I Love Social Security

[sabrina 1]

There are literally millions of reasons to love this program but I'll start with this one:

I am a Democrat. The SS Program makes me proud to be a Democrat. FDR called it 'the cornerstone of my administration'. And it has become the cornerstone, the crown jewel of the Democratic Party.

I tried to think of any piece of Republican Legislation over the past 60 years that could compare to the brilliance, morality, ethics and incredible success of this program and I can't think of one.

This Democratic program has helped to drastically lower the poverty rate of seniors.

Texas Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson says Social Security slashed poverty among the elderly

"In 1935, more than 50% of the elderly population lived in poverty. Today that poverty rate stands officially at 9.4%."

The linked article is a fact check piece. It concludes that the poverty rate among elders in 1935 may have been way higher than the Congresswoman stated. However, as they said, her point stands.

Whenever I am talking to a Republican who is ranting about Democrats and 'Commies' and 'Socialists' I always ask them if they or anyone they know has ever benefited from Social Security. It is amazing how most of them too love SS. Equally amazing is how few of them know that it was a Democratic President who initiated it. I get such a thrill out of telling them that. .

Some of them deny it and call me a liar! Lol, well, you know how they are!

But even after being shocked to find out that they are benefiting from a Socialist Democratic Program, most of them reluctantly admit that at least 'Democrats did something worthwhile decades ago'.

Here is another reason I love it:



Francis Perkins, the woman behind Social Security. She was a witness to the Shirtwaist Fire and was so affected by it that she worked tirelessly for the rest of her life to establish workers' rights and to provide for the working class in their older years.

Social Security Pioneers

She had powers of persuasion obviously, not ever compromising her ideals even with those who were difficult to convince, as this excerpt shows:

Prior to going to Washington, Perkins held positions in State government in New York, first as an aid to governor Al Smith and then to Franklin Roosevelt when he became governor. Smith, a machine politician from the old school, was an early social reformer with whom Frances Perkins made many a common-cause. At Smith's funeral in 1944 two of his former Tammany Hall political cronies were overheard to speculate on why Smith had become a social crusader. One of them summed the matter up this way: "I'll tell you. Al Smith read a book. That book was a person, and her name was Frances Perkins. She told him all these things and he believed her."

She stated that:

"I came to Washington to work for God, FDR, and the millions of forgotten, plain common workingmen."

Who could not be proud to be a member of the same party as this brilliant, compassionate, . ethical, moral woman? She is the epitome of what I always think of when I think of a Democratic Woman.



The closest woman to her today imo is Elizabeth Warren.

And FDR, he had the foresight and courage to appoint a woman as Secretary of Labor. He so respected her opinions, he didn't go to Wall St Bankers for advice on the matter of how to help the working class, he listened to this truly Progressive woman and fought to implement her ideas into legislation.

Republicans always claim that privatizing SS would make it a more 'independent program' lying of course, that SS is some kind of 'welfare' program or misusing deliberately the word 'entitlement to create the image of people who have a 'sense of entitlement' about something they did not earn.

However, because FDR thought this through, another thing I love about SS is that he went to great lengths to prevent the program from taking away any dignity from its beneficiaries by using Insurance policies as a model for it.

Life Before Social Security; 'A Great Calamity Has Come Upon Us'

Roosevelt insisted that the new program not look like a dole, his aides later explained; rather, it should resemble a private insurance plan, tied to an individual's contributions in their working years. ''You want to make it simple, very simple,'' Roosevelt told his aides, Perkins later wrote in a memoir. ''Just simple and natural nothing elaborate or alarming about it.''

The Chained CPI would allow Republicans to refer to SS Beneficiaries as 'welfare/dole cases. A shame to undo the work done by FDR to make sure SS was never viewed that way.

But the right was busy back then also as Frances Perkins illustrates in this amusing anecdote:

Perkins wrote that when she went before Congress to present the plan, Senator Thomas Pryor Gore of Oklahoma had a pointed question.

'''Isn't this socialism?' he asked me. My reply was, 'Oh, no.' Then, smiling, leaning forward and talking to me as though I were a child, he said, 'Isn't this a teeny-weeny bit of socialism?'''

David M. Kennedy, the Stanford historian and author of ''Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War,'' said that he found it paradoxical that the current debate over Social Security ''is being couched in terms of individual ownership and privatization of the system, when those kinds of ideas deeply informed the way the original Social Security system was put together.''

SS has expanded since then to the disabled and to dependent children.

I love Social Security because it demonstrates what De Togueville said about the American people. He noted that the American people had a generosity of spirit that allowed them to want to help each other. I believe that most Americans do want a society where we take care of those most in need. That they are generous, compassionate and kind for the most part.

Roosevelt sent his Social Security plan, which included unemployment insurance, to Congress in January 1935, and by August he was able to sign it into law. Some New Dealers chafed at its limits, but the law was widely seen as a moderate alternative to the more radical proposals -- like a guaranteed minimum income for the elderly -- that were stirring then from the grassroots.

''We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life,'' Roosevelt declared. ''But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.''

I think part of the reason Social Security is still one of the most popular programs is because the American people really are the generous, compassionate people described by De Toqueville. That in general, they do want a society that takes care of its own.

I also think they understand the need for a permanent safety net. They may not remember the Great Depression out of which SS was born, but we have read about it.



I don't love politicians. I don't think you can love someone you don't know. I do want them to understand that the majority of Americans love and support the few safety nets we have in this country. I would love it if they represented a majority of the American people rather than the minority that will always be there trying to take away those safety nets.

I don't understand why they don't listen to the people.

Hands OFF Social Security!

[dkf]

1. What is the poverty rate of the rest of the population?

What will it be if the only thing the federal government provides is social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt? No food stamps, or housing aid, or student loans, or even a national defense?

Is that really the country you want?

[Rex]

3. Are you mad bro?

I've never seen you stretch so far to come to a conclusion like that.

[sabrina 1]

6. Lol, well sometimes people reveal their true 'sentiments' late at night, or is it early in the

morning?

As if the Fed Govt had anything to do with 'providing' SS.

[Rex]

8. Ya, but that was sadz.

Like someone desperately grasping at straws as they fall off a cliff.

[sabrina 1]

11. I know. I would like to know if anti-Social Security people are also anti-Insurance policies in

general??

I never hear anyone on the Right claim that beneficiaries of Life Insurance policies are 'welfare queens' eg taking money they never earned.

I wonder why the hatred for SS?

But you're right, that was sad! Though not entirely surprising!

[dkf]

12. You need to read up on the projected expenses and revenues.

But here is a shortcut from politifact. Note there is no interest cost included, just entitlements.

In 2045, federal revenues could equal 18.5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, according to this CBO view. That includes all sources of federal revenue, including income taxes and corporate taxes as well as payroll taxes that are supposed to cover Social Security and a portion of Medicare (but will be insufficient, for reasons we need not get into here).

Against that, Social Security spending could equal 6 percent of GDP, and Medicare 7.6 percent. Medicaid, children’s health insurance and insurance subsidies for the Affordable Care Act could be the equivalent of 4.1 percent of GDP.

Put together, the entitlements would equal 17.7 percent of GDP.

Mandel said that spending on entitlements "is projected to consume all revenue by 2045." While 17.7 percent of GDP is not 18.5 percent, it represents nearly 96 percent of the revenue -- extremely close. A 96 percent score in school would get you an A,

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/feb/21/josh-mandel/ohio-treasurer-josh-mandel-says-entitlement-spendi/

Here is the citizens guide to the Federal Budget which shows expenses vs revenues in chart 5.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12guide.pdf

[sabrina 1]

13. Josh Mandel?? You're giving us projections on 'entitlement' programs from a Republican?

Rex was correct, 'are you mad, bro?

And tell us again, what has SS got to with the deficit. I see that Republican lie throughout that article you linked to.

SS is a separate fund from the Fed Govt. I doesn't cost the Fed Gov anything. Even IF every Republican in the country says it does.

Please use more credible sources if you want to be taken seriously here.

[dkf]

15. Using CBO numbers which politifact confirmed as being from the CBO.

Look at the citizens guide and its pretty obvious it's a problem. That's from the Treasury btw. Of course you will probably say you can't count on government projections because they are all right wing kooks.

I really wish the chart was easy to copy and paste. I would make it my damned sig line if I could.

[sabrina 1]

17. You didn't answer my question. What does SS have to do with the Deficit?

And you ignored my point that SS costs the Fed Govt nothing.

I do not dismiss the SS administration's numbers on SS. I dismiss Right Wingers, like Mandel's same old lies about SS being related to the Deficit and his ignorance of the fact that SS is a separate fund paid for BY the people FOR the people.

I could make a chart to show you how SS contributes nothing to the National Debt. It is an independent program and is completely solvent right now. Too bad the Govt doesn't run its budget the same way SS does. My chart would be pretty simple. I would eliminate that bottom green part that says SS.

[dkf]

18. If you believe SS has no impact on the Natl Debt then I expect you think there will be a 25% cut

In benefits when the trust fund expires?

Or are you swallowing what Manny says...that GDP will grow to provide all we need? The only people I hear saying that are those who need it to be so to payout SS benefits.

[SunSeeker]

22. Seems like the simple solution would be to lift the cap and raise the SS tax.

Frances Perkins envisioned it to be a system that pays for itself, and we should keep it that way. But I realize "simple" and "doable" are two different things.

[ErikJ]

149. RAISE THE CAP!!.... RAISE THE CAP!!.... RAISE THE CAP!!

$110,000 means the billionaires only pay into the SS fund the first day of the year if that!

[sabrina 1]

23. The trust fund will not expire. It currently has a surplus of over 2 trillion dollars. Too bad the

Fed Fund has frittered away trillions of dollars on illegal wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. The surplus even under the current bad economic conditions is projected to almost double by 2023 and without doing anything to it, and based on the worst scenario, which is this recession Wall St got us into, it will be able to pay out 100% of its obligations for the next 30 years. To take it further than that, all they need to do is raise the cap and end the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy and start making them pay their fair share.

If you believe that SS had anything to do with the deficit, then explain it please.

And don't bother with the 'there's nothing in the fund' garbage. The Fed Govt borrowed from the trust fund to gamble on wars and handouts to the wealthy. That loan is backed is in US Treasury Bonds that are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Govt and so far, the interest, as promised, is being paid, as it is to the rest of the Fed Govt's creditors.

Now if you are saying that IF the SS fund were to need to call in that loan, it would cost the Fed Govt, it sure would. And I assume they pay their debt to SS.

SS had nothing to do with the deficit. You say it did. I would love to see how you came up with that. Maybe you should avoid reading Republican opinions on SS. They have become notorious for lying about it. Eg, back in the '70s they claimed there would be 'nothing there when workers reached retirement age'. Lol! No one believes them because they have lied so much about SS it's expected of them.

[dkf]

27. I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from...not from SS trustees apparently.

After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed inter- est earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr12summary.pdf

[sabrina 1]

29. Still waiting for you to explain how SS contributed to the deficit.

2033 is 20 years from now, and that is based on the current bad economy. My numbers are correct. Other projections from reliable sources are into the '40s, but I generally go with the worst scenario which is the annual trustee report. And as you can see, we don't have to worry about SS paying out all of its obligations for at least 20 years and THAT is under the most dire conditions so is not to be taken as fact.

All that is required for the fund to extend for another 75 years at least, and by some projections, 100 years, is to raise the cap so that people earning over approx $110,000 are contributing to the fund. And no more 'tax holidays'. Make the wealthy pay their fair share.

You provided information from a Republican. If SS contributed to the deficit, then please either explain how that came to be, or admit that this is a Republican lie.

Since SS did not contribute to the deficit, why is it part of these discussions?

You also ignored the fact that SS is paid for by the people and is not part of Govt Expenses. You have not explained why you think it costs the Government anything.

[Rex]

31. He has nothing, just like from the beginning.

The FUD tactics won't work, maybe some other places they will but you will NEVER get a straight answer to any of your questions...feels familiar with a certain group doesn't it?

I've decided they can waste all the time they want to with this garbage...it won't make any difference.

[sabrina 1]

35. I guess I thought I would get something, after all if you go to all that trouble to make a statement

about a topic as important as this, you should at least try to back it up with something.

But yes, you are right, it does feel familiar although a bit more overtly anti-social safety nets. Didn't even try to pretend which I suppose is at least honest.

[Rex]

39. Well he never bothered to explain why he gets his news from

a RWing news source then claims it here as gospel. I couldn't believe it at first, but I do now.

[dkf]

40. It would contribute in the same way the tax holiday contributed to the deficit.

Once the trust fund is gone, if we decide to keep paying out promised benefits that contributes directly to the deficit and the debt. That is why I ask if you believe they will cut benefits if the trust fund depletes or if they will continue to pay more than what is genetated by SS receipts. If so then your plan includes increasing the debt by using non-SS funds to pay benefits which probably isn't in the charts I presented.

When they restructured SS in '83 it was supposed to fix the situation for 75 years. Yet the projected longevity of the fund is only getting shorter, not longer. That tells me they were too optimistic in their scenario, not too conservative.

[grahamhgreen]

43. Raise the cap, increase taxes on the entities that can afford it, cut big war funding... Done.

[Rex]

45. Woah...easy there...

that was too easy!

Also cut CORPORATE WELFARE.

[dkf]

49. But first they need to admit the problem which they are avoiding like the plague.

They haven't admitted to a problem much less proposed a solution.

Which brings us to the oddity of Obama's chained CPI proposal...why hasn't he explained why he wants to do this and what it accomplishes? That has been a god awful sales job.

[newblewtoo]

98. Exactly, the first step to recovery

is admitting you have a problem. For those still in denial here is an excellent synopsis:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/03/08/Social-Security-5-Enduring-Myths-that-Must-Go.aspx#page1

Will those in denial take the time to read and learn? I would hope so for everyone's sake. There are problems with Social Security which cannot be wished away. President Obama and his advisors know it is a bi partisan problem which requires a bold solution.

[dkf]

100. This is the question I've been asking....

In light of all we owe — to our creditors, our children, and our future — how much do we want to spend supporting everyone who happens to live past 62? We want to spend something, to be sure, and maybe a lot. But we can’t let myths and slogans convince us that we can avoid the question. We can’t

So far I've come to the conclusion much of DU would wipe out all other spending and just pay entitlements. Crazy.

[sabrina 1]

104. How about we just let all the old people die? What utter garbage you are bringing here. SS pays

for itself, stop spreading these Republican lies here especially since the only backup you have for them are links to Republicans telling the same lies they have told for decades, AND have been wrong about.

Once again since you refuse to give up telling the lie that the Govt is paying for SS.

SS does not cost the Govt anything, it is a separate fund paid for, like any other insurance policy, BY the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I am beginning to agree with those who have questioned your reasons for being here. Having spent time attempting to talk to right wingers, these comments of yours are all too familiar. But never before on DU or any other Democratic forum I have been a member of. Because Democrats generally do their research and do not regurgitate right wing propaganda.

[Hoyt]

82. While we wait for GOP to jump on board with that, should we just sit quietly by and do nothing?

I agree with what you hope will happen some day, although raising the cap does not solve the SS problem completely and even Democrats are not going to approve a 12% tax increase on the 5% who earn over the cap.

Cut war funding, I'm for completely. Downside -- and one we should just suck up and take -- is that a lot of folks will end up on the umemployment rolls because there are a boatload of people employed in the war industry.

As to taxing those who "can afford it," I'm for it to an extent. Problem is we have a lot of other things for which we need those tax dollars -- jobs, extension of unemployment, food stamps, health care, education, regulations of banksters and polluters, investment in infrastructure, etc.

And, no, I'm not for throwing granny (and me) under the bus with C-CPI. But, I'm not for doing nothing either.

[sabrina 1]

108. Why is SS a part of these discussions since it had nothing to do with the deficit and doesn't cost

the Fed Govt anything as it is self-funded by America's working class? That means that any 'savings' that may come from the Chained CPI would not help the deficit at all.

Unless, and I sure hope this is not true, the plan is to take those savings, the people's money, and transfer it to the Fed Govt's fund.

'Do something'? How does cutting SS benefits do anything about a problem it had nothing to do with?? Someone please, I have been asking this question for months, explain it. Is it being kept a secret because they actually DO intend to raid the SS fund to bail out the criminals on Wall St from having to pay back the money borrowed from the SS Trust Fund?

The more people try to excuse this, the worse it begins to sound frankly.

[Hoyt]

109. Because it does impact the debt through borrowing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2671508

The more people who try to play myopic fund accountant, the more I think Medicare needs to cover eye glasses.

[sabrina 1]

110. Wait, you are blaming the creditor for the borrowing of the debtor? Again, you are not being clear.

Here, let me make is simple, or more simple if possible.

Are China, Japan and others who are, like the American People, creditors of the Fed Govt, also responsible for the US Govt's deficit? Do they too 'cost' the US Govt 'through borrowing'?

And if so, how do we get some money from THEM?? Do we 'cut' something? But what? How can you 'cut' money that doesn't belong to you, people get pretty upset if you dip into their accounts and extract money to pay someone else's debt?

Enlighten me please, I'm a Democrat so I'm probably not to up on Wall St math.

[Hoyt]

121. Sorry, but money you and I paid in went to pay SS benefits for folks our parents age. Not right,

Not right, but a fact.

I gave you a link that explains it, plain as day.

Again, maybe you are getting hung up on what is right/fair vs. what's reality. I don't like it anymore than I think someone likes being diagnosed with cancer -- it might not be fair, but you deal with it. Dig up all the past Presidents and Congress responsible for this and try to get it back from them if you want -- I'd rather try to solve it in a manner that might work (again, with a little pain).

[sabrina 1]

126. You couldn't be more wrong. There is a two trillion dollar surplus in the trust fund right now

and the fund has three sources of income meaning that the fund is constantly being replenished. Due to the criminals on Wall St crashing the economy the loss of jobs has affected everything, including the revenue of one of SS's resources. However, despite that, the fund has still shown a surplus every single year even in the worst of times and has paid and will be able to pay all of its obligations, even if this recession never improved, and no one did anything about it, for at least the next 20 years or so.

That of course is the very worst case scenario which we know is not a good projection, but for you sake, I went with the worst case scenario.

SS has not come even close to being 'diagnosed with cancer'.

What you avoided answering were my very simple questions.

I'll try again.

We the people were forced to loan the Fed Govt (who should run THAT budget the same way we run the SS fund btw and they wouldn't be in trouble right now) so they could pay for their hobbies, wars, handouts to Wall St crooks etc etc. That loan is currently in US Treasury Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US Govt. Same as China, Japan etc.

Now, YOU had the temerity to blame all that corrupt spending, NOT on the creditors, but on the debtors who actually spent the money.

Do you see how ridiculous that is? Since you didn't address my questions, I imagine you do.

Anyhow, the question is simple. How on earth does 'cutting benefits' help pay off the deficit??

Please address that question. You have gone around in circles but you have not addressed the central question everyone is asking.

How will cutting SS help reduce the deficit, UNLESS they intend to steal that money and put it in ANOTHER fund, iow, the Fed Gov fund?? Surely you would not support that?

[Hoyt]

129. That surplus is just accounting smoke and mirrors. To pay out using

that so-called surplus, you gotta sell treasury securities. Interest rates go up, debt goes up unless you cut things elsewhere. Current outflows in SS fund exceed inflows. Sad story, but true.

[sabrina 1]

132. And there's the old right wing lie they've telling for generations. I had hoped we wouldn't resort

to that here.

Here are the facts, not so much for you as it appears you have chosen to accept the distortion of the facts for some reason, but just in case there is anyone, which I doubt being this is a Democratic forum, who is not informed about this program

We the people are Creditors of the Fed Gov. Iow, they borrowed from us.

Same thing with China, Japan and others. they borrowed from them also.

Why would anyone lend so much money to the US Fed Govt you might wonder? Well, because they GUARANTEE that it will be paid back, and they issue in exchange for that loan, US Treasury Bonds. Those Bonds are viewed, obviously, as one of the safest investments in the world. They are backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the US Govt. China would freak out if the US defaulted on any of its creditors, especially the American People. The whole country would collapse if all of our creditors began calling in their loans.

Do you get the picture yet? WE, the PEOPLE, like every other US creditor made an investment in US Treasury Bonds and we have been receiving interest on those bonds every year.

The US Government CANNOT renege on those Bonds, can they? Because if they do, the world would panic. All of its other creditors would panic.

Now that this is clear, for you to say 'the fund is smoke and mirrors' means that so is China's loan, THEY must be worried if they read your comment.

You are basically saying the word of the US Government, it's Treasury Bonds, its 'full faith and credit' are 'smoke and mirrors! If that is TRUE, and you have information the rest of us don't have, then we have way, way, way more than SS to worry about.

Iow, your comment is pure scare tactic BS.

[sabrina 1]

47. I don't want to be mean, but I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.

What I do see is that now you have backed away from the Republican lie that SS had anything to do with the deficit. It doesn't.

You have also backed away from the claim that SS costs the Fed Govt anything, it doesn't.

Now you have returned to the 60 or 70 year old Republican argument against SS.

IF the fund runs out of money, IF the Feds have to pay for it, IF that contributes to the deficit. If, if , if ... Republicans have been saying 'IF' about SS since the thirties when it began. They use these scare tactics to try to get their hands on that huge fund so they waste away THAT money also.

Does it bother you at all that they have so very wrong for over 70 years?

Let me address your concerns. The SS Fund will never run out of money. UNLESS someone manages to change how it works.

Do the math, it's not that difficult. So long as we have a work force, SS will continue to replenish the fund. As unemployment rates drop, more money will go into the fund. When the cap is finally raised, even MORE money will go into the fund. Not to mention that the baby boomers paid so much into it that they are more than covered and when they are gone the numbers accepting benefits will drop.

I don't where you are getting that the SS Fund will 'run out of money'. How can a fund that has a steady supply of money, and from at least three different sources, run out of money?

It CAN'T run out of money.

And to keep more money going into it so we can raise benefits, we need people who will create jobs. We need to remove any incentives to Corporations that take their business out of this country. Let them go, but we tax payers are not going to give them money. In fact I would increase taxes on outsourcers and give tax breaks to those who create jobs here.

You need to stop worrying about SS. It will never run out of funds. And it's good for decades so there is no real urgency to 'fix' anything right now.

Oh yes, and RAISE THE CAP.

[dkf]

50. Do you realize the payroll tax holiday contributed directly to the debt and the deficit?

Do you understand the trust fund is the excess contributions over payments that are invested in treasury bonds?

So now that the payroll tax doesn't cover benefits the trust fund uses its interest payments or bond sales to cover the shortfall. But as benefits increase and the fund starts selling more of its treasuries to cover what payroll taxes don't, it is projected that in 2033 all the bonds and their interest will be gone from the trust fund.

Upon that day benefits promised will exceed expected revenue by 75%.

So what do you do?

If you cut payments to the amount the fica tax collects then yes there is no further impact on the deficit, but a 25% decrease in benefits is significant!

If you believe we should cover that difference out of the general funds then you believe SS will directly contribute to the deficit and debt.

Of course there's the third option...and you've fallen for Manny's best case scenario featuring unemployment under 5%. Good luck with that one.

[sabrina 1]

51. Oh Bullshit. SS has two other sources of revenue and has shown a SURPLUS every year

even during this period of recession. And SS has had a shortfall in ONE of its sources of revenue, the SS TAX, at least 8 other times in its history and yet, it still worked, still paid out all its obligations.


The tax holiday was intended to hurt SS, probably hoping it would not be able to pay its obligations, but IT DID, and with a SURPLUS.

YOU are trying to scare people into thinking the Fed Govt will have to pay SS's obligations. I KNOW that will never happen and I have explained to you why. And if it ever had to make a loan to the fund, it would be paid back because SS has immense assets. In ten years, even under all these circumstances, the SS fund's surplus will jump from over two trillion where it is now, to over four trillion and that without doing anything to it. Raising the cap will increase even more.

Now you are just making things up, but at least it's better than providing us with any more Right Wing links spreading the decades old Right Wing propaganda, and it hasn't changed, in all those decades, and it has NEVER been right

[Hoyt]

133. Learn the difference between debt and annual deficit, and you might understand.

[sabrina 1]

140. Debt, deficit, SS is a separate fund and has nothing to do with either. You need to learn

what the SS fund is about and how it operates. Clearly you do not have any idea and have adampted the decades old fabrications of the enemies of this program.

[Rex]

30. Your FUD won't work. Nice try.

Maybe you should try peak oil next... I hear guessing is all the rage.

Every year it says something different, did you think that would fool anyone into believing you are correct? Guess again.

[Babel_17]

85. social security trustees use pessimistic projections

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/07/nine-misconceptions-about-social-security/304642/

Actually, Social Security projections are based on extremely pessimistic economic assumptions: that growth will average just 1.8 percent over the next twenty years, a lower rate than in any comparable period in U.S. history; that growth will slow even further in later years, until the rate is less than half the 2.6 percent of the past twenty years; that there will be no increase in immigration even when the economy experiences a labor shortage because of the retirement of the Baby Boom generation; and that this labor shortage will not lead to a rapid growth in wages. Both possibilities excluded in these projections—increased immigration and rapid wage growth—would increase the fund's revenues. These projections are genuinely a worst-case scenario.

I share your concerns, this is peoples money to survive we are talking about, but the solutions that most prominent Democrats propose should be enough.

[Babel_17]

89. I forgot to mention another point

If the budget did away with paying any SS payments for 2014 it still wouldn't reduce the debt. The money would still be owed. I think people conflate what we have to budget and what our liabilities are.

I can cross my rent off this months budget but I will still have to pay it eventually.

It gets tricky in that Congress gets to set the payments. So yes, just like the guardians of a child actor, they can play with the books and pile up the money without paying it out.

The inescapable reality is that the institution of government made an eminently fair arrangement with several generations of the population.

If government today wants to start to attempt to renege then they need to call all the government between now and then thieves, or conspirators of thieves. That still wouldn't eliminate the legal obligation but it would set the stage for government declaring bankruptcy. Which is a joke concept, given the wealth laying around in the coffers of those who've been buddies of that same government, all these years.

[sabrina 1]

141. Thank you, how refreshing to see that at least some people here actually understand

how this program works. I have repeatedly told them the same thing, the 'worst case scenario' of the trustees. There are couple of people here who clearly have no clue what they are talking and sadly are regurgitating the right wing lies, whether intentionally or not, they have been told for so long.

The predictions of SS running out of money are as old as the program itself. You would think that after being wrong for long people would catch on. Of course they may not want to.

[madville]

53. Projections show the trust fund expiring in 20 years

The date is 2033 as of the latest 2012 SSA trustee report.

The wild card is SSDI though. It's trust fund will be exhausted in 2016. If it has to, SSA can legally draw from the OASI trust fund so it doesn't have to reduce SSDI benefits. If that happens it is projected all trust funds will be exhausted around 2027.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/


Something will have to change before then. More revenue, reduced benefits, adjust the eligibility age, interest rates rise significantly so the bonds yield more, etc, etc. More revenue should be the starting point by raising the cap of course.

[sabrina 1]

54. Those projections chancge every year and are based on the direst of situations.

Nothing needs to be done right now and SS still had nothing to do with the deficit.

Also, SS has two other sources of revenue, has had surplus every year despite the predictions that it wound not and what will have to change is the economy.

The economy is bad right now, projections, if they mean anything, are that it will not always be bad which means the Trustee projections will be different, next year and the year after.

[madville]

65. SSDI and OASI are running deficits

SSDI is burning through it's trust fund due to the large increase in disability claims and will either have to find more revenue or reduce benefits at some point around 2016.

The OASI program ran deficits in 2011 and 2012 and had to dip into the trust fund to pay out above what it took in from workers and made in interest. Part of that was due to the tax holiday that just expired but the projections show it running deficits from here on out.

The reality is that in order for the Treasury to pay back the trust fund as SSA spends it down they will have to deficit spend, like selling more bonds to someone else. Social Security is owed that money and the Treasury borrowed it. Unfortunately with the budget the way it is it is not incorrect to say the overall federal deficit will have to increase in order to pay back Social Security at this point in time.

They need to raise or eliminate the income cap right off the bat then see what additional revenues that creates before anything else.

[sabrina 1]

76. Are you aware that this has happened 8 times in the history of SS?

And are you aware that the fund has still shown a surplus despite this expected occurrence because SS has other forms of revenue? Has the Fed Gov shown any surplus?

Now you are at least revealing where the Republican lie that SS had anything to do with the deficit comes from. That's quite a stretch, blaming creditors for a debtor's inability to pay back its loans.

So you're worried about the Fed Govt having to make good on its Treasury Bonds to one of its creditors? If that is deficit spending, whose fault is that? The Govt guarantees those Treasury Bonds. Don't YOU expect when you borrow money and you guarantee that you will be able to pay it back, that one day you will have pay it back? And if you can't, do you blame the person who loaned you the money or those who stole your money?

Let those who collapsed the economy pay back the Government's debts. It was THEY who caused the deficit.

And btw, the SS Fund will continue to collect revenue. By 2023 it will double its surplus and when jobs increase and the cap is raised, those numbers from the trustees will increase, possibly by next year.

I would not worry about the fund if I were you, it is fine for the next 20 years at least and that is under the worst of circumstances, which the Trustees always use for their projections. Other projections, more realistic taking into account what they do not, a drop in unemployment, more jobs etc.

Unless you expect the current recession to last forever, the sky is not falling. Not only that, but IF that is the case, we better start worrying about more than SS. It's interesting though that SS is always the target. Been going on for 70 years The right wing projections of 'there won't be anything there in a few years' have always, always been wrong. At some point, don't the enemies of SS give up being wrong?

But if anyone seriously wants to innoculate SS against running our of money, the solution is simple. Makes you wonder why Politicians don't think of it, or if they do, why they don't suggest it. Makes you think they want the excuse to cut SS benefits, when there absolutely no need to do that at all.

Iow, even if you were right, the solution is right there under their noses. Why do YOU think they don't see it or are ignoring it?

I know what I think.

Edited to provide you with this link which should explain why you need not worry about the fund:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022671540#post9

[madville]

136. You are assuming jobs come back to the USA

If manufacturing doesn't come back we are screwed

[sabrina 1]

142. I'm not assuming it, I am expecting it. I am working with millions of other Americans to

get a real Democratic Congress in place that take the simple steps required to stop funding with handouts, those who are sending American jobs overseas. Stop all subsidies to big Corporations, end tax breaks, no raise taxes on those who care so little about this country that they are prepared to 'screw' it by doing business overseas while taking everything they can from this country. They can go overseas, but not with OUR money.

End our dependence on oil and start a huge jobs program utilizing American ingenuity and labor to start the inevitable transfer to alternative energy. Put people to work on the next 'industrial era' right here in the US. Anyone who doesn't want to participate, do not expect anymore handouts from the people here.

First thing to get this started is to stop supporting weaklings, sellouts, infiltrators, corporate shills for public office. Part of the fact we appear to be screwed is OUR fault. We've allowed ourselves to be scared into going in the wrong direction.

But we are now far better informed than we were even ten years ago. And depressing as it may be to feel so betrayed, it is also a good thing, a new beginning.

We need with people with the determination that people like Perkins had. If she could do what she did, we can follow her example and never assume that anything is impossible.

I hope you join us, because there is no other alternative now.

[sabrina 1]

4. What makes you think that the Federal Govt will 'only provide SS'. The Fed Govt DOESN'T

provide SS, the American Workers provide it.

Are you serious?

[Rex]

5. That was sadz.

nt.

[msongs]

7. enjoy it while you can, certain politicians are proposing to start cutting it nt

[quinnox]

10. I would love a country that didn't waste hundreds of billions on defense

every year!

[suffragette]

24. I remember when pitting programs like Social Security and education against each other was solely

a Republican tactic.

Yet here it is cropping up on DU.

I find this appalling.

[LuvNewcastle]

26. It's like Paul Ryan is posting on DU.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

37. dkf isn't a Republican?

[dkf]

42. I'm a card carrying volunteering and canvassing Democrat.

Are you?

I'm part of the Howard Dean/Bill Clinton/and most recently Barack Obama wing of the Democratic Party who believes in fiscal sanity.

[grahamhgreen]

44. How do you feel about raising the cap?

[dkf]

66. Maybe back to the 90% level.

But I would want to keep it as a program when it is generally neutral and where individual payments are a function of receipts. So if you pay a large amount you should receive a large amount, unless you die early. SS isn't meant to be so wildly redistributive.

[sabrina 1]

81. Do you feel that way about other Insurance policies? Auto insurance eg?

This was a most revealing comment which you are clearly unaware of. It demonstrated how little you know about the morality, and yes, we do still care about morality, of the SS program.

I suggest that if you really are a Democrat you begin reading about the program.

SS was indeed meant to be non-discriminatory. It is not a Wall St. construct. I think you are confused. Try thinking 'ethics, morality, common good' for a change.

[Laelth]

84. Personally, I think SS should be "wildly redistributive."

Even more so than it is now. Here's why.

In a capitalist society, like ours, wealth flows from the bottom up. Wealth naturally congregates in the hands of a few at the top. This is OK, so long as government simultaneously redistributes wealth toward the bottom. We are all wealthier when poor people have lots of money to spend. We are all poorer when the poor have nothing to spend. To combat the natural tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth at the top of the human pyramid, government must redistribute wealth downward. When it does not, you see radical income inequality of the kind we see now, you see massive suffering among the poor, and you see the nation's standard of living decline (as it has been doing here in the United States since 1973).

Liberal government is good for all of us. Redistribution of wealth is good for all of us.

-Laelth

[UnrepentantLiberal]

48. Like I said...

[dkf]

67. Well if you don't consider any of them Democrats then I guess not.

Hey maybe there isn't any such thing as a President from the Democratic Party by your standards.

You much be a Naderite?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

80. I despise Ralph Nader.

[sabrina 1]

143. Lol, well, that was a short and sweet slap down of that particular talking point.

I love Ralph btw. Turns out that he was right about a lot of things, although back when he was running for president I wasn't too happy with him.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

156. Well, those elections shouldn't have been as close as they were.

Gore and Kerry ran terrible campaigns. I just didn't like his "not a dime's worth of difference" comment. He knew that was a lie. The Bush Admin. Was pure evil waiting to happen. If Nader had been honest he would have admitted he was dead wrong about that.

[sabrina 1]

157. I never agreed with him running for president. It was not the way to make a point. I always

thought he should have run for Congress or the Senate maybe as an Independent where he could have done some good. But it was the SC that settled that election, even with all the money spent, the dirty tricks, the cheating etc. Gore did win the election. So it definitely was a crooked election and many crimes were committed to put Bush in the WH. So I don't get the obsession with something that was not a crime, even if it was a very bad decision while the crimes were never dealt with, we just moved on from them leading the way to 2004.

I prefer to deal with priorities and to me the major priority was the criminal theft of an election with the collusion of the SC.

[sabrina 1]

52. The more anti social security people tell me they are Democrats, the more I realize

what went wrong with this party. There IS a party that agrees far more with your positions on just about everything from what I have seen.

Why would someone who opposes every Democratic Party ideal want to belong to that party? I have wondered the same thing about some of the others you mentioned there.

The 'wing of the party' you identify with is actually a Third Party. It has attached itself to the Democratic Party because on its own, it could not accomplish its goals, they are very, very unpopular with the American people. It won't accomplish them in this party either, now that the whole scam has become crystal clear.

You have demonstrated here a frightening ignorance of how the SS program works. I have never met anyone who has less knowledge about this major Democratic program.

I am going to say this, if I believed that some of the people here who now claim to be Democrats actually had joined the Dem Party, I would consider it a real threat to this party.

I have never seen you post a single comment or OP that could be identified as standing up for anything the Democratic Party represents.

I don't think Obama supporters will be very happy to see you love him too. They are trying to convince us he is a real, Progressive Democrat. Your endorsement of him pretty much proves all the critics to have been correct.

[Dragonfli]

64. see post #61 "It has attached itself to the Democratic Party" very much so

[2ndAmForComputers]

128. In the Internet, anyone can say they're anything.

I, for instance, am the Queen of England.

[L0oniX]

95. LMFAO n/t

[Dragonfli]

61. It still is, the difference is moderate Republicans are called third way Democrats sometimes

The same Republican tactics are used by these third way "Democrats " as the other Republican style thinkers. This is an attack from two fronts.

From their 1% funded think tank:http://www.thirdway.org/subjects/145/publications/564

...as the cost of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security has skyrocketed, we’ve spent less and less of our budget educating kids...

Here they repeat their Republican tactic of pitting Social Security against education, implying the are paid from the same fund and compete

They pretty much spend the entire propaganda report claiming "entitlements" are a direct threat to and compete with everything in the budget, in their words, "they're on a collision course".

this report, we argue that the only way for Democrats to save progressive priorities like NASA, highway funding, and clean energy research is to reform entitlements...

They still use the same tactics of pitting desirable things in the budget against Social Security, only now they make the pretense that they aren't Republicans anymore, but a new kind of third way Democrat. All it takes is a registration and the pretense that they are pro-choice, The money still comes from their usual sources, and the talking points remain largely unchanged.

[suffragette]

74. Exactly. Same as the third way in the UK acted, which ushered the Tories back to power

And in both cases, the global financiers are given seats at the table to create austerity policies which - no surprise - decimate social programs while pouring more money into their already bulging bank accounts.

Over there, Blair and Brown put a Goldman Sachs/Barclay's executive in charge of a report (task force) about tax and benefit policy.
From the Sourcewatch page on John Martin Taylor(much more there):

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_Martin_Taylor

He wrote the ‘Lex’ column in the Financial Times then joined Barclays Bank (with Sir Gerald Mobbs of right-wing think tank Aims of Industry): which provided staff to help run Blair's constituency office. Taylor created a bitter dispute with unions over an effective pay cuts and redundancies imposed on 25,000 employees. As part of the Budget of March 1998 Gordon Brown asked (multimillionaire) Taylor to produce a report looking at options for the reform of the tax and benefit systems, needless to say, it hammered the poor.
~~~
An international advisor at Goldman Sachs and Gen. Sec. of the annual Bilderberg globalist conference, he is now chairman of W H Smith. He joined the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and compiled their 2001 Commission on Public Private Partnerships report which insisted there should be “no ideological barriers to private sector involvement in ‘core’ public services such as clinical and intermediate health care, the management of education and local government services”.


And, yeah, dkf has been absolutely consistent in putting forward these policies favoring the finance barons, which used to be a solely Republican and Tory position and which Third Way, there and here, have been pushing.

[sabrina 1]

86. Wow, there it is right there. The propaganda we are seeing, right here in this thread!

Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 12:50 AM - Edit history (1)

More and more I view this 'third party' within our own party to be even more of a threat to this country than Republicans. Democrats have always been able to keep Republicans at bay re SS, even their hero George Bush was sent home when the Left came out in droves to put a stop to his attempt to privatize SS.

This is a sneak attack and as such more more threatening to Democratic ideals. I guess they became impatient after so many decades of failing to achieve their goals.

But this Wall St invention, the Third Way, has speeded up the process at an alarming rate, to the point where we are seeing the propaganda, that, if it were still coming from Republicans would be slapped down on Democratic forums, actually being taken somewhat seriously here and the proposals to cut SS incredibly, being defended.

Imo, the first order of business to thoroughly expose this scam and then identify their candidates and do whatever it takes to remove them and/or prevent them from getting elected to our party.

[L0oniX]

96. 3rd way Dems are so far right they make Eisenhower look like a Democrat.

The original passage, from a letter Eisenhower wrote to his brother Edgar on Nov. 8, 1954, went as follows:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l953-1961

...and yea that is the actual quote ...not the modified email version

[AnotherMcIntosh]

123. Of course, he couldn't anticipate 3rd-Way thinking: "Where else are they going to go?"

[daybranch]

25. So you fell for that conservative strategy of divide and conquer?

Have you not noticed that if we all stand together for all the things needed, we will win? You sound a little paranoid. You don't have a gun , do you?

[dkf]

28. No I don't have a gun but I do know how to read a chart.

And if you doubt these numbers you can see its source page from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12guide.pdf

[sabrina 1]

32. Your chart has a very major flaw. It mentions the Deficit as an expense, (thanks Bush and your

war criminal and Wall St crooked cronies) it certainly is an expense. However the green part of your chart is a major mistake. SS has zero to do with the deficit, it is NOT an expense to the Fed Gov as it is funded by the people. I have told you this over and over but you prefer to listen to Republicans like Josh Mandel. That is your business, but you will continue to post false information as long as you go to Republican sites for information on SS.

[Rex]

36. The chart is projections, which is a nice way of saying speculation.

"To determine if current fiscal policy is sustainable, the projections discussed in this Guide assume current policy will be sustained indefinitely and draw out the implications for the growth of the debt-to-GDP ratio. 4 The projections are therefore neither forecasts nor predictions. As policy changes are enacted, then actual financial outcomes will, of course, be different than those projected."

So you are supposed to be scared of projections that are different every year and just leave it at that.

[sabrina 1]

144. I know, it is so transparent the way they try to distort these things. I guess if you read

Republican sites for your information on SS it becomes hard to accept facts. This has been pointed out over and over again, the fact that these projections change every year and are always based on the worst scenario. As someone said earlier, this is a 'blip' and the anti-SS contingency are jumping in with an enormous hammer trying to make it look like a huge mountain. So old, it's been going on for decades, and they are always so WRONG.

The difference now however is that the party that used to slap them down, appears to be cooperating.

[graham4anything]

38. +1. You make a very good point here. Very brave of you to make it.

[Dragonfli]

62. It isn't a point, it's a Republican fabrication based on a false premise /nt

[sabrina 1]

87. A very good Republican point, so yeah, very brave to make it on a Democratic forum

Did you check out the Republican link s/he provided here? That was pretty brave also. And I have to hand it to you for being equally brave supporting right wing propaganda here also. That used to be completely unacceptable here. But with the Third Way now firmly installed, at least for now, in our Party, we are getting used to seeing these right wing 'points'. Good to know the enemy imho, so I am not that upset about. It helps us regarding the work we have to do.

[rhett o rick]

112. Yes very brave to mimic RW talking points, but he didnt make a point.

He gave us a sad strawman.

[graham4anything]

115. I saw 42 today.God, I admire what Jackie Robinson had to go through. Even from his own team.

I loved 42 and highly recommend 42
The sequel should be called 44.

[rhett o rick]

116. I am guessing you are an ornery sock. Love to know your other

persona.

Note for the jury, "ornery sock" is said with good intentions.

[graham4anything]

117. as Popeye said "I yam what I yam". (and I always loved spinach).

note for the kiddies-
Popeye came before Robin Williams filmed him.
Popeye is another good allegory.

Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax?
Made the allstar games back then great. They all were on the same team.

Jackie Robinson 42 made that possible.
Without the foresight of 42, never would have 50 years later what was not possible before then.

[rhett o rick]

137. Don Drysdale.

[sabrina 1]

145. You are correct. There was no point.

[Trajan]

101. Figures you would come out against this ...

Of course ..... It's your Raison de Etre ; Right Wing economic philosophy is your cause, and it is what you espouse here in this Liberal oasis ....

[JDPriestly]

106. I checked the numbers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672737

The average Social Security recipient receives less per year than a person working 40 hours per week on minimum wage -- and the person who is working has an opportunity from time to time to get overtime pay.

Look at the numbers.

On Social Security, seniors are barely making it. Those who earn more than $40,000 or $80,000 pay extra taxes on their Social Security.

I agree with you on one thing. The income disparity in the country is a scandal. Too many people are barely making it.

And yet, we are bombarded constantly with ads and propaganda from companies and individuals who want to take our money for utterly wasteful things.

The fact is that our nation is dizzy from the greed of those who have a lot and want more, more, more.

Seniors who have saved only accumulated any savings because they lived very frugally. If you fall for the sales pitches from the advertising industry or the promises of the "investment" brokers, you are lost.

I remember sitting in a meeting during the Kerry campaign. One of the younger, more conservative Democrats stated with firm conviction in her voice that, "We are living in the richest country on earth." Kids are taught that in school. It is a lie. We are quite possibly the country with the biggest personal debt in the world. The size of personal debt owed by ordinary individuals in this country worries me far more than the national debt.

Americans are not taught or encouraged to save or to question the value of what they buy. And the business community does everything within its power to hoodwink consumers and take their money from them.

Does it amaze you that we have so much poverty?

Many economists presume that people make rational choices about spending or saving money.

The truth is that people do not make rational choices about spending or saving money.

And, therefore, the entire premise upon which our economic predictions are based and on which businessmen calculate risks, is false.

As long as we delude ourselves into thinking we are rich, we will continue to allow the truly rich, the Pete Petersons and the Bushes and the Cheneys (Halliburton) and the Romneys and the Kochs, etc. to run our country and to steal from us the modest wealth that should be ours --- like the taxes we put into Social Security and the benefits those taxes entitle us to. Yes. Entitle is not a dirty word.

If you are entitled to something it means you own title to it. You are entitled to own land if you record the title or deed to the land in your county. A title is a sign that you own something.

An entitlement is something that you own.

Here, on the Danish line of succession:

As a distinction, those entitled to inherit the throne are called "Prins til Danmark" (Prince to Denmark, although this distinction is not made in English) while those without succession rights are referred to as "Prins af Danmark" (Prince of Denmark).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_Danish_throne

Entitled means

Verb

Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
Give (something, esp. a text or work of art) a particular title.

https://www.google.com/search?q=entitled%20to%20land&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a#client=firefox-a&hs=2NV&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&q=entitled+definition&revid=2135647060&sa=X&ei=zhdrUZNAp6uKAtakgfgH&ved=0CHYQ1QIoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45175338,d.cGE&fp=69e0607ba6ebab96&biw=747&bih=362

We are entitled to our Social Security benefits, meaning we have a legal right to them.

Obama knows that, and that is why he is not admitting that his plan cuts the benefits but couching the Social Security cuts in the terminology of a chained CPI which suggest a cut to the increases in the benefits but not in the benefits themselves.

Don't be fooled. If the COLA is cut, the benefits are cut. That is because the COLA is what helps keep your monthly benefit the same. If you get $5 and inflation eats part of the value, you are actually receiving less if you don't get a COLA adjustment to keep your benefit up to the level of inflation.

The COLA goes up only when inflation goes up. So, under Obama's chained CPI proposal, the rate at which the COLA that keeps your Social Security benefit the same in terms of buying power when there is inflation, will not rise to keep up with inflation.

So, don't be confused, the chained CPI will put seniors either closer and closer to the poverty level or under it.

Please read the post that I linked to above if you want to know how much seniors really get from Social Security. It is less than a lot of people think.

Don't be fooled. Fight for your rights. Don't let them fool you out of your Social Security the way they fooled so many Americans out of their homes.

[rhett o rick]

111. Nice rant but no substance. What do you recommend?

Your "do you only want" strawman is pathetic and desperate. No one suggested that we only want that. There is a lot of things we can do to strengthen SS and Medicare, reduce poverty, provide jobs, provide health care, without cutting benefits. We must reverse the Great Wealth Redistribution of the last four decades.

The argument that we must cut SS to save it is asinine.

[demosincebirth]

154. What have the republicans every done for the working man in history. Even big banks owe FDR their

salvation...think FDIC, just to start with.

[Apophis]

2. I love Social Security as well.

If it wasn't for social security, my parents would be living on the streets right now.

I'll fight for those who need the program to survive.

[sabrina 1]

33. I am so glad that your parents are okay. I will be right there with you in that fight.

[silverweb]

9. K&R

[Art_from_Ark]

14. Every respectable country in the world has a system like Social Security

It is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society.
Anyone who tries to destroy such a system is a &%#@*~#-☟☹☠☢☟

[suffragette]

78. Exactly so, Art.

[Art_from_Ark]

158. And hello back at you :)

How are things in the Pacific Northwest?

[suffragette]

159. Rainy with sunbreaks

both weatherwise and in life. So, a usual April here.
How is life in Japan?

[Art_from_Ark]

160. It's been pretty bewildering

Things seem to be coming at me from all sides. Work was going gangbusters for the first two or three months of this year, but it has slowed to barely a trickle now. The radiation situation seems to have returned to normal, at least in this part of the country, but we're still getting earthquakes (fortunately, little ones for the most part, but there was a real shaker the other day near Kobe, where a major earthquake disaster had occurred in 1995). There have been a couple of things weighing heavily on me from back in the US (one indirectly concerning SS/Medicare for a family member, but hopefully that is being resolved), and a couple of things here in Japan. At least the so-called Golden Week vacation season is coming up, and I'll be able to take a long break and maybe make a few day trips to some interesting places

[suffragette]

161. It sounds like you've had a lot to deal with emotionally

on top of all the major events that kept coming in succession.


What is Golden Week?

[Art_from_Ark]

162. Golden Week is a series of spring holidays that come in succession

starting on April 29 (Hirohito's birthday), then May 3 (Constitution Day), May 4 (Green Day), and May 5 (Children's Day). This year, April 29th is on a Monday, creating a 3-day weekend, while Children's Day is on a Sunday, so the following Monday is given holiday status. April 30, and May 1 and 2 are normal work days, but a lot of people can get those days off as well. So there is potential for some people to have a 10-day holiday this year. I won't get the full 10 days, but I will still get a nice break.

[suffragette]

163. Sounds like a time of renewal and Spring is the natural season for that

Glad you will have some time to renew.

Speaking of renewal, there's a film I saw many years ago that carries that spirit and that you might enjoy and connect to. It's called "Enlightenment Guaranteed." "Erleuchtung garantiert" in German.
http://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Guaranteed-Uwe-Ochsenknecht/dp/B00006JL2T

If you can find it, it's very much worth watching.

[Art_from_Ark]

164. I've seen the trailer

There is one part of the trailer that really made my jaw drop to the floor. I can't really discuss the reason here, though.

Anyway, here is a typical rural scene for Golden Week. The huge koi streamers are mostly for Children's Day, but they are often flown throughout the Golden Week period.

[LuvNewcastle]

16. Great post.

Our government has accomplished some great things over the centuries and Social Security is probably the best program set up to benefit the average person. I know about that first hand. If it hadn't been there for me when I needed it, I'd likely have become homeless and very possibly have died. Any politician who proposes the destruction of or even a cut to social security should be thrown out of office on his ass.

[sabrina 1]

146. I couldn't agree more 'any politician who proposes the destruction of or even a cut to social

security should be thrown on of office on his ass'. Perfectly said.

I love that people are posting comments like yours in this thread, real people attesting to the importance of SS.

You say: 'If it hadn't been there for me when I needed it, I'd likely have become homeless and very possibly have died'. I am so very glad it WAS there for you.

[kitt6]

19. Where's the jobs Boner

This President has been leaning over backwards

[MrYikes]

20. Thank you for a well thought and well spoken post

"Tobacco Road" was a good movie showing the dismal, inevitable future for poor people. It showed that with just a little money the elderly could survive on their own. Social Security did that. We must not allow anyone the power to put SS on a path to its destruction.

[duffyduff]

70. Regardless of who it is or what political party they claim to belong to.

No more inoculation of somebody who peddles far right policies just because that person has a "D" after his or her name.

[suffragette]

21. Compassion and dignity

I want our society to be a compassionate one and the people here to be able to live with dignity.
Social Security is a vital part of that.

Thanks for an excellent OP, sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

72. I think you are not alone, suffragette.

It is so sad that from its inception there were always those who opposed it.

Nice to see you

[suffragette]

77. I think we are far from alone

Very sad and it's extremely disturbing to see the all out assault on retirement both here and globally. Posted some info on post #74 you might want to look at.

The more I look, the stronger the patterns of Blair's changes look like a road map of what is occurring here - right down to the language of "structural problems" used in terms of Social Security here and pension benefits there.

[sabrina 1]

79. The fight is going to have to be fierce on our side to protect it. They have become blatant now

no longer feeling the need for pretext, as you can see right here in this thread. I guess they feel that when Paul Ryan told Bush back in 2005 that 'SS is no longer the Third Rail of politics' he was just a little too soon, they had a little more work to do. And now I guess they feel their work is done and it's time to come out in the open.

The door has been opened. On our side.

[suffragette]

90. Yes, it has become blatant

Here in Washington state, we even had two "Democrats" side with the Republicans to stage a coup to give the Republicans control of the state Senate - that's how blatant they've become here.


I keep going back to Obama's Toronto G20 speech. He laid it out there and now is more openly acting on it. And for those who say he doesn't mean it, his statements then show he does and in no uncertain terms:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-g-20-press-conference-toronto-canada


In 2010, Obama said “I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it.”

He said it during a G20 press conference in response to a question about deficit reduction.

He said it in the context of tying Social Security to the deficit (erroneous as that is) and of describing the fiscal commission and referring to other actions, including ACA, that he acted upon.

He said it after describing what he calls structural issues and changes (austerity measures) by other G20 countries and stating his “violent agreement” with these. (And note that whether it’s called pension cuts or chained CPI, cuts to social retirement plans are a key part of austerity measures.)

And he said it in terms of "not rushing to the exits too quickly and all at the same time" in terms of austerity measures in other countries.

He also said "And one of the interesting things that's happened over the last 18 months as President is for some reason people keep on being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do."


I was hoping against hope in the last election that other Democrats, including the ones I helped elect from Washington State, Murray, Cantwell and McDermott, might have shifted his view and his campaign rhetoric seemed to indicate that.
But he seems more bound to his promises on the global stage than to the ones he makes to us.

No surprise here, not anymore, just dismay.

[sabrina 1]

107. Thank you for posting that G20 speech. I was thinking about it when the proposal was announced

and while I was not really surprised that it was included in the budget, like you I was hoping that some of our more progressive Democrats would have been able to persuade him not to do it.

This step is absolutely a step towards the disastrous 'austerity' policies that have already destroyed many former sovereign European nations, and as you pointed out to me a while ago, countries like Argentina.

The question I still have is 'why'?? How does it benefit anyone, even the wealthy, to reduce the world to a place where there are only the obscenely wealthy and the poor? Money can't buy them security and history shows that whenever this was attempted in the past, there has always been a breaking point, NOT to the advantage of those most responsible for it.

Sorry about the 'democrats' in your state. I hope they will be primaried strongly when they come up for reelection. That is really the only way now to restore the integrity of the Democratic party that appears to be slipping away.

I'm going to bookmark that link as I often think about that G20 speech which should have prepared us for what just happened ...

[graham4anything]

34. Great political ad!

[forestpath]

41. k&r

[klook]

46. Thank you for this excellent overview.

This is one of the best summaries of Social Security I've ever read. It is indeed a program worth fighting tooth and nail for, against all its adversaries. In both parties.

[madrchsod]

55. social security and medicare....

the two greatest government programs ever conceived during the short life time of our republic.

it`s is really hard to stomach the fact that a democratic president wants to cut the system to save it.

[duffyduff]

71. Add public education to the mix, too.

Obama is not committed to saving any of these programs and institutions but to destroy them in order to further enrich the billionaires and Wall Street people who support him.

[DCBob]

56. I think most everyone loves the Social Security program..

especially those like me who are counting on it for survival come old age. My fear is that the system might collapse if there arent some modifications to the way it works. Too many old folks and not enough workers paying into the fund.

[duffyduff]

69. Baloney. You are repeating lies from the Cato Institute.

They have been waging war on the program for decades because of ideology.

But of course you knew that.

[DCBob]

75. Salami.. I dont know anything about the Cato inst..

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

This is the opinion of most anyone who looks at the situation honestly and without bias.

[myrna minx]

57. Oh Sabrina - this is a magnificent post.

Thank you!

[KoKo]

58. Great Post...Thanks for this!

[99Forever]

59. Excellent post Sabina.

And the sub-tread ripping that resident Republican shill's lies to shreds is classic. Keep fighting the good fight.

[reformist2]

60. K&R - Excellent tribute to the ability of one person to change everything

[Dragonfli]

63. Very well put together!

Putting in so much history really shows what a great legacy we have and need to protect.

[woo me with science]

68. You're right. It's not just legislation,

one of many to be plucked off a list of blue links and thrown into the pot to bargain with.

It has been the embodiment of what drew many of us to this party initially. The hope of a compassionate society in which the people come first. The four freedoms, and removing terror from the inevitability of old age. Honoring people for their years on this earth, rather than casting them aside as no-longer-profitable entries on a corporate balance sheet.

Thank you for this post, Sabrina.

[Oilwellian]

73. My paternal grandparents were FDR Democrats

Yet my father is a conservative republican as are my brothers, and that has put me at odds with them over the years. Ironically, my father became extremely successful in his field due to the very Democratic program, the GI Bill. He took advantage of that benefit after the Korean war and became a chemical engineer. Social Security allowed him the FREEDOM to pursue his very lucrative career, and prevented him from having to stay in small town Texas, because his parents were taken care of in their senior years.

I've always marveled over that disconnect through the years. How can one be a conservative when their very success in life was largely due to socialistic programs? I've thought it extremely hypocritical of my father to rally against socialism, when it was that very philosophy that eased so many of his burdens, and allowed him more opportunity to succeed.

In the past few years, I've been spending more time with my father due to his advancing age. The fiery politics between us has waned a great deal because I think he finally understands my beliefs, and I'm more forgiving of his. His health and well-being are my main priority, and the stress of politics is deadly at this point in his life. (He'll soon be 88.)

He recently told me he knows where my liberal roots began. He said his parents were FDR Democrats and his mother in particular was passionate about the New Deal and helping the poor and elderly. He said I reminded him of his mother and that we share those same passions. It was the highest compliment my father has ever paid to me, and I finally felt an acceptance by him that has been missing in my life for decades. My grandmother was an extraordinary woman who worked hard her entire life to make this a better world. I was too young to have been influenced by her politically before she died, and that makes this story all the sweeter. My very conservative father finally has come full circle and realized it wasn't the selfish in society who helped him become successful. It's people like his mother and daughter who inherently understand the human condition, and work tirelessly to relieve those burdens we face in each new generation. His mother did it for him, and I am now doing it for my children and grandchildren.

May our passions for improving the human condition never die.

Most excellent post Sabrina. Thank you so much.

[sabrina 1]

91. Oilwellian, what a beautiful post, it actually made me cry. Especially the part about your dad

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)

telling you about your grandmother, who sounds like a truly wonderful woman.

It was the highest compliment my father has ever paid to me, and I finally felt an acceptance by him that has been missing in my life for decades. My grandmother was an extraordinary woman who worked hard her entire life to make this a better world.

She was an FDR Democrat. Me too even though I have only read about that era. They are the people who made this country great.

What you say about your father's disconnect, opposing those whose programs helped his success and ensured he would live a dignified life in his older years. That is what I meant in my OP about the Republicans I have argued with, how they love the programs, SS, Medicare and Disability, but slam Democrats. And as I said, many of them don't even know it was a Democrat who provided them.

Beautiful post, it definitely brought tears to my eyes. Thank you so much for posting it in my thread.

[Oilwellian]

119. Thank you, Sabrina

My eyes welled up with tears while writing it.

My grandparents survived the Great Depression by raising and selling eggs and chickens. They helped a lot of their neighbors and literally prevented them from starving during those difficult times. I'm sure it was that experience that led them to support FDR's New Deal. My grandmother went on to become one of the first telephone operators in the United States. She retired from that career around the same time I was born in the mid 50's, and my most predominant memories of her were her undying devotion and care for my grandfather who suffered a stroke and became blind. It took me many years to realize that is where I learned empathy and the importance of caring for the most vulnerable.

As an aside, and I know you'll get a kick out of this...the first president I remember was Kennedy and my grandmother had his picture hanging on her living room wall. She remained devoted to her liberal roots til the very end. I feel great pride in being her namesake and am passing on those same important lessons to my own grandchildren today.

Thanks so much for your kind words.

[sabrina 1]

155. No, thank you for posting in my thread. You and some of the other posters who provided examples of

the success of these programs are a breath of fresh air. People are or should be a civilized nation's most important assets and should be protected as such.

Throughout the past several days we have had to listen to excuses as to why it might be okay to cut SS benefits. None of them made any sense of course, but the worst aspect of these arguments, what stood out to me, was the focus on money. Hardly any of them seem to understand what FDR and Francis Perkins understood, that it is the American people who are the most important and valuable assets we have and that is what THEY acted on.

Our party is losing its way. But comments like yours bring into focus the really important and rarely acknowledged, real success of these programs, people like your grandparents, and their legacy to you. THAT should be main focus, the main goal for any Democrat, to continue to view people in the way Francis Perkins viewed them and despite all the difficulties (and money) problems she faced, her passion for the working class overcame them.

If our current politicians had the passion for the working class that she had, their main goal would be the same as hers, and they WOULD succeed in ensuring that nothing ever happens to diminish the success she achieved for the American Working Class.

I am not surprised your grandmother had JFK's photo on her wall. Had he lived, I am sure he would have continued to protect SS for the working class.

[Babel_17]

83. I like it on Facebook :)

https://www.facebook.com/socialsecurity

Click the "Like" button, show support!

[sabrina 1]

148. Thank you! n/t

[DirkGently]

88. Beautiful piece. ++++

[Cleita]

92. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for Social Security and the New Deal.

My father was the sole support of my grandmother and his nephew during the twenties and into the Great Depression. He had a job in South America that paid well because it was hardship location pay and it was secure. He was able to send most of his wages to the states so that my grandmother and cousin, who she was raising, could survive. He couldn't think of starting his own family under the circumstances without abandoning them. When Social Security was signed into law, my grandmother was able to relieve his burden somewhat. When my cousin turned eighteen he was able to join the CCC and after that went into the army. Then my father was economically free to marry and start his own family. I was born in 1940.

Thank you for this lovely essay.

[sabrina 1]

94. 'I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Social Security and the New Deal'

That is just one more of the millions of reasons for me to love SS. I have always loved your comments, Cleita.

This one and Oilwellian's above made me think that maybe there should be a project where people can tell their stories of how SS helped their parents and grandparents to survive. These two posts are extraordinarily moving to me.

Thank you for your comment. And thanks to FDR and all the Democrats who supported the New Deal for making it possible for you to be here to write it.

[L0oniX]

93. No "REAL" Democrat on DU or anywhere else would ever be for cuts of any sort to SS.

Raise the damned cap ...no more welfare for the rich. Everyone should pay the same % no matter how much money they make. Create and bring back jobs ...stop the import of tech workers ...more jobs = revenue for SS & Medicare. What's so hard to understand about that??? God bless America ...my ass!

[Zorra]

97. Bravo, sabrina1 !!!

Beautiful.

[zappaman]

99. Hell must have frozen over

as I agree with you and give this a big REC and KICK!

[sabrina 1]

102. Lol, well I guess it must have. But you realize you may be ruining my reputation now ...

Just kidding, thanks for the rec and I'm glad we agree on this ...

[Rex]

103. Had a nice long talk with a rep in D.C.

No just kidding...they laughed at me and hung up.

[rhett o rick]

113. Yikes! I was with her all the way until you approved. Now I will have to reevaluate. nm

[zappaman]

118. Sincerest Apologies.

[rhett o rick]

120. It's cool. I agree with her and ............... you. nm

[sabrina 1]

150. Lol, you guys are funny! n/t

[Nye Bevan]

105. "Roosevelt insisted that the new program not look like a dole, his aides later explained"

Roosevelt insisted that the new program not look like a dole, his aides later explained; rather, it should resemble a private insurance plan, tied to an individual's contributions in their working years. ''You want to make it simple, very simple,'' Roosevelt told his aides, Perkins later wrote in a memoir. ''Just simple and natural nothing elaborate or alarming about it.''

That's the key, right there. Everyone participates, rich or poor, and everyone's benefit is tied to their contributions. That's why we still have SS while "welfare as we know it" has ended.

[rhett o rick]

114. Thanks for posting. I am going to ask Skinner if he can add a feature so I can

designate to rec all of your posts automatically.

[L0oniX]

124. ...and change your nickname to rec o rick too?

[rhett o rick]

138. Perfect.

[Ruby the Liberal]

122. The Woman Behind the New Deal: The Life and Legacy of Frances Perkins

I bought this a few years ago and never got around to reading it. I need to dig it up.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Woman-Behind-New-Deal/dp/1400078563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365978270&sr=8-1&keywords=frances+perkins

[sabrina 1]

152. I have not read that book, but I have read a great deal about Francis Perkins. She is a fascinating

woman, she is also an inspiration to anyone who thinks that it might not be worthwhile to try, or possible to achieve a goal. She pursued her dream of helping the working class despite the remote chances she had all the way to becoming Sec of Labor and influencing those who had the power to put her dream into action.

I think the least we owe her now is to not allow anyone to destroy what she worked so hard to accomplish for all of us. To do as she did, to ignore the cries of 'we can't do it because the Republicans won't let us' etc.

Just keep the goal in mind and go for it, kick the obstacles out of the way, that's what I learned from her.

You should the read the book, I think you will enjoy it immensely.

[just1voice]

125. Rec'd, even though it's on a kittycat board

I wonder if anyone in the kittycat brigade has contemplated how they won't even be able to afford the loving companionship of animals when Soc. Sec. is cut?

Doubt it.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

127. Just got a bill for a chest X-ray

Total: $110.00, Medicare paid $103.10, I'll pay $6.90.

That is all except K&R!

[sabrina 1]

153. More proof of the success of Democrats like FDR and Francis Perkins.

Thank you for providing the really important aspect of the current discussion about these programs. So tired of the 'pragmatic' focus on money, rather than on what the programs were intended for. THAT is how judge success, 'did we achieve our goals'? I think they did. Our most valuable assets, people, were protected, as intended.

[JEB]

130. Thank you Sabrina.

I also love SS.
edit to add: Thanks for the original post and especially for being so well informed and standing up to the posters spouting Right Wing misinformation.

[fascisthunter]

131. athis issue is exposing the those infiltrating our party.

dumb, but arrogant.

[hay rick]

134. Thanks for this.

Especially enjoyed the refresher on Frances Perkins. Support for Social Security and improving the welfare of all Americans, especially older Americans, should be a litmus test for Democratic politicians. How can a country which espouses belief in progress and the American Dream endorse a declining standard of living?

K&R.

[classof56]

135. Sabrina, I thank you for posting this information. I am grateful SS has been there for me.

And my parents, who lived to be 85 and 96 respectively. And my spouse, who is 78. And his parents. And many of my friends, family and all who have needed it through the years. Not to mention FDR, Frances Perkins and all those who've advocated for this essential program since its beginning. Yep, I'm one of those who paid into it for 40-plus years, as well as paying into Medicare when it kicked in. Like you, the SS program makes me proud to be a Democrat. It has been the buffer against poverty. I do not consider it an entitlement but a necessity. Thanks for your voice of reason and all the good info you have provided here. I echo your sentiment--Hands OFF Social Security.

Blessings.

[sabrina 1]

151. I am so thrilled at the people, real people like you who have posted in this thread offering proof

of how successful and important SS has been to lives of the people Perkins and FDR promised to try to help.

I was thinking earlier after reading some of them, that someone should start a blog recording the voices of the people who can testify to the success of this program as you have. We hear from the 'economists', their cold calculations which have nothing to do with people. You can see them even here in this thread. But the true value of this program as intended by Francis Perkins and FDR is right there in what you posted.

You paid into it, it is not a welfare program FDR specifically did not want that, as he stated. And then you earned the benefits like any other policy you might have paid into. He wanted to help workers without any loss of dignity, and he did it.

I am so glad it has worked for you and your family. And thank you so much for posting this in my thread.

[sarcasmo]

139. Right on.

[blkmusclmachine]

147. SS is a bedrock DEM PRINCIPLE, lazly cast asunder by Obama in his fetish for "bipartisanship" w/an

insane, intractable Republican party, with ZERO political benefit for anyone outside the superrich 1% that owns the Too Big To Jail Wall Street Banks. BAD, BAD, BAD !!!