HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why is Social Security on...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:59 PM

Why is Social Security on the Deficit Discussion 'Table'? SS Had Zero To Do With the Deficit.

Social Security did not cause the Deficit

The Social Security Fund has a huge surplus and is solvent for the next decade or more even with a bad economy.

It is the Federal Budget that is in trouble NOT the Social Security Fund.

So why is it even part of these discussions?

Why is the discussion not about the actual drivers of the Deficit?

Congress and the WH need to hear from the people, and they ARE, so that they drop this insane idea of trying to make Seniors, the Disabled and Dependent Children pay for the corruption of Wall Street and the MIC.

And why are people claiming that stating facts is deceiving?


Take Social Security OFF the Deficit Discussion Table and we will shut up about it.

But so long as it remains there, you can bet there will be outrage over this attempt to slip cuts to SS past the people once again.

'The Chained CPI is a sneaky way of cutting Social Security'!

'We didn't contribute to the Deficit, we won't pay for it'!

This is what Democrats are telling Congress.

Anyone who votes for a Chained CPI is not a Democrat.

It really is that simple.

Democrats are supposed to protect Social Security.

Jay Carney says 'it's what the Republicans wanted'!! Really? So we give them what they want now??



77 replies, 5775 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 77 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why is Social Security on the Deficit Discussion 'Table'? SS Had Zero To Do With the Deficit. (Original post)
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 OP
pscot Dec 2012 #1
DJ13 Dec 2012 #28
KoKo Dec 2012 #2
reformist2 Dec 2012 #3
pscot Dec 2012 #38
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #66
Jim Warren Dec 2012 #4
Recursion Dec 2012 #5
ananda Dec 2012 #6
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #9
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #7
Recursion Dec 2012 #8
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #10
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #40
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #60
madfloridian Dec 2012 #13
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #59
Rex Dec 2012 #11
on point Dec 2012 #65
No Compromise Dec 2012 #12
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #15
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #19
FLyellowdog Dec 2012 #39
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #46
FLyellowdog Dec 2012 #55
duffyduff Dec 2012 #14
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #16
librechik Dec 2012 #17
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #20
librechik Dec 2012 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #22
librechik Dec 2012 #23
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #29
raccoon Dec 2012 #18
JEB Dec 2012 #24
retread Dec 2012 #25
AzDar Dec 2012 #26
KansDem Dec 2012 #27
Little Star Dec 2012 #30
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #44
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #45
ProSense Dec 2012 #31
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #47
raouldukelives Dec 2012 #32
Cleita Dec 2012 #33
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #34
CrispyQ Dec 2012 #35
jsr Dec 2012 #36
kimbutgar Dec 2012 #37
nineteen50 Dec 2012 #41
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #76
midnight Dec 2012 #42
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #63
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #43
Nay Dec 2012 #53
Coyotl Dec 2012 #48
reggaehead Dec 2012 #49
Mc Mike Dec 2012 #50
Dyedinthewoolliberal Dec 2012 #51
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #58
on point Dec 2012 #52
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #56
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #61
forestpath Dec 2012 #54
retread Dec 2012 #57
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #62
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #74
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #64
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #67
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #68
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #72
Octafish Dec 2012 #69
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #70
Octafish Dec 2012 #71
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #73
magellan Dec 2012 #75
woo me with science Dec 2012 #77

Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:13 PM

1. Apparently the President's lips

are unable to form the word "No". It's amazing that we're not 2 months past the rhetorical promises of the campaign and already Social Security is going over the side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:39 PM

28. That cant be right

The President was completely capable of saying no to both a public option as well as single payer, so he can say it........... if he wants to.

(It seems he usually only wants to say no to real progressive ideas, but thats another story.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:17 PM

2. Progressive Dem Community is sending a Clear Message..."Our Deal--Not Yours"...

"Mr. President, do "OUR DEAL--NOT YOURS!" Clear Messages from the Progressive Democratic Community"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022028547

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:17 PM

3. As the bank robber said, it's where the money is.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:28 PM

38. Yes, and it's not his money

It belongs to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:27 PM

66. Bob, what did reformist win!?

It's brand new 1973 Chevy Vega!











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:18 PM

4. The misdirection

is astounding isn't it, worthy of a couple opening shows a night in LV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:25 PM

5. Because self-funded or not, cuts will still mean less borrowing

Same way companies keep finding ways to "temporarily" raid pension funds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:29 PM

6. This is a sadness that's beyond bearing.

Our seniors, our poor, our working classes, are suffering enough.

