Official: Obama Proposes Cuts to Social Security

MMC · Apr 6, 2013

Catawba said:
It will all be part of the compromise, including the raise in CAP on contributions.

Obama's Catch 22: Budget Blueprint Won't Please Many, if Any.....

When news began to emerge from of the White House Friday that President Obama's budget next week will propose cuts to Medicare and Social Security, the wave of reaction was not complimentary.

"We cannot force seniors to pay even more to fill the hole left by unnecessary and irresponsible cuts to Social Security," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement Friday afternoon.

"Cutting benefits now, when people are already struggling to make ends meet, will mean unnecessary hardship for millions of people," Reps. Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a joint statement. "It is unpopular, unwise and unworkable."

In the past, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she's "agnostic" to a potential chained CPI proposal as long as it protects the most vulnerable.

But today, the president's defenders were silent as the president was dinged by enraged progressives for a perceived flip-flop on his campaign promise not to cut entitlements.

"President Obama, when it comes to cutting Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare benefits, over 200,000 progressive members of your own party don't 'have your back,'" Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America, said Friday. "We are prepared to fight you every step of the way."

Across the aisle, Republicans dislike the president's budget proposal for an entirely different reason: the president's call for additional tax increases on the country's wealthiest earners just months after tax rates were tackled during the fiscal cliff negotiations.

One senior Republican on Capitol Hill said the president's budget proposal "does little or nothing to bring both parties closer to a fiscal agreement" because, in the eyes of Republicans, it's essentially the same offer that was rejected by House Speaker John Boehner during negotiations with the president last December.

Leaked details about the president's latest desire for $600 billion in new tax revenue prompted a scathing paper response from Boehner, R-Ohio, who is agitated that President Obama wants additional revenue in exchange for what Republicans describe as "modest" entitlement savings.

The president's previous budgets have fallen flat in Congress. Given the initial reaction, this version is likely to suffer a quick death, as well, if it is ever brought to the floor for a vote.....snip~

Obama's Catch 22: Budget Blueprint Won't Please Many, if Any

Uh huh.....compromise you say. :roll:

Catawba · Apr 6, 2013

MMC said:
Obama's Catch 22: Budget Blueprint Won't Please Many, if Any.....

When news began to emerge from of the White House Friday that President Obama's budget next week will propose cuts to Medicare and Social Security, the wave of reaction was not complimentary.

"We cannot force seniors to pay even more to fill the hole left by unnecessary and irresponsible cuts to Social Security," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement Friday afternoon.

"Cutting benefits now, when people are already struggling to make ends meet, will mean unnecessary hardship for millions of people," Reps. Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a joint statement. "It is unpopular, unwise and unworkable."

In the past, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she's "agnostic" to a potential chained CPI proposal as long as it protects the most vulnerable.

But today, the president's defenders were silent as the president was dinged by enraged progressives for a perceived flip-flop on his campaign promise not to cut entitlements.

"President Obama, when it comes to cutting Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare benefits, over 200,000 progressive members of your own party don't 'have your back,'" Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America, said Friday. "We are prepared to fight you every step of the way."

Across the aisle, Republicans dislike the president's budget proposal for an entirely different reason: the president's call for additional tax increases on the country's wealthiest earners just months after tax rates were tackled during the fiscal cliff negotiations.

One senior Republican on Capitol Hill said the president's budget proposal "does little or nothing to bring both parties closer to a fiscal agreement" because, in the eyes of Republicans, it's essentially the same offer that was rejected by House Speaker John Boehner during negotiations with the president last December.

Leaked details about the president's latest desire for $600 billion in new tax revenue prompted a scathing paper response from Boehner, R-Ohio, who is agitated that President Obama wants additional revenue in exchange for what Republicans describe as "modest" entitlement savings.

The president's previous budgets have fallen flat in Congress. Given the initial reaction, this version is likely to suffer a quick death, as well, if it is ever brought to the floor for a vote.....snip~

Obama's Catch 22: Budget Blueprint Won't Please Many, if Any

Uh huh.....compromise you say. :roll:

You will find even more Republicans (almost all of them) that don't like the idea of raising the FICA cap as part of the compromise, for which negotiations have not even begun. Like I said, if this congress can not do what needs to be done, we will just have to vote in a congress that will. Its not like there is any rush. SS has enough surplus to keep it solvent for the next 26 years, if naysayers cannot compromise.

