Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:41 PM

Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit??? [View all]

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:28 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Seriously, does anyone have any facts coming out of the White House (not speculation from pundits) to dispute this?

Here are the offers, why is Social Security in there WHEN IT DOES NOT ADD ONE NICKEL TO THE DEFICIT???

SOURCE: WASHINGTON POST (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/21/the-incredible-shrinking-stimulus/)

Call the White House 202-456-1111 (opens WED 12/26), and your rep (202) 224-3121 (opens TH 12/27)!

Tell them no cuts to Social Security, it does not add one nickel to the deficit!

111 replies, 3775 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

111 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why is Social Security Under Attack from Obama, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit??? [View all]	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	OP
Why indeed.	woo me with science	Dec 2012	#1
Thanks for that video. Obama thinks liberalism is a tired, old ideology that needs to be replaced??	factsarenotfair	Dec 2012	#42
Obama: "Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938."	woo me with science	Dec 2012	#69
How can intelligent people fail to heed Obama's words and deeds: He is not a friend of Social	byeya	Dec 2012	#73
The words "not a bloodless process" are indeed chilling.	factsarenotfair	Dec 2012	#102
This message was self-deleted by its author	woo me with science	Dec 2012	#104
Because the Third Way believes that SS needs to be privatized and that the	sabrina 1	Dec 2012	#2
I think the opposite argument could be made too	democrattotheend	Dec 2012	#5
so to "reduce the cost of the program" by cutting future benefits is ok with you?	DrDan	Dec 2012	#8
I never said it's ok	democrattotheend	Dec 2012	#9
I have to agree with your reasoning	Freddie	Dec 2012	#18
+1	SunSeeker	Dec 2012	#23
We democrats did NOT stay home in 2010. Independents stayed home.	sabrina 1	Dec 2012	#82
there are other options that do not seem to be pursued - for example raising the cap	DrDan	Dec 2012	#35
Wait. Why is Social Security in the mix - WHEN IT DOES NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT?	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#37
!!!!	bvar22	Dec 2012	#68
Great photo!	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#70
I was lucky enough to have lived in St Paul, Minnesota...	bvar22	Dec 2012	#79
Amen.	woo me with science	Dec 2012	#76
That's absurd. Simply having those who earn over $110,000/yr pay ito it will keep	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#10
and/or include capital gains and "carried interest"	reteachinwi	Dec 2012	#27
That is a solution I could definitely get behind	democrattotheend	Dec 2012	#108
There is no reason to even mention SS in these negotiations and the Progressive Caucus	xtraxritical	Dec 2012	#31
I've never seen any figures on how raising the cap will raise sufficient sums of money	customerserviceguy	Dec 2012	#80
There's a bill introduced by Bernie Sanders that details all of it:	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#84
I see some pretty charts	customerserviceguy	Dec 2012	#92
Here are the core numbers in the PDF from the Social Security Chief Actuary:	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#98
But the whole reason this "cut" is being proposed is	truedelphi	Dec 2012	#53
"have the President sign and Executive Order recapturing that money" -	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#86
If only that were true. But the opposite is true. First of all SS is not in trouble	sabrina 1	Dec 2012	#63
Hear Hear! Well said!	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#87
I think YOU MIS READ WHAT I POSTED.	truedelphi	Dec 2012	#100
I'm sorry, I was trying to agree with you but didn't do it very well.	sabrina 1	Dec 2012	#105
all I know is that I am headachy and grouchy now that not a	truedelphi	Dec 2012	#106
Lol, I haven't had any egg nog either, so I wish I could join you also.	sabrina 1	Dec 2012	#107
Do you even know what a chained CPI is?	daa	Dec 2012	#66
Sorry, but that makes no sense...	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#110
Yep they first have to degrade and denature it	kenny blankenship	Dec 2012	#12
Neo-liberalism is a failure as policy	duffyduff	Dec 2012	#28
Yes, Neo-liberaliam has been tried in several places throughout the world and has been proved to	byeya	Dec 2012	#74
Certainly Social Security is Self-Funded,	On the Road	Dec 2012	#3
That's absurd. No one has to negotiate that which is simply not in play.	Bluenorthwest	Dec 2012	#4
No excuse for adopting what they bring to our proposals.	TheKentuckian	Dec 2012	#6
If you are in control of negotiations, if your party wins an election, you get to	sabrina 1	Dec 2012	#7
Look at OBAMA'S offers, not BOHNERS. Why did OBAMA put it on the table?	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#11
Mr. Obama is a long way from	Wellstone ruled	Dec 2012	#13
He's "more like Harry Truman"? You must have a sense of humor. He's the exact opposite of Truman.	AnotherMcIntosh	Dec 2012	#17
Right now, SS is self-funding. However, this will not be the case starting in 2033.	Nye Bevan	Dec 2012	#14
Projections can change, it still has nothing to do with the current deficit	Dragonfli	Dec 2012	#20
Exactly right	reteachinwi	Dec 2012	#30
Bingo, spot-on, you've nailed it.	hypergrove	Dec 2012	#45
Rationalization fail. Logic fail. High probability of administration deception detected.	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#38
All we need do is have those who make over $110,000/yr pay into SS!	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#32
Those numbers are based on the worst economy and the high enemployment	sabrina 1	Dec 2012	#64
If by self-funding	customerserviceguy	Dec 2012	#81
The media has spun the demographics to make it appear half the population is not working, thus they	freshwest	Dec 2012	#15
Obama is not doing this alone.	AnotherMcIntosh	Dec 2012	#16
The appointer of Simpson & Bowles knew exactly where these two right-wingers stood. Their answer	indepat	Dec 2012	#19
Take the cap off of wage limits on SSI. Not fair that poor and middle class only pay this in.	earcandle	Dec 2012	#21
or maybe it was used to bribe senators and house? Put it back and audit SSI NOW	earcandle	Dec 2012	#22
The ruling class	sulphurdunn	Dec 2012	#24
Same reason he is lowering corporate taxes, and...	soryang	Dec 2012	#25
President Obama has already taken Social Security off the table	UCmeNdc	Dec 2012	#26
If you have any proof of that, I would love to see it, unfortunately his latest statement,	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#89
because he knew the radical right would never go for a tax increase. He looks like a goddamn hero	pasto76	Dec 2012	#29
How does offering up our SS fund to vultures make him look like a "goddamn hero"?	Dragonfli	Dec 2012	#33
Wait. You have a link for that? I would love it if he said he took SS off	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#39
It is simple.......	rustydad	Dec 2012	#34
....and that is why Al Gore wanted a "lock box".	NCarolinawoman	Dec 2012	#43
well, Gore did win--and they've formally admitted that since 2001	MisterP	Apr 9	#111
Because "deficit" isn't the only thing that matters.	Igel	Dec 2012	#36
So, you don't want to pay back the money you borrowed from the elderly...	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#41
SS is not under attack and the deficit has nothing to so with SS...	TreasonousBastard	Dec 2012	#40
"Odd" That Obama "Throws Out Suggestions" Regarding SS	Iggy	Dec 2012	#44
That's not how it works...	TreasonousBastard	Dec 2012	#54
No, that's wrong. Both sides throw out an entire offer,	woo me with science	Dec 2012	#90
You state, "SS is not under attack", yet you admit that	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#46
he hasn't stolen fom anyone yet, and...	TreasonousBastard	Dec 2012	#52
Of course, but historically Obama has had to be pushed hard to do the right thing.	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#61
Look back at his first two years and say that.	TreasonousBastard	Dec 2012	#65
"can be changed in the future"?	NCarolinawoman	Dec 2012	#47
We are finished with shadow governments and guns and fake facts.	earcandle	Dec 2012	#48
Every body knows.	earcandle	Dec 2012	#49
Quite possibly, when there is a less toxic House...	TreasonousBastard	Dec 2012	#51
Because Obama is a Republican.	UnrepentantLiberal	Dec 2012	#50
Oh bullshit. I know the reason:	ProSense	Dec 2012	#55
.	UnrepentantLiberal	Dec 2012	#56
Ah,	ProSense	Dec 2012	#57
Advantage: Prosense	Number23	Dec 2012	#59
Thank you....	Bobbie Jo	Dec 2012	#94
Don't you wish that just once he would pander to the left	Doctor_J	Dec 2012	#60
Because the banksters who own the government WANT IT	Doctor_J	Dec 2012	#58
When negotiating, you must offer the other side something they want.	Agnosticsherbet	Dec 2012	#62
Just say someone wants to buy your car, but, heck, they'd like your house too;	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#67
I don't think it should have ever been offered...but I still understand why he went there.	Agnosticsherbet	Dec 2012	#72
I read nothing in that article about Obama attacking or cutting Social Security. And he hasn't.	Honeycombe8	Dec 2012	#71
All the red areas comprise cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#75
The CPI is only in Obama's last proposal, which he has withdrawn.	Honeycombe8	Dec 2012	#95
I would very much appreciate a link to the administration stating that chained cpi and	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#96
Bullshit. You declare defeat before anything even happens.	MjolnirTime	Dec 2012	#77
I had to laugh out loud at your response	Oilwellian	Dec 2012	#83
What are you talkin about? This is a call to action, asking that we all call	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#85
Don't cut SS, cut corporate welfare!	commenter8	Dec 2012	#78
Because this is what the professors are telling him to do	Yo_Mama	Dec 2012	#88
Bernake is only interested in stuffing our hard earned money into his obesely rich	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#91
Corzine was never prosecuted	Yo_Mama	Dec 2012	#93
Because SS is unsustainable in its current form- it's going to need some tweaking if people my age	cecilfirefox	Dec 2012	#97
Then it should be adressed seperately from the the deficit reduction talks. Especially	grahamhgreen	Dec 2012	#99
Last year	Sekhmets Daughter	Dec 2012	#101
Wall St.	JReed	Dec 2012	#103
But Obama magically knew his offer(s) wouldn't be accepted!	DirkGently	Dec 2012	#109