Enough already! Do something FOR THEM not the rich and corporate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:34 PM

9. Yes, and what s/he is saying is that when someone borrows money from

another person or entity, then mis-spend that money, they should force the people they borrowed from to pay for their gambling debts.

It is simply ludicrous. The borrowers should pay back those they borrowed from and they should do so from their own funds, or by cutting back on their gambling with the money they borrowed.

If they did not have the money for war and tax cuts for the wealthy they should not have borrowed from the SS fund or anywhere else in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:32 PM

7. That has nothing to do with the question. The cuts should come from the Fed Budget

funds and from what CAUSED the Deficit in the first place.

Social Security did not cause the deficit, it does not belong in this discussion.

The people contributed nothing to the Deficit.

To pay for what caused the Deficit, the thieves on Wall St and the MIC borrowed from the People's Fund.

You are now saying that creditors from whom money was borrowed should have to pay for the gambling debts of the borrowers.

That makes ZERO sense. The borrowers need to pay back their creditors, NOT force them to pay for their corruption and bad decisions.

This is a ridiculous argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:34 PM

8. Huh?

You asked why it's on the table. The answer is "because it's a way to decrease the amount of money the government borrows". It's a stupid way, but that's why it's on the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:37 PM

10. And I'm telling you that it is not.

To decrease the amount the Government borrows they need to stop spending money they do not have. They do this by cutting what they are spending on Wars and Bush Tax cuts.

They borrowed from SS to pay for things they could not afford. Why on earth should the people they borrowed from have to now pay for their corruption?

That's like saying you borrow money from your parents to pay for things you cannot afford. But you want to keep buying things you cannot afford, so you tell your parents 'well you will have to cut YOUR income to help me to keep buying the goodies I want to buy.'

It is simply ludicrous.

The people already bailed them out, like drug addicts they bleed people dry. We will not bail them out anymore. Let them pull up their bootstraps and pay their own bills, including the money we lent them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:31 PM

40. Businesses hate paying their half of Social Security - "it's that simple".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:38 PM

60. it's a tax deduction for them. so not that simple.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:49 PM

13. Agreed.

Recommended this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:35 PM

59. exactly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:46 PM

11. Because SS is the largest holder of our national debt

and like all good plutocrats with a broken piggy bank, the money will be used by Big Biz at the expense of The People. I don't think Obama will capitulate anything, but we shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:17 PM

65. No, I think T-bills held by investors should take a 10% cut before touching Social Security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:47 PM

12. The immature little brats keep whining so we have to give them all the cookies

 


Is this how they discipline their children who are wrong and unwilling to accept it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to No Compromise (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:17 PM

15. I know, that was the lamest excuse I have heard yet. 'The Republicans wanted

it there'. As if we didn't know that already. The Dems have to learn to say 'no'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:20 PM

19. The Dems are great at saying "no"

Last edited Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:38 PM - Edit history (1)

To the "fucking retarded"* left.

ETA: * Quote from Obama's former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:29 PM

39. Please edit to remove "retarded". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FLyellowdog (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:27 AM

46. That is a quote from Rahm Emanuel. That is what he called the ideas

of Progressives. He was forced to apologize for using the word "retarded" but he never apologized for insulting the base of the Dem Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:07 PM

55. I didn't see the edit. Thanks for the clarification. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:49 PM

14. Neo-liberal ideology. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:18 PM

16. Well, it's there now. Chained CPI was the starting point when putting it on the table

 

so it's gonna be a LOT WORSE in the final deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:18 PM

17. Republicans put it on the table. Dems have to respond in a positive way during negotiations

that doesn't mean it will be in the final deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:20 PM

20. Yeap, just like they didn't in 09...and reThugs lied about their involvement and they lost big

...no...they should defend SS and MC's to the death and make kkkons hold the sword.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:22 PM

21. I wish they would act like vicious leapoards defending their young

but that isn't the way they do things in washington. And they're the ones doing it, not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:26 PM

22. "Have to"? Why? Couldn't they just politely say "No"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:29 PM

23. Washington is a weird place. They have their own culture there

It's not the way I would play it, but Obama is trying really hard to look like he's on everybody's side here, so they don't attack him as a liberal and thus take away some bargaining power. It's annoying, but it's been his style all along. I'm trying to dial back my impatience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:45 PM

