Obama to screw with Social Security/Medicare? Or am I reading

[Faux pas]

this wrong?

Obama names special watchdog for federal spending-

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that reforming massive government entitlement programs — such as Social Security and Medicare — would be "a central part" of his effort to control federal spending.

Obama made the pledge but provided few details as he named Nancy Killefer as his administration's chief performance officer, creating a new White House position aimed at eliminating government waste and improving efficiency.

Noting that the Congressional Budget Office had just estimated he would inherit a $1.2 trillion federal deficit for fiscal 2009, Obama promised to cut unnecessary spending.

"We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part of those plans," Obama said. "And I would expect that by February in line with the announcement of at least a rough budget outline we will have more to say about how we're going to approach entitlement spending."

More at link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama
~~~
I'm all for curbing/controlling/watchdogging federal spending....'reforming' the 'massive entitlement programs' wouldn't be Number 1 on my list. Didn't we just dodge this bull(shit)et all through the boosh years? Someone help me see the bright side of this please, had massive dental work done yesterday and really not up to this kind of news. Thanks.

[Skink]

1. I'd inspect anything Bush even breathed on.

[Doremus]

2. Well, for one thing he could raise the salary limit for SS

Make the millionaires pay their fair share. I think I read somewhere that that one act alone would make SS solvent for decades.

There are more ways to save these programs than simply cutting benefits.

[DJ13]

4. I agree, but SS is already solvent into the 2040's

Social Security itself isnt a contributer to the deficit, it will remain a net for Federal revenues for (at least) another 15-20 years.

[davekriss]

13. 2012

The last I heard was social security would need to begin redeeming the trust fund starting 2012. Assuming a nice, conservative GDP growth rate of 1.8%, the trust fund would be exhausted by 2042. At that point revenue in vs. revenue out would allow continuance of benefits at 70% level of today. Of course, the historical average GDP growth rate is considerably higher (2.5%?) and at that level the exhaust date moves out past 2052. Do better than 2.5% and benefits could be increased.

The problem, however, is not the exhaustion of the Trust Fund, but the need to redeem (pay back the principal) the Special Treasury Bonds the Trust Fund is invested in. That begins 2012 (maybe sooner with rising unemployment now). The payback comes from general federal funds raised by taxes, additional borrowing, and printing presses (printing more money). The theory goes that, to have a solvent budget in 2012 onward taxes would have to rise to onerous levels, crowding out everything else expected from our federal government, and decelerating our economy from what it otherwise could be. So, the theory goes, if the U.S. decides to default on any future debts, it won't be the Japanese and Chinese and Venezuelans holding U.S. Treasury Bonds, it won't be the top 1% of the U.S. population that owns 68% of all Treasury Bonds, it will be the average U.S. citizen holding U.S. "Special" Treasury Bonds (held for us through the intermediary of the Social Security Trust Fund). This amounts to theft from the vast majority of U.S. citizens.

In 1983 Greenspan, on Reagan's behalf, made the case to raise social security taxes to build up a trust fund that would supply benefits to the demographic blip of baby boomers in later years. Meanwhile the money taken from our labor (in the form of FICA taxes) was lent to the U.S. government, who used it to disguise the true impact of tax cuts for the wealthy. It in effect amounts to a huge transfer of wealth from the many to the few, a Republican wet dream made real by Reaganomics and continued by GHWB and GWB.

GWB is the worst culprit: He borrowed more for his tax cuts and immoral wars than all other Presidents combined. The federal government is drowning in debt. Grover Norquist has won. In future years the federal government will be reduced to enforcing contracts and maintaining armies. As far as most of our political representatives are concerned, the rest of us can go Cheney ourselves.

Unless we rise up in a roar of "NO MORE!" and stop this theft, take back what was stolen from us, and punish the guilty, we will be Argentina-ized, reduced to a healthy upper class, a thin sliver of well paid magistrates and managers, and the rest of us left to live paycheck to paycheck just to eat, those of us lucky enough to have jobs. However, I don't see a roar happening anytime soon. Obama, as much as I love him, is right of center (yes he is!) and believes in repairing the status quo, the continuance of the Norquist program of federal restraint vs. unfettered freedom for capital. That is NOT change I can believe in.

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there
government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and
life and property are his who can take them.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Annapolis Citizens, 1809

[MajorChode]

16. This is the best and most informed post in this thread

So says I.

[Enthusiast]

129. And so says I, in agreement.

If Obama does not recognize this we have no HOPE.

[Hannah Bell]

21. yep. so if they need $ to pay retirees, they can get em like they got the

700 billion for the bankers.

that's more than 1 year of ss payments right there.

if obama touches ss, i'll personally lead a march on washington.

[Xithras]

23. Exactly. The "Trust Fund" is a bunch of IOU's the government wrote itself.

The Trust Fund only exists inasmuch as the government is willing to slash other programs to start paying back those IOU's. Even if the U.S. cut non-deficit defense spending to zero, the government would eventually be forced to gut countless other federal programs or raise taxes to unsustainable levels in order to maintain the current system.

It may have started out as a political problem, but today it's simply a math problem.

The problem today is that we're already well past the point of no return. We need a solution that will result in the stabilization of federal entitlement programs WITHOUT utilizing the nonexistent "Trust Fund". Simply shouting No More without implementing a plan to fix the things the thieves have already broken won't accomplish much.

My hope is that Obama has realized the issue, and is working towards a resolution with this in mind.

[Hannah Bell]

28. You drank the kool-aid. SS's design is 100% sustainable. Each generation of workers

pays for the retirement of the preceding one. If it can't be done with social security, it can't be done, PERIOD.

Each generation of workers can support more dependents because each generation of workers is more productive.

What's "unsustainable" is capital's demand for an ever-increasing percent of the value of production.

If you don't understand this, & stand up for it when they try to make you drink more koolaid, you're going to get your pocket picked.

Your spin is not what the poster meant.

[Xithras]

38. Your claim makes a few flawed assumptions

First, productivity isn't as important as real income. We aren't taxed on productivity, we're taxed on what we make. Real income has been stagnant for decades when charted against inflation. Second, we no longer live in an industrial production economy anyway, but in a service-oriented economy. Economic growth in our nation is tightly intertwined with our ability to tap an ever-dwindling assett pool to fund services supporting other people. The actual wealth production that does occur in our nation is insufficient to support the hundreds of millions of us in the country at our current level of comfort, which is a leading cause of our current econmic woes. Social security is screwed partly because our entire economic model is screwed.

Most importantly, your claim ignores another important detail:


Very soon, there will be far less people paying into that system. Total SS contributions will decline at the exact moment that demand on the system is the highest. A pay-as-you-go system cannot survive if the number of people using the system begins to approach the number of people paying into it.

Finally, I'm not an advocate of unfettered population and economic growth anyway. Our society needs to reign in both population expansion and the environmentally destructive use of finite resources needed to power "economic expansion". A more just, liberal, and sustainable world has the unfortunate side effect of shattering the concepts behind the funding of our current SSI model, which was designed to fit within the current expansionist/corporatist dominated world. The discussion of whether the current model is sustainable is somewhat secondary when it requires the maintenance of an economic model that many of us want to smash in the first place.

[Hannah Bell]

49. You're the one with "flawed assumptions".

First,

SSI isn't Social Security. SSI is a disability program funded through the general budget, not with Social Security taxes.

Second,

if future workers' production won't be sufficient to fund Social Security for retired workers', then the economy itself won't be able to support retirees, & they'll have to die. Non-working dependents are ALWAYS supported from current production, no matter how you arrange the finances.

Fortunately, it's not the case. The publicized numbers predicting imminent bankruptcy of the system are based on highly pessimistic assumptions (e.g. Depression-era growth, for one), & have failed to even predict short-term trends, let alone long-term ones 75 years into the future.

The forecasted date of deficit (payout higher than collections) was 2012 in 1997, & 2018 in 2004 - with only a 1.89% tax increase needed to make up the difference, v. 2.23% in 1997. The forecasted date of Trust Fund exhaustion moved from 2029 to 2042.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-23-04socsec.htm

SSA generates 3 forecasts. The most accurate one has consistently been the so-called "optimistic" one; under its assumptions, SS continues to maintain surpluses into infinity.

I repeat: over the entire history of SSA's reporting, this forecast has most closely tracked reality. Despite this, it's not publicized in the media. The reason seems obvious: the more scary, but less accurate forecast is preferred by the PTB.

Futhermore, even if the "intermediate" forecast were right on the money, SS would continue to be able to pay out about 70% of scheduled benefits - 100% of benefits with a less than 2% increase in rates. Still cheaper than supporting mom & dad from shit wages.

In addition, this situation would only stay in place for a few years. By 2042, when the TF is supposed to be exhausted, most of the baby boom "bubble" generation WILL BE LONG DEAD.

Third,

the US now has, & will continue to have, a higher ratio of workers to dependents than it did in the 50s, due to reduced average family size, higher participation of women, & a higher overall participation of labor in waged work generally.


Fourth,

the same canard was circulated when we went from 16,8,5,4 workers for every dependent. "What will we do, we won't have enough workers to support old people!" But we did, because each generation produces more goods, more services, & yes, more money, than its predecessor.