MMC · Apr 7, 2013

Catawba said:
You will find even more Republicans (almost all of them) that don't like the idea of raising the FICA cap as part of the compromise, for which negotiations have not even begun. Like I said, if this congress can not do what needs to be done, we will just have to vote in a congress that will. Its not like there is any rush. SS has enough surplus to keep it solvent for the next 26 years, if naysayers cannot compromise.

Well its good to know the Progressives have spoken out against Obama.....and told him what they don't like. As for the Election.....such is taking place already. That's why there are 30 Republican states and with a certainty to gain at least two more. Then there is the fact that we will keep the House. Which leads to those 20 Democratic Senate seats that are up. Which its not looking so good for the Democrats there. Especially with the Senate and Reid's alleged leadership. If that's what you could call it.

Course first the Democrats themselves have to Pass an Obama Budget. Which they have failed to do with just themselves. Let alone looking to blame it on Republicans. But one thing is for sure. We wont have any problem with you voting out those Democrats that don't think like you.

Seems the AFL CIO isn't going to side with Obama on his budget either and came out slamming him too.

mtm1963 · Apr 7, 2013

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?

how could this be a compromise when it has no chance of passing?

they are not touching SS and they certainly aren't getting higher taxes from the republicans.

yep it's dead.

molten_dragon · Apr 7, 2013

MMC said:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's proposed budget will call for reductions in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs by including a proposal to lower cost-of-living adjustments to government social safety net spending, a senior administration official says.
The proposal attempts to strike a compromise with congressional Republicans on the Fiscal 2014 budget by combining the president's demand for higher taxes with GOP insistence on reductions in entitlement programs.

The official, who spoke on a condition of anonymity to describe a budget that has yet to be released, said Obama would reduce the federal government deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years.

A key feature of the plan Obama is proposing for the federal budget year beginning Oct. 1 is a revised inflation adjustment called "chained CPI." This new formula would effectively curb annual annual increases in a broad swath of government programs, but would have its biggest impact on Social Security.

Obama's budget, to be released next week, comes after the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-run Senate passed separate and markedly different budget proposals. House Republicans achieved long-term deficit reductions by targeting safety net programs; Democrats instead protected those programs and called for $1 trillion in tax increases.

The reductions in growth of benefit programs, which would affect veterans, the poor and the older Americans, is sure to anger many Democrats. Labor groups and liberals have long been critical of Obama's offer to Boehner for including such a plan.....snip~

Official: Obama proposes cuts to Social Security

Looks Like Obama just got a bunch of Democrats highly upset with him. Here the Demos were running around talking about how Republicans wanted to go after Social Security. Which Ryan talked about but not in a way to tear down the Entitlement. Repubs were looking for the age to be pushed back due to people living longer and the advances in healthcare. Now who does this affect more? The Middle Class and Poor or the Rich? Who was talking about fairness? Thoughts?

It's not how I would have chosen to do it, but I'm glad to see that the politicians are finally starting to talk seriously about cutting social security spending.

Everyone else in the country is going to have to tighten their belts a little bit and give up some government services if we're going to pay off the debt, senior citizens shouldn't be immune.

MMC · Apr 7, 2013

molten_dragon said:
It's not how I would have chosen to do it, but I'm glad to see that the politicians are finally starting to talk seriously about cutting social security spending.

Everyone else in the country is going to have to tighten their belts a little bit and give up some government services if we're going to pay off the debt, senior citizens shouldn't be immune.

I would agree with you about how they want to do it. But since Ryan has put out 3 plans now. Myself I tend to watch which one the Democrats bring up. As they tend to confuse what he has said over what he would like to do with Social Security. Which eventually there has to be some starting point they will have to agree upon.

MoSurveyor · Apr 7, 2013

molten_dragon said:
It's not how I would have chosen to do it, but I'm glad to see that the politicians are finally starting to talk seriously about cutting social security spending.

Everyone else in the country is going to have to tighten their belts a little bit and give up some government services if we're going to pay off the debt, senior citizens shouldn't be immune.

Payroll taxes destined for support of SS shouldn't be used to pay off the debt. SS hasn't used general fund money since the 40's, when it had been around long enough to build up a slight surplus. The SS Trust Fund has $2.6 trillion in it, SS is FAR from broke.

ttwtt78640 · Apr 7, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
Payroll taxes destined for support of SS shouldn't be used to pay off the debt. SS hasn't used general fund money since the 40's, when it had been around long enough to build up a slight surplus. The SS Trust Fund has $2.6 trillion in it, SS is FAR from broke.

This is true looking at SS alone, yet it is frequently coupled with Medicare (yet not Medicaid?) and considered as part of a generic pool often referred to simply as "entitlements". Curiously the many other forms of low income based "entitlements" (welfare, in all of its many forms) are usually not included.