29. No, they don't have their own culture. They are hired help.

And if Obama has been acting as he does so they won't call him a liberal, I hope the 'they' is liberals, because we don't but the GOP still calls him a Kenyan Socialist Anti Colonialist. So what he's doing does not work. Yet he keeps doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:20 PM

18. Great post. recd. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:31 PM

24. Thanks for the excellent post.

No way will I support cutting needed benefits to Grandma and disabled Vets. Lots of fat to be found elsewhere like the lardass Defense (war) dept. Do we really need taxpayer funded golf courses for the Military?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:34 PM

25. The money changers see a pool of money they haven't been able to steal. Yet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:36 PM

26. And The Goddamned President *knows* this...said so during one of the debates, I believe.

Look for Republicans to run the fucking table with this during the next mid-terms.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:37 PM

27. Let's make this into an SAT question!

"Social Security is to the deficit as Saddam Hussein is to _____"



Did you pick "9/11?" YOU'RE RIGHT!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:46 PM

30. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:36 AM

44. That is excellent!

Lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:12 AM

45. Perfect! LOL nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:47 PM

31. "Social Security is not currently a driver of the deficit. That's an economic fact."

"Social Security is not currently a driver of the deficit. That's an economic fact."http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022028946

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:33 AM

47. So he said that in late November and then he admitted that SS was on the table

but blamed the Republicans for putting it there.

Well then, Democrats have to let them know that Dems won the WH, but any bill with a Chained CPI will not even get to his desk since it has to pass the Senate where Dems have a majority. Therefore in order to not waste any time, they need to take it OFF the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:49 PM

32. Carlin tried to warn us.

It's the wealthy, the corporations and those who choose to work and invest in them instead of showing the barest of liberal morality to the poor, the disabled and the children of tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:49 PM

33. As another poster said,

if there was a bill on dam safety on the table the Republicans would tie Social Security and Medicare to improving dam safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:52 PM

34. I will K&R every post that repeats this. (PS - SS is solvent for the next 22 years... )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:55 PM

35. I'm glad I didn't send him any money or spend time on his campaign.

He got my vote & that was all I could give him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:18 PM

36. Spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:25 PM

37. I think the republicans since St. Reagan have been borrowing/raiding from the SS Trust Fund

and don't want pay it back. If they tore up the IOU's the country's deficit would be gone. The republicans have been stealing this money for a long time and don't want to pay it back. They attacked Gore because he wanted to "lockbox" the SS Trust Fund. This dirty little secret is why the republicans want to do away with Social security. Bush used it to fund his Iraq war ventures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:36 PM

41. It is political cover

for conservatives to give up some tax cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nineteen50 (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:35 PM

76. Yes, and the question is why should Democrats use SS, offer something

that a majority of the people are against, just to give Republicans cover? Make them expose themselves by forcing them to do what is right. One thing possibly nearly as popular as protecting SS is making the rich pay their fair share. The people would be fully behind a Dem President who made that case.

So we have to assume that both parties, well one and a half parties, are for cutting SS benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:40 PM

42. K&R CPI is a term Bernie Sanders said most people don't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:40 PM

63. That's why they are using it. It is a stealth attack on SS Benefits.

Whenever they use code words like this, especially when SS doesn't even belong in these discussions, people have learned to look way more closely at what they really mean.

I have called Feinstein's and Boxer's office for several days in a row now in response to a request by the Progressive Coalitions, to ask them to clarify their positions on this totally unacceptable proposal. So far, Feinstein's number has been busy, same for everyone else apparently, and Boxer's is just taking messages but I can't get a live person to respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:02 PM

43. They will keep screwing with us until we get more progressives in Congress and the WH. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:06 AM

53. The problem is that we rarely get any progressive candidates to vote for. We get the same

Dems in Pub clothing, and get told "that's the best that can be done in this atmosphere." Somewhere, somehow, some way, we've got to change that goddamned atmosphere. I've hollered for years that Big Money Dems like Soros need to be very muscular about starting up progressive radio stations, TV, etc., and get our own Wurlitzer cranking, because 24/7 propaganda from the right is killing this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:35 AM

48. Because Rs want to punish all the people who voted for Obama?

The only reason I can think of except that they can't figure out how to pay the debt on Bush's lost wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:44 AM

49. Let's just say they were off the table

What does he have to negotiate with? Republicans are NOT giving up their "Sacred Cow" in the form of tax cuts. They want something back. Namely our "Sacred Cows" in the form of entitlements. While, I agree that entitlements are thin gs we are ENTITLED to. He had to make a "Grand Gesture" aka "Grand Bargain". But, he knew it would never come to fruition. He is guiding us right threw the "Fiscal Rapids". But, he has learned a lot in his 4 years. I think he is holding the 14th amendment as his trump card. He has been gearing up for this fight. And Boner is about to take a "Voodoo Penis" in an uncomfortable spot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:25 AM

50. Rec. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:28 AM

51. I've emailed my elected Congress people

and this reply from one of my Senators (Maria Cantwell) indicated cuts to SS will not pass.

