HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Mixed signals from Obama/...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:20 AM

Mixed signals from Obama/Biden on Social Security

The timeto holler about this is now, during an election, where they have to listen to us. If our lifeling programs are cut by Dems on the grounds that it isn't as bad as what the Repukes have in mind, 2014 is going to make 2010 look like a massive Democratic victory. (BTW, I'm in favor of adjusting the initial benefits calculation to favor those in lower income brackets even more. Also scrapping the cap, or at least raising it.) Let's hold Joe to it.

http://www.nationofchange.org/does-president-obama-want-cut-social-security-3-percent-1347976266

When President Obama indicates his support for the Bowles-Simpson plan, he is indicating his support for all of these measures. Of course he is not required to accept the plan in its entirety, but if he does oppose the cuts that the plan imposes on Social Security it would be reasonable to expect him to state this explicitly.

Last month in Virginia, Joe Biden said in the strongest possible terms that there will be no cuts to Social Security in a second Obama Administration. He repeated the statement with the additional line that “I guarantee it.” This would seem to be a pretty clear contradiction with President Obama’s support for Bowles-Simpson.

The media should be trying to resolve this contradiction. Then voters could go to the polls knowing whether they are voting for someone who wants to follow Bowles-Simpson and cut Social Security benefits or alternatively would pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Vice President Biden and be a rock solid defender of the program.

42 replies, 3871 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mixed signals from Obama/Biden on Social Security (Original post)
eridani Sep 2012 OP
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #1
uponit7771 Sep 2012 #2
alcibiades_mystery Sep 2012 #6
Scootaloo Sep 2012 #7
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #8
Scootaloo Sep 2012 #10
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #13
Scootaloo Sep 2012 #18
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #20
Dawgs Sep 2012 #26
treestar Sep 2012 #27
emulatorloo Sep 2012 #35
treestar Sep 2012 #39
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #41
eridani Sep 2012 #42
emulatorloo Sep 2012 #19
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #21
emulatorloo Sep 2012 #34
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #37
msanthrope Sep 2012 #22
treestar Sep 2012 #25
msanthrope Sep 2012 #32
treestar Sep 2012 #33
msanthrope Sep 2012 #28
SidDithers Sep 2012 #30
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #3
Citizen Worker Sep 2012 #4
Dustlawyer Sep 2012 #5
Astazia Sep 2012 #14
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #15
emulatorloo Sep 2012 #17
NCTraveler Sep 2012 #29
xchrom Sep 2012 #9
dawg Sep 2012 #11
woo me with science Sep 2012 #12
daybranch Sep 2012 #16
msanthrope Sep 2012 #24
msanthrope Sep 2012 #23
SunsetDreams Sep 2012 #31
Oilwellian Sep 2012 #36
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #38
Oilwellian Sep 2012 #40

Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:27 AM

1. kr.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:29 AM

2. Not this shit again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:17 AM

6. +1,000,000

Looks like the usual suspects are seeing their precious I-told-you-so slipping away, and have now fully joined in with the Rove-Romney-Ryan camp to attack the President. Pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:21 AM

7. Well, if there's one thing some Democratic voters just cannot stand...

It's a successful Democratic politician.

If it's not the hopeless underdog, it's no longer "cool." If we're winning, well, we have to find some way to lose. it's all about feeling downtrodden and indignant.

It's like the hipster who dumps a band the moment they find someone else who's heard of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:23 AM

8. Or we can't stand Democrats who want to cut Social Security

Occam is your friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:29 AM

10. Occam, you say?

Okay, which is simpler?

1) That the president who has had four years to hack apart social security, complete with a congress that would allow him to do it (thanks to voters like you who helped elect the tea party because - remember? Obama was "going to cut social security" in 2010, too) has not done so in all that time, nor has he indicated that he plans to IS DEFINITELY GOING TO OMG JUST LIKE YOU SAID IN 2010, and 2008!!!!! IM SERIES THIS IS HUGH!

or...

2) You're deluded and hoping for bad news to justify the delusion, even if you have to make up said news.

Razor indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:43 AM

13. Obama called for Social Security cuts in his 2011 State of the Union Address

Using his cute "cut-vs-slash" language: Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

He then offered to cut Social Security in last year's fully-fake debt ceiling crisis:

"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."
-President Obama, July 22, 2011

Some, like John Conyers, say that Obama actually demanded these cuts, with zero prompting from the Republicans: Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

And of course... who appoints Simpson and Bowles to chair a debt commission unless they wanted a recommendation for deep cuts in Social Security? It's like asking John Gotti what to do about a business competitor.

Some of us take these things seriously. And some of us can discuss issues without personal attacks and insults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:28 AM

18. I'm sure you take it very seriously.

I'm just not convinced you know what you're taking seriously.

Yes, he "offered" cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid... as well as a moderate tax increase. This was a counter to the Republican "idea" of a tax cut. When Boehner (predictably) snubbed this, those cuts were removed from play.

You're offering me political theater from a year ago. In an effort to convince me that Barack Obama is - basically - Snidely motherfucking Whiplash.

However from this February...
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/211153-geithner-explains-why-obama-never-embraced-bowles-simpson
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Thursday explained why President Obama never fully embraced the 2010 report of his fiscal commission, headed by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles.

Geithner, under heavy fire from the Senate Budget Committee, said the Obama administration “did not feel” it could embrace it because the cuts to defense were too deep and the reforms to Social Security relied too much on benefit cuts.


Of course, let's just fucking ignore the fact that the Obama administration rejected Simpson-Bowles wholly in 2010.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/simpson-bowles-the-budget-plan-everyone-touts-but-actually-hates-20120817
But Obama’s Democrats have their own compatibility problems. The White House deserted the Simpson-Bowles plan when it was released on Dec. 1, 2010, and has failed to implement its major recommendations.

Like the Republicans, Democrats cherry-pick. Pelosi, for example, says she is all for Simpson-Bowles, except for that pesky Social Security part.

That "part" would be the Simpson-Bowles proposals to increase the retirement age over the next 50 years from 66 to 69 and the age for early retirement from 62 to 64. This would result, under Social Security formulas, in a 7 percent reduction in benefits for every year the full retirement age is increased, says the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. At the same time, elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay higher out-of-pocket expenses.


That would seem to blow the nationofchange article out of the water, since it's two years late to the party, dreaming up dire portents if the White House accepts something it has already rejected.

There's also the trouble that there is nothing in the budget, Obama's platform, or his statements on the issue that would point towards implementing the cuts he rejected two years ago. In fact, his plan is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_Barack_Obama#Social_Security
Social Security

In response to a possible shortfall in Social Security funding, Obama has endorsed imposition of a new FICA tax on incomes above $250,000. Currently, income above $106,800 is exempt from such taxation. Obama opposed Bush's proposal for privatization of Social Security.


None of this meshes with the theology, of course, so I don't expect any traction to be gained. if you want to think Barack Obama is some cloak-and-dagger evil motherfucker out to screw you, well, you go ahead. Actual evidence isn't on your side, but it's a free country. If this drives you to keep lobbying at the dude to never ever touch Social Security, hey, that's cool too, couldn't hurt.

But if you want to blow smoke up my ass, well honey, that's going to cost you extra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:48 AM

20. So much nonsense and so many insults just to agree with me?

"the reforms to Social Security relied too much on benefit cuts."

This mirrors the language in the Democratic Party platform.

A simple "Yes Obama wants to cut Social Security, but that's OK because he also wants to raise taxes" would have done fine.

I get it: you're OK with cutting Social Security by some amount. Some of us are not OK with it. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we need to hurl insults.

As to being a PUMA... check the record. I vocally supported Obama over Clinton, do a search.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:24 AM

26. +1. Thanks for setting the record straight.

I've been accused of being a PUMA (or troll) many times myself.

