Obama to propose cuts to Social Security

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/04/05/official-obama-proposes-cuts-social-security/wEAq2lB9Z4cdxrnSBxQwLI/story.html

[All Along The Watchtower]

..and now Boehner has already rejected it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html?hp=t2_3

[Franzl]

You'd think Obama would learn...

[All Along The Watchtower]

You'd think Obama would learn...

I think it's because the Democrats are taking the place of the Republicans as the "responsible" (mainstream) right-wing party in America.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The current gridlock is a great opportunity to peddle my idea of a benevolent single-party autocracy.

[courts]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s proposed budget will call for reductions in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs

translation: in other words, as usual we are not actually talking about cuts. which isn't to say that taxes shouldn't be raised obviously or that the republicans aren't totally ridiculous.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Don't raise the eligibility age... please...

[Supersonic]

More wealth taxes? Typical.

At least Obama has seen sense on social security.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Don't raise the eligibility age... please...

Please do!

[Zarn]

How about we leave the Middle East, close bases down in general, and cut the corruption in the departments in Washington and around the country, instead?

People paid into Social Security. The government took the money from the people it is suppose to 'help,' in the first place.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How about we leave the Middle East, close bases down in general, and cut the corruption in the departments in Washington and around the country, instead?

People paid into Social Security. The government took the money from the people it is suppose to 'help,' in the first place.

Good idea.  Let's find two people in Washington who'll support it.

[krazen1211]

People paid into Social Security. The government took the money from the people it is suppose to 'help,' in the first place.

Ida Mae Fuller paid roughly $25 and collected roughly $23,000 in benefits over her lifetime. Paid for, indeed.

Some other rascals similarly made out like bandits.

[badgate]

..and now Boehner has already rejected it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html?hp=t2_3

You'd think Obama would learn...

Excuse me? You'd think Boehner would learn! Claiming the Prez needs to "lead" and work with Republicans and then Boehner rejects out of hand a budget he hasn't even seen? Proof he is not at all interested in bettering the lives of Americans

[greenforest32]

They're going to get their way.

D or R, the $$ is going to flow upwards.

[Franzl]

..and now Boehner has already rejected it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html?hp=t2_3

You'd think Obama would learn...

Excuse me? You'd think Boehner would learn! Claiming the Prez needs to "lead" and work with Republicans and then Boehner rejects out of hand a budget he hasn't even seen? Proof he is not at all interested in bettering the lives of Americans

You misunderstand me. Obama should learn that nothing he proposes will ever satisfy the GOP.

[Torie]

..and now Boehner has already rejected it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html?hp=t2_3

It seems that is the case as to the overall package Obama is proposing, but not the chained CPI concept, which is a non brainer, because with the chained CPI concept, the purchasing power of the SS payments will remain intact, but not grow to the extent the purchasing power of wages grows over time.

[badgate]

You misunderstand me. Obama should learn that nothing he proposes will ever satisfy the GOP.

Ah. I agree. So he might as well propose the most Democratic budget possible; I thought the administration had given up on the strategy of starting negotiations where they want them to end.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Don't raise the eligibility age... please...

It's inevitable.  I'm surprised it hasn't already been done.  From the time I left college I have been operating on the asumption I wouldn't be able to draw on Social Security until I reached 70, but it looks like it I won't have to wait that long.  At worst it'll be age 69 and that's if the gradual rise that took it from 65 to 67 were put in place immediately to go from 67 to 70.

[free my dawg]

You misunderstand me. Obama should learn that nothing he proposes will ever satisfy the GOP.

Ah. I agree. So he might as well propose the most Democratic budget possible; I thought the administration had given up on the strategy of starting negotiations where they want them to end.

Nope, they're just going to kowtow right out of the gate this time, even though appeasing a group that constantly moves the goalposts pissed off the base so much that they didn't get out and vote in 2010.

[Sbane]

..and now Boehner has already rejected it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html?hp=t2_3

It seems that is the case as to the overall package Obama is proposing, but not the chained CPI concept, which is a non brainer, because with the chained CPI concept, the purchasing power of the SS payments will remain intact, but not grow to the extent the purchasing power of wages grows over time.

Do you support anymore tax hikes, including if all of it is achieved through tax reform as opposed to raising rates? I don't think the Republican party is going to go for even a cent more in revenue. There is no point negotiating with them. The best bet is to vote them out of power and hope the Democrats don't go too far. I am sorry, but the current Republican party is not worthy of governing.

[Torie]

No, I think at the end of the day, if you look at the two choices 1) no more revenue, and enough cuts to keep the debt level below say 90% of the GDP, or 2) more revenue and less cuts to keep the debt level below say 90% of the GDP (and making sure the government future pension and SS entitlement liabilities are booked at a reasonable number without having an unrealistically high expected rate of return, and added to the total debt number), I think it will become clear that the level of cuts necessary to effect to pick option 1 is just not very appealing, either politically, or to me personally (although I no doubt would be spending a fair amount of the money in different places).

So that is a long winded way of saying I suspect when the choices are laid out with real numbers, and real choices, that I will depart from my party's current position, and indeed support more revenues.

I hope I have made everything clear as to where my little brain sits on this at the moment. Did I sbane?

[Sbane]

I hope I have made everything clear as to where my little brain sits on this at the moment. Did I sbane?

Yeah, you have. It seems like you wouldn't dismiss out of hand any more revenues like Boehner has. Once you do that, there is no negotiation to be had. Now, the Republicans may want more cuts than what Obama has proposed. Nothing wrong with that. They just have to realize there is no deal out there that doesn't include revenue. Republicans have a great chance of enacting tax reform and getting entitlement reform, but they seem intent of shooting themselves in the foot. If the Democrats get the white working class back on their side, it's over for the Republicans.

[TNF]

Well for once I hope the Republicans reject this nonsense idea. Social Security, if anything, needs to be expanded, not destroyed. Too bad we can't tax those rich bastards that ran this country into the dirt. Cutting Social Security and Medicare will actually kill people. Taxing the Waltons won't.

[Sbane]

A chained CPI is not equal to destroying Social Security.

[Torie]

A chained CPI is not equal to destroying Social Security.

Yes, I thought I made clear that it kept the SS purchasing power the same over time. And I do think one way to raise more revenues (if needed, and I suspect they will be, or at least that will be my point of view), is means testing stuff, so for those with means, maybe more of their SS payments will be taxed (to wit, all of that portion of the SS payments which represents "interest" earned over time above and beyond what was paid in), and/or their benefits based on same formula might be trimmed. Ditto with medicare.