President Obama: "Social security is not the source of our deficit problems."

[ProSense]

Obama says deficit deal would aid Social Security

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday said he would include Social Security in a deficit reduction deal only to extend the program's life for future retirees, not to help close the budget shortfall.

"Social security is not the source of our deficit problems," Obama told a White House press conference. "The reason we do Social Security is to strengthen Social Security to make sure those benefits are there for seniors in the out years."

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. He needs to leave Medicare, Medicaid and SS off the table, PERIOD! nt

[dkf]

4. They don't have enough revenue to keep paying out benefits as structured in the out years.

What do you propose to do about that? If you say nothing then that probably means cutting benefits anyway.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. I can think of plenty of things that need cutting, and the taxes of the rich need to be increased

And not just increased, but the loopholes closed, and the taxes increased to pre-Reagan rates.

If the govt has no money, a good part of it is that they haven't been collecting taxes from corporations and the rich.

It's bullshit that they've ransacked SS every time they wanted to start a war, and they go to impoverish the already-suffering any time they need more money.

[dkf]

15. Oh they weren't using the social security surplus to go to war...they already used that for the

Regular budget. The wars were pure deficit spending.

And the internal numbers for social security don't work. Those are the funds received by and paid out of social security including the "surplus". That is what Obama is trying to tell you.

[peace13]

22. Without being rude, how old are you?

The out years? The folks in the middle years have been paying 12% off of gross for their entire working career. IRA's and 401 k"s have collapsed making things even harder. Why don't we work on the real problems and let these concerns of the out years rest for a while. If you do receive SS or Medicare or any form of government pension, I would suggest sending the money back. We just don't have the funds for your concerns at this time. In case no one noticed we have wars to wage, attacks to plan and important war planes to fund.

[dkf]

27. Early 40's and I've never expected to receive social security.

But I'm under expecting and hoping at least there will be something for me. I don't use social security when projecting for retirement though. I was warned in high school I couldn't count on it. My first Presidential election I paid more than cursory attention to was Clinton/Bush/Perot and say what you will about Perot...I found those charts very interesting as a wide eyed and naive youngster.

[bhikkhu]

42. Yes they do

...its fine until 2035 or so if they do nothing, and its only very slowly declining after that. A tweak or two now, as was also done back in the eighties, and its an easy fix for the next 75 years or so.

[OhioBlue]

43. except now nobody will agree to a "tweak or two"

the extreme right will cry over revenue increases and the extreme left will cry over "benefit cuts". They will campaign against each other and make mountains out of mole hills. Pres O could propose "a tweak" and many on this board would call him a "caver", "sellout", etc. I totally agree with you that it could survive with a tweak.. I just don't think many people on this board would accept a tweak unless it was everything they wanted. Same as the Right.

[bhikkhu]

45. Yes, that's the problem with the "hands off Social Security" position

...like any other complex government program, it needs to be managed. Its been kept up and managed very well so far, but the idea that the people we elect to govern are so incompetent or so untrustworthy that we can't allow them to manage things is a little ridiculous.

[polichick]

2. That's why it should not be included in this discussion - if the door opens a crack...

Republicans will take full advantage.

[Autumn]

3. Then why the fuck bring it to the table

bring up your wars, those could use a little 'reform", as in ending them.

[dkf]

9. Do you all even understand what the problem is?

I don't think you get it. I don't think most people get it.

This is like planning for retirement. The current problem doesn't lead to a deficit, but if you don't plan for it, the funds won't be there.

It is what makes our future balance sheet look bad.

What you are shouting is we should not try to look at nor plan for your future. Is that really how you live your life?

[Autumn]

20. This whole discussion should have nothing to do with retirement

This whole bullshit kabuki theater is about the DEFICIT to which SS is not a fucking contributing factor. How I live my life is none of your business, I don't want your imperial "we" to be concerned about my plans for my future. You, as I have noticed are a little to far on the center right for me to take you serious. So excuse me while I ignore your sanctimonious change of subject. The wars contribute to the deficit. SS does not. I don't think you get it.

