Official: Obama Proposes Cuts to Social Security

tererun said:

So let me get this straight. Republicans demand cuts to social security over and over again, and when Obama tries to get something done on a budget by giving into their demands for a compromise on raising taxes for more revenue the republicans blame him and try to paint him as the person who wants to destroy social security and not them? Oh wait, that is what they always do. It is called compromise, and it should be how things work. Oh, and also paying your oversized debt is painful all around. it should just be taken on more by the rich.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you are upset that those Democrats are at odds with Obama.....the OP says nothing about the Republicans saying anything. Nor criticizing Obama on it. Try reading the link. :roll:

tererun said:

I call it the paul ryan plan. Yeah, before you go making comments, at least this plan is supposed to compromise. It is not putting forth a get everything you ever wanted republican dream plan in some attempt to look like you actually did work. Oh, and the republicans have been caving a lot recently including caving the last time on tax increases. hey, maybe they will cave so that bucky the CPAC brat can get his white house visit that he was crying over a while back?

Click to expand...

Its Suppose to be a compromise plan.....yet Democrats are opposing it. Care to speak for them?

MMC said:

Its Suppose to be a compromise plan.....yet Democrats are opposing it. Care to speak for them?

Click to expand...

why not instead wait and see how they - and the republicans - vote on this proposal
let's actually see which party truly wants to resolve the nation's debt problem

justabubba said:

why not instead wait and see how they - and the republicans - vote on this proposal
let's actually see which party truly wants to resolve the nation's debt problem

Click to expand...

That's all we can do.....unless some Demos and Repubs start jumping in front of Camera.

MMC said:

That's all we can do.....unless some Demos and Repubs start jumping in front of Camera.

Click to expand...

good. i look forward to then discussing with you the outcome

MMC said:

Sounds like you are upset that those Democrats are at odds with Obama.....the OP says nothing about the Republicans saying anything. Nor criticizing Obama on it. Try reading the link. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yeah, they certainly are not angry when you look at how the reps have gone after portman or O'rielly for caving on gay marriage. I am pretty sure that it is Ok to criticize the president. I know it is a little different than the republican party who likes to attack any out of step person, but I have not seen any of the so called fighting you are fantasizing about. I am also bringing up the reality you wanted cuts to entitlement programs, so you will get what you wanted. It is stupid to blame Obama for something the reps have been pushing for since the beginning. They are the reason social security will be cut if it is because it seems pretty obvious Obama would not do it without their pressure. You obviously see this causing hardship to certain voters and are already trying to spin it that this was what obama wanted. That is pretty sad to screw people over and then blame the person who was fighting against you as being the one who did it. But i expect nothing more from republicans.

MMC said:

Its Suppose to be a compromise plan.....yet Democrats are opposing it. Care to speak for them?

Click to expand...

It is called bargaining. Just because you are compromising doesn't mean you don't try to get the best deal possible. Not every person in government marches in step like so many republicans do. For a party of supposed freedom they sure don't seem to have much freedom.

tererun said:

Yeah, they certainly are not angry when you look at how the reps have gone after portman or O'rielly for caving on gay marriage. I am pretty sure that it is Ok to criticize the president. I know it is a little different than the republican party who likes to attack any out of step person, but I have not seen any of the so called fighting you are fantasizing about. I am also bringing up the reality you wanted cuts to entitlement programs, so you will get what you wanted. It is stupid to blame Obama for something the reps have been pushing for since the beginning. They are the reason social security will be cut if it is because it seems pretty obvious Obama would not do it without their pressure. You obviously see this causing hardship to certain voters and are already trying to spin it that this was what obama wanted. That is pretty sad to screw people over and then blame the person who was fighting against you as being the one who did it. But i expect nothing more from republicans.

Click to expand...

Who would see it more.....new reporters or those that are on the inside or you? Which changes up nothing about any Demos being upset with Obama.

tererun said:

It is called bargaining. Just because you are compromising doesn't mean you don't try to get the best deal possible. Not every person in government marches in step like so many republicans do. For a party of supposed freedom they sure don't seem to have much freedom.

Click to expand...

Well great you know what the definition of compromise is.....But the Demos haven't offered up anything to Compromise with Obama about yet. First he has to deal with them then later on the Republicans. Which we will see what Demos come out and say something.

Looks Like Sanders is the First to Speak out.....

Sanders to Obama: Don’t touch Social Security



Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, one of Congress’s most liberal members, is warning President Barack Obama not to “go back on his word” by offering to cut Social Security spending to reduce the deficit.

“Millions of working people, seniors, disabled veterans, those who have lost a loved one in combat, and women will be extremely disappointed if President Obama caves into the long standing Republican effort to cut Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans and their survivors through a so-called chained CPI,” he said in a statement.