Thank you for writing to me about the Social Security retirement benefits and the Chained Consumer Price Index. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.



The Social Security Administration provides retirement, disability, family benefits, and survivor benefits to millions of Americans and their dependents. In an effort to compensate for the effects of inflation, Social Security beneficiaries receive a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) in January of most years. Currently, the COLA is calculated using the Consumer Price Index for Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which is updated monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.



Since 2002 the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been publishing the Chained Consumer Price Index (Chained CPI) as a proposed alternative for the CPI-W. The Chained CPI uses a formula that accounts for what is known as the "substitution bias" – when higher prices cause people to change buying habits. Chained CPI would result in lower cost of living increases for Social Security recipients. I strongly oppose the proposed use of the Chained CPI. I understand that many Social Security recipients have expenses that differ from those of typical wage earners and clerical workers, and that the proposed Chained CPI would not reflect the actual cost-of-living changes these citizens face. For example, seniors spend more on health care expenses than the rest of the population and health care expenses have historically increased at a higher rate of inflation.



The importance of the Social Security program to retirees and disabled Americans cannot be overstated. Since its beginning in 1935, Social Security has prevented millions of seniors from falling into poverty, and it has served as a cornerstone of retirement security for American workers. We have a responsibility to ensure that Social Security delivers on its promises to current and future retirees. Changes to the Social Security program—how it is financed, how benefits are calculated, or decisions about retirement age—should be designed to preserve and strengthen the financial integrity of the program, and should not be a part of deficit reduction decisions.



As a member of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee I will continue to work with President Obama and with my colleagues to draft legislation that strikes the right balance in how we collect and spend federal tax dollars so we can leave more than debt to the next generation. I understand that this issue is especially important to you; be assured that I will keep your views in mind as we craft legislation.



Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dyedinthewoolliberal (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:29 PM

58. This should be an OP. This is a clear statement from Maria Cantwell which is encouraging. Now we

need to hear the same kind of statement from all of the Senate Dems. She addressed the Chained CPI which is very good.

So as of now, we know that neither she nor Bernie Sanders will vote for this travesty.


Thank you for posting thisl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:36 AM

52. The SSI fix is easy. Tax all income the same, regardless of source and RAISE THE CAP

That is all it would take.

Problem solved and no need to cut benefits.

The reason they want to cut benefits is because the wealthy ran up the debt and don't want to pay for their party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:20 PM

56. Exactly ...

The reason they want to cut benefits is because the wealthy ran up the debt and don't want to pay for their party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:42 PM

61. ss = social security. ssi = supplemental security income, not funded from ss taxes. ssi is a

 

welfare-style program funded from income taxes but administered by the social security admin.

just clarifying because a lot of people make the same mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:11 AM

54. Because President Obama needs convenient scapegoats who can't fight back.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:40 PM

57. Here is a photo that illustrates the principle behind SS cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:46 PM

62. Because the banksters and wall streeters who really want to steal the SS monies

 

have incredible influence upon our government. Just look at all of the recent thefts (read: "bailouts") which have gone unpunished and more importantly, unregulated in any meaningful manner. Watch "Citizens United" stand uncontested. Do you remember when George W. Bush toured the country catapulting the propaganda that SS was in imminent danger of failure, and that we had to give it to wall street to save it?

Stealing the social security money would be exactly the same as the other "bailouts". THEFT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:51 AM

74. Yes, that is exactly what it would be, theft. They've already borrowed

from our fund and now they want US, the creditors, to help pay their gambling debts. It's just mind-bogglingly stupid yet you see people with a straight face trying to tell us that it is 'necessary'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:13 PM

64. Not only is the irrational for the reasons you point out...

It's maddening.

We've been writing the White House almost daily about our level of frustration.

Unless there has been legislation to amend the original one Daniel Patrick Moynahan proposed in the early 90's, it's illegal to use Social Security to balance the general fund.