[dkf]

29. It will in the out years if they keep benefits as is. Do you get that?

I'm beginning to think not.

Here are the rates of return fon the social security website on alternative payouts. Honestly you need to get up to speed or you won't even u derstand what this debate is about.


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/ran5/an2004-5.html

Here are the 3 scenarios:

For this note, internal rates of return were determined for three scenarios of the OASDI program, Present Law Scheduled, Increased Payroll Tax, and Payable Benefits. The Present Law Scheduled scenario is based on the taxes and benefits specified in present law, even though the program income and assets under present law are projected to be inadequate to fully pay all benefits through the 75-year projection period.

Under the Increased Payroll Tax scenario, payroll-tax rates are assumed to be increased as needed beginning in the year of trust-fund exhaustion so that present-law scheduled benefits would always be payable in each year. The payroll-tax rate would begin to increase from the present law amount of 12.4 percent beginning in 2042. The payroll-tax rate increases to 17.01 percent in 2043 and continues to increase year-by-year until reaching 18.32 percent in 2078. It is expected that, under this scenario, further increases in the payroll tax rate would be needed after 2078 due to continuing increases in life expectancy.

The third scenario, Payable Benefits, assumes that benefits are reduced to a level that could be paid using tax rates scheduled in present law. The reductions from scheduled levels would apply to all types of benefits paid during the year. Under the intermediate projections of the 2004 Trustees Report, full scheduled benefits under present law cannot be paid in 2042 and later. Thus, for this scenario, annual reductions would begin in 2042 and would increase each year thereafter. Program income using present-law tax rates is estimated to be sufficient to pay 73.1 percent of scheduled benefits in 2043 and 67.6 percent of scheduled benefits in 2078. It is expected that, under this scenario, annual reductions in the benefits would continue to increase after 2078 due to continuing increases in life expectancy.

[Mojorabbit]

31. my house phone is down

And I am thing to do this on my cell so please excuse but why isn't raising.g the cap part of theplan. It seems that they want to increase the percentage paid by the lowest paid citizens.

[boppers]

40. SS is part of the debt.

Costs on the debt include debt service, and interest.

Which is part of the deficit.

Roughly 1/4th of our national debt is Social Security, money we have already promised.

Oh, and the battle isn't about raising a "deficit limit". It's about raising the debt limit.

[neoralme]

30. Here is what you don't seem to understand. Social Security and

to a lesser extent Medicare was paid for out of contributions from both employees and employers out of employee paychecks. Money accrued as such is sacrosanct. If Obama touches it (and that was his plan from his original election), then he goes down. The country does not steal from seniors and the ill because it stole their money bombing poor people all over the globe. If you want to say, pay the people off based on what they have earned SAY THAT! But none of this revisionist crap about the retirement model being bad. This country that I fought for is going down. It takes no mental giant to see that. It is going down because of the actions and inactions of both Democrats and Republicans. But I say do not let the government under Obama flim flam us.

[Telly Savalas]

37. Because this is the perfect opportunity to get the cap on the FICA tax raised

or altered to make it more progressive, raise more revenue, and thus extend the solvency horizon for the program.

From the press conference today it sounds like he's intending to leverage this situation to do something to that extent. I'll wait and see how it plays out before casting judgment, but it sounds like Obama is actually going on the offensive for a change.

[daa]

5. Then leave it OFF THE TABLE and FOCUS on the debt ceiling.

I don't remember chimpy dealing with this for trillions, multiple times, and dems were in charege? WTF?

[ClarkUSA]

7. Pres. Obama in his SOTU said he'd cut costs and fraud but not benefits.

Costs are NOT benefits. There's nothing wrong with lowering costs and attacking fraud. Not sure why there's such stubborn resistance to the idea of streamlining processes which just waste money. Every large bureaucracy has costs that could use trimming without affecting benefit delivery.

[Windy]

14. You are correct, but many at DU and in the progressive media only look for controversy

Cutting costs is critical. Why in the world should the government pay for rental on a "hoverround" for example for a decade when it would be cheaper to just buy one for a few hundred dollars?????

What is wrong with a means test for social security? Should Warren Buffett get the same social security disability benefits that I get? Frankly, should an auto worker with full pension get the same amount of Social Security benefits as someone with no pension?

Time to grow up people.

[ClarkUSA]

16. True. And don't forget PUMAs, who live to demean and denigrate this honest and dignified President.

Cutting costs is critical. Why in the world should the government pay for rental on a "hoverround" for example for a decade when it would be cheaper to just buy one for a few hundred dollars?????

What is wrong with a means test for social security? Should Warren Buffett get the same social security disability benefits that I get? Frankly, should an auto worker with full pension get the same amount of Social Security benefits as someone with no pension?

Time to grow up people.

I agree with your POV 100%.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Everything in the world is wrong with means testing.

And Social Security exists to support other retirement income, not to replace it. The idea of docking it because a person has invested in another form of retirement program is antithetical to the goals of the program. It is not a welfare program. It is insurance.

[Autumn]

34. Thank you.

A very valid point. It is not a welfare program. It is insurance. That we paid for.

[boppers]

41. How much in car insurance have paid?

Do you get it back when you stop driving?

Yeah, it's "Insurance" alright.

....just another mandated scam.

[awoke_in_2003]

46. are you saying social security...

is a mandated scam?

[boppers]

47. Yes.

"Opting out" is not easy, there's no way of knowing if the money will be there, and the money you pay in... is not the money you get out.

Pay hundreds of thousands into it, and die at 54? You get what? Well, you get dead.

Your survivors don't get much, either.

It's a scam, a scheme, an "insurance".

[awoke_in_2003]

49. It is solvent until 2035...

and with a few tweaks, much longer. A mandated scam would be more like the great Health Insurance Bailout plan that got passed- you are forced to buy insurance from a predatory entity that has zero regulations. Oh, they can't deny you for pre-existing conditions, but nothing is regulating the price they charge. But I am sure the nice insurance companies won't screw the american public too hard.

[boppers]

51. So, if you're over 43, it's great.

"with a few tweaks", BTW, is what people have been raising hell about.

[no limit]

24. So if benefits end up being cut by this administration you would agree that would make Obama a liar

would you still support him then?

I look forward to your reply.

[polichick]

8. Another example of words not matching actions.

[ClarkUSA]

10. What "actions"? List them without cluttering up the thread with speculative nonsense.

[polichick]

13. Obama says one thing and does another...

If SS is not contributing to the deficit (words), you don't put it on the negotiation table (action).

Think before you post.

[ClarkUSA]

17. But what did Pres. Obama do that was so bad for Social Security, exactly?

[no limit]

26. He put social security cuts on the table without anyone asking him to, not even the republicans

what cuts you might ask? I have no clue, all I know is what "sources familiar with the negotiations" have said. I wish I knew more about what cuts he is proposing, unfortunately this president decided that these "talks" should be done behind close doors which is counter to everything he promised during the campaign.

[polichick]

28. He put it on the table in a deficit discussion - if you crack the door even a little...

Republicans will take full advantage - we all know that.

[roxiejules]

44. Obama put Social Security on the table in 2007

during the primary campaign with Hillary Clinton....much to the dismay of many liberals.




"All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign. It’s a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders." - Paul Krugman



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/why-barack-... /



It’s astounding to see a Major Dem (Obama) pimping Social Security as a big, troubling issue. It’s astounding to see one Dem attacking another because she won’t go along with that plutocrat claim—especially when he’s been reciting the old chestnut about college kids. This claim has been the tool of plutocrats over the course of the past twenty-five years. Now, we see a Major Dem pimping this line—and criticizing Clinton’s troubling “character” because she won’t go there with him. By the way, tell us again: Which of these two is the “liberal?”



http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/10/29/171748/53

[joshcryer]

48. Irony is some of us defended Hillary during those primaries because we saw that.

Though it's only bittersweet that the same voracious defenders of Obama are now denouncing him.

[Igel]

36. Because he's being ever so clever.

SS isn't contributing to the deficit. It won't. But it will contribute to the debt problem is a really serious way. Alter SS and you can alter the problem of issuing additional debt to be bought by the general public.

Then again, mostly the claim is that "entitlement programs" contribute to the deficit problem and will contribute increasingly to the deficit problem. SS is an entitlement program, so there's the attempt to say that entitlement programs don't contribute to the deficit problem.

It's rather like a rancher complaining that carnivores are ravaging his sheep. An advocate for wolves could easily point out that feral housecats are carnivores, but don't ravage sheep, so how could the sheep possibly be ravaged? Hardly a reasonable argument, but the analogy isn't wrong (just a bit extreme). Medicare is also an entitlement program. Medicare already requires a few hundred billion in general revenues yearly, and that's set to only grow. Medicare needs to be altered. Note that the increase is probably going to be more than the HCRA proposed, but nobody said that the HCRA assumptions foisted on the CBO were reasonable. Just necessary.

[joshcryer]

39. It's called politics. He never vocally put it on the table. He let the proposal get out...

...and never assigned his name to it, at all. Period. Done. End of discussion.

It's politics. That's how it works. He's doing his damndest to play the most evil corrupt people on the planet.

And he did OK so far, except he failed to get liberals to grasp the ploy.

[karynnj]

11. I am SO glad that he is making this point

Both Medicare and SS are currently bringing in more than they are paying out. Neither should be used to fund the tax cuts Ryan wants. It is the GENERAL budget that does not have the money.

The fact is that both SS and Medicare will take in MORE when more people are employed and making more (assuming they are under the caps.) It is completely bogus to suggest that either are the reason for the deficit. It is completely dishonest on the part of the Republicans.

[rocktivity]

12. Give me a minute to get back into my chair.

He hasn't said anything like that about Social Security since he debated Hillary on the subject.


rocktivity

[mzmolly]

19. I'm sorry but I didn't hear the word "table" and I demand he speak about tables.

;) K and R.

[Canuckistanian]

21. Then why bring it up?

Why not leave SS OFF THE TABLE until later?

[PragmaticLiberal]

23. Because its going to have to be dealt with sooner or later.

If there's an opportunity to strengthen it for the long term, you do it now.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. No

You do it separately. Including Social Security as part of the debt negotiations makes no sense when it has not been a driver of the debt.

Interesting how people want to "strengthen" it in the middle of debt ceiling talks.

[Telly Savalas]

38. If you do it separately, what incentive is there for the GOP to cooperate?

All the official announcements indicate the intention is to strengthen it without cutting benefits. The only way to do this is to alter the FICA tax, and the only way you're going to get the GOP to play ball with that is to include it as part of a bigger package.

I'll withhold judgment until I actually see how this plays out, but for someone who's hyper-cautious about being confrontational with the GOP, Social Security would be the logical top of the list for battles to choose.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. THANK YOU!!!! K&R!!!!!! n/t

[Raine1967]

33. Here is what he said on Friday... The MSM isn't exactly touting this:

"With respect to Social Security and Medicare, my core principle is anything that strengthens Social Security and Medicare and makes sure that it's there for the next generation, I'm for. Anything that dismantles it, weakens it, hurts current beneficiaries, in ways that are fundamentally unfair, that's not something I will accept. But what we do have to make sure of is as the population's getting older and more people are going into Social Security and Medicare, that those programs are preserved and intact and that they're fully paid for." President Obama, posted July 8, 2011. http://www.king5.com/video/featured-videos/Jean-Enersen-1-on-1-with-Pres-Obama-125177029.html

the comment is made at the 4:53 mark. Bold face mine. I swear sometimes people act like POTUS Just saying Social Security is verboten.

[bvar22]

35. Oh Yes.

The "temporary" Payroll Tax Holiday,
putting Social Security "on the table",
and the Catfood Commission...

...ALL the STRENGTHEN Social Security!!!
Is there anyone who really believes THAT?



"Sir, we had to destroy the village in order to save it."

"And everyone has a share" shouted Milo
as the American planes began dropping bombs on their own base. ---Catch-22





Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises.

[Safetykitten]

50. "The reason we do..." What's a wedo? A wedo is a change that means cut.