Sen. Whitehouse to Introduce Resolution: Cuts to Soc. Security & Medicare Should Be Off Table

[Hissyspit]

Source: Whitehouse for Senate Campaign

Co-sponsor the Sense of the Senate on Protecting Social Security and Medicare

- snip -

So Senator Whitehouse is introducing a Senate resolution to tell the President and congressional budget negotiators on both sides of the aisle in unambiguous terms: Cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits should be off the table.

- snip -

Text of the Sense of the Senate on Protecting Social Security and Medicare:
(a) Findings -- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Over 34 million retired workers currently receive Social Security benefits -- averaging a modest $14,100 a year.
(2) In 2008, 23% of retirees receiving Social Security depended on it for all or almost all of their income.
(3) According to the AARP, Social Security kept 36% of seniors out of poverty in 2008.
(4) Reducing Social Security benefits would cause many seniors to have to choose between food and drugs and rent and heat.
(5) Ninety-five percent of seniors -- almost 37 million in 2008 -- get their health coverage through Medicare.
(6) Without Medicare, seniors -- many of whom live off of Social Security -- would have to turn to the costly and uncertain private market for health insurance.
(7) Social Security and Medicare are extremely successful social insurance programs that permit America’s seniors to retire with dignity and security after a lifetime of hard work, and relieve young American families of worry about their own futures, allowing freedom of opportunity in America.
(b) Sense of the Senate: It is the Sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should not include cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits.

Read more: http://www.whitehouseforsenate.com/cuts-petition?utm_source=sp4003067&utm_medium=e&sc=sp4003067&refcode=sp4003067

[mzmolly]

1. From Rep. James Clyburn

"When you say Social Security is 'on the table,' it's been on the table all the time," Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Huffington Post. "In the Biden talks we talked about whether we ought to do something like raising the caps. If you raise the caps it's a whole lot different than raising the retirement age."

Clyburn opened the door to means-testing, which would reduce or eliminate benefits for wealthy individuals based on income levels.

"That's the kind of stuff we ought to look at," he said. "Don't get nervous about Social Security being on the table -- that could very well be what the president is talking about, and I hope that's what the president is talking about."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who will meet with Obama on Friday to discuss the deal, also affirmed on Thursday that Democrats will not support cuts in benefits.

In spite of the title of this article, I think that Clyburn is right about what exactly is on the proverbial table.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/social-security-obama_n_892722.html

[boppers]

6. It's always been on the table.

http://tinyurl.com/3on6vrv

There was no magical time Social Security wasn't being tinkered with.

[No Elephants]

21. Forgive me. I don't have your grasp of history. When did Democrats put it on the table in the past?

[Enthusiast]

25. Since Obama created the catfood commission....nt

[Kall]

12. Seems illogical to me

The type of changes to Social Security that Obama is putting on the table is raising the cap (taxing the rich more), in exchange for Republicans agreeing to raise taxes?

How do those negotiation incentives work, exactly?

By the way, this whole "negotiate cuts to Social Security and Medicare against the wishes of a large majority of the country, in the space of a week or so, behind closed doors with John Boehner, while keeping the Democratic caucus on the sidelines" doesn't feel very transparent and accountable to me. I remember Obama campaigning on transparency and accountability.

Maybe that's just another of his campaign promises we're irresponsible, sanctimonious purists for expecting him to fulfill, and we expect ponies for calling for that too.

[JDPriestly]

16. Excellent post, Kall

[SusanaMontana41]

89. I agree heartily.

:applause:

[Javaman]

39. it will work out just like the continuation of the bush* tax cuts...

the rich will get theirs and the poor will once again get screwed.

There are people around here who think the continuation of the tax cuts actually helped dems.

the devil is in the details.

the rich got their cuts and the original 99ers didn't get shit. It was the NEW people going on UI that would get an extension. The old 99ers? SOL.

So what else is new.

He caved then and he will cave now.

[A wise Man]

42. Look i agree that Obama is not perfect....

but here at du they are attacking him more than bush. Obama has been in office for 1 term...BUSH HAS FUCKED ALL OF US FOR 8 YEARS...THE REPUTES HAS SCREWED US ALL FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. Make up your mind who you want in office???????????????

[kenfrequed]

45. Well you may think yourself wise

But you really don't have the facts.

Do you honestly believe that we rip on President Obama here more than we ripped on Bush during his administration? Seriously? I was here and I don't think that argument holds water.

The difference is that when we bring this up about President Obama it is because we either expect him to do something progressive or because we are so disappoitned that he didn't.

[Ozymanithrax]

76. Bush isn't President. We have a history of criticizing him.

It is our right and out duty to criticize our government, even if that government is run by a Democrat.

We are a representative Democratic Republic. President Obama is our Representative. I think he should represent the will of the vast majority of Americans who are against cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

[gateley]

90. Well done. nt

[Liberalynn]

80. No one is arguing Obama caused the meltdown.

If anything he and his administration are the ones who fail to point out that it was Bush and his Rethug cohorts that got us into this mess.

The problem I have with the President is that his solution seems to be not to change Bush policies, as every reasonable sane person with a brain, should know failed miserably, but to continue them.

We hired him to REVERSE THE COURSE!

How does staying on the same one help fix the mess we are in? He needs to be steering us far away from the Republican iceberg. Instead he keeps driving us closer and closer to it, by aiding and abetting the ReThugs every chance he gets.

And its him not Bush attacking Social Secuirty right now which is the issue at hand.

[The Big Vetolski]

86. Bush did not betray the Democrats. Obama did. That is the

difference. We EXPECTED Bush to try to privatize Social Security and cut Medicare and Medicaid. We did NOT expect President Obama, for whom many of us worked to get elected and to whom we sent our hard-earned money, to actually PROPOSE advancing the Bush agenda. There's the source of the outrage you see here. You don't have to be a rocket scientist, or a wise man, for that matter, to figure that one out.

[yurbud]

14. means testing would make it welfare and therefore easier to kill since every freeper thinks they're

middle to upper class no matter how small the trailer they live in is.

[JDPriestly]

19. Besides, some of the people who are older and now receiving

Social Security voluntarily paid into Social Security in order to have a retirement insurance. If they were lucky and thrifty and now happen to have a high income, should they lose the money and benefits they earned by voluntarily participating in this program which, at they time they participated, promised to pay benefits to everyone?

How can Americans trust their government if the government does not pay out what it agreed to pay for the money that ordinary Americans including the lowest paid workers entrusted to it?

How could Congress consider violating the trust of America's seniors in this way?

If Congress and Obama have such contempt for American seniors (and hopefully every American will one day be a senior) that they agree to default on the promise of Social Security with fair COLAs to American working people, they will tear the country apart.

Maybe you won't see the distrust and division in the country for some years, but the fact is that, thanks to this deal, the country will, whether over time or in short order, split and segment and fall apart.

That is because the attacks on Social Security are attacks by the rich against the poor. They are meant to separate rich and poor and punish the poor and make anyone who accepts Social Security payments feel poor, feel a little less worthy than the rich who don't "qualify" for Social Security.

Of course, the result will be that relying on Social Security will carry an ugly stigma.

And that violates the concept of the Social Security program. The entire point was to treat seniors who worked during their lives and paid the Social Security taxes with equal respect in their final years. Those who took the payments were not to be stigmatized based on their financial situation. So you see, Obama is not just acquiescing to changes in Social Security. He is agreeing to categorize some Americans as less worthy of dignity than others. And this will have a terrible social effect.

In addition, the flat tax ideas that the Republicans are pushing are regressive and reminiscent of the policies that drove the French into the French Revolution. If the Republicans prevail on their flat tax, in fact, the rich will avoid their duty to pay taxes. They will "fix their books" so that they pay no or very low taxes, and the poor will pay and pay and pay.

I am not a revolutionary, but I am warning that we have seen this before in history -- not in the US, but elsewhere such as France. The rich gamble and lose. Greed overtakes them and to make up their losses, they plot to oppress the poor, to make the poor pay for the gambling losses. This will not end well.

If Obama is really a Democrat, if he really cares about ordinary people, then instead of dealing with the Republicans in D.C. on their terms, he should go on a national tour and appeal directly to the American people for support for tax hikes for the rich without cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

In the meantime, the Republicans will not permit a default. After all, they and their rich friends have the most to lose.

But this is all so obvious, that we have to understand finally, that there is a very good chance that Obama has planned from the get-go to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. His promise to raise the cap on the Social Security tax to save Social Security wasn't made in good faith in the first place.

[tomp]

28. it's another form of default but the wars will go on. nt

[AlbertCat]

66. It's another form of default but the wars will go on. nt

Indeed!

Just take money out of the defense budget and put back the money Bush "borrowed" from SS. The DoD would not even miss it.

[dgibby]

38. There is precedent in the Govt defaulting on its' contracts.

When I joined the Navy in '69, part of my retirement package included "free" health care for life, that is, no out of pocket costs for me for exams, treatment, meds, etc.

Before I retired in '91, the Govt had completely reversed itself, and instituted TRICARE. A group of retirees sued for breech of promise, and although the Govt conceded that, indeed, it had reneged on its' contract, it didn't matter because the Govt didn't have to keep it's promises or fulfill its' contracts.

That was when I took off the rose colored glasses, took a hard look at the Govt, and decided that Washington was irretrievably broken. Nothing that has happened since then has done anything to disabuse me of that belief. The take away from this for me is that if the Govt will renege on its' contract with the very people they ask to die for their country, then the rest of us mean nothing to them.

[No Elephants]

58. Actually, a 1935 case says the government does have to fulfill its obligations.

Perry v. United States.

I didn't know about it until someone posted the title here yesterday.

It's described here (among other places): http://thefreshxpress.com/2011/07/the-debt-ceiling-is-refusing-to-raise-it-unconstitutional/

[happyslug]

93. Text of Perry vs US, holds US MUST fulfil its obligations

http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/330/case.htm

What the Court ruled in Perry vs US was that if Congress says from this date forward GOLD can NOT be used by anyone in the US (which Congress did do in gold), any GOVERNMENT contract that says a debt will be paid in dollars valued in terms of gold at $20 an ounce, will be paid dollar for dollar even if the dollar is devalued to $35 an ounce of gold.

Furthermore since Congress had made it illegal for private people to hold gold (effective 1933), the holder of a government bond, to be paid in gold, did NOT incur a GAIN in dollar terms for the holder of the bond, for if the bond had been gold instead, the holder of the gold would have had to turn it over to the Government at $20 an ounce in the first place. Given that fact for actual gold, a holder of a bond to be paid in terms of gold in 1917, suffered no loss when the dollar was devalued in terms of Gold. Given no actual loss, no compensation should be paid to the holder of a bond with a clause that it should be paid in Dollars valued in Gold as of 1917.

This was a very narrow ruling, more to do with the devaluation of the dollar in terms of gold more than anything else.

[happyslug]

92. Military benefits are NOTContractual

Even the 20 year Pension (Technically half-pay)is NOT the product of contract, never has been. Look at your enlistment contract, pay rate, benefits, pension and any long term promise made to you to get you to enlist, unless added into the actual enlistment contract, is NOT part of your enlistment contract. Congress can reduce every person in the military pay to zero, and not violate any term in any enlistment contract (unless contract expressly state pay must be paid, most do not have such a TERM). Officer's Commissions and warrants have similar terms. For that reason Congress can redefine such pay and benefits at any time. Congress could even abolish the military pensions at any time since it is a grant from Congress NOT a product of contract.

[JDPriestly]

99. True on the legal level, but on the moral level. the broken promises

will reverberate and cause great distrust.

This could result in serious movements for change in the way our government functions.

People need to trust, need to be able to rely on the national leadership. In fact, what holds our economy and our nation together is trust.

And if that is broken, who knows what might happen?

The reason that our economy flourished from 1932-1968 was because Americans trusted each other (more than today) and the government (relatively speaking). The trust was not 100% but it was better than it is today.

It was the trust in FDR, the belief that he cared for the American people (same for Truman, strange and simple as he was) that allowed Americans to unite and work together to win WWII and to recover from the war and provide a place for the returning soldiers.

Trust is essential. And Obama will lose trust if he acquiesces to cuts in Social Security and Medicare. That will cut into the finances of many American families, not just the senior members of family.

[KoKo]

47. !...well said.

[olegramps]

55. You neglect the fact that Social Security benefits are taxed.

When the wealthy received their gift of lower taxes they also benefited from lower taxes on Social Security payments. Perhaps this would be the way to go and tax the benefits higher for the wealthy.

[JDPriestly]

98. Just raising the marginal rate on the wealthy would deal with the problem.

[mzmolly]

65. If I pay into car insurance, and don't have an accident or a need to

file a claim, am I also losing the money I put in?

[JDPriestly]

97. Right. You buy the insurance "just in case," not "hoping that."

[No Elephants]

22. Means testing would make it massive fraud on a scale that would make banksters seem small time.

Unlike welfare, people paid into OASDI based upon a promise by government that it would be there if and when they became disabled and if and when they reached retirement age or if and when their spouse and minor children needed it because they died early.

It's proper name is not Social Security, but Old Age, Disability and Survivors' Insurance. If you sell someone an insurance cum annuity policy, you don't means test them when it comes time for them to collect the proceeds of that policy. And, if you've misspent the money they paid in all those years, you should go to jail for fraud, not remain in a position of trust or have the gall to lecture them.

If you want to tell people entering the work force now for the first time that you want them to pay for life into something they'll never collect on unless they are impoverished, fine. If you get elected on that basis, fine.

But people who have already paid into it thinking they were buying insurance against untimely disability, untimely death, or old age are entitled to collect the proceeds of that insurance cum annuity policy.

And why should people who have bought that insurance cum annuity policy have to face the welfare stigma that, if anything, is getting stronger these days, to collect the proceeds of that policy just because their government misbehaved?

I used to favor means testing if the income level were very high. However, I now feel that would just encourage government to rob us and would also be a very slippery slope.

Let's insist on a government that does not blatantly defraud the entire working population of the nation. Please, can at least that be our baseline? No massive fraud of the entire working population of the nation. Please?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. And corporations and the govt don't engage in fraud on a daily basis already? nt

[saras]

57. Best summary I've seen - thanks

"If you sell someone an insurance cum annuity policy, you don't means test them when it comes time for them to collect the proceeds of that policy. And, if you've misspent the money they paid in all those years, you should go to jail for fraud"

A little bit of actual sanity ruins the whole debate, doesn't it?

[No Elephants]

59. Thank you, and you're very welcome.

[mzmolly]

64. Sanity? Do you think everyone collects on every insurance policy they pay in?

Or, that every homeowner who documents their income for a loan, commits fraud?

[mzmolly]

63. You do realize not everyone pays into SS,

right? And, that not everyone who buys insurance will collect on a given policy?

[lark]

88. Totally agree, but from different point of view

Already, if a husband and wife both worked and husband dies, wife gets nothing from SSI. However, same couple but wife didn't work, she gets her husband's SSI. Fair and government are totally incompatible words.

I still think means testing is awful and a backdoor way of ending SSI in the future. It will be, those SSI queeens who do nothing but sit around and eat bon bons are the reason we can't cut taxes any more - end it now and they'll state some spurious cause that needs the money more! You know that will happen.

Raising the cap is not something Repugs would go for so if rasing taxes isn't on the table, this is indeed raising taxes. The kool-aid drinkers on this board want to tell themselves that Obama's doing what's right for us, but they are deluding themselves if they think his plan is raising taxes on the rich. Obviously, that's not what he does. He just lies about it first then turns around and does what he intended all long. He is not one of us, don't know what it will take for that to sink in for some folks?

[No Elephants]

26. Many freepers are on welfare. Blue states subsidize red states.

[mzmolly]

61. I disagree.

I think it would make it a need based program that most of us pay in to.

[roxiejules]

70. But, WHY should it be on the table?

As Dean Baker said....


.."The business-backed group Third Way has been making a big point of going after Social Security lately. Today it had a column telling us that Social Security is in crisis, even though the most recent projections from the Social Security trustees show that the program can pay full scheduled benefits with no changes whatsoever for a quarter century. Even after that point, the program would always be able to pay a higher benefit than what current retirees receive.

The argument hinges on the fact that the program is paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. In other words, it is relying on interest from the $2.6 trillion trust fund that it has built up over the last quarter century. To term this a crisis would be like saying that Bill Gates had a crisis because he dipped into his $50 billion in assets to build some new play houses for his kids. The trust fund was built up for the explicit purpose of supporting the program. It makes no sense to say that using it is a crisis."


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/cheap-tricks-on-social-security

[totodeinhere]

71. No means testing. Anytime you have means testing the rigmarole one has to go through during the

means testing process would inevitably mean that some who deserve benefits won't get them because they fill out forms wrong or don't have documents to prove their net worth. The last thing I need is to have to fill out a stack of paperwork in order to qualify for SS benefits.

Just raise the cap on FICA deductions. It's such a no brainer. What is wrong with those people in Washington?

[mzmolly]

72. It doesn't inevitably mean any such thing.

It may mean that those who don't need/want SS benefits, can opt out, however.

[totodeinhere]

74. People who don't want their benefits already have the ability to send it back to the federal

treasury. But why doesn't it "inevitably mean any such thing?" Do you have any idea how many poor people already don't get benefits they qualify for because the application process to get those benefits is too daunting? Do you really want to add SS to the list of benefits that people qualify for but don't get because they don't have the wherewithal to make it through the application process? I don't. We paid into the system. We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get the benefits we earned.

[lordsummerisle]

2. I'd feel better

if the should was replaced by "must".

[SugarShack]

5. i like the idea of raising the cap....

[DesertFlower]

9. so do i. just think how much more would

be paid into the fund.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

18. It should be removed completely. n/t

[No Elephants]

27. Does the exact wording of a nonbinding resolution really matter all that much?

I'd feel better if I didn't see this as kabuki theater.

[Javaman]

41. It's all kabuki theater.

people keep dressing up this kindergarten pagent as if it was Verdi.

[PoliticAverse]

3. But no specific mention in the resolution about changes in the COLA formula or retirement age...

two most often discussed changes to social security that some people
will argue don't constitute 'cuts'.

[Fearless]

4. +1000

[Divernan]

20. Exactly. That jumped out at me immediately.

[sulphurdunn]

37. Those are the two easiest ways

to screw everybody over.

[jaysunb]

7. This is all well & good but, I want to hear

" Social Security & Medicare have nothing to do w/ the national debt or deficit. these social programs have NO place in this conversation."

Just my 2 cents worth .

[saras]

60. Yep. THAT is the BINDING resolution Obama would have organized the Dems to pass at the beginning

But he's not a progressive leader, and in fact consistently shows disrespect and disdain for progressive leaders.

This could have been in place before the screwed-up midterms, as could twenty or thirty other resolutions forbidding Repubs from fucking with things.

Some people just seem to be so profoundly emotionally attached to the old system of authoritarian hierarchical capitalist business, that even after all this, they still expect them to magically fix things and provide well-paying secure jobs with health insurance for everyone. My own opinion is that it is never going to happen - that we (the planet) will not fix the current wave of destruction until we effectively disempower corporations worldwide, and make the majority of their large-scale decisions, and in particular, decisions about resource extraction, location, and governance of facilities, under democratic control.

But I suspect that we won't do that, we'll go down the tubes, and after another dark age, some other society, unfortunately most likely another one that uses religion to control technology, will arise and continue. But whoever arises will have some kind of social control mechanism on resource extraction and pollution that is as unquestionable as the Word of God - powerful enough to say "no" to the biggest economic unit on the planet and make it stick without messy wars or worldwide disruption.

[cstanleytech]

8. As I said on another thread I am not going to complain

just yet and wont be breaking out the torches and pitchfork until more information is forthcoming from the whitehouse.

[blkmusclmachine]

10. Mere theatrics.

Mere theatrics to "prove" the "Democrats" got "the best deal they could" in screwing us over. All show, no blow.

[No Elephants]

29. "Sense of the Senate." Jumbo shrimp.

[99th_Monkey]

11. Hmm.. a very electable US Senator acting like a REAL Democrat with the last name of Whitehouse ~nt

[trud]

17. we would be lucky to

have Whitehouse in the Whitehouse, he's a sensible, intelligent guy, but, like, from RI, my state. Not exactly a huge base.

[chill_wind]

13. K & R. Good for Senator Whitehouse!

[JDPriestly]

15. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.

Seniors did not cause the economic meltdown. Wall Street with its gambling and its derivatives did. Greenspan with his unrealistically low interest rates did. Thousands of mortgage brokers who dishonestly sold people who could not afford them on mortgages they eventually defaulted on. Very few of these people were seniors. Yet we are being asked to sacrifice so that Wall Street can keep its oversized bonuses and the bloated banks don't have to reduce their waistlines.

In addition to seniors, schoolchildren and college students are being asked to pay for the excesses of Wall Street.

How can Obama and his Republican buddies live with themselves as they begin their greedy assault on America's seniors.

They have no shame.

[tsuki]

24. The more Obama speaks, the more I hear Hoover. nt

[No Elephants]

23. Really, Senator Whitehouse?

As far as I ever knew, when a U.S. Senator strongly disagreed with a proposal of the President, he or she worked liked hell to make sure the Senate vote on the proposal went against the President's proposal WHEN THAT VOTE MIGHT ACTUALLY TORPEDO THE PROPOSAL. .

This seems to me like showboating and a waste of precious time that could be better spent convincing folks how to vote when the vote really matters. However, finishing my coffee may make me view it as Whitehouse's way of working to defeat Obama's proposal, maybe by riling folks up enough to march on Washington or whatever.

[tomp]

30. the issues is:

what will the final proposal be and will whitehouse vote for it.

[No Elephants]

31. Of course. And by "Obama's vote" I mean veto. Meanwhile, I guess we're supposed to enjoy this show.

Whatever happened to the "bread" part of "bread and circus?"

[tomp]

32. we may not get bread....

....but you've got to admit this is some fantastic circus.

[dgibby]

35. Not crazy about the clowns, tho. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Actually, it is terrible circus, with doddering mediocre clowns

presenting tired old turns the crowd has seen far too often.

[No Elephants]

48. "If you can't something nice about anybody,

come sit next to me." (or wrds to that effect) Alice Roosevelt Longworth (yes, THAT Roosevelt family)

[tomp]

96. seeing the entertainment factor at all

is what keeps me sane. and frankly, if they come up with new tricks things will only get worse.

[jerseyjack]

33. Don't just sign the petition on the link. CALL YOUR SENATORS

[Liberalynn]

82. I have called mine

but I am not sure it will do any good. Both mine are Democrats and Obama it seems is refusing to meet with Senate Democrats.

"Their frustration is exacerbated by Obama’s snub of their invitation to speak to the Senate Democratic caucus" The Hill as referenced by http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4910243

So it seems that in addition to the potential of my disability benefits which I earned and payed for, being cut, I am faicing the possiblitly of being disenfranchised as well, as my representavies are apparently unable to speak to the President on this issue. He only wants to hear the Republican side.

And I am suppposed to cheer and blindly support this President why? Realizing you as a poster are not saying this, but I think there are some fellow Democrats, who feel that just because he has a D after his name, we should support him, even when he dosen't act like a true to the values Democrat.

[qwlauren35]

85. I e-mailed.

I'll call on Monday. I want them off the table. Period, end of discussion.

And then, in the next discussion, I want the tax cuts for the wealthy ended. Now.

I have big dreams.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. I can think of plenty they could cut that involves the rich, not the middle class or needy nt

[Ganja Ninja]

36. Since Social Security is part of the National debt, cutting it is ...

selectively defaulting on the debt.

[Doctor_J]

40. Without buy-in from the leading Democrat (WH resident), this will

go nowhere. the prez sold out the real Dems.

[Capitalocracy]

44. Hey, that's what I said.

It shouldn't even be on the table. There's inherent damage in even floating these trial balloons, and it sends a bad message, that if we can't convince him it will damage him too much politically, Obama either wants or is willing to sign off on these cuts.

[Better Believe It]

46. Big loophole. What about reducing increases in future benefits via chained CPI or

increasing the early and full retirement age which would cut the total amount of benefit payments?

Those and any other "clever" schemes to reduce the increase in future benefits need to be clearly opposed.

[No Elephants]

49. Isn't the nonbinding nature of this the big loophole?

[Better Believe It]

62. Good point. But submitting a resolution sounds good when you're out campaigning!

[daleo]

50. At least one Whitehouse cares about regular people. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

52. +100

[AbigailThomas]

51. DID YOU KNOW SOCIAL SECURITY HAS A SURPLUS??....

Saw this on CNN's In the Arena last night ...

http://on.fb.me/oke4IS

[defendandprotect]

81. Social Security has a huge surplus -- more than $250 BILLION every year ... used as a slush fund ...

and that surplus has been raised every year for decades by passing the

burden of Social Security payments onto the poor and middle income payers --

We need to immediately raise FICA cap to include all the income of wealthy!!

[L0oniX]

53. "should not" ...it better not or you will be voted out of office no matter what party you are in.

There's a lot of repukes out there who would be affected too and you can bet they will side with the Dems when it comes to their SS and Medicare. Don't fuck with boomers or ...all your bases are belong to us.

[Bryn]

54. K&R

[kestrel91316]

67. Text of my email to President Obama:

"I have been a loyal Democratic voter most of my adult life, and continuously since 1980. I consider myself a progressive in every way. I have paid into Medicare and Social Security since I began working in 1972. I have been a medical professional for 30 years, and self-employed for 20 years.

"In the past 11 years I have seen my retirement savings vanish, and now in this economy my struggling practice is worth virtually nothing were I to try to sell it. I am 15 years away from retirement and now you are threating what may be MY ONLY INCOME AS A SENIOR.

"Shame on you and every single person in Washington and this nation who prefers to impoverish the already poor in order to preserve and INCREASE wealth for the privileged few. SHAME SHAME SHAME.

"Let me hand you a clue or two: TAX THE RICH. END THE WARS. LEAVE MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE.

"If you threaten what may be my only income in retirement, I will be left with no choice but to abandon the Democratic Party, register as a Socialist, and work for your defeat, and that of every DINO out there right along with the Republicans.

"You people apparently don't get it. You answer to ALL THE PEOPLE. Not just the corporations. Not just the Two-Percenters. And certainly not just to the right wing nuts whose idea this is.

"The goose that laid the golden egg is just about dead, Mr. President. Please don't be the one to slit her throat."

[w4rma]

68. Now here is something that Obama will fight (against). (nt)

[totodeinhere]

69. Does anyone have any idea is this even has a prayer of passing?

All the GOP needs is three DINOS to vote with them and the resolution fails. And yes I know, at least if that happens we will be able to know who is on our side and who isn't. But unless the resolution actually passes, I can't see Obama paying any attention to it.

[Ozymanithrax]

77. This has been pushed as a world economy crushing blow

if we fail to raise the debt ceiling. Link Social Security and Medicare cuts to the debt ceiling and it will be broadcast as "Democrats vote to destroy the world economy and suck us down to the ninth plane of hell" if they refuse to support it.

Extending unemployment and a few other goodies was linked to extending the Bush Tax Cuts, because if we didn't extend them job creation would grind to a halt and our economy will slip into the second dip. (Take a look at this months job creation to see the accuracy of that prediction.)

What you see is history repeating itself. This is hyped as something we must do for the good of the freaking world. They may even throw a name to it like the Save Social Security and Medicare Act of 2011.

[Akoto]

73. Should also mention the millions of disabled people for whom SSDI/SSI is life or death. n/t

[defendandprotect]

79. +1 --

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

78. This should be an issue which should close down the party ... cause Dems to walk out --

Obama is turning the Dem Party on its head --

it's now to be the anti-FDR and anti-New Deal party -- ?

Amazing what 20 years of Koch Bros. infiltration of the party via DLC can do!!

[Liberalynn]

83. Its just one big Rethuglican Pary all around.

[defendandprotect]

84. More than past time to begin to round up this huge liberal voting bloc and decide what to do!!

[femmedem]

87. Or an issue which causes Dems to primary Obama.

I'd vote for Whitehouse over Obama, and I bet a lot of other people would, too.

Well, a gal can dream.

[defendandprotect]

95. Me, too -- !! ....

:)

[jillan]

91. Sen Whitehouse is one of my favs - but I do not like this legislation...

It should say Cuts to Soc. Security & Medicare ARE Off the Table

[classysassy]

94. Sen.Whitehouse

should be in the White house.