Sanders has been waging a campaign opposing the use of chained CPI, which would mean lower annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security benefits and veterans, and reduce help to the poor. Making the change would cut federal spending by roughly $130 billion over 10 years. But it would also adjust how taxes are calculated, generating about $100 billion in new revenue over the same period.

Obama will include it in his budget, to be unveiled April 10. Federal budgets are not like family budgets—they’re nonbinding spending road maps that serve chiefly as statements of political priorities and punching bags for political opponents. Even if Obama’s budget passes both the House and Senate (it won’t) and he signs it into law, it’s unlikely to have much impact on how Congress decides to spend federal dollars.....snip~

Sanders to Obama: Don

Did the Kool Aid Eaters and Drinkers want to have a Pow-wow before they get their talking points together?

MMC said:

My question is can he save us 10 trillion in 2 years. Not ten. That ten years talking point needs to go.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't 10 trillion in two years either require a negative budget or massive increases in tax revenue? Which of those two options do you prefer?

MMC said:

Looks Like Sanders is the First to Speak out.....

Sanders to Obama: Don’t touch Social Security

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, one of Congress’s most liberal members, is warning President Barack Obama not to “go back on his word” by offering to cut Social Security spending to reduce the deficit.

“Millions of working people, seniors, disabled veterans, those who have lost a loved one in combat, and women will be extremely disappointed if President Obama caves into the long standing Republican effort to cut Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans and their survivors through a so-called chained CPI,” he said in a statement.

Sanders has been waging a campaign opposing the use of chained CPI, which would mean lower annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security benefits and veterans, and reduce help to the poor. Making the change would cut federal spending by roughly $130 billion over 10 years. But it would also adjust how taxes are calculated, generating about $100 billion in new revenue over the same period.

Obama will include it in his budget, to be unveiled April 10. Federal budgets are not like family budgets—they’re nonbinding spending road maps that serve chiefly as statements of political priorities and punching bags for political opponents. Even if Obama’s budget passes both the House and Senate (it won’t) and he signs it into law, it’s unlikely to have much impact on how Congress decides to spend federal dollars.....snip~

Sanders to Obama: Don

Did the Kool Aid Eaters and Drinkers want to have a Pow-wow before they get their talking points together?

Click to expand...

How can someone simultaneously call people members of some sort of cult while simultaneously posting about how divided said group is on a particular issue?

Deuce said:

Wouldn't 10 trillion in two years either require a negative budget or massive increases in tax revenue? Which of those two options do you prefer?

Click to expand...

Which did Ryans Plan address? I think his mark was 5 trillion. Obamas Budget proposal would cost us another 901 billion.....added onto the already 15-16 trillion.

Moreover Ryan's Plan, would require a mix of spending and tax cuts.

Deuce said:

How can someone simultaneously call people members of some sort of cult while simultaneously posting about how divided said group is on a particular issue?

Click to expand...

Who runs around calling the Democrats some Cult? Myself, I Never heard the media mention this.

Deuce said:

How can someone simultaneously call people members of some sort of cult while simultaneously posting about how divided said group is on a particular issue?

Click to expand...

you are looking for signs of logic where none exist

MMC said:

Who runs around calling the Democrats some Cult? Myself, I Never heard the media mention this.

Click to expand...

You understand the connotations of "drinking the kool aid," right?

What is it with America and your fixation with calling a slowing of increases a "cut"? Nothing I've seen here looks like a cut to social security to me, but I may have missed something.

Deuce said:

You understand the connotations of "drinking the kool aid," right?

Click to expand...

Indeed I do.....which is why I don't see it applying to the Democrats as not all Demos follow Obama Blindly.

tererun said:

So let me get this straight. Republicans demand cuts to social security over and over again, and when Obama tries to get something done on a budget by giving into their demands for a compromise on raising taxes for more revenue the republicans blame him and try to paint him as the person who wants to destroy social security and not them? Oh wait, that is what they always do. It is called compromise, and it should be how things work. Oh, and also paying your oversized debt is painful all around. it should just be taken on more by the rich.

Click to expand...

You figured it out. Wait till you see the ads. Obama wanted to cut your SS...vote for us.

iguanaman said:

You figured it out. Wait till you see the ads. Obama wanted to cut your SS...vote for us.

Click to expand...

Well it wasn't just the Social Security.....Obama is also including 400 Billion in Medicare. Half of that 800 Billion he stole thru Obamacare. So in one shot he is willing to give back half of that 800 Billion. On top of the Chained CPI with Social Security.

