What do you think this Obama quote means? (on Social Security)

[MannyGoldstein]

Poll question: What do you think this Obama quote means? (on Social Security)

Regarding Social Security, Obama today said:

"it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older... both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities without slashing benefits for future generations"

(P.S. Social Security does not face long-term challenges unless the economy gets much worse than it is today and stays that way: http://fdrdemocrats.org/the-common-sense-guide-to-social-security/2/)

If you think this is an interesting question, please keep this kicked and/or recommended so others have a chance to consider it. Thanks.

[slackmaster]

1. I read it as "Future retirees, YOYO."

Start saving now.

[Tx4obama]

2. FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility

FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility
Full statement here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

Excerpt:

SNIP

Health care: The President’s framework builds on the Affordable Care Act by including new reforms aimed at further reducing the growth of health care spending – a major driver of long-term deficits. The President opposes any plan that would simply shift costs to seniors and the vulnerable by undermining Medicare and Medicaid. Building on the foundation of the historic deficit reduction achieved through the Affordable Care Act, the framework would save an additional $340 billion by 2021, $480 billion by 2023, and at least an additional $1 trillion in the subsequent decade. These savings complement the new patient safety initiative that could lower Medicare costs by another $50 billion over the next decade by providing better care. The President’s framework includes initiatives that will:

* Bend the long-term cost curve by setting a more ambitious target of holding Medicare cost growth per beneficiary to GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent beginning in 2018, through strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

* Make Medicaid more flexible, efficient and accountable without resorting to block granting the program, ending our partnership with States or reducing health care coverage for seniors in nursing homes, the most economically vulnerable and people with disabilities. Combined Medicaid savings of at least $100 billion over 10 years.

* Reduce Medicare’s excessive spending on prescription drugs and lower drug premiums for beneficiaries without shifting costs to seniors or privatizing Medicare. Combined Medicare savings of at least $200 billion over 10 years.

SNIP

Health Care

Medicare and Medicaid Savings of $480 Billion by 2023 and At Least an Additional $1 Trillion over the Subsequent Decade, Providing Better Care at Lower Costs:

* Building on the Affordable Care Act, the President is proposing additional reforms to Medicare and Medicaid designed to strengthen these critical programs by reducing waste, increasing accountability, promoting efficiency, and improving the quality of care, without shifting the cost of care to our seniors or people with disabilities.
* The framework will save $340 billion over ten years and $480 billion by 2023 (including the proposals already included in the President’s Budget). This framework includes the same aggregate savings that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan proposed in his November 2010 plan with Alice Rivlin and an amount sufficient to fully pay to reform the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) physician payment formula while still reducing the deficit.
* Over the subsequent decade, the President’s proposal will save well over $1 trillion by further bending the cost curve, doubling the savings from the Affordable Care Act.
* The President’s framework offers a stark contrast with the House Republican plan that would increase seniors’ health costs by $6,400 annually starting in 2022, raise health insurance premiums for middle-class Americans and small businesses, cut Federal Medicaid spending by one-third by the end of the decade, and increase the number of uninsured by 50 million.

SNIP

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Again, this contains the same lie

"Social Security faces long-term challenges that are better addressed sooner than later to ensure that the program remains for future generations the rock-solid benefit for older Americans that it has been for past generations."

And the same carefully parsed words: "That is why the President supports bipartisan efforts to strengthen Social Security for the long haul. These efforts should be guided by several principles, including strengthening the program and not privatizing it, improving retirement security for the vulnerable while protecting people with disabilities and current beneficiaries, and not slashing benefits for future generations."

[bhikkhu]

22. I think it means what it says, is an accurate assessment

and probably reflects the presidents actual concerns and intentions.

Even Reagan beefed up social security with an increase to payroll taxes to accommodate the long-term demographics shift. All that is projected out based on expected size and growth of the economy and population; after ten years+ of close to zero growth and perhaps less rosy future projections, I would be concerned if ideology prevailed over a need for small improvements/changes.

[eridani]

24. Bullshit--there is no long-term demographic shift. Thrre is a temporary

--pig in a python baby boomer effect. The trust fund was beefed up to prepay boomers' retirement, after which the intention was back to pay as you go.

[bhikkhu]

61. That's what I meant by "long-term demographic shift"

...back in the early eighties lots of people had their hair on fire about the inevitable collapse of social security once the baby boomers started retiring, as birth rates were staying relatively low. Reagan increased the payroll tax to beef up the fund, and the problem was pretty much solved. It was a simple and pain-free solution because it was done so many years out, and most people have probably forgotten the whole thing by now.

Hopefully it will be no worse or better now, as it is a comparably minor issue many years out. It would be good if we could just trust the competence of the PTB to make the little adjustments as we go along, as they have done well so far, but it is definitely something to keep a close eye on.

[eridani]

73. Sorry for jumping down your throat

Didn't understand you the first time around.

[DJ13]

4. Other

Its well documented that the number of people who will get SS plateau's at the point the scare mongers claim it will have to reduce benefits, then it actually declines back to levels we currently have.

A simple raising of the cap will be sufficient to get it past that plateau, and keep it solvent indefinitely after that, but you'll never hear the politicians (in either party) mention that since they really would prefer to just start the trust fund over without paying back the trillions they've already spent.

[Common Sense Party]

5. Benefits WILL be cut for future retirees (like me). I'm pretty sure

that my retirement age for full benefits will get pushed out to age 70 (or more), and I may not get everything I've been promised.

I also suspect at some point I'll have FICA taken out of ALL of my paycheck.

[eridani]

25. Only if you persist in being a gutless coward and don't fight for it

Raisiing the cap fixes everything well into the indefinite future.

[Common Sense Party]

28. Nice Dale Carnegie technique you have there.

What a tool.

[eridani]

35. So, that established, are you going to defend your retirement, or just roll over? n/t

[Common Sense Party]

63. Defend it against what? Against whom?

Against 77 million baby boomers? Against 40 years of lying, thieving politicians who spent any and all surplus on pet projects to get themselves re-elected?

I'm saving for my own retirement. God willing, there'll be enough left in the system to help the truly needy. But I doubt I'll get much out of SS. That's why I'm saving and investing.

If you think the government is going to look out for you, you're more optimistic than I could ever be.

[eridani]

72. For fuck's SAKE!! Boomers are the first generation to prepay our retirement

That's why rates were raised in the 80s--to accumulate a surplus until the pig makes it all the way through the python. If you would bother to demand that Congress eliminate the FICA cap, your retirement would be secure.

If you think that your savings plans can't be derailed by unemployment or illness, you are the one who is delusional.

[Mimosa]

75. ^ Exactly ^ n/t

[Turbineguy]

6. The GOP wants to give SS to Wall Street

They will squander and steal it. The taxpayers will be on the hook to make good on it.

[ProSense]

7. What do you think this means:

7. Social Security

The President does not believe that Social Security is a driver of our near-term deficit problems or is currently in crisis. But he supports bipartisan efforts to strengthen Social Security for the long haul, because its long-term challenges are better addressed sooner than later to ensure that it remains the rock-solid benefit for older Americans that it has been for past generations. The President in the State of the Union laid out his principles for Social Security reform which he believes should form the basis for bipartisan negotiations that could proceed in parallel to deficit negotiations:

• Strengthen retirement security for the low-income and vulnerable; maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits.
  
  
• No privatization or weakening of the Social Security system; reform must strengthen Social Security and restore long-term solvency.
  
  
• No current beneficiary should see the basic benefit reduced; nor will we accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations.

link

Oh noes!!!! Code!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

17. There it is again: not cuts for current recipients, no "slashing" for future generations

If he doesn't want it cut it for future generations, then why the careful differentiation between current and future recipients? You claim it's an accident that's repeated every time Obama opens his mouth?

You can't possibly not see that. It's just not possible.

[eridani]

26. Translation--we'll accept cuts that are halfway between none and the Repuke--

--"slashing". And let's raise the retirement age, since rich people are living longer.

[Historic NY]

8. They better make the adjustments now to save it later....ie raise the damn CAP.

and eliminate or greatly reduce payouts for the 2% crowd. I'm sorry SS/medicare was not created for millionares.

[former9thward]

9. In the speech he praised Reagan for "saving" Social Security.

Reagan (and the Democratic congress) "saved" SS by raising the retirement age to 67. So look for that to come up again.

[ProSense]

11. Reagan

increased taxes

Krugman (2004: The Great Taxer

[Avalux]

10. Fix issues now so cuts aren't needed for anyone, even future retirees. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

19. And which issues would those be?

As far as I know, there are zero issues: http://fdrdemocrats.org/the-common-sense-guide-to-social-security/2/

[KurtNYC]

12. They will want to move the goal posts again = "slashing benefits for future gens"

"do it without putting at risk current retirees" = benefits won't change much for current retirees.

It is so vague that that is just a guess based on recent history.

[vaberella]

13. O said it: Fix SS to make it more efficient w/o cutting benefits for past or future gens.

Dude, what are you trying to read in the statement?

[MannyGoldstein]

16. It uses less than one-half of one percent for overhead

99.61% of each dollar spent is on benefits checks. How can it be made significantly more efficient?

[Whisp]

14. other

some can't stop twisting and turning to find something sinister and underhanded and evvvvvvvvil coder ring mesages that Obama sends out to his mothership with his implants.

right on cue

[MannyGoldstein]

18. So why no cuts for current retirees, but no "slashing" for future generations?

Or are you so incurious that you don't want to know why?

While you're at it... perhaps you can explain why Obama repeatedly parrots the fringe-right lie that FDR did not start Social Security for retirees.

Thanks in advance for your concise and on-target answers.

[Whisp]

20. because he has evil plans, of course.

Isn't that what your sustenance is?

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Your refusal to supply a serious answer says much about you. nt

[Whisp]

27. and a sandwich board of total dissatisfaction with anything democratic says much about you

if we are slinging things around....

ALERT! ALERT! warning will robinson!
beep beep :D

[MannyGoldstein]

32. I state facts; you state silliness

18 year of Third Way apologists like you, and where are we? Another president who http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah">campaigns as a Democrat, then triangulates hard right, and where are we?

Are we at peace?
Is the economy strong?
Is the middle class vibrant?

We need FDR, not http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562">Hoover. And certainly not Hoover apologists like you.

[Whisp]

36. the Titanic cannot turn on a dime

peace? when was the last time we ever had the flotsam thinking and why does a progressive a democrat president as we will ever see have to hold the guilt of all others before him.

economy? if you really think President Obama is happy with how the economy is and isn't doing all that is possible in the labyrinth of many thing unknown to pleebs like you and i... if you really think he is lieing about health insurance reform and how he had to watch his mother fight with them while she was dying... if you really think he is downhearted evil... then who are you an apologist for?

vibrancy? yes, the Titanic thing again. The Empire ship is huge, it cannot change direction just because you Want It Now. Things are done in progress (oh, what a word!), in steps, in gaining. Fights are long and hard. Which side are you on, the long hard fight or the instant fucking gratification everyone has been media/commercialed into thinking?

[MannyGoldstein]

39. So why does Obama keep parroting the fringe-right lie

that FDR did not initiate Social Security for retirees? Why did he create a "Fiscal Responsibility" committee chaired by the two most outspoken critics of Social Security in their respective parties?

As to big ships: unemployment dropped almost 50% under FDR. FDR was a strong President who surrounded himself with advisors ranging from Socialists to bankers. With Obama, it's a Wall Street White House, now more then ever.

[Whisp]

41. FDR didn't have CNN and Fox.

does it really have to be pointed out to you?

if you like him so much, dig him up and vote for him. This is Now.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. FDR had two press conferences each week - almost 1,000 in all

And contrary to popular belief, his paralysis was not off limits.

Now, please show me the courtesy of answering my question: Why does Obama keep parroting the fringe-right lie that FDR did not sign Social Security into law for retirees?

[Whisp]

44. as far as I remember it was for veterans only to begin with...

so it really wasn't the social security we know now. but I'm sure you will learn me good on that one.

and now, I'm not going to google to 'prove' anything to you. It can't be done, your heels are dug in. I learned that a long time ago arguing on bulletins boards -they keep you distracted and you google and google and they never are satisfied with anything. all you do is wear your nails down a bit - and think you can make some kind of influence, but you can't. heels dug in.

so if you are so certain this special lie that Obama said is so important to all, you show me it. you show me it - THE LIE.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Here

http://fdrdemocrats.org/the-common-sense-guide-to-social-security/5/

References are on the last page.

[Whisp]

51. who are FDR democrats? the Jane Hamshers?

I might look further into this, or might not. I've seen too many Obama 'lies' rutted out as lies from someone else often enough to make me puke.

did FDR include women? He talks about Men working... like women don't....

[Whisp]

55. am I blind? I don't see any names there at all...

and it looks like a very very thin website - almost nothing there - cept for comments - which I didn't read.

who are these people? can you at least give me that info?

ah, it's a discussion board, and I see mannygoldstein there. you know, Obama's biggest fan here.

:rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl:

but yah, this totally proves Obama LIED. *snicker

[MannyGoldstein]

58. You clearly have problems with referenced materials; let me help

In an October 2010 appearance on the Daily Show, Obama said: “Look: when Social Security was passed, it applied to widows and orphans, and it was a very restricted program“: http://lincmad.blogspot.com/2010/10/full-transcript-of-obama-on-daily-show.html

At a December 2010 press conference, he repeated the myth “This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans”: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/07/press-conference-president

“The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement.”: http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

I hope the links make it easier for you, but I understand things like "actual quotes" and "history" can be difficult for many people.

[Whisp]

62. put that under your pillow and dream on it then.

if it means soooo much to you.

and no, Obama is not a liar and not a stupid man. Why you think I would believe you over him, when all your mission is to pick pick pick pick at anything he says and does for years now. Think you finally found the golden egg after all the other failed attempts to discredit him?

slim pickins' for the desperate!

[Hippo_Tron]

34. As somebody who has been pretty supportive of the President, I disagree

I'm not saying that the President wants to cut Social Security or will cut Social Security. But the statement he made today left him a substantial amount of wiggle room to entertain the idea. Frankly I would have preferred he said something along the lines of "over my dead body will the retirement age be raised or benefits be cut". But that's not how this President rolls. He's determined at all costs to avoid saying anything too heated, controversial, or that might disrupt the cordial relations with the Republicans. Frankly I think there's some upsides to his approach, but sometimes it can be detrimental.

[Whisp]

38. apply for being his speech maker then

seeing as he is so lacking.

seriously....
and Susy Jane down the street would have preferred him to say:
'Don't worry, Susy, I got your back'
and James Salamander said:
'I would have preferred he ripped some heads off, like in Saw movies. What a whimp.'
and Extremadura Relentless said:
'wiggle room? I think I like that'

Obama is not 'cordial' with the Repugs, and that is what is driving them crazy. He is a gentleman and will not go Sheen on them. they goad, and goad, for how long now? and Obama is Obama. He is rock solid Obama and doesn't do mud wrestling.

[pnwmom]

15. We should raise the current salary limit on which S.S. taxes are computed. n/t

[rug]

21. It means nothing.

Desiderata are not plans. It can mean anything you want, as intended.

[JoePhilly]

29. Other: Its is the announcement of huge cuts that to SS and medicare that

so many on DU have been predicting.

Oh wait, no ... that did not happen.

But, hell, let's pretend it did.

[Exilednight]

30. Other: It leaves him an out in case they do get cut. It's his famous "What I also said was" part

of every issue that he fails to achieve.

[brentspeak]

31. It means that Obama is being as hazy and vague as possible -- par for the course, with him n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

33. It means a whole lot of nothing

The President didn't come out for cutting Social Security and Medicare and expressed a general desire to level the gap between the rich and poor. But he left himself some wiggle room. That's generally what politicians do.

[ClarkUSA]

37. Pres. Obama will not "entertain... slashed benefits for current or future generations of retirees."

"The administration said it would entertain reforms to enhance Social Security's solvency, but none that smacked of privatization or slashed benefits for current or future generations of retirees."

Read more objective facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x652647

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Why does Obama always differentiate between current and future recipients

Current ones won't get cut, while future ones won't get "slashed".

I think you know the answer.

[ClarkUSA]

46. So paranoid people won't be able to falsely attribute nefarious motives to his plans.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. I state facts; you state silliness

I guess that's the best you've got.

[ClarkUSA]

49. Wrong again. I refuted your baseless negative speculation with a quoted fact from a credible source.

Read Reply 37 again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=653027&mesg_id=653609

[MannyGoldstein]

50. You refuse to answer my post 40

Interesting.

[ClarkUSA]

53. You didn't like my answer. You also refuse to acknowledge the facts that I quoted in Reply 37.

How predictable.

[woo me with science]

65. This should be an OP. This is exactly the issue.

Those denying that he is making any differentiation between changes he will tolerate for current retirees versus future retirees cannot and will not answer this question.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Which leaves open the possibility of raising the retirement age in the future

Again, I'm not saying it's likely to happen, but it's not "no cuts, no changes in the age for anybody period, end of story".

[ClarkUSA]

48. I'm not into baseless speculation. I'll wait for details aka. facts to emerge.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. I'm not into baseless speculation, either

As I said, I don't think Obama wants to or plans to raise the retirement age and I don't see any reason to be alarmed. But those who are noting that his statement leaves open the possibility are correct.

[ClarkUSA]

54. I disagree.

There's nothing in the text of his speech that indicates any such possibility.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. It's a vague statement when there's nothing to be vague about

There are only three things you can do to make social security more solvent. Change the payouts, change the retirement age, or raise the retirement age. The possibilities are extremely finite. The President could have been more specific and said that the only acceptable way to make it more solvent is to eliminate the cap.

Medicare, I can see where some savings could be had by eliminating inefficiencies, which is a complicated manner and not something you need to go into detail about during a budget address.

[ClarkUSA]

57. That's your opinion. I didn't expect complete detail about his budget plan in a 43 minute speech.

I repeat, nothing in his speech indicated such a possibility:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=653027&mesg_id=653071

[Hippo_Tron]

60. I agree it didn't indiciate such a possibility

It also didn't eliminate such a possibility, 100% dead and buried. Again, I'm not sounding the alarm and I don't think it's going to happen. But I wouldn't mind a statement from the White House saying that under no circumstances will he accept raising the retirement age for anybody. It could come from Jay Carney and not the President, for all I care. I just think he needs to make it 100% clear to the Republicans where he stands on this. And it would have the added political benefit of making them respond.

[Exilednight]

64. Nothin in his speech denied any such possibilities, either. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

66. Nothing in his speech denied the possibility of life on Jupiter, either. n/t

[Exilednight]

68. That would be great, if we were talking about a space mission to Jupiter, but this

speech was specifically about the budget which includes entitlement programs.

[slipslidingaway]

59. "current retirees" ...

and everyone else ... good luck!

[Jakes Progress]

67. The quote is typical Washingtonese. It provides wiggle

and deniability. How hard would it be to say "We will not cut or limit SS for Americans" Or "We are going to cut SS for future retirees, but no those retired."

See neither of those provide wiggle. Wiggle is becoming very important to this administration. We all loved the clarity of "I will not sign a health care bill that does not include a public option" But that kind of stuff got grief. So now we get wiggle language. They will make of it what they want when they want. It tell us nothing.

[inna]

69. mind blowing that 39% picked choice #2. Wow.

[kjackson227]

70. I chose "other" because of the explanation in the link below...

http://change.gov/agenda/seniors_and_social_security_agenda/

Now can we please stop worrying about social security??? President Obama is not going to do anything to harm our seniors whether they be seniors of the past, present AND FUTURE. Also, Social Security is solvent for the next 25-30 years.

[Just One Woman]

71. The long term challenges

Are the assholes that keep attacking it. I think President Obama will do everything he can to protect it. We have to stay loud and show this nation he has our support to do just that.

[quiller4]

74. I suspect it means both raising the level of compensation that is

subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes and considering a gradual increase in the retirement age. I don't expect the raise in age to impact all current workers. I would expect to see the retirement age raised to 70 for those who are just now entering the workforce.

[ipaint]

76. I'd like to know how he expects to work with republicans for anything having to do

with the common good. Whenever he says that it means another right turn. There is no working with republicans, there is no middle ground on any social issue.

If he was serious about strengthening medicare we would have a robust public option. If he was serious about the deficit the tax cuts for the rich would have ended already. If he was serious about strengthening social security he wouldn't present it as some kind of looming problem that must be dealt with by "working with" republicans.

This cut, cut, cut bullshit in the middle of a severe shortage of jobs, rising food, energy and health care costs, 3 wars, a dead housing market and rampant criminal behavior at the top is pathetic.