Social Security History

MoSurveyor · Apr 7, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
This is true looking at SS alone, yet it is frequently coupled with Medicare (yet not Medicaid?) and considered as part of a generic pool often referred to simply as "entitlements". Curiously the many other forms of low income based "entitlements" (welfare, in all of its many forms) are usually not included.

Social Security History

Even Medicare was OK until Part D.
Prescription drugs are killing us! LOL!

PS
I'm OK with whatever they want to call them as long as they keep them separate. SS and Medicare =/= welfare and Medicaid. SS and Medicare (combined) still take care of themselves. SS takes money out of the Trust Fund to pay for Medicare shortfalls. Not sure that's a good idea but, so far, that's the way they're doing it.

ttwtt78640 · Apr 7, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
Even Medicare was OK until Part D.
Prescription drugs are killing us! LOL!

PS
I'm OK with whatever they want to call them as long as they keep them separate. SS and Medicare =/= welfare and Medicaid. SS and Medicare (combined) still take care of themselves. SS takes money out of the Trust Fund to pay for Medicare shortfalls. Not sure that's a good idea but, so far, that's the way they're doing it.

Yep. The problem is that while SS/Medicare are paid in advance or "pay as you go" systems while the other "low income" entitlements are strictly funded by income redistribution (now 100% borrowed). We, as a nation, cannot continue to pretend that it is OK to spend at 24% of GDP and yet to only tax at 17% of GDP. We must honestly realize that 18% is effectively the maximum federal taxation level possible w/o harm to the private economy (host?) yet seem to insist upon a federal gov't (parasite?) that spends 33% to 40% more than that. One day (very soon?) we will be forced to deal with that fact.

molten_dragon · Apr 7, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
Payroll taxes destined for support of SS shouldn't be used to pay off the debt. SS hasn't used general fund money since the 40's, when it had been around long enough to build up a slight surplus. The SS Trust Fund has $2.6 trillion in it, SS is FAR from broke.

The social security 'trust fund' is a myth. That money isn't sitting around somewhere waiting to be used, it's just money that one part of the government owes another part. If social security starts dipping into the trust fund, that money has to come out of the general budget.

All in all, I think it's a really stupid idea to treat social security as some sort of special thing with its own money and its own taxes and it's this sacred cow we aren't allowed to touch. It should just be lumped in with the rest of the budget and taxes. And if we're serious about paying off the debt, it's one of our largest sources of spending, so it needs to be cut along with everything else.

MoSurveyor · Apr 7, 2013

molten_dragon said:
The social security 'trust fund' is a myth. That money isn't sitting around somewhere waiting to be used, it's just money that one part of the government owes another part. If social security starts dipping into the trust fund, that money has to come out of the general budget.

All in all, I think it's a really stupid idea to treat social security as some sort of special thing with its own money and its own taxes and it's this sacred cow we aren't allowed to touch. It should just be lumped in with the rest of the budget and taxes. And if we're serious about paying off the debt, it's one of our largest sources of spending, so it needs to be cut along with everything else.

I suggest you check Federal laws and regulations - especially those concerned with the SSA and how it and payroll taxes work. The SS Trust Fund is full of T-bills that are just as valid as any dollar bill in your pocket.

molten_dragon · Apr 7, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
I suggest you check Federal laws and regulations - especially those concerned with the SSA and how it and payroll taxes work.

Rather than making vague allusions to things, why don't you just come right out and say what you mean. What specifically that I said do you think is incorrect?

MoSurveyor · Apr 7, 2013

molten_dragon said:
Rather than making vague allusions to things, why don't you just come right out and say what you mean. What specifically that I said do you think is incorrect?

I just did. The Trust Fund is not a "myth", it holds several trillion dollars worth of T-bills.

molten_dragon · Apr 7, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
I just did. The Trust Fund is not a "myth", it holds several trillion dollars worth of T-bills.

Right, which as I pointed out, is just the government owing itself money. If the social security administration ever wants to use that money, it has to come from the general budget. It's not just sitting in a bank vault somewhere for the SSA to use.

MoSurveyor · Apr 7, 2013

molten_dragon said:
Right, which as I pointed out, is just the government owing itself money. If the social security administration ever wants to use that money, it has to come from the general budget. It's not just sitting in a bank vault somewhere for the SSA to use.

If you ever want to use your T-bills (assuming you have any) you would have to do the same thing.

If you can't see the difference then there's no point in continuing. You either get it or you don't. That you don't is no doubt the reason some younger people are pushing to risk their retirement in the stock market. I wonder if they'd be good with starving when that doesn't pan out?

molten_dragon · Apr 7, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
If you ever want to use your T-bills (assuming you have any) you would have to do the same thing.

Yes, I realize that, but I don't issue the T-bills to myself. It's like if I make some extra money at work one month and decide to save it for a rainy day. So I write myself an IOU for $1000 and then go spend the money, then I tell everyone I have $1000 in the bank for a rainy day. It's ridiculous.

MoSurveyor said:
If you can't see the difference then there's no point in continuing. You either get it or you don't.

Well there's something we can agree on. I was just about to say the same about you.

MoSurveyor said:
That you don't is no doubt the reason some younger people are pushing to risk their retirement in the stock market. I wonder if they'd be good with starving when that doesn't pan out?

Just to set things straight here, I'm not talking about getting rid of social security, or turning it into individual accounts or anything like that. I'm just suggesting it shouldn't be immune to budget cuts.

MoSurveyor · Apr 8, 2013

molten_dragon said:
Yes, I realize that, but I don't issue the T-bills to myself. It's like if I make some extra money at work one month and decide to save it for a rainy day. So I write myself an IOU for $1000 and then go spend the money, then I tell everyone I have $1000 in the bank for a rainy day. It's ridiculous.

I don't see SS that way and never have. At one time SSA was off book (not included in the budget or general fund accounting) so we could keep track of the real deficit (not total debt, which would be the same either way) instead of the fake one we do, now. Nixon did that.

molten_dragon said:
Just to set things straight here, I'm not talking about getting rid of social security, or turning it into individual accounts or anything like that. I'm just suggesting it shouldn't be immune to budget cuts.

If it's not taking out of the general fund, and it isn't, then I can't agree. SS supports itself, for now and the near (10+ years) future. If it starts taking out of the general fund then there'll be something to talk about.

Before you ask: Yes, I'm aware of the long term projections - and the varous ways that have been suggested to handle that.

Catawba · Apr 8, 2013

mtm1963 said:
how could this be a compromise when it has no chance of passing?

they are not touching SS and they certainly aren't getting higher taxes from the republicans.

yep it's dead.

Then we will just continue on with the way SS is currently set up! Suits me!

cpwill · Apr 8, 2013

MoSurveyor said:
I suggest you check Federal laws and regulations - especially those concerned with the SSA and how it and payroll taxes work. The SS Trust Fund is full of T-bills that are just as valid as any dollar bill in your pocket.

That is not correct. The dollar bills in my pocket can legally be traded for things. The "Special Promissory Notes" in the SS Fund cannot.

If your checking account deposits a "I promise to pay you in the future" note in your savings account, your net worth has not increased - because you have not added any wealth. Nor does the "Trust Fund" currently count as wealth - it is simply an annotation that future Congresses will magically figure out a way to tax or borrow enough to pay out what past Congresses have promised.

American · Apr 8, 2013

MaggieD said:
Unbelievable. I think it's wrong to take anything away from Social Security recipients -- including COLA adjustments to their meager average of something like $1200/month. This is huge, in my opinion. If the government wants to change SS, it should change it for those 45 years and younger to give those people a chance to do something about it. If his plan is only to effect those people, then it's not as bad.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to eventually inflate ourselves out of the mess we're in. To take away (or minimize) COLAs to those currently receiving SS (or close to receiving it) is unconscionable.

When no one else is getting COLAs, why do seniors get them?

American · Apr 8, 2013

$1.8T budget cut over 10 years is a joke. We are running $1T deficits yearly, and we're going to cut 2 years worth of deficits over 10 years....are they kidding?

TheNextEra · Apr 8, 2013

American said:
When no one else is getting COLAs, why do seniors get them?

The same reason that Congress votes themselves raises even though this country has a high unemployment rate and they have single digit ratings. Because they can.

As long as people keep thinking "their" guy in congress isn't the problem, problems will just keep increasing.

mtm1963 · Apr 8, 2013

Catawba said:
Then we will just continue on with the way SS is currently set up! Suits me!

it will not be able to pay promised benefits in the future if the current setup stays in place.

MaggieD · Apr 8, 2013

American said:
When no one else is getting COLAs, why do seniors get them?

Because that was the promise.

Official: Obama Proposes Cuts to Social Security

MMC

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

MMC

mtm1963

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

MMC

MoSurveyor

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

MoSurveyor

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

MoSurveyor

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

MoSurveyor

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

MoSurveyor

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

MoSurveyor

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

cpwill

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

TheNextEra

mtm1963

MaggieD