The President spoke of his intention before that he was willing to compromise to address the long term needs of SS by changing the way COLA is computed and increasing the retirement age to 70 over the next ten years in exchange for raising the FICA cap for wealthy contributors. This is basically the same long term fix proposed by the "Bowles-Simpson" plan and fixes SS for the long term.


Now we will get to see whether the GOP is willing to compromise along with the President to fix SS for the long term, or whether it is more important to them to keep taxes low for the rich.

Catawba said:

The President spoke of his intention before that he was willing to compromise to address the long term needs of SS by changing the way COLA is computed, increasing the retirement age to 70 over the next ten years in exchange for raising the FICA cap for wealthy contributors. This is basically the same long term fix proposed by the "Bowles-Simpson" plan and fixes SS for the long term.


Now we will get to see whether the GOP is willing to compromise along with the President to fix SS for the long term, or whether it is more important to them to keep taxes low for the rich.

Click to expand...

Not even close to being the Same.....As Politico already pointed out. Nor was Obama ever ready to give back half of what he stole out of Medicare.

MMC said:

Not even close to being the Same.....As Politico already pointed out. Nor was Obama ever ready to give back half of what he stole out of Medicare.

Click to expand...

Those were the main features of the Simpson-Bowles plan, and the President didn't steal from Medicare, he cut waste and fraud, the kind of thing that conservatives used to be for.

"The Social Security changes.*Simpson-Bowles makes three main changes to Social Security. It increases the taxable maximum on income to 90 percent of all income, which raises $238 billion over the next decade. It uses a different measure of inflation to slow cost-of-living adjustments. It raises the retirement age to 68 in 2050 and 69 in 2075."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/04/11-shocking-true-facts-about-simpson-bowles/

Catawba said:

Those were the main features of the Simpson-Bowles plan, and the President didn't steal from Medicare, he cut waste and fraud, the kind of thing that conservatives used to be for.

Click to expand...

Really.....looks like you weren't listening to what the libs and Democrats were saying then. Now as to stealing.....he did. He stole 800 Billion out of medicare. At the time and since.....there has been no cuts to waste and fraud. As over this last year was discovered with all the hidden costs coming out.



It would appear that the waste and fraud thingy was just an exaggeration.....the usual from Obama. Also at no time since the Creation of Obamacare was he willing to give back Half of what he took.

Catawba said:

Those were the main features of the Simpson-Bowles plan, and the President didn't steal from Medicare, he cut waste and fraud, the kind of thing that conservatives used to be for.

"The Social Security changes.*Simpson-Bowles makes three main changes to Social Security. It increases the taxable maximum on income to 90 percent of all income, which raises $238 billion over the next decade. It uses a different measure of inflation to slow cost-of-living adjustments. It raises the retirement age to 68 in 2050 and 69 in 2075."

11 shocking, true facts about Simpson-Bowles

Click to expand...

Here is what Politico has to say.



Chain CPI primer: Obama's buzzword explained

What it does: Chained CPI would lower the cost-of-living adjustments for senior citizens who receive Social Security, veterans’ benefits, and other payments by switching to a different Consumer Price Index that grows more slowly.

What it could save: $130 billion. <<<<< Seems your Totals weren't all that accurate!

How it works: The new measure assumes that people change their buying habits when things become more expensive, so they don’t need their benefits to rise as much every year. If they’re buying groceries, for example, and the price of steak is rising, they could buy chicken or fish instead.

The pitfalls: Not everything works like buying groceries. Seniors tend to have more health care needs than therest of the population, and if their cancer treatment is getting more expensive, they have to go to their oncologist — they can’t get it from the CVS Minute Clinic.

But Obama would face a big backlash from Democrats – and from key allies like AARP and veterans’ groups – if chained CPI became part of a final deal. Liberals warn that it would take too big a bite out of Social Security benefits to seniors, who have expenses they can’t cut easily, especially medical care. AARP is sounding the alarms, warning that a 92-year-old senior would lose more than 8 percent of his or her Social Security benefits.

Obama’s offer to Boehner says it includes “protections for vulnerable,” but doesn’t give details. And Obama is insisting that Republicans would only get this kind of concession if they agree to more tax increases, which is a nonstarter right now.

And he’s probably not even going to gain anything with Republicans — because as Boehner’s office pointed out Friday, the chained CPI would also raise tax revenues by about $100 billion. That’s because it affects how the tax brackets are calculated. If inflation grows more slowly, the tax brackets each year are raised more slowly – so more people’s incomes will push them into higher tax brackets each year, and they’ll end up paying more taxes.....snip~

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=157C2DD0-EFE5-4056-B64D-56DABE07EA76