The fact is, productivity DOES matter. People don't eat dollars, they eat food. They don't live under dollars, they live in houses, built from materials created by labor. Higher productivity means it takes fewer workers to produce the same amount of houses, food, & other necessities. This means every worker should be able to support more dependents simply by keeping wages level with productivity gains.

It's also not accurate that the US no longer produces real goods. For example, the US produces more steel than in the 60s - just with 95% less labor.

If workers are unable to support more dependents despite increasing levels of production & productivity, that can only mean that they're receiving less of the real value of production & productivity, as measured by how much they can purchase, on average, in goods & services.

Your comment on "flat wages" shows your background assumptions: you accept flat wages as a given, & insist people accept them, & the impoverishment of their elders.


Fifth,

if the US can't support its elders on a lower worker to retiree ratio, then Europe & Japan should be collapsing right now, because they're ahead of us on this curve.


Finally:

The whole "we can't afford Social Security" mythos was created by capital, for the benefit of capital. If you buy into it, you're a fool or a shill. Here's some evidence of the DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN TO DESTROY THE SYSTEM:

www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj3n2/cj3n2-11.pdf

This influential paper, written in the 80s, is the blueprint: "Achieving a Leninist Strategy".

Every one of its prescriptions has been followed.

And it's truly ironic that, even with stocks, pensions, 401Ks & property values collapsing - all the alternatives that were supposed to fund our old age better than SS - & even after the government gave more than 700 billion to the banking industry - about 2 years of Social Security payments -

Slimebags, fools & shills are still telling us "We can't *afford* Social Security!"

[defendandprotect]

72. Correct: Even Bush administration had to confirm SS solvent thru 2038 . . .

and now longer --

If government loans were repaid SS would be infinitely soluable !!!

Watch for WSJ/Republican -- and now perhaps even Democratic Party

propaganda on SS ---

Meanwhile, Medicare should be expanded to cover everyone ---

[davekriss]

97. Hannah, I'm glad you're posting on this thread! (nt)

[SharonAnn]

56. The Federal government borrowed from us just like it borrowed from China, etc.

And I expect it to pay us back just like it will have to pay back the others.

No exceptions. No deals.

If they have to raise taxes, then do it.

I'm not going to eat cat food if I can help it.

[Enthusiast]

131. Cat food? It will be Soylent Green or nothing. nt

[defendandprotect]

67. Actually, they are government notes . . .

is the government declaring bankruptcy now?

[davekriss]

93. Xithras, the Trust Fund is just as real...

...as all the rest of the U.S. Treasury Bonds issued by our government. Why sit quietly and allow them to default on our bonds (under the ruse of "necessary" benefits reduction) while leaving those in the hands of the wealthy around the world and in the U.S. untouched? If it's a matter of math now, then make the f*cking retribution political! Those who most benefitted from the years of Reagonomics, the Chicago School, the Washington Consensus, and every other class-favoring right-wing think-tank psuedo-religious voodoonomic theory should bare the major brunt of the consequences. There is no reason to focus the laser beam of "correction" on the relatively disempowered class of everyday Americans -- except that they can, it's easy. We rarely bite.

Raise the Estate Tax to 90%! Raise the top FIT marginal rates to 90% for incomes over $1,000,000! Treat capital gains no differently than earned income! Pull our troops and treasure back from the 750+ military garrisons we maintain around the world! Nationlize our Pharma and Energy industries as payback for years of obscene profit gouging (amplified by the number of politicians they were able to buy)! I don't care if these measures are not enough to maintain what we have now, just make sure the pain is spread fairly. If we go down as a nation, insist we go down on top of the sorry-assed shoulders of the perpetrators of these crimes!

Since Obama appointed some of the very "thieves" responsible for our economic meltdown -- at least some of the academic cheerleaders -- I don't expect him to do anything except protect the interests of the affluent and powerful. His mere mention of tinkering with Social Security and Medicare makes me want to buy a 1,000 copies of the Shock Doctrine and send them to everyone I know. We are being had, our pockets picked, our pensions bled dry.

As Rachel would say, talk me down if you can.

[leftchick]

126. great post dave

and scary.

:(

[lumberjack_jeff]

128. The government didn't write those IOU's to itself. They wrote them to us.

They are physical pieces of paper imprinted with the words "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America".

I'm not going to sit idly by and allow them to not repay that debt to me. Yup, it's going to be a hardship, they should have planned better.

[tom_paine]

30. I didn't want to believe it, dave, and I still don't want to.

But I believe the evidence of my own eyes.

Obama hasn't governed a day yet, and as such I refuse to judge him.

But the pre-inaugural signs are bad, very bad.

If he moves on Social Security and Medicare like the Bushies wanted to but couldn't, depending on what he actually does, then all Obama represents is a brief rest, before the NEXT Bushie Emperor comes along to pick right up where they left off as if they were neve gone.

God, let this not happen!

[defendandprotect]

75. I think many here have wanted to . . ..

shut their eyes to the preliminaries ---

but they were "signs" --- and this is a billboard -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

40. No . . . even Bush's people admitted SS solvent into 2030's . . . now even later . . .

AND keep in mind, despite WSJ/GOP propaganda over decades, if the money borrowed

and still being borrowed from Social Security were returned, the program would be

infinitely soluble. !!!! Quite a program with 3% administrative costs.

Well, guess O could change that to privatize it into 1/3rd administrative costs.

Yeah -- I'm reading it just the way the initiator of the thread is reading it!!!

Sad . . .

[defendandprotect]

44. SS is soluble into 2038 or later . . . but borrowing should stop ... even for WAR!!!

and maybe especially for war . . . !!!!

And tax cuts for the rich -- !!!

If the money borrowed from SS were returned, SS would be infinitely soluble!!!

[Hannah Bell]

54. 2017 is the most recent prediction for the first year in which it will be necessary to draw on the

Trust Fund, & 2041 (by which date most of the baby boomers will be dead) for "exhaustion" of the TF.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

But you're aware, I presume, that these numbers change every year?

http://www.cbpp.org/3-23-04socsec.htm

& that the SS trustees make 3 forecasts, the most consistently accurate of which predicts surplus to infinity?

[davekriss]

103. I am aware

I was rattling off facts from memory. I didn't have time to cite, as I was only home during my lunch hour. My sources are a bit dated. My primary source, read several years ago, was Paul Krugman, "Confusions About Social Security", The Economist's Voice: A Special Issue on Social Security (Volume 2, Issue 1, 2005). It can be downloaded in PDF form from here:

http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol2/iss1/art1/

Krugman in this piece makes the point that the exhaustion of the Trust Fund is a moving target, thought to be 2029 back in 1995, and moved to 2042 when he was writing in 2005. He also states the date upon which drawdown starts as 2018, not 2012 as I say in the post above (but, hey, I was recalling from an article I read in 2005!). Krugman also makes the point that these dates are made using the most conservative set of assumptions (e.g., on the conservative assumption of only 1.8% GDP growth over the next 75 years when over the last 100 years GDP growth has averaged around 3%).

I have other dated material as well, but to be fair I owed the thread at least one cite.

It is VERY sad to me to hear Obama talk about "fixing" Social Security and Medicare. I can't say I feel betrayed as I expected this. First, Bush succeeded in the mission begun by Reagan (as David Stockman confessed in his Atlantic Monthly expose after he jumped ship in the early years of the first Reagan administration): The intent was to build up federal debt to the point where social programs will have to be dramatically curtailed and/or ceased. Why? The net result is to reduce every non-wealthy American to a peon dependent on the largesse of capital. By so doing, capital will be able to more easily extract higher and higher portions of the value labor creates.

The Conservative Revolution (reactionary revolution) was, unfortunately, very very successful. It is my sincere belief that the pendulum will swing far to the left in the years ahead, but I understood when I voted for him that Obama is not the leader that will push us in that direction. No true progressive is allowed to run at the national level in American politics. They are drowned out by the near-monopolized media -- or they fall out of the skies in small planes -- either way, the already powerful will not allow someone to rise to power who threatens their advantage. Obama is no threat to the already-advantaged.

We've been Cheneyed through and through.

[Hannah Bell]

108. we're on the same page, then. good. more non-koolaid lovers needed.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

145. Thank you for this excellent post n/t

[galileoreloaded]

58. Good point. Except watch SS revenue drop like a rock..

as multi-millions lose their jobs. At current ratios, every 4 people that lose their jobs, and ergo stop paying into SS, cause the gov to increase reserve revenue outflows by one person, increasing the rate at which they (the gov) burn cash. Couple that with more people eligible, and this becomes the perfect storm. All Federal revenues, by some estimates will be cut by a third in 2009, and that ain't good. Catastrophic actually.

[Hannah Bell]

109. sure, revenues will drop. & that will be used as another excuse to destroy the program,

just like "better returns on stocks" were the excuse in good years. The goal is always the same, regardless of economic conditions, which tells me the sob's are lying through their teeth no matter which side of their mouth they talk from.

The gov has given over 1 trillion dollars to banks this year. SS cost 581 billion in 2007 - but we "can't afford" to finance part of it for a few years?

Oh, bull, bull, bull.

Not directed at you, just so sick of the lies & the liars.

[defendandprotect]

68. The recommendations for increases in ceiling are always under half of one percent . .

I think the last recommendation was for .003 percent -- ???

But despite GOP r-w propaganda and now even propaganda seemingly

coming from the new administration/? . . . SS is solvent past

2040 --- and even Bush administration confirmed solvent thru 2038!

[northernlights]

3. they could also make collection somewhat needs-based

I've seen more than one interview over the past couple decades where some very, very wealthy elderly person (multi-millionaires