Why some are okay with a Democratic President cutting SS is something I just can't believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:26 AM

27. Anyone who was really concerned about SS

would in no way risk Rmoney/Lyan winning. No way. This would not be a subject to bring up for the entirely of October 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:34 AM

35. Romney called Medicare and Social Security Recipients leeches.

So of course Manny and OP are going to haul out "Obama's Secret Plan to Destroy SS and Medicare"

Must Distract From Republicans. Must Project Republican Policies on Obama and Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:29 PM

39. Exactly! I've been hearing from Manny and co

for 3 years about how Obama's going to destroy SS! Why hasn't he done so yet?

No, that would be Mitt and Lyan Ryan. The Pres and VP will protect it. Anything like a "cut" would be something to make it more efficient or bargain with intransigent Republicans who have a better chance of getting in office with all this bashing of the Democrats for allegedly secretly designing against the social safety net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:59 PM

41. Can you link to post where I've claimed that Obama will destroy SS?

I've simply called out that he has taken actions consistent with wanting to cut it, that he's called for cutting it, and that he's offered to cut it.

Please post a link showing otherwise, or do the right thing and revise your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 05:16 AM

42. It is if you want to prevent a December surprise

Even if we wind up not having to fight this fight, it's best to be prepared in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:33 AM

19. Some DU'ers get real unhappy when DU unites against Romney/Republicans

Sounds a lot like spin control. Like when Paul Ryan claims Obama wants to destroy Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:16 AM

21. Do you think the Republican shills are paid?

Or volunteers?

After all, it clearly wouldn't make sense to be against cutting Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:25 AM

34. DU'ers who are sick of yr "Obama's Secret Plan" bullshit are against cutting Social Security.

I am still waiting for your thread denouncing the Romney/Ryan VERY UNSECRET PLAN to destroy the safety net.

And yet it never comes.

I have no idea of your motivation, all I know is that what ever it is, you have become a Romney/Ryan enabler.

Anytime the mask comes off (Romney Fundraiser Tape, Ryan VP pick) you appear to be hard at work to distract from Republicans and project what Republicans do and say on Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:24 AM

37. Romney and Ryan definitely want to end Medicare, and probably

want to end Social Security as well. I'd be pleased to shout that from a rooftop, and you know that I've written that on DU, e.g.:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021048521#post227

so I'm not sure what your angle is.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:17 AM

22. You Better Believe It! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:23 AM

25. +1

Now we have to hold his feet to the fire during the election campaign! Oh, just great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:30 AM

32. Trust in Barack Obama means The Far Left cabals gets no money--The Hamsher/Greenwald PAC

doesn't get donations unless they foment discord.

I'm sure the Bradley Manning threads will be back....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:32 AM

33. You Better Believe It!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:27 AM

28. You Better Believe It! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:29 AM

30. Nailed it...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:15 AM

3. Obama has stated he's against Simpson-Bowles cuts to defense

But not that he's against its 22% cut in Social Security benefits. And since he appointed the two most outspoken and accomplished foes of Social Security to chair the commission, and stocked it mostly with other known haters of Social Security, it only makes sense that recommending deep cuts to the program was exactly what he was looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:13 AM

4. If we want to preserve Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it is incumbent upon each one of us to

put every democratic office seeker on the spot, in public as to where they stand. And don't let them get away with a non-answer. Failure to do this will make the struggle much more difficult in the lame duck session of congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:16 AM

5. Clinton already told Cantor they would be ready to cut social programs after the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:45 AM

14. Clinton told Cantor what & when re: Social Security?

Tried to find something about this & didn't see anything...but that indicated either Hillary or Bill saying anything recently re: social security, but I really want to see what was said cause this scares me. Could you put up a link so I can read about this? n/t.

As to original post..
K & R





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:53 AM

15. As President, Clinton made a deal with Gingrich to cut Social Security

The deal was instigated and brokered by his Chief of Staff - a fellow named Erskine Bowles, you might have heard of him.

Fortunately, Congress declined to do the deed.