Am I wrong with that? I don't think so. But, you wouldn't know it by any speech I've heard lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:26 PM

67. That is a good point: 'its illegal to use SS to balance the general fund.'

That would make perfect sense and I am not aware of any new legislation re Moynahan's proposal. Was that a bill that passed Congress? Because if it was, wouldn't that mean that if they DO pass this, we the people could sue them to rescind it?

Would love to hear from lawyers on this.

Btw, Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are now on board with the Chained CPI. See here:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022042171

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:42 PM

68. Majorly depressed after that link, sabrina...

Here's the reference on what Moynahan tried to do, and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina (courtesy of Ravi Batra's book, "Greenspan's Fraud")'
<snip>
Senator Hollings went on to offer a proposal to ban the use of the Social Security surplus in budgetary calculations. Embarrassed by the truth in the senator's denunciations, the Democratically controlled Congress finally did something and passed the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, of which section 13301 clearly states:

Not withstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the Congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

But the act turned out to be a toothless gesture. It provided Congress and the president, who signed it into law, an amiable cover for ignoring the Moynihan proposal, which had a real bite against Congressional fraud and larceny.
<snip>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:30 PM

72. How sad. And seeing how people are more than willing to pretend they are

just 'playing chess' even now, makes it easy to understand how they get away with the games they play.

Maybe one day the people will unite and demand honesty from them. I do see a larger proportion of the population less inclined to accept the garbage we are being subjected to, even now after Pelosi's statements, than ever before. It's just too bad there are still those attempting to sweep the games under the rug. And I guess they depend on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:50 PM

69. Funny how many friends the Republicans have all of a sudden the election's over.

I'm certain that I pulled the "Democratic" lever, but all that came out were these lousy puke policies.



Reverse Robin Hood has run the government since Nov. 22, 1963.

The people Smedley Butler talked about.

And no one goes to jail, except innocent Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:06 PM

70. Yes, but shhhhh! Obama never put SS on the Deficit table, you imagined it.

And Pelosi and Hoyer never said that the Chained CPI were 'not benefit cuts and would actually strengthen SS'. We are supposed to ignore the fact that they should not even be talking about this during talks about the deficit.

You realize that when we Progressives refuse to shut up each time they try to fool the people like this, we are 'hysterical'.

The truth is that it is because we will not be silent, that they eventually back away from these disastrous policies and then claim we are 'hysterical'.

Thanks as always for your ability to see through the garbage that is flung our way on a regular basis, Octafish. And thankfully OUR numbers are now growing after so many betrayals that simply cannot be swept under the rug anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:20 PM

71. Here's what should be on the table -- the ones who took it.

UBS Libor-rigging settlement exposes pervasive bank fraud

By Andre Damon
wsws.og
20 December 2012

UBS, the largest bank in Switzerland, announced Wednesday it had agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement with regulators in three countries, admitting that between 2005 and 2010 it intentionally manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the most important global interest rate.

A report issued by the British Financial Services Authority (FSA) on the settlement provides voluminous documentation, in the form of emails and instant message exchanges, of the falsification on virtually a daily basis of UBS' submissions to the British Bankers’ Association (BBA), which oversees Libor.

The settlement comes six months after a $450 million deal between regulators and Barclays, the fourth-largest global bank, to settle charges that it similarly manipulated Libor.

UBS and Barclays are among some 20 major financial institutions under investigation for colluding to manipulate the benchmark rate, including HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Sumitomo Mitsui, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America.

CONTINUED...

http://wsws.org/en/articles/2012/12/20/libo-d20.html

Thank you for standing up to them, Sabrina1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:41 PM

73. Amazing, isn't it? Outright fraud and deception not only is not ON the table

the criminals as always, are being protected.

Meantime we are told, Congress is just playing games with Seniors to 'see what Repubs might do'. Wtf! I am so sick of it all.

Thank YOU Octafish for not falling for the games they play.

We need to have a new strategy, I mean we the people. Being honest apparently is frowned upon. Maybe we need to learn how to play the games and play them better.

Meantime, they have Seniors scared to death as they play their games and we have people here on a Dem board, attempting to excuse this cruelty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #73)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:00 AM

75. Thank you for saying this, Sabrina

"the criminals as always, are being protected. Meantime we are told, Congress is just playing games with Seniors to 'see what Repubs might do'."

It's always the weakest and those unable to fight who are used as pawns. It disgusts me that anyone would try to excuse putting SoSec on the table as clever brinkmanship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:05 PM

77. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread