Flashback: President Obama's statements on Social Security

[ProSense]

Protecting Social Security

President Obama believes that all seniors should be able to retire with dignity, not just a privileged few. He is committed to protecting Social Security and working in a bipartisan manner to preserve its original purpose as a reliable source of income for American seniors. The President stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.

link

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Here’s the situation with Social Security. It is actually true that Social Security is not in crisis the way our health care system is in crisis. I mean, when you think about the big entitlement programs, you've got Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. These are the big programs that take up a huge portion of the federal budget. Social Security is in the best shape of any of these, because basically the cost of Social Security will just go up with ordinary inflation, whereas health care costs are going up much faster than inflation.

It is true that if we continue on the current path with Social Security, if we did nothing on Social Security, that at a certain point, in maybe 20 years or so, what would happen is that you start seeing less money coming into the payroll tax, because the population is getting older so you've got fewer workers, and more people are collecting Social Security so more money is going out, and so the trust fund starts dropping.

And if we did nothing, then somewhere around 2040 what would happen would be a lot of the young people who would start collecting Social Security around then would find that they only got 75 cents on every dollar that they thought they were going to get. Everybody with me so far?
All right. So slowly we're running out of money.

But the fixes that are required for Social Security are not huge, the way they are with Medicare. Medicare, that is a real problem. If we don't get a handle on it, it will bankrupt us. With Social Security, we could make adjustments to the payroll tax. For example -- I'll just give you one example -- right now, your Social Security -- your payroll tax is capped at $109,000. So what that means is, is that -- how many people -- I don't mean to pry into your business, but how many people here make less than $109,000 every year? (Laughter.) All right, this is a pretty rich audience -- a lot of people kept their hands down. (Laughter.) I'm impressed. (Laughter.)

No, look, what it means is basically for 95 percent of Americans, they pay -- every dollar you earn, you pay into the payroll tax. But think about that other 5 percent that's making more than $109,000 a year. Warren Buffett, he pays the payroll tax on the first $109,000 he makes, and then for the other $10 billion -- (laughter) -- he doesn't pay payroll tax.

So -- yes, somebody said, "What?" (Laughter.) Yes, that's right. That's the way it works.

So what we've said is, well, don't we -- doesn't it make sense to maybe have that payroll tax cut off at a higher level, or have people -- maybe you hold people harmless till they make $250,000 a year, but between $250,000 and a million or something, they start paying payroll tax again -- just to make sure that the fund overall is solvent.

So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine. All right? (Applause.)

link

"Social Security is not in crisis," Obama said. "We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it."

link

[Enrique]

1. Obama says a lot of things n/t

[Clio the Leo]

15. And a lot of folks continuously ignore what he says. nt

[jtown1123]

20. because he has not assured anyone, especiall ss advocates, that he still holds these positions

[Little Star]

30. He continuously has said one thing and done another. n/t

[Whisp]

41. Yes, he does.

and he means what he says.

On the other hand, all the distress signals here about cat commssions and Obama making seniors starve to death is pure nonsensical fabrication.

same as DADT.

DADT was the big bruhaha thread after thread after thread of how obama is a homophobe and he will do anything he can to stop DADT. well, how did that turn out? and nary a peep about DADT now here, when used to be half the bleedin' forum topics.

o, I know. Obama was FORCED to do the right thing by the squirrel screamings and cat mewlings of the Hamshers and staff. Yeah, they get the credit!

barf, vomit and upchuck

[mtnsnake]

2. So what's your point?

All I see are some articles you posted that are not very recent. Are you trying to say the President is consistent about Social Security. Not consistent? That he was a champion of Social Security and still is? Isn't? What point is it that you're making?

[kentuck]

3. Are you saying you believe this President...?

unconditionally?

[ProSense]

4. Why do you think he's lying? n/t

[kentuck]

6. I will only say...

I do not trust him to the degree that you do.

[ProSense]

14. Well,

he lost the public option and gained the repeal of DADT.

I trust him to try to do his best. It's not always going to result in a win.

[Dawgs]

23. "He lost the public option"?

:rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl:

Man, you're not even trying that hard anymore.

[Little Star]

29. Let me join you.........

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ProSense]

36. Of course he lost it,

it's not in the bill. The OPM plan is close, but it's not the public option.

[indepat]

43. Losing the public option was a giant gain for for health insurance industry and big pharma

(corporate America) and gaining repeal of DADT cost corporate America nary a dime. Obama's wins for his base in general have not dented the profits of corporate America who have had trillions of Federal dollars outlayed to prop up the banksters and Wall Street gangsters who created vast fraudulent schemes that would have resulted in a complete financial meltdown in absence of Federal bailouts. Those banksters and gangsters in general have not been brought to justice, their huge profits and bonuses restored, while main street and the unemployed, underemployed, and under-water homeowners are largely left to languish. Ain't it wonderful to have a corporatist government wherein almost everything done is for the benefit of large corporations and the uber-wealthy rather than to promote the general welfare? ;)

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Why is Obama repeatedly lying about who FDR created Social Security for?

Why did he appoint the two most storied Social Security slashers to chair hi "Deficit Commission"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x578916">It is a lie that Social Security is underfunded. A total lie.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. About your history of Social Security, I don't understand what you're talking about.

You claim that the social security program was NOT *originally* established to assist widowers and veterans after the Civil War.

That is not true. The original Social Security program was indeed directed at widowers, orphans, the disabled and veterans when it was originally established. The program did not include elderly or "old age" benefits when it was first established. That came later...

Here:

Civil War Pensions: America's First "Social Security" Program

Although Social Security did not really arrive in America until 1935, there was one important precursor, that offered something we could recognize as a social security program, to one special segment of the American population. Following the Civil War, there were hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, and hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans. In fact, immediately following the Civil War a much higher proportion of the population was disabled or survivors of deceased breadwinners than at any time in America's history. This led to the development of a generous pension program, with interesting similarities to later developments in Social Security. (The first national pension program for soldiers was actually passed in early 1776, prior even to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Throughout America's ante-bellum period pensions of limited types were paid to veterans of America's various wars. But it was with the creation of Civil War pensions that a full-fledged pension system developed in America for the first time.)

The Civil War Pension program began shortly after the start of the War, with the first legislation in 1862 providing for benefits linked to disabilities "incurred as a direct consequence of . . .military duty." Widows and orphans could receive pensions equal in amount to that which would have been payable to their deceased solider if he had been disabled. In 1890 the link with service-connected disability was broken, and any disabled Civil War veteran qualified for benefits. In 1906, old-age was made a sufficient qualification for benefits. So that by 1910, Civil War veterans and their survivors enjoyed a program of disability, survivors and old-age benefits similar in some ways to the later Social Security programs. By 1910, over 90% of the remaining Civil War veterans were receiving benefits under this program, although they constituted barely .6% of the total U.S. population of that era. Civil War pensions were also an asset that attracted young wives to elderly veterans whose pensions they could inherit as the widow of a war veteran. Indeed, there were still surviving widows of Civil War veterans receiving Civil War pensions as late as 1999!

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Obama specifically cited FDR's Social Security Act

"And that means because it’s a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise. This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans."

This is flat-out untrue, and he's repeated it at least three times, so it ain't an accident. It's a fringe-right meme used to claim that Social Security is doing other than what it was intended to do, so we need to slash it to bring it back in line.

On another level - The Civil War Pension program may be the forerunner of Social Security, but that's like saying the Magna Carta is the forerunner of the Constitution. They run in the same line, but they're very different animals.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. I got it. I think I misunderstood. Obama has stated that FDR's extension of SS

did not include pension programs for the elderly. Indeed it did. You think he is purposefully mistating the facts. I'm not sure what his intentions are. I'm just not sold on the idea that he's some nefarious, evil man who is plotting to gut social security. I'm not sold for one reason: he's not stupid in the sense that he knows that cutting social security would not only spell doom for his reelection chances, should the Democratic Party go along with that plan, it would be the end of the Democratic Party.

I think we should all take a collective deep breath and be clear about this. Is the Democratic Party going to allow their leader to destroy or even cut social security? I just don't buy that. I don't see it.

I'm willing to wait and see what actually happens.

[dflprincess]

40. The Social Securirty Act of 1935 created the old age pension

Survivors' Benefits (aka widows and orphans) was not added until 1939.

[no limit]

8. Thanks for posting this prosense

will be nice to have all this information in one thread when Obama breaks his promise.

[ProSense]

9. You're welcome.

We'll see.

[no limit]

42. I'm curious as what you would define as major change to social security

would raising the retirement age for future retirees be major change for you?

[bvar22]

10. Just a replay of the Public Option marketing scam.

Remember?
He was "FOR it" in PUBLIC, even after he had already traded it away.

[Donnachaidh]

13. yup -- the deja vu chess move is already in play

And this time the pukes will happily go bipartisan to shred what's left of the social safety net for the middle class. After all, gotta start pumping that money to the elites - there's campaign coffers for them to fill for 2012!

[Hello_Kitty]

16. But he got DADT repealed! That TOTALLY makes up for everything!

Which, apparently, was totally his doing and nothing to do with Congress. Unlike the DREAM Act failure which was, of course, totes the fault of Congress.

[ProSense]

17. He got

some other things done too.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. I don't click on little blue links but you're right, he has accomplished things.

However, it is a real stretch to conflate last year's abandonment of the public option with this years repeal of DADT.

[jtown1123]

19. These are really old. He has not said anything in recent weeks that reiterates this position.

[Jakes Progress]

21. Not helping your case.

Words don't really get it done anymore.

[ProSense]

22. "Words don't really get it done anymore. " So only

baseless speculation is valid?

[Dawgs]

24. Try actions, not words.

His actions have shown that he will cave on almost anything; regardless of what he said.

[ProSense]

25. Wait

baseless speculation is action?

Why is speculation (also words) more valid than the President's own words?

[Dawgs]

26. Huh? The President went against his word on the public option and tax cuts for the rich.

Understand now?

[ProSense]

27. No,

do you understand that he gets more of the things he wants than not?

[Dawgs]

28. I think you just figured out our problem.

You're okay with some, but not all. I think he could have gotten all; and some is not enough for me.

[ProSense]

31. So

"You're okay with some, but not all. I think he could have gotten all; and some is not enough for me."


...you expected the President to achieve 100 percent of his agenda exactly as he campaigned on the issues?

Really?

[Dawgs]

32. Really. I expected the President to achieve more than he promised.

Which was absolutely possible for someone with his intellect, support, and situation. Why he failed to recognize how to do it is beyond me.

[ProSense]

33. Hilarious

"Which was absolutely possible for someone with his intellect, support, and situation. Why he failed to recognize how to do it is beyond me."

You expected him to achieve more than he promised because he is superior?

[Dawgs]

34. Never said that.

I'm saying that he went into the office as a legislature and not a leader. I expected differently because I see him as inspirational and more intelligent than most.

He could have easily gotten the public option through reconciliation long before the bill passed (like in 2008). I think his stubbornness to change Washington failed him.

[ProSense]

35. "I expected differently because I see him as inspirational and more intelligent than most. "

You did say he's superior unless "inspirational and more intelligent than most" means inferior or average.

"He could have easily gotten the public option through reconciliation long before the bill passed (like in 2008)."

What?

[Sheepshank]

38. you will for ever be doomed to disappointment

I hope you are appliying this very same standard to every Democratic President...or is Obama extra special?

[Jakes Progress]

37. Here goes another pointless exchange.

When the words don't match the history, then it is not baseless speculation to ignore fine-sounding words when similar bravado speeches in the past have been followed by timid capitulation and weeny legislation.

Indicators like who the president appointed to positions is more telling than boiler plate from the pr room.

Now you can start the blue-text war with a tone of baseless pulled quotes and pr output.

[TBF]

39. +1 nt

[great white snark]

45. -1

Pointless to you maybe. A compromise is not "timid capitulation" and HCR, DADT repeal etc are not "weeny legislation."

Your purist views would yeild no Progress, Jakes.

[Jakes Progress]

47. Pointless

because some here refuse reality. They prefer bravado and fine speeches. They prefer "winning" over principle. They call it compromise when all you really do is give the other side what they want and you get only what they would have given anyway. They disdain principled reality and think that calling someone a purist is an insult. Without views like mine - and the majority here on DU - we would not have any progress at all. Without principled people calling out the sham, our party would already be in talks with the republicans about merging. You do know that the antonyms of pure are impure, bastardized, contaminated, polluted dirty, and dingy. If you are not pure, which of these would you say best describes your political views.

[whosinpower]

44. Which is exactly why selling the payroll tax holiday as a dem principle

Is so horrendously obnoxious.

I read every single link....protecting Social security via a payroll tax holiday???!!??

Oh yes - he stood firmly on Jello as he touted that holiday as being a dem goal. The only way that it might have been a dem goal would of been if it had been paid for via a wealthy surtax - which was quickly taken out, and thus the general fund is left to pay for it. You know - democrats believe in pay as you go.....republicans do not.

Obviously, if the payroll tax holiday had not been brought up in the tax cut sellout, these links might of carried water....but now, they look like sad hypocritical words, even moreso that we are supposed to swallow hard that it is a democratic goal to undermine where Social Security funds come from and somehow the tax sellout was a better "deal" for the democrat's than the republicans, who we all know were the ones who brought it to the table.

[old mark]

46. I remember him saying that, and I think the idea that he will try to cut SS

is nonsense. Give him a chance before jumping on the unfounded rumor of the week.


mark