How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security: Clinton, Gingrich, Bowles and “The Pact”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:24 AM

17. Link? Even if true, Clinton is not part of Obama admin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:28 AM

29. What does the SOS have to do with SS. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:24 AM

9. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:32 AM

11. How dare you to talk about policy during an election!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:35 AM

12. Amen. And this is *exactly* the time to demand specific promises.

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1)

If Obama is going to campaign on being different from Romney and the candidate who cares about ALL people and their ability to buy food and afford basic necessities, this is the time to demand specific vows to protect Social Security benefits, reject the chained CPI or any other reductions in projected benefits, and reject increases in eligibility ages for Medicare.

Biden's words so far do NOT represent a "rock solid" defense of Social Security. He promised only that the Social Security program itself would not be changed. He did NOT rule out a chained CPI, which does not change the program directly, but would lower projected benefits indirectly by changing the numbers that get plugged into the program. Backers of the vicious chained CPI have often attempted to defend it by arguing that it is not an actual change to Social Security...even though it lowers projected benefits increasingly viciously over time.

It is important to be clear about this, because these are exactly the cuts that the President put on the table last April.

Also listen very carefully in the promises for the language used when talking about projected benefits. It is important not only that benefits not be CUT, but also that their growth NOT BE SLOWED. We must demand that the candidates be specific about what they mean and that they clarify that they will reject any cuts or slowing in projected benefits. If you are a senior citizen on Social Security, and your SS goes up by one percent, but food costs increase by 15 percent, you have suffered a cut in your ability to purchase food even if some politician says your benefits have not been "cut."

If anything, benefits should be increased significantly. Seniors have already been deprived of necessary increases in recent years.

It is imperative that Biden and Obama be pinned down and forced to state clearly that they will reject not only direct changes to the Social Security program that lower or slow projected benefits, but also indirect measures that have the effect of reducing or slowing projected benefits, like the chained CPI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:22 AM

16. Now

Have you not noticed Joe tells the truth even before many even know it?
If you want SS to be protected , work to elect Progressives and ask them to protect it. Creating more confusion about whose side Obama is on , can wait unless you are not convinced yourself. He said if you want him to do something, make him. Electing progressives is the way. Help out in every way you can. We can work in our own states, we can donate anywhere, and we can call into other states, and we can go to other counties or states to work for progressives. They say money is fungible, we volunteers must be fungible too. Lets just make sure we elect progressives to get the House of Representatives on right path for country. Obama will be asked during the debates I am sure about SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:22 AM

24. You are voting for President Obama, correct? t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:21 AM

23. I could set my watch by this....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:30 AM

31. oh I see nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:54 AM

36. President Obama & President Clinton both praised the Catfood Commission in their convention speeches

When I hear the leaders of the Democratic Party say they support the recommendations of a Commission that calls for raising the retirement age to 69, the liberal hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. Why do the "usual suspects" demean those of us who want a promise from our leaders NOT to fucking raise the retirement age? When you demean those of us who want to hear that promise made, (and we haven't heard it yet), you weaken our effort to keep the retirement age at 62-65-67. Today, we are watching the implosion of the Republican Party before our very eyes, and I don't want to see the same thing happen to the Democratic Party. I promise you it will happen, if they succeed in "slashing" THE major pillar of the Democratic platform.

President Obama: "Now, I'm still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission. No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without compromise. I want to get this done, and we can get it done.
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160713941/transcript-president-obamas-convention-speech


President Clinton: "Let's talk about the debt. We have to deal with it or it will deal with us. President Obama has offered a plan with 4 trillion dollars in debt reduction over a decade, with two and a half dollars of spending reductions for every one dollar of revenue increases, and tight controls on future spending. It's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/transcript-bill-clintons-democratic-convention-speech/story?id=17164662&page=5#.UFnS-lFXmS0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:26 AM

38. Oh sure, but other than that it's totally dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #38)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:09 PM

40. Even Biden mentioned Simson-Bowles

“In Tampa, they talked with great urgency about the nation’s debt. And the need to act, to act now. But not once, not one single time, did they tell you that they rejected every plan put forward by us–by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission they referenced—or by other respected outside group—to reduce the national debt.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160713378/transcript-vice-president-bidens-convention-speech

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread