President Obama on Social Security: "it’s not an entitlement; you’re paying for it"

[ProSense]

Remarks by the President in a Town Hall Meeting in Cannon Falls, Minnesota

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Social Security -- here’s my commitment -- I don’t know about the other folks, but I’ll make a commitment as long as I’m President of the United States -- Social Security will not only be there for you, but it’s also going to be there for the next generation and the generation after that because it’s one of the most important social insurance programs that we have. (Applause.) And by the way, you pay into Social Security. They call it an entitlement, but it’s not an entitlement; you’re paying for it. It’s getting taken out of your paycheck.

So it is true that as the population gets older there’s going to be more and more pressure on the Social Security system. But the Social Security system is not the cause of our debt and deficit. (Applause.) So don’t let folks fool you by saying that in order to get a handle on our debt we’ve got to slash Social Security. There are some modest adjustments that can be made that will make it solvent for 75 years -- and that’s about as long as you can think ahead as a country.

<...>

[hamsterjill]

1. Happy to see this!!!!

He needs to say this over and over and over again! And MEAN it!

[DFab420]

2. but but but....I thought he hated old people and wanted to take SS away from us and give it

to his fat cat rich friends!!! WAAAAAAAA

[MannyGoldstein]

3. "Make no mistake: we need to modestly cut benefits by 22%

so that Pete Peterson and the Koch brothers get a return on their campaign contributions we can save Social Security. And, make no mistake: the need to save Social Security is every bit as realistic as the Debt Crisis."

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Remember

The cuts will "strengthen" social security.

[DFab420]

8. Good job using unattributed quotes and writing smears then crossing them out! You're so

smucking fart it blows my mind.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. I guess The Onion must drive you utterly bonkers nt

[DFab420]

10. ? I love the Onion, cause they at least know when they are making shit up..Do you??

[Whisp]

71. may I use this as my signature?

:rofl:

[DFab420]

73. you certainly may

[Inuca]

12. Oh? You were being funny?

Just in this post or in all the others where you say similar things?

[DCKit]

14. Are they really talking 22%?

I've known a lot of people on SS, and none of them could survive on a penny less than they were receiving. Most had already made drastic changes in the way they lived just to get by on SS, investment and pensions.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Obama's "bipartisan" commission voted to recommend a 22% cut

over time, totaling more than $50,000 per recipient.

There's your "modest adjustments".

[DFab420]

17. lol RECOMMEND! last I checked that didn't mean ENACTED INTO LAW

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Obama has ruled out other recommendations made by his commission, but not

the 22% cut in benefits.

A wish is not the same as reality, but that does seem to be Obama's wish.

[DFab420]

27. Again, you are MAKING THINGS UP, then pretending as if it's fact..

Show me a DIRECT quote that President Obama has said that he is interested in cutting 22% in benefits from SS....

[MannyGoldstein]

31. He's had plenty of opportunity to speak out against his commission's vote

for a 22% cut, but he's not said a thing. He has, however, totally discounted their recommendation to cut the military, and so forth.

[DFab420]

39. Really?? You mean except for the 917 Billion in defense cuts that the debt ceiling law just passed

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/trigger-round-of-us-budget-cuts-would-have-huge-impact-on-defense-30819/


Look I even have citations and everything!!!

"Defense spending cuts of some $350 billion over the next decade contained in the new debt-limit legislation passed by the U.S. Congress correspond with the numbers expected from an earlier goal advanced by President Obama. But the Pentagon leadership described the potential of $600 billion more in automatic spending cuts as disastrous.
The Department of Defense is conducting a comprehensive review of spending after the President called for spending on security to be held below inflation for 12 years. This would amount to a $400 billion cut over previous plans. The cuts outlined in the debt-limit legislation passed August 2 “are largely in line with what we were anticipating and preparing to implement,” new Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said at his first news briefing.
The debt-limit legislation requires $917 billion in cuts to government spending over the next decade, beginning next year. A congressional “super committee,” officially the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, must identify $1.5 trillion in further cuts by November 23. By Christmas, Congress then will vote up or down on the recommendations. Failing agreement in either case, a “trigger mechanism” requires $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, about half for security."

[fasttense]

89. That was never voted on by the commission. The commission never issued a report.

That was just angry little white man Simpson's report. The commission itself never agreed to it.

[johnaries]

34. Stop pedaling that BS. I went to your "links" and got a completely

different story.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Then one of us has a reading comprehension problem. nt

[DFab420]

48. Ok... show me where it says it.

"The attached tables provide preliminary estimates for the two proposals, 1a and 1b, that you have
identified as being of interest for consideration by the Fiscal Commission. All estimates are
based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2010 Trustees Report. These estimates provide the
estimated effects for the 75-year long-range period as a whole, referred to as the change in the
actuarial balance, and the effect on the annual balance for the 75th year, 2084, which is the
difference between scheduled tax income and scheduled cost for the program for that year. Both
estimates are expressed as percentages of taxable payroll for the OASDI program. In addition,
we are providing estimates of the effect of the proposals on benefits for selected hypothetical
workers by career-average earnings level and age, relative to both current law scheduled and
payable benefit levels.
Proposal 1a includes increase in the earliest eligibility age (EEA) to maintain a 5-year difference
with the NRA, and proposal 1b holds the EEA 62. For each proposal, a variation is provided
where the coverage of State and local government employees hires after 2020 is included. In
each case, long-range sustainable solvency and ultimate positive annual cash flow is projected
under the intermediate assumption. The margin of solvency is sufficient to allow consideration
of extending the phase-in period for the PIA formula proposal to be completed after 2050 in each
case. Likely the extension may be possible for completion in 2060 or even 2070. "


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/FiscalCommission_20101109.pdf

Tables can be found here.

[bornskeptic]

87. That's nonsense. The Bowles-Simpson recommendations would actually increase benefits for most people

as compared to current law, which will require benefitw to be cut by over 20% for all beneficiaries when the trust fund is depleted, which will happen in between 20 and 25 years if we don't change something. I doubt that you have even read their proposal. While far from ideal, it's a hell of an improvement over your kick the can policy. It also makes the system much more progressive. Those who care can easily see for themselves. The Social Security recommendations begin on page 48.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Calling me a liar is both discourteous and ignorant

22% comes from Stephen Goss, the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/FiscalCommission_20101109.pdf

[DFab420]

26. It's strange. I read through that and nowhere is there a cut of benefits up to 22 percent.....

Maybe you aren't lying. Maybe your misquoting...who can say.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. OK, I was wrong. It actually says 22.3%.

Try reading it again, carefully.

[DFab420]

33. Oh you're right. If you go on SS now.. in 2080 you wil receive 76 percent benefits from payments..

hopefully though at 145 you will be focused on other things.. Like staying out of the sunlight and finding blood to drink.. cause if your that old you're a vampire.


Again..this is JUST a recommendation. But don't let that stop you from making it seem like it's already happened.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. You're closer, but not there yet. Try reading it just one more time and

perhaps you'll understand what it actually says.

[DFab420]

40. Well considering that is the ONLY mention of 22.3 percentage cut in the entire document...

maybe you could prove your point by showing me a citation..

[MannyGoldstein]

43. It needs to say the same thing multiple times to be true?

Oh brother.

[DFab420]

44. hahahahhahahaha nice dodge. You are masterful at not answering question.

[eridani]

80. A reccommendation is what Obama and the Koch whores WANT to happen

Why is the fact that they haven't succeeded yet supposed to reassure us?

[TheWraith]

29. The fact is, you are perpetuating a lie.

At no point has the President or the Democrats in Congress supported a 22% cut in Social Security, and they have both specifically rejected cuts that would affect beneficiaries.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1631283

[DFab420]

42. still no mention of your mythic 22 cut..

[MannyGoldstein]

45. It's right in the document that I linked to. PM me your phone number and

I can call and read it to you, if that will be helpful.

Jeez.

[DFab420]

47. The last thing I want is for you to call me. Answer right here in front of everyone.

Post your citation, show me where the President says he wants to cut 22.3 percent of benefits.

Also show me the line item you keep "linking to" that you believe proves your point, even though you can't seem to post it here....

[MannyGoldstein]

50. Sorry, I can't teach you to read.

It's all linked. Any reader can click the link and decide which one of us is right.

[DFab420]

52. Yup, which is why you refuse to point it out here. Cause you know you're wrong.

[johnaries]

38. Then stop lying. And I encourage everyone to follow the link

so you can see his lies for yourself.

[polmaven]

18. Since quotation marks

around a remark indicate a ACTUAL remark, would you be so kind as to give us the citation for this quote?

[pinto]

19. A citation / link would be useful here for discussion.

Thanks. :hi:

[DFab420]

20. But then he couldn't lie about it.. soooo

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

This is the ONLY mention of a 22 percent cut

"And don’t be misled by those who say the system can pay full benefits until about 2037 without making any changes to the law. That’s true, but does not change the fact that Social Security taxes no longer cover those benefits. The government is now borrowing money to pay them, and will do so every year for the foreseeable future. And keep in mind, if nothing is done, when those trust funds are exhausted, benefits would have to be cut by 22 percent in 2037, and more each year after that, according to the most recent report of the system’s trustees. By 2084, the system will generate only enough revenue to pay for 75 percent of promised benefit levels."

[MannyGoldstein]

49. You do realize that it was satire, no?

e.g., http://www.theonion.com/articles/frustrated-obama-sends-nation-rambling-75000word-e,18516/">like this from The Onion.

I'll try to be a little less dry next time.

[DFab420]

53. Yea right. Satire. Which is why upstream you've been arguing about it the whole time.

that wasn't Satire. It was smear, it was ugly, and I'm calling you on it.

Satire doesn't mean you say he is bankrolled by the Koch brothers, Satire doesn't have you place gross misquotes as fact, then argue about them.

[MannyGoldstein]

55. You can add "look up the meaning of satire" to your to-do list

And it was factually correct, with the possible exception of the Koch Brothers who have donated to the DLC but not directly to Obama.

[DFab420]

56. Lol. You get caught lying so you call it satire to cover your ass. Brilliant!

You attributed false quotes to the President, then when asked about the quote you tried to provide citation of it and FAILED. Because none exists. You therefore then attributed it to the head of the SSA, in which his report marginally mentions a 22.3 perfect reduction in 2080. THEN you call it satire????

I don't think it works that way. You can't defend your argument then call it satire after you realize it's not going your way.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. No, I said that it was correct, *and* that it was satire.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

As to your weird claim around the 22.3% - the Social Security Administration letter clearly states that Obama's commission's recommendations will eventually result in a 22.3% cut in benefits for the average beneficiary - not just for vampires or whatever it is that your yammering about.

[DFab420]

58. No no it doesn't

It claims that if you are within one specific pay bracket, that by 2080, judging off of life expectancy and payments made, that at that point you would be receiving a -22.3 total reduction from your benefits.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. And that specific pay bracket is the median. Sounds like we're finally in agreement

that Obama's commission voted to recommend an eventual 22.3% cut in Social Security benefits for the median recipient.

[DFab420]

60. Hahahahahahahahahha man you are the master of obfuscation...

how much do you make for this kind of stuff?

[Vattel]

65. It's right there in the link.

How is he making anything up? By 2080, a 22.3% cut in benefits for the median wage earner.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. Thank you for taking the time to read the link nt

[DesertFlower]

24. remove the CAP. let the rich

pay more. there's no CAP on medicare.

BTW. raising the CAP would effect me. hubby tends to reach it around september. i'd be willing to give up the extra few hundred bucks for the rest of the year rather than have cuts.

[eridani]

81. Thank you. The rest of us with lower incomes appreciate social consciousness among the affluent n/

[DesertFlower]

84. we're not affluent. i'm almost 70 and hubby is 64.

he makes a good salary. i'd say we're upper middle class. worked hard all our lives. we're probably the last to realize the american dream, but i wish everyone else who works hard could achieve it too. unfortunately it doesn't look promising.

[eridani]

86. That would be the top quintile of senior households

You and DH are typical of that demographic slice, because that status comes from the fact that one of you is still working, not because you are sitting home living off investments. The privilege here is having a job that doesn't leave you a physical wreck at 60, and not being pushed out of the labor force involuntarily.

Only one out of five senior households have incomes of $56K and higher. Their income breakdown is as follows

44% wages and salaries
19% pensions
18% asset income (spending down principal, interest, capital gains, etc.)
18% Social Security

[DesertFlower]

93. we're fortunate. hubby has been with the company

42 years. the bean counters have been trying to get rid of him for years, but fortunately he has a rare skill that not many people have.

interesting statistics.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. From DU rules: "Do not call another member of this message board a liar, ...

"Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Pretty good rule.

[erpowers]

92. Almost My Point

When I read the comment in the OP my thought was yeah but he later said and on many other occasions said there is a need to reform Social Security. Yesterday, at one of his bus tour stops, President Obama went as far as to criticize his own party for not wanting to cut Social Security.

[Dulcinea]

5. About time someone said it!

If you pay into it, you're ENTITLED to get something out of it!

[JoePhilly]

6. Oh yea sure ... but he only mentions 2 additional generations!!!!

Because clearly he plans to dismantle Social Security for everyone AFTER those generations.

Any one can with eyes can see this!!

[MannyGoldstein]

13. "Briefing room word games: "

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0707/Briefing-room-word-games-What-s-a-slash-versus-a-cut-in-Social-Security">Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

So, a reporter asked, what does “slash” mean?

“Haven’t you got, like, a dictionary app on your iPhone?” Carney replied.

Q: Well, it’s a word that you use instead of “cut.”

Carney: “Slash” is, I think, quite clear. It’s slash. It’s like that. (Carney makes a slashing motion with his hand.) It’s a significant whack.

Q: So it means a significant …

Carney: I’m not going to put a numerical figure on it.

Q: So it means a significant cut.

Carney: I think slashing is a pretty sharp, direct …

Q: It’s not the same thing as cutting – the point is, it’s not the same thing as “cut.”

Carney: It’s slash. (Laughter.) And I don’t mean the guitarist. (Laughter.)

Q: A pledge to not slash benefits is not the same thing as a pledge to not cut benefits.

Carney: I’m not – again, we’re talking about a policy enunciated by the president back in January, and that is …

Q: This is a diction you guys have chosen.

Carney: No, no, I get that, and we did choose it, and the president used it. But I’m not here to negotiate the semantics …

Q: Just so everybody understands – just so everybody understands, when you say “slash,” you don’t mean “cut.”

Carney: We have said that to address the long-term solvency of the problem – of the program, because this is not an issue that drives short- or medium-term deficits, that we would look – the president is interested in looking at ways to strengthen the program and enhance its long-term solvency that protects the integrity of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.

Q: Which is not the same thing as not cutting benefits.

[JoePhilly]

30. Manny ... you were one of the loudest predictors that ...

Obama was "hell-bent" on cutting / slashing .... so on wrt Social Security.

It did not happen.

Back in January or more likely February, didn't you bet me that I could not find one example of some one predicting that Obama would announce such cuts during his State of the Union speech? If I recall, I provided it, and you, I hope donated to DU.

And so now here we are again ... YOU predicted these cuts would be in the debt deal.

They are not.

So what's your plan ... to re-predict them?

Personally, I think all of us on the left should be constantly reminding our representatives where we stand on this.

But these predictions. The Obama is evil predictions. The He's cutting SS now predictions.

How many times do you have to be wrong to admit that maybe, just maybe, Obama's main goal isn't to dismantle Social Security?

No one on DU wants SS or medicare cut / gutted / or dismantled ...

But the chicken little, end of the world, boy who cried wolf is getting old.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Obama/Carney's "cut vs. slash" word games that I linked to specifically

deal with Obama's words in the SOTU address. I predicted that Obama would call for cuts in the SOTU, and he did - Carney's little dance demonstrates that pretty clearly.

Obama offered $650 billion in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts to the Republicans - his words, not mine.

Obama appointed a commission designed to recommend deep cuts in Social Security, and has said zero against their recommendation for a 22% cut in the average recipient's benefits.

I suppose we can each interpret these as we wish.

[JoePhilly]

90. Its easy to interpret a predicted action that didn't happen.

And if Obama plans to cut and gut and dismantle Social Security, as you predict, he clearly sucks at it.

[targetpractice]

7. "Don't let folks fool you..."

Why oh why can't he just say "Republicans" instead of "folks"?

[polichick]

51. Too much "aloha spirit?"

[dmallind]

11. I applaud the sentiment, but question the details.

We (taxpayers) are paying for all "entitlements" from SNAP to Medicaid, so that they are there when/if we need them, and for those who do now. Consumers even pay for UE insurance as companies either pass on this like all costs, or go bankrupt and leave behind those who do.

We should NOT make the case that social security is a personally-funded account, partly because that's false - I am paying nowfor current retirees, who themselves paid while earning for those who were already retired then, and partly because that's a ready-made reason to move it to a market-based system.

And finally we should stop running and hiding from a term that, like liberal, is a perfectly acceptable, accurate and positive word that is undergoing demonization. Social Security IS an entitlement - it is something to which people are entitled by right of being productive citizens. Nothing to be ashamed of or shy about. Why do so many people get so demanding about being entitled to "respect" - which of course they are not - and so meek about being entitled to lawful benefits and assistance, which they certainly are.

[PoliticAverse]

22. "There are some modest adjustments that can be made"

So what are the 'modest adjustments' that he'll agree to make ?

[BeyondGeography]

25. Hooray

Seriously.

[Lugnut]

32. Here's a moderate adjustment for you, sir.

Lift the cap on taxable wages. There's no reason for exempting any wage earner from paying his/her fair share in FICA taxes on all income.

[santamargarita]

36. Finally, thank you Mr. President. And, to the right-wing assholes:

keep your goddamn teabagging, filthy, stealing hands off my money!!!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. Ummm, wouldn't that absolutely make it an "entitlement" ??

"Entitlement" does not equate to "free handout". Quite literally, it means "ownership".
You payed into it... it's YOUR money... money that you are ENTITLED to receive.

Entitlements are not bad things, and we most certainly are entitled to our social security.

[amborin]

61. problem is: the rhetoric is empty; the actions contradict the words

[ClarkUSA]

62. Prove it.

[amborin]

63. LOL....just compare the rhetoric w/ the actions (or non-actions) ....

[ClarkUSA]

68. All I hear from you is rhetoric without any facts to back up your claim.

Are you referring to yourself?

[saras]

69. He's wrong about what 'entitlement' means in, typically, a way that helps right-wing framing...

It IS an ENTITLEMENT. We PAID the money into an account, we HOLD TITLE to the money, and we ARE ENTITLED to get our money back under the terms of our contract, with good faith shown by both sides to the contract.

[Igel]

75. Nonsense.

Many recipients paid into it; the money they paid was mostly used to pay for the people entitled to receive benefits at the time.

We hold title to the money in the same way we hold title to the White House. Whatever the law grants us. Beyond that--and there's nothing there, to be honest--there's no title.

The "contract" is a law, enacted by Congress and signed by some president. The terms can be changed unilaterally by Congress/President. It's a contract that you can't not when you get your first job; it's a contract you can't sign if your employer gives you benefits through a DCP.

It is an entitlement because the law states, over and over, that if you meet certain conditions you are entitled to receive money. My nephew is entitled to receive money. His parents paid into it, his mother became unable to work, and he gets OASDI payments. He's not paid a cent in FICA in his entire life, he's been receiving it for 10 years.

Entitlement in this sense isn't a dirty word. It's the law. In fact, Medicare, Medicaid, workman's comp, unemployment benefits are also entitlements. So is welfare and a number of other programs. For that, you can just strip away any colloquial connotation associated with the word and look strictly at denotation.

What he's arguing about, even though he's shifting the argument to make it less clear what he's arguing, is the "sense of entitlement" that a lot of (R) complain about. It's nice to think there is no such warped sense on the part of any recipient. Dostoevsky was pretty good in the Brothers Karamazov. If you offer the masses bread, spectacle, and relief from responsibility you have them in your pocket. He left out "make them think they deserve it," because any sense of obligation readily turns into resentment. In shifting the argument, Obama provides that. (Of course, he's hardly alone in this. The different political parties provide obligation-relief to different groups, that's all.)

[great white snark]

70. But it's not off the table! It's still there with the silverware and napkin rings! The table people!

:sarcasm:

:crazy:

[SnoopDog]

72. If he meant that then he would have put on the table for the Super Committee

I do not trust Obama to stop cuts and adverse (to people) changes to Social Security.

[Enrique]

74. FINALLY he says something we want to hear!!!!

oh, wait, he does this all the time.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Way to accept the framing of the right.

Dear President Obama, please consult a dictionary re: "entitlement".

[kenfrequed]

77. I'm glad the president said so.

And I am going to hope that his policy trajectory matches this attitude.

[Marnie]

78. Sorry Big O. I have been saying that for months.

Of course you have said lots of things that sound real good and then promptly ignore them.

[eridani]

79. Notice how he refuses to say what the "modest adjustments" are?

If he would just say EVEN FUCKING ONCE that raising the FICA cap is all that is necessary, he would put my mind at ease. Why does he refuse to do that?

[MannyGoldstein]

82. Since his deficit commission recommended a 22% cut in benefits, and

while he's rejected some of the commissions other recommendations he's not rejected the 22% cut, we can only surmise that this is roughly what he wants.

[Necronomiconomics]

83. Poppy Bush once said to some donors of his ...

"Don't watch what we say. Watch what we do."

[AllyCat]

85. Then ACT like it Mr. President.

[bornskeptic]

88. Mr. President, please look up the word "entitlement".

Social Security is definitely an entitlement.

From Blacks Law Dictionary : an absolute right to a (usually monetary) benefit, such as social security, granted immediately on reaching a legal requirement.

[Ganja Ninja]

91. Horseshit.

It's called an entitlement because you're entitled to it because you payed for it. The end! Stop trying to twist the meaning of entitlement. Stop trying to gyp the American people out of their money.

[DEdem]

94. Nonesense.

Raise the retirment age to 70 by 2040, increase payroll tax by 1/2 of one percent, then Social security is more than solvent well into the future.This should be an easy sell to the American public.

[mistertrickster]

95. Boy, that sounds good. Almost as good as "any [health care] bill I sign

must have a public option."