on every social media we utilize. TELL people that those statements went away but they can be had online.

      We were just talking about it the other day, wondering where those had gone--we figured right, thinking it was "budget cuts".  Bastards.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 12:36:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A faction of the Dem Party (the Clinton Democrats) have been working to "reform" the New Deal (Social Security) incrementally, the way they "reformed" the Great Society  (welfare aid).  Every time retirees have been stirred up with supposed threats to retirement, govt has quietly cut away at disability.  Democrats then declare that they have Saved Social Security! (for retirees), and repeat the game with the next budget. As long as there is no wide push-back, Democrats will phase out Social Security one piece at a time, the way they did with welfare.

      Anticipating howls that these are two different issues: Please note that what came to be called AFDC was originally written into FDR's Social Security Act. This was already eliminated, and Bill Clinton took significant steps to phase out disability aid (with Clinton's harmful policies finally being reversed by President Obama). Many of the disabled had paid into Social Security for years before becoming disabled, as did their parents, spouses, and all their relatives.

    •  AMEN! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm too late to rec your comment, greenbell, but I wanted to voice my vociferate support.  I'm tired of corporate Dems' smug assumption that we have no alternative for redress on populist issues, no matter how high a percentage of we in the Dem base value those issues.

  •  Not only that... (23+ / 0-)

    The Federal Reserve's Zero Interest Rate Policy has also devastated seniors trying to get a little income from their life savings. Seniors that used to get thousands a year are now earning next to nothing.

    My invisible imaginary friend is the "true" creator

    by Mr Robert on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 11:02:24 AM PDT

    •  But, but you just haven't (11+ / 0-)

      invested in the Stock Market wisely. And yes this is bitter snark.

    •  Yes, but it seems demog & econ dictate it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      When Boomers were young and a far larger pool than retirees there were double-digit salary increases, then double-digit interest rates, followed by double-digit inflation, followed by double-digit unemployment.  Try that now and the shit already in the fan will stop the motor.

      That was very painful back then. Reversing today's near zero interest rates  would stall out the already snail's pace of "long hard slog" to God know what.  With a large and growing Boomer retiree pool, raise interest rates and the flow of money will once again stream to the older folks. Young Americans, currently the least able to handle any more economic stress would bear the burden.

      It will happen and those with poor retirement savings will gain a little edge and this with savings already booming in the markets will adjust and reap even more gains. And around 50% of the kids keep falling further and further behind.

      •  Just wait till Young Americans (11+ / 0-)

        have to support their parents as well as themselves and their children.  I just heard a report this week that 36% of Americans have less than $1000 in savings.  When the interest rate is 0, people don't save and what little they do save doesn't compound.  My 92 year old mother gripes about her 0% interest but she had a lot of years when she was getting good interest that compounded her savings and so she can get by with the income she has.  

        What are young people going to do when their savings don't compound?  In the long, you'll be hurt even more.

        •  They'll do what Boomers did & save in their 40's (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Puddytat, Chinton, 2dot

          ..& 50's and at least half of them will scrounge and save enough to have caught the pendulum as it swings in their favor. And sharing will be more & more popular.

          There's always the remote possibility that we'll make some positive legislative progress but even that, however unreasonable it is to expect, would only make small improvements in these generations in the best case scenarios.

          The good news is that the youngest kids today are magnificent, fluidly, fluently, and safely living in a technological, innovative and cultural diversity unimaginable to us with reasonable hopes for equally unimaginable better times. Personally, as bad as it is today for so many, I couldn't be more optimistic for our society. The most stupid and most damaged are dying off and kids understand the basics of community moderation.  

          •  How about NO? (16+ / 0-)

            Sorry, I AM in my 50s and goddammit, I have worked hard, for a very long time. I should NOT have to depend  on "Sharing" at this point in my life, because my government gave away my career. NO.

            And can you please, just lose this tiresome incrementalist trope? We no longer have the luxury of time for weasel-themed Hope.

            There's always the remote possibility that we'll make some positive legislative progress
            Not if you don't even try, there isn't. Put up some populist candidates and quit running them out of races in favor of the mealy-mouthed austeri-Dems like Alex Sink.

            And seriously, I don't even want to know what this is supposed to prove.

            The most stupid and most damaged are dying off and kids understand the basics of community moderation.

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 12:42:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree and am not a fan of incrementalism. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Calamity Jean, Chinton, 2dot

              IMO we should be relentlessly demanding change, progress, transformative change. But that's just my opinion and while it's no reason to change my personal mission it's also unreasonable to expect it to happen, certainly on a personal risk level.

