Post election deficit deal threatens Medicare and Social Security

[eridani]

Raising SocSec retirement age = massive increase in poverty among older people
Raising Medicare eligibility age = mass murder.

http://my.firedoglake.com/kaytillow/2012/10/06/post-election-deficit-deal-threatens-medicare-and-social-security/

After the November election, there will be a major effort in Congress to pass a budget deal that will make cuts in Social Security, raise the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age, and perhaps more–unless we act to stop it with a solution that is close at hand.

There is agreement from the Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel to liberal economists Dean Baker and Paul Krugman that the pressure will be on to reach a Simpson/Bowles type of compromise. Such a bipartisan plan would damage our most cherished programs and excuse the dastardly deed by asserting that the cuts are small and necessary because of the deficit.

Those who relentlessly scream at us and finance ads to persuade us that the deficit threatens our grandchildren are obscuring the truth. The fact is that the transfer of wealth from public funds and the rest of us to the super rich is the real crisis. But those who have gorged themselves on this massive transfer of wealth also seek to undermine the Medicare and Social Security which are our grandchildren’s heritage from generations of struggles for a better life.

The projected cuts are not minor but very harmful. Even a small decrease in the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment would deliver an ever increasing downward push on benefits while corporations continue to threaten secure pensions by turning them into lump sums that will fade with the stock market.

Raising the Medicare age to 67 would be disastrous. There will be no affordable health insurance for those in their 60’s. The Affordable Care Act allows private insurance companies to charge premiums three times higher based on age. Under popular pressure, there were regulations placed into the health care reform bill to stop insurance companies from charging higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions. But the companies were allowed to charge three times the premium based on age.

[rfranklin]

1. Do they think Americans will take this without rebelling?

They really think they can keep low, low taxes for the rich and a bloated military and suffer no consequences? I wonder.

[eridani]

2. The rebellion against a December surprise must start NOW

Electing Obama? Believe it or not, people really can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[jerseyjack]

6. Remember, Obama has agreed in principle to reduced social benefits.

[rudycantfail]

15. This can no longer be denied. n/t

[rhett o rick]

42. Yes I understand but what are our options? nm

[eridani]

47. We can start by demaning that ALL candidates get SPECIFIC about SocSec and Medicare n/t

[rhett o rick]

54. I appreciate what you want, but what do we do when they ignore our "demands"?

And they will. Seems to me like we have no leverage. Can we threaten Pres Obama that we wont vote for him if he doesnt get specific? I dont think that will have an effect. Dont get me wrong, I will fight until the end. Just dont really see much hope.

[WinkyDink]

9. Mais oui, mon ami! Did we "rebel" when the SCOTUS stole the election in 2000? When Bush illegally

invaded a sovereign nation?

When NEIL Bush literally got away with billions in the Silverado S&L Grand Theft?

When Republican-owned companies foisted hackable voting machines on us?

THE WEALTHY HAVE TAKEN OUR MEASURE, AND WE HAVE BEEN FOUND WANTING.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

21. Sad but true

[Hydra]

41. Word

Almost every action they they've taken lately has been a dare. And nobody is rising to it.

"We DARE you to stop us! No...? Too bad, we'll take another cut then!"

[plethoro]

29. I have queried this myself since Obama opened the can of worms.....

If they do it slowly, they may avert a rebellion. Then, again, with 1/2 of the people not even knowing who the VP is maybe a rebellion could be avoided no matter how they do it. Now, Biden has said Social Security won't be touched. I wonder about that. So who will touch it? Will it be the do-nothing congress at the end of their term, or the next do-nothing congress? The reaction of the people will be telltale. If they do nothing, that will invite further changes. If they show extreme force, congress will be wary. By extreme force I do NOT mean actors and tv personalities doing skits or making silly comments. Or posts on bulletin boards. I mean physical , extreme reaction, like the Teamsters used to do when they were defied. Other than that, the government will move along on the robbery until people have nothing left to lose...And then things will change. We need a Nelson Mandella.

[leveymg]

3. The solution is simply to raise the cap on SS/Med contributions. Simple, easy, except for Blue Dogs

and Republicans.

No need to tinker with benefits or eligibility.

[DURHAM D]

5. There is no cap on Medicare.

[DURHAM D]

12. I know that but

perhaps the poster I was responding to does not and you have just confused the issue.

[leveymg]

19. Not to worry. It doesn't confuse me. ;-)

[leveymg]

14. You're right - but a surcharge could be added to match the raise in the SS cap

That would take care of both.

[DURHAM D]

16. I think the amount that Medicare recipients pay ($99.90 a month)

needs to be adjusted. Currently seniors that make up to $80,000 a year pay that amount. After $80K they pay a surcharge. I think the surcharge should kick in at a lower level - say $50K.

[leveymg]

20. Why lower the limit? Why not raise the amount of the mo. surcharge for those over $80K?

And, then stack another tier over $250K? And yet another over $1M, etc.

Is there some sacred book somewhere that says, "Thou shall not make Medicare surcharges progressive"?

[DURHAM D]

32. Actually I was wrong, the surcharge

starts at $85K for a single person or $170K for a couple.

Here is a link -

I really think an individual who has more than $50K (or couple at $100K) retirement income can pay a little more.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. For 'a couple'? Really? Don't you mean 'Religiously Approved Straight Married People'

only? There is even a picture to explain which 'couples' you mean, and which are excluded from justice.
To be blunt, the straight community steals from gay couples by pretending we are not couples at all, and this sort of thing posted here just hammers that message home.
The sad part is that casual exclusion of millions of your fellow Americans. "Couples" you all say, and act as if that was the truth and not a lie. Some couples. Chosen couples. Conforming couples.

[DURHAM D]

53. You are so correct Bluenw

I was delighted to see the boy/girl images. It does drive it home.

bastards...

[RC]

17. That is diddling with the symptoms

The real fix is to get our Living-Wage-Jobs back into this country. We start this by electing Liberals and Progressives. Electing DINO's is just reinforcing the status quo.

[Stevepol]

18. Here's the cap-raising you're speaking of and Bernie Sanders' effort to get it done.

It's by far the best solution to social security's so-called "problem":

[Bernie] Sanders announced that he will introduce legislation that would strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits to any of its beneficiaries. Sanders’ legislation would eliminate the income cap that currently exists in the payroll tax that does not tax income above $106,800:

To keep Social Security strong for another 75 years, Sanders’ legislation would apply the same payroll tax already paid by more than nine out of 10 Americans to those with incomes over $250,000 a year. [...] Under Sanders’ legislation, Social Security benefits would be untouched. The system would be fully funded by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with incomes up to $106,800 a year.

Sanders points out that President Obama himself endorsed this idea on the campaign trail in 2008. “What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority…pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair,” said Obama during the campaign.

The Social Security system is currently fully funded until 2037. Lifting the payroll tax cap would virtually eliminate funding shortfalls the program would experience over the next 75 years.



Here's the link:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/25/304387/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-to-lift-the-payroll-tax-cap-ensuring-full-social-security-funding-for-nearly-75-years/?mobile=nc

[dotymed]

22. We must re-start taxing the wealthy on their dividend income. This is ridiculous...

"they" tax us on social security income but dividend income is sacred... to the elite.

[jberryhill]

26. +1

Most working people don't even know about it.

When I crossed that line, I thought I'd gotten a bonus.

[coldwaterintheface]

4. I could afford to retire at 62 if Medicare was available to me

but currently Medicare is not available till I am 65 so I won't retire till I am 65.

Increase the age to 67 I will work till 67.

Medicare is the only reason for me and many others to contine working in our 60's.

But I also have a job working in a office so it is doable but I also realize a roofer in their 60's is not going to find much work.

If anything we need to REDUCE the Medicare eligibility age.

[SHRED]

7. I hear ya!

I work at a public service labor job. I could retire at now at 55 except for medical insurance (we have no retirement medical).

It will cost the public BIG TIME if we are made to work at these labor jobs until 67 due to increased injury.
65 is too long.

[TBF]

13. Great post - if those in their 60s retired young folks would have jobs.

We could cut out a drone or two and make this happen. If anyone doubts me take a look at what we spend on defense vs. the rest of the world.

[daleanime]

33. Amen.

In my honest opinion, we need to drop the age for SS to 60 (to help unemployment rates). If anyone in DC was serious about the debt we would have single payer
And be out of these senseless wars.

[Cosmocat]

49. this is yet ANOTHER front on the gop battle to destory the president

they know DARN well that part of the unemployment numbers is older folks staying in the work force.

[reformist2]

8. I would support a crackdown on Medicare fraud, and price controls on drugs & medical equipment.

I don't understand why neither is ever discussed seriously.

[90-percent]

11. The most important 3 minutes on the entire internet

frightening because its 100% true and happening before our very eyes.

-90% Jimmy

[dotymed]

24. This clip should be shown

every evening on teevee as a public service announcement.

[DLevine]

48. Never saw that cllip before. Powerful. Thanks. nt

[woo me with science]

23. My favorite post on this topic so far:

by OrwellwasRight:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1490789


We can make it politically untenable to cut Social Security.

The only way to make it untenable is to talk about it. Loudly and often. Get it on the agenda and make them go on the record.


We have the power. We just need to use it.

[HiPointDem]

46. +1

[a2liberal]

25. K&R (n/t)

[99Forever]

27. Keep shouting it loud.

WE will NOT stand for it. NO MORE "GRAND BARGAINING."

[fredamae]

28. Mass Murder-Population Cntrl-Genocide

I guess it doesn't matter what they call it while they do it---it all ends up with the Same Consequence...While they steal the Last Big Pot of Money from us for the benefits of the Elites.

[AdHocSolver]

30. You nailed it.

The one percent no longer need billions of people to do their bidding.

As Mitt Romney put it, the 47 percent are no longer useful to the one percent.

Supporting the 47 percent wastes scarce and diminishing resources.

Increase efficiency and productivity by eliminating "waste". To achieve this goal, the one percent merely takes away Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and let "nature" take its course.

The wealthy don't need the money. The purpose of stealing it is to DENY sustenance to the 47 percent that do require it.

[awake]

31. The best way to stop this from happening

Will be to reelect Obama, keep the Senate and take back the House. the more Dems we have in office the safer we will all be. If we can control all three then we do not have as much to worry about during the lam duck session, if we lose seats and or the Presidency we will be really f*cked. We will need all the help in congress to protect these programs that we can get. Do not panic vote and get everyone that you can to vote Democratic. The best way to strengthen Medicare and Social Security is to vote out as many Repuks as we can, and then hold all Senators & House members feet to the fire. This election is not the one to vote 3rd party or "send a message" by not voting in a Democrat to much is one the line.

[daleanime]

35. That's only a good start.

[awake]

36. Yes it will be just the start

but a good start is much better than a bad finish.

[daleanime]

37. True...

[ProSense]

34. Which Senate Democrats are likely to vote to cut Social Security?

Which Senate Democrats are likely to vote to cut Social Security?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021493425

[Dragonfli]

38. There was a promise by Harry & Nancy to help Obama raise the retirement age to 69

Perhaps you should ask Harry Reid which Senate Democrats he will deliver for the grand bargain, he would be the one that could supply you with names, we peasants have not been told how he hoped to deliver, asking us is silly as we are not privy to his thoughts on how he would live up to his promise.

Similarly, I would suggest asking Pelosi which house members she planned on delivering, again, she has not discussed how she would do it with us.

[girl gone mad]

39. I would imagine..

the same Senate Democrats who Obama was able to roll for TARP, etc.

[leftstreet]

40. 79 million boomer$ turning 65, 170 million by 2030

That's a massive shift away from for-profit health care, and Big Pharma / Big Insurance R shitting themselves.

When politicians and pundits talk about 'reforming' or 'strengthening' SS and Medicare it's all just so much bullshit. They should just call it the Healthy Forest Seniors Act. First they mandate that we buy a crap product, now they'll force us to buy it until we're 90.

When the ruling classers see a dime in your pocket, they work to get it out.

[rhett o rick]

43. There is really noting we can do about it. nm

[WorseBeforeBetter]

44. Missed this the first time around... kick. (n/t)

[HiPointDem]

45. kr. of course there will be a deal. that's why everyone's trying to avoid the subject & using

weasel words.

[Cosmocat]

50. SS and Medicare should be COMPLETELY removed from deficit discussions

even including them in the deficit reduction discussions is caving to the Rs in trying to muddle things up.

Deficit reduction should be done WITHOUT SS and medicare involved.

Then sit down and figure out what to do with both.

SS can be tweaked fairly easily, but medicare is going to require a commitment from this country to care for our elderly.

[on point]

51. or better yet do what is right for country - 'DEAL THREATENS DOD AND WEALTHY'