              What you "should" or "shouldn't" have to depend on is an incoherent notion to me on a personal level. We fight for the right stuff, for a lifetime, but life is what it is. As a boomer I would say this economy is better today than it was predicted to be when I was a kid, better than we were warned by our elders, and better than I expected and that's saying a lot becasue I planned for an economic collapse and worse.

              There's a difference between timelines for the public and the private, the personal vs. the social. Our pubic actions focus on the big picture and the nation as a whole, time to build in the light of history, but for the local, personal demands we have a very short span to prepare & there's little or no room for any risk. These are two separate, distinct spheres and "shoulds" have nothing to do with our personal fates. At least that's how I think.

              •  Of course you're entitled to think that way (8+ / 0-)

                but that certainly doesn't make it the least bit germane to folks who, ahem, "weren't smart enough to plan for an economic collapse".

                Wow. Just wow. I am just profoundly sorry that the idea that "working hard and playing by the rules should have provided me with a reasonably-secure future" is so....incoherent to you.

                Please, don't respond to this. I have no further capacity to be so patronized by anyone today.

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 01:04:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where/when did money ever follow hard work? (3+ / 0-)

                  Money follows money. The people who work the hardest frequently make the least!  For all of history! Unfortunately, as we all know, that doesn't reduce the necessity to work.

                  There's no basis to expect that "working hard and playing by the rules should have provided...a reasonably-secure future" in this world where so many of our parents and grandparents never realized such results, were killed in BS wars, incarcerated, laid off from their jobs at earlier and earlier ages, toiled for their lifetimes, and got ripped off at every step they wandered an inch away form what they could muster a little control over?

                  I'm not patronizing or personalizing this in any way and I'm sorry if that's how I come off. That's part of the problem in our culture is that work and earning a decent living, cradle-to-grave, is not personalized enough. Maybe it "should be" but it isn't. I respect you and your commentary and am sorry if this comes off as patronizing.

                  •  asdf (5+ / 0-)
                    Unfortunately, as we all know, that doesn't reduce the necessity to work.
                    No, we don't all "know" such world-salady nonsense.

                    I would have been happy to thank you for a simple apology, but after doing so, you continued digging further.  Why would you do that?  
                    There's no basis to expect that "working hard and playing by the rules should have provided...a reasonably-secure future"
                    Uh-huh. That was a 54-year delusion on my part. Bless your heart...Carry on!

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 01:45:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why should you get an apology (0+ / 0-)

                      because someone has a more positive outlook then you do?

                      Maybe if you got up from your computer periodically you could make change instead of spending all you time whining on the internet. Just sayin.

                      •  Because they tried to apologize already? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Mr Robert, wave of change

                        Maybe if you'd not cast aspersions where none belong, you wouldn't have anything to "Me Too!" about in a blog comment thread. Just sayin'!

                        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                        by lunachickie on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 02:48:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm just tired of seeing (0+ / 0-)

                          your name next to rude comments.

                          Explaining one's perspective and being polite about it are not the same as apologizing.

                          •  Pardon my passion (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            2dot, Mr Robert, wave of change, bryduck

                            if it's that bothersome for you, if you think I'm rude, I'd hate to see you in an I/P diary, falling on the wrong side of a diarist.  

                            Some subjects just aren't for the thin of skin anymore. I'm damned tired of being patronized regarding the wholesale inertia (and that's being polite) of the social security program on the part of Democrats who should damn well know better. If you think that's rude, I'm sorry, but this passion is what it is and I will not--will not--back off it.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 03:17:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't & don't blame anyone. (0+ / 0-)

                  There's nothing in my comment that indicated the slightest blame. That''s a pretty paranoid choice of misinterpretation.

                  As a boomer I would say this economy is better today than it was predicted to be when I was a kid, better than we were warned by our elders, and better than I expected and that's saying a lot becasue I planned for an economic collapse and worse.
                  I offered myself up as an obviously ridiculous extreme example of conservative contingency planning.
                  •  No, but it was certainly implied (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    2dot, Mr Robert, NewRomeIsBurning
                    They'll do what Boomers did & save in their 40's & 50's and at least half of them will scrounge and save enough  
                    In other words, if half of us didn't have the means or wherewithal to save in our 40s and 50s, the fact that we didn't do what you did:
                    I planned for an economic collapse and worse.
                    implies that we all should have seen this engineered collapse coming, and if we all didn't, well, we're just not as smart as you are.

                    You know what I spent my 40s and 50s doing? I spent it trying to reinvent myself. Again. I came close to succeeding in my forties, but I got sold out to another country again. Then I had to cash in my 401K. That's long-gone, too.

                    So, you see--I tried to save. Unfortunately, it does cost money to live. It's a good thing I had that much, otherwise I'd be homeless already.

                    So you'll have to pardon my lack of patience with the incrementalism trope and the gall of anyone in the Democratic Party to keep pretending that there's a "Problem" with Social Security other than "a bunch of fucking greedheads want to steal it", just like they've stolen damn near anything else of value that belongs to the American people who worked for it. Well, I got a news-flash for you: anyone who thinks they'll touch a fucking cent of my Social Security has another think coming, because that is all I have left.

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 03:08:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Very Well Said (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I appreciate your views KCK.  I'm a little older than a
                boomer and your views made me look at expectations
                that I had when I was young. I expected that I wouldn't be among the 95% that didn't invest and save enough. I don't remember any prediction, but I probably wasn't
                paying attention. I did however work my way up to being
                entrepreneurial, and I was glad of the risks I took. But the fall was hard. Whatever...I now count on my inadequate
                Social Security for a simple, quiet, rural life full of activism
                and writing.

                •  "...a simple, quiet, rural life full of..." (0+ / 0-)

                  Sounds blessed, including to be able to say to say, "I was glad of the risks I took. But the fall was hard." That's a life well lived, eh? Thank you for the lovely comment. Good luck.

                  And together may we all succeed for progress in providing better for our citizens health, education, welfare and retirement!

            •  Tiresome indeed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Give it a rest kck.

              My invisible imaginary friend is the "true" creator

              by Mr Robert on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 09:28:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I remember the Gov't some years ago (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            borrowing a huge chunk of change from the Social Security "lockbox". Remember all that talk? Does anyone know if we ever got paid back? Do I even want to know?

            •  The Social Security Trust Funds… (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              denise b, 2dot, Bruce Webb

              …have always been invested in US Government Securities and, under current rules, will continue to be until the Trust Fund(s) are depleted. So the "lockbox" has always been borrowed by the Government.

              Were you referring to something else?

            •  Not in cash form, no. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The $ was converted to securities as the commenter below states. It's that repayment (reconverted to $ as it is paid out to actual people) that triggers such outrage on the rightwing, because it will demand some method of fiscal accounting (in a metaphorical sense), either through higher taxes on the rich or inflation.

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:21:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Wait a second . . . (0+ / 0-)

          If I recall correctly, back in the 70s they increased the FICA on Boomer workers, which is why Social Security has the Trust Fund. You know, that lockbox Al Gore wanted to protect but Bush et al. raided.

          This comment is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.

          by blue muon on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 03:32:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Times have changed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MsAnimated, Arkenstark, Rita5018

          Wages have been suppressed for years, and by now, we've largely transitioned into a temporary job market.  The country has changed dramatically since 1980. Those who are still among the better-off can't grasp that those who are just getting by don't have enough income to save anything.  If you're doing better, you save up the money to get at least a couple of things to improve the quality of life. Most of us know that no matter what we do, everything can be torn out from under us in a flash.

  •  To get documentation (13+ / 0-)

    Required by social service agencies SSA is telling recipients they will ONLY be able to get them online or on the phone. The last time I tried the phone method it took THREE MONTHS to get income verification.

    Who can wait three months to finish their food stamp application?

    We have to stop this!

  •  Boomers Are Retiring. It's Urgent to Cut Staff (22+ / 0-)

    or else lines and wait times won't mushroom, thereby failing to degrade program credibility.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 11:14:13 AM PDT

  •  GOP/DNR (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peregrine kate, Puddytat

    decent wages don't eliminate jobs. Republicans eliminate jobs; and workers, and prospects, and then excuse it all and call for more austerity. there is no end to their ignorant, arrogant avarice. only political dinosaurs support their treachery.

    by renzo capetti on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 12:06:34 PM PDT

  •  Soc Sec Admin paid from Trust Fund (16+ / 0-)

    Although Social Security administration expenses have to go through the Appropriations process the actual funds are simply paid out of the Trust Funds. Now while it is true that the Trust Funds are currently cash flow negative the starving of Social Security administration started back when it was running $100 billion plus cash surpluses and the money we are talking about is in the single billion dollar range.

    That is however you slice it Social Security admin is funded by worker contributions past and present and not at all by taxes on the 1%. Frankly they have no God damn business telling workers 'they' can't afford to give us enough staffing to serve our needs even though we are paying for every dime of that service.

    It is pure hatred for the New Deal and FDR. Along with the calculation that they cannot afford to have Social Security look efficient. Because it would shake confidence in their 'Government is not the solution, Government is the problem mandate'.

    Just as Patrick is Lucky pointed out in respect to the USPS. First cripple it with ridiculous multi-billion dollar set asides to fund health care for retirees who won't even be HIRED for decades and then blast it for being forced to cut back on Saturday deliveries.

    SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

    by Bruce Webb on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 12:17:58 PM PDT

    •  The trust fund was designed to go negative (10+ / 0-)

      in the 1980s Social Security "fix".  

      Normally SS is cash in and cash out, but a Trust Fund was needed to prefund the retirement of the Baby Boomers.  It is designed to be eliminated after the Baby Boomers and SS return to it's cash in and cash out financing.

      I can see, however, that this is another of the long ball GOP strategies where the negative cash flow of the Trust Fund is now being used to politically demonize Social Security so it can be more easily privatized.

      There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

      by Puddytat on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 01:29:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not just GOP strategy, its Vichy Dem strategy too (8+ / 0-)

        Let's not forget, there are thousands of Dem managers in DC and elsewhere being paid prodigious sums of money by Pete Peterson and Third Way donors to undermine Social Security in preparation for privatization.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 02:15:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, it was designed to go Cash Flow Negative (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Puddytat, wave of change

        which is not the same thing as saying the Trust Fund was EVER expected to go to zero.

        Under conditions of 'Sustainable Solvency' the Social Security Trust Fund would be simultaneously cash flow negative and have a positive AND growing balance.

        The idea that the Trust Fund was some novelty implemented with the 1983 reforms and designed to disappear when Boomers did is somewhere between radically simplified and dead wrong. It was always understood by those in the know that the Trust Fund balance would build up a large surplus in the Baby Boomer's prime earning years and it was always expected that that surplus would be tapped in a way that put the system cash flow negative, but it was never part of the plan that the Trust Fund would go to zero or even decline in nominal terms.

        You wouldn't think that the Trust Funds could both grow AND be cash flow negative, it seems like an absurdity. Still that is what the numbers would show if we restored SocSec to solvency either through FICA increases or by lifting the cap. Or for that matter by benefit cuts. Put it in the category of "Odd but True".

        SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

        by Bruce Webb on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 03:43:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lifting the cap is becoming necessary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          as is extending the reach of FICA to all incomes.  I believe folks with investment income, like Mitt Romney, pay nothing into SS.  It's only the folks that get paychecks, us "little people" that have to pay in.

          There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

          by Puddytat on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 11:05:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Necessary why? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Social Security is still running surpluses and is projected to do so for the next few years. And has $2.8 trillion in assets fully backed by Full Faith and Credit of the United States fully sufficient to pay off all obligations until at least 2033. And the amount of additional revenue needed to shore up its finances so that cuts in 2033 are not necessary at all are when quantified tiny and would be imperceptible even if financed entirely out of workers paychecks.

            On the other hand there are dozens of items on the progressive agenda that are currently underfunded and need new funds TODAY. Funds that could be supplied by taxing capital at regular income rates as a start. But why the f would we propose to devote those new or renewed progressive taxes to a system that is comparitively flush? And so crowd out the use of say 50% top rates and extension of that to capital gains to fund all the rest of our agenda? Why should we insist on sending all this new source of funds to a Trust Fund that will just have to lend it back to the Federal Government rather than devoting it directly to such things as early education or infrastructure? Particularly since 12.4% of every dollar used to hire a teacher or a constrution worker automatically flows back to Social Security ANYWAY.

            People who insist that the 'answer' to Social Security 'crisis' is to "extend the reach of FICA to all incomes" have simply adopted the 'Crisis' narrative promoted by the enemies of Social Security.

            In 2005 Bush's Social Security Tour was beaten back mostly by a web-led movement headed up in part by a couple of Kossacks now known as Dave Johnson and Bob Brigham under the fighting words: "There is No Crisis". And you know there wasn't and except in the minds of people left and right who have fallen wittingly or not under the spell of the plutocrats there isn't. In short Social Security doesn't need, and in a clear headed sense shouldn't want a fucking single dime from Capital.

            Those people who want to turn a perfectly functional Social Insurance plan which needs only some tiny revenue tweaks into a bog standard Social Welfare program funded by taxes on capital have just fallen into the trap set by the 1%.

            Social Security has never taken anything from Capital and so owes nothing TO Capital. That in large part is what provided the political insulation for the Third Rail of American Politics. Now a lot of progressives entranced by the appeal of replacing 'regressive taxes' with 'progressive taxation' want to strip that insulation away EVEN THOUGH SOCIAL SECURITY DOESN"T NEED THAT MONEY.

            Now there are a lot of ways in which the function of Social Security can be enhanced. For example you could eliminate a lot of the complexity of SS and its three 'bend points' if you just adopted a National Income Plan along the lines of the one being considered by the Swiss and then funded THAT with taxes on investment income. Hell BRING THAT ON!!! But the notion that the right vehicle for accomplishing that has to be through the existing Social Security Insurance system is just to unconsciously adopt the whole Neo-Lib world view that insists that Social Security faces some existential crisis that demands SOME response.

            Tax the crap out of Mitt Romney for all I care. Start by taxing capital gains as regular income and taking the top rate back to the 50% it was in the early Reagan years. And then if you like take it back to the 69% it was in after LBJ implemented JFK's rates. Heck I am not that adverse to a top rate of 90% plus as it was during the time of Give 'Em Hell Truman and even Ike. But at no point in any of those years from 1935 to 1980, the years that we were whacking the 1% at least with really big top rates was it ever considered necessary or desireable to send a single dollar of that money to Social Security. And it still isn't.

            Don't fall into the trap of thinking that every item on the Progressive Agenda is a nail which needs hamering by Progressive taxation. Some unquestionably do and obvious items are early education and infrastructure investments. But there is no reason to just sweep Social Security into that mix just because it FEELS progressive to do so. Without knowing it you are just playing on the enemy's battleground.

            SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

            by Bruce Webb on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 11:32:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We have to lift the cap (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Arkenstark, wilywascal

              The situation as it is right now is unfair, allows those with investment income to escape FICA, allows the rich to escape their full responsibility, and prevents raising the amount of Social Security checks for current and future retirees.  

              There are too many people trying to survive on Social Security alone since pensions are virtually extinct and retirement savings have been gambled into the ground by Wall Street and exorbitant fees.  An increase in those checks are as needed as an increase in minimum wage is for workers.

              I'm all for taxing the rich and taxing all income regardless of whether it comes from paychecks, investments, bonuses, or stock options.  It's way overdue and the old 69% rate still saw plenty of rich people in this country.  I never saw a millionaire hungry those days.  

              And we need to get rid of those obscene loopholes that allow the rich and corporate to weasel their way out, too.  Those funds would come in very handy to fund a progressive agenda.  

              With bigger Social Security checks and a higher minimum wage, there would be less need for social programs to fill in the gaps, enabling benefits to be raised for those who remain in need.  We already know that the monthly food stamp allotment barely lasts 3 weeks, if that.

              On top of that, increases in SS and minimum wage would be stimilative of the economy.   We still need a jobs program to provide employment and we certainly have more than enough infrastructure needs.  

              I'm not falling for the enemy playbook or strategy.  It's just common sense.  I don't believe that Social Security is in crisis, but recipient are with the average $1200 per month they currently receive.

              There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

              by Puddytat on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 01:11:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Taxing investment income for Social Security (0+ / 0-)

                also has some crowding out effects for funding the rest of the progressive agenda.

                Two it gives the enemies of Social Security the rhetorical upper hand by essentially conceding that Social Security is 'unsustainable' 'going bankrupt' and so needing a bailout by capital. Why give them that victory when workers can easily fully fund Social Security themselves wihle taking a dual track that would tax that investment income in ways that raise wages across the board. An effort by the way that would help boost Social Security along the way. After all 12.4% of every wage job created by government action flows directly back to Social Security already.

                Three Social Security HAS $2.8 trillion in the bank. The trick is to make sure that the 1% continue to pay the interest due on that money. If you examine the cash flow all an increase in tax on investment income which would be devoted to Social Security actually doess is to reduce dollar for dollar cash payments of interest out of largely the same pockets. It makes little sense to invoke "fairness" in an instance where that means giving the wealthy a cash offset to their new 'burden'.

                You are approaching this from 30,000 feet and relying on an elevated sense of Equity which IMHO is misplaced.  Social Security is just not the right vehicle to pile the progressive agenda into and onto. Instead it is a knee jerk respons to a false claim and proposed response:

                "Social Security is broke and needs benefit cuts" with "Social Security can be fixed simply by taxing capital"

                But right there by using 'fixed' you have conceded 'broken'. Big mistake rhetorically, politically and from an accounting standpoint.

                SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

                by Bruce Webb on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:06:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You raise good points, but I'm looking (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  at Social Security separately from the rest of the progressive agenda.  Social Security must be considered separately from the budget because it isn't paid for out of the budget.  SS is an earned benefit and efforts to link it to the federal budget or turn it into a welfare program need to be fought vigorously.

                  Allowing those who make, IIRC, over $130,000 to not pay another dime into SS because of the cap and allow other income to escape SS obligations entirely is unfair to those who make contributions on every dollar they earn (most of us).

                  Eliminating the cap and expanding the sources from which income pays FICA re-establishes fairness across the board and will enable larger checks to recipients, less reliance on safety net programs, and economic stimulation overall.

                  The progressive agenda itself, focused on re-establishing a better safety net, full employment, prioritizing education, and attention to our decaying and archaic infrastructure can be achieved by improving the fairness of our now unfair system of taxation.  That includes ensuring that capitol gains and things like stock options are taxed at the same rate as earned income and raising the rate on upper incomes as well as an even higher rate for those with massive earnings.  

                  There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

                  by Puddytat on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 01:49:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Bruce, your heart is in the right place, but (0+ / 0-)

      you've got it all wrong when you say:

      It is pure hatred for the New Deal and FDR. Along with the calculation that they cannot afford to have Social Security look efficient. Because it would shake confidence in their 'Government is not the solution, Government is the problem mandate'.
      It's not about hatred or ideology, it's about dollars. The middle class has built the trust fund, and it's the dollars of the middle class that fund Social Security benefits. THEY WANT THOSE DOLLARS! They have money and power, and they will use both to get more money and power.

      This is why "defending" Social Security is exactly the wrong strategy. The 1% are waging class warfare in search of those dollars, and  and we must reply in kind. If we don't take away their weapons -- their dollars -- they will win. They will eventually take all the dollars except those dollars that keep us barely alive to do the heavy lifting. It's their way of life, their reason for being; it's what they do. They amass dollars, as lions kill wildebeests.

      Until we understand that, we are fighting a losing battle.

      Too soon old, too late smart (-7.25, -6.21)

      by Tim DeLaney on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 07:45:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My calculator is in the right place (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The Trust Fund is real as real. It also can't be stolen because there is nothing there to steal.

        Privatization had a relatively narrow window in which to work, roughly from 1997 to 2006, because it relied on excess cash flow financing those Wall Street fees. But as anyone who looked at the numbers understood that positive cash flow was term limited.

        I suggest it is YOUR heart that is in the right place. But clearly you don't have a head for the ins and outs of Social Security finance. Because looking at it from a green eye-shade perspective your comment makes no sense at all.

        Though admirable enough in its own way, because we need the economci class warriors to help us poor wildebeests fight off the lions. And God Bless you for being willing to take up the sword. Just forgive me if I don't make you Army Paymaster. Because numbers matter. And you seem to have an uncertain grasp on them.

        But go forth and fight! Just understand that "They too serve who stand and count ducats"

        SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

        by Bruce Webb on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 10:42:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is my biggest line in the sand (8+ / 0-)

    and I am not budging. Democrats better start standing the fuck up for this program, or they are going to lose A LOT of soon-to-be seniors.

    Is that what Democrats really want?

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 12:45:31 PM PDT

    •  Me too because if they won't fight for these (7+ / 0-)

      middle class programs which impact Americans most likely to vote, don't trust them on anything else.  

      •  That's exactly the kind of thing (0+ / 0-)

        which chucks the concept of trust completely out the window.

        if they won't fight for these middle class programs which impact Americans most likely to vote
        I've been saying for awhile that the push to "divide Democrats" is on, and it's deliberate, just as "The Tea Party" did to the GOP. When I see this wholesale application--here, on this blog--of what amounts to a giant SHRUG when it comes to actual Democrats rolling over and accepting it, or making excuses for it, or baying about Social Security and how we must just all "share" some more "sacrifice" in it, too, I see red.

        In more ways than one.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 03:26:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  long crossed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Back in the 80's, not only was the tax rate cut to unsustainable levels(Bush had to raise taxes so the deficit to infinity) but the IRS budgets were cut as well.  The result of this, was, arguably, the middle class continued to be obligated to pay the specified taxes, while those who had money could choose to risk various shelters.

      For the rich this gutting of the IRS was a no brainier.  For everyone else, democrats and republicans, pushed anecdotal stories of old people being harassed for their last $10 in taxes,  or 100% of wages garnished, or many other horrors.  What was often left out was the investigations that lead to those who cheated on the taxes being forced to pay those taxes.

      What is funny is that the taxes were reduced, and the rich still felt the need to cheat.  What was true is the IRS was able to collect $1 from the tax cheats if givens a few nickels of funding.

  •  On thing I don't get is why... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...Americans of SS age are mostly Republicans;

    Party by age photo Partybyage_zps40e78f38.gif

    Hopefully this will change as baby boomers retire.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 01:58:39 PM PDT

    •  All Republican SocSec 'Reform' Plans (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blood, Shockwave, PsychoSavannah

      almost without exception exempt those "In or approaching retirement" which is generally defined as 55 and older.

      This is a feature and not a bug of the 1982 Butler-Germanis 'Leninist Strategy' and was for example incorporated as one of the six Guidelines of Bush's CSSS (Commission to Strengthen Social Security) whose 2001 Report, set to be issued in December 2011, got swamped by the opportunity to get Dick Cheney/the PNAC's Iraq War on after 9/11. It was also a feature of the SS 'reform' plan included in Paul Ryan's first Road to Prosperity Budget.

      This BTW is what allows the R's to attack D's on Medicare via Mediscare, when pushed to the wall they can point to the exemption in most of their proposals and so make Dem's 'the Real Enemy of Seniors'. Something which pushing Chained CPI by Neo-Libs and New Dems doesn't effing help us push back.

      The Leninist Strategy can be summarized as follows:
      Reassure the Elderly
      Scare Gen-X and Millenials
      Blame it all on Selfish Boomers.

      Which worked great the first 20 years or so but began to get a litle stale when those Selfish Boomers started qualifying for the exemptions designed to Reassure the Elderly. Sort of a "We have met the Enemy and He is Us" moment for that messaging.

      SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

      by Bruce Webb on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 03:33:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's not true (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lencialoo, lunachickie, bryduck
    It's part of a raging fight by conservatives to get rid of the government's footprint wherever possible
    Conservatives love the military, cops, and jails.
      In other words, they love government things that they can use against you but do nothing to help people.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 02:31:19 PM PDT

  •  The real problem with Social Security is (7+ / 0-)

    that Wall Street banksters don't control Social Security funds thus the banksters don't get their cut nor can they use Social Security money as their play money.

  •  Effing Rethugs! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lunachickie, OleHippieChick, wxorknot

    We ought to be RAISING SS, not destroying it!

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 02:42:51 PM PDT

  •  While we argue amongst ourselves (0+ / 0-)

    our eyes are torn from countries with real programmatic solutions relying on general revenues and realistic income outcomes.
    Will we never learn?  

  •  Death by a thousand cuts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wave of change

    has been their highly effective strategy for decades. Sure, make big pushes every now and then, like GWB's privatization tour, but for the most part, stay out of the headlines by whittling away at the Federal budget year after year, accompanied by the constant refrain of "big government is tyranny."

    Then, when nothing's left, and people complain, blame the other side, or, worst case scenario, long dead politicians or economists.

    "Nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than…sanity." —George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State” (1941)

    by Blood on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 03:59:17 PM PDT

  •  This is the method that gets government down (0+ / 0-)

    to the point where one can drown it in a Bathtub.

    Notice: This Comment © 2014 ROGNM UID 2547

    by ROGNM on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 04:03:50 PM PDT

  •  The righties want to get rid of SS altogether (0+ / 0-)

    ... Only morons are not aware of this by now.

  •  It was through those yearly statements that I (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bruce Webb, wave of change

    found out that a former boss had stiffed me and everyone else out on both the employer and employee withheld portions of the FICA tax.  I had all by pay stubs that calculated everything out, but the boss never made the payments.  Took those into SS and got my credit for it.  I don't know if SSA ever went after the guy for failure to make the payments.  It was for more than 2 years worth of work.  So, it wasn't a small amount.  This was back between 1991 and 1994.  I hope that they were able to nail his ass to the wall.  The boss had told me that that office formed because another in the former office had done that to all of them.

  •  IRS (0+ / 0-)

    This is also true of the IRS and many other agencies.

  •  No (0+ / 0-)

    What remains unacceptable is legislation based solely on appealing to that one shrinking demographic, the middle class. We pay into Social Security retirement AND disability, and in recent years it has been apparent that better-off retirees are fine with throwing disabled workers off the cliff to protect their own benefits. This, of course, has weakened any movement to protect Social Security in whole.

    I'd like to comment on the "We paid for it" theme. Few people would do well if they received back only what they, personally, paid into Social Security (or any other type of insurance). We need a far broader discussion about our social policies, based on the values of the wider population and the best interests of the country.

  •  And one thing that is not mentioned in this ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meinoregon, wilywascal

    article:  they have created an administrative judge pool that is so conservative that they even ignore the evidence given by their own career counselors on whether people are actually disabled.  They discredit people for things such as unpaid child support, getting unemployment when they lose their jobs due to their disabilities - calling the applicants liars along with their medical providers, and discrediting not only onset dates, but continuing needs as well.  The judges are expected to render fair decisions based on medical evidence and testimony not only of the applicant, but also career counselors for the court and persons with standing knowledge of the applicant, such as advocates or lawyers, but they refuse to do so to show the Congress that they are not being too liberal.  Unfortunately, people who are a danger to others are forced out into the workplace or onto the streets by such decisions, and these judges then say "See, I told you so" - they are not credible because of the very things that make them unable to work.

    The GOP/Tea Party/Blue Dog Democrats have not only created fear in the minds of the elderly and disabled by cutting budgets, but by appointing judges who clearly should not be allowed to make judgements about people whom they clearly view as the scum of the Earth.  This is the other way they discredit the agency and deprive people of benefits that they should be getting.  

    I know -  my husband is violent to the point that advocates and mental health counselors won't work with him; he has threatened to kill family members; he lives in chronic pain on painkillers that would make him unstable; and he had to lie to get unemployment while he job hunted for over three years.  The administrative judge refused to consider any time frame except when he had no medical and was on unemployment; ignored the SS career counselor's assessment of his employability; and refused to let anyone testify except my husband who when he gets angry cannot verbally communicate due to a learning disability.  He is a danger to others and yet the judge said he was not disabled, so I will continue to support us on my SSDI, and live in fear of my life as I do because he is my husband and at one time he was a warm, loving, responsible person and I hope someday with medical care he will return to that person.

  •  Cash shortfall for 2013 was $75B... (0+ / 0-)

    after averaging $50B per year for the years 2010-2012, according to the SSA.  So the feds are having to begin repayment of the trust fund, something they want to stop doing.  If they can achieve and maintain a money in equals money out balance through cuts- the trust fund is never fully repaid.

    •  Not repayment of the TF (0+ / 0-)

      instead PARTIAL payment of accrued interest with cash. The rest of the interest is still serving to increase TF principal and balances are still projected to increase for the next eight or nine years.

      SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

      by Bruce Webb on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 04:46:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Social Security Budget cuts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This is really an attack on the core competence of Social Security - and thus is something that right wingers cannot allow to continue.  Both of my parents died in the 1997 - 2009 period (as did my wife's) and, the striking thing about Soc Sec is the ease of which (i ) in case of my  Father's death I was able to get his Soc Sec payments directed to my Mother (she was the lower income earner in the family and thus had a right to his payments) and (ii) after my Mother died the ease by which Soc Security staff recognized, and made the appropriate changes.  All of this was in stark contrast to the endless forms, needs for additional meetings, demands for me to turn over assets, etc. to private "pension" fund providers that my Father and Mother had also used.  

    Soc Sec is - and has been - the standing condemnation of the operations of the private financial sector and we have to fight as hard as we can to keep its very efficient and humane approach to the issues of pensions, changing beneficiaries as life and death dictate,etc.  And all of this with an overhead cost much, much lower than that of private, finance driven retirement schemes (with the emphasis on "schemes").

  •  About that online link, Joan: (0+ / 0-)
    Day   Service Hours  


    5:00 a.m. - 1:00 a.m.  


    5:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.  


    8:00 a.m. - 11:30 p.m.  

    Federal Holidays  

    Same hours as the day the holiday occurs.

  •  SSI cuts (0+ / 0-)

    I am thinking that these cuts to the admin budget are geared towards privatizing SSI, which would be disastrous. Already, when I have to call them, there is an ad/pressure/prompting for/to sign up for a direct deposit debit card, handled by an outside contractor whose name I can't recall at the moment.

  •  Ever since FDR's successes ... (0+ / 0-)

    The so called conservatives - aka: oligarchs - have done all they could to dismantle FDR's New Deal from the day it started. It took root in 1932 - a result of the Great Depression that was brought on buy banks dealing in sub prime lending (sound familiar). Social Security was born in 1932 .. along with other of FDR's Second Bill of Rights  - and legislation like that of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prohibited banks from gambling with depositors money and more.

    Then "along came Ronald" ... as in Reagan - and the Great Undoing began ... Glass-Steagall Act and Unions being the prime initial targets.

    They say that there are Three Truths to everything: 1) Your version, 2) My version, and 3) The Truth.

    Quit letting them let you have their way.  Learn the Third Truth. Start with CORPORATIONS are not PEOPLE, and the real job creators are the people. Also, THEY did not do it by themselves.

    Think about it.

  •  If the conservatives... (0+ / 0-)

    Are embroiled "in a raging fight to get rid of the government's footprint wherever possible," then why are Republican-led state legislatures across the country proposing and passing legislation that permits the government to put its jackbooted footprint on the reproductive rights of women?

  •  these are all reasons why we must not let (0+ / 0-)

    the GOP grab a hold of both parties of Congress if at all possible. I have NO apathy and VOTE, and need each and everyone of you to do the same, as well as your neighbors, and your friends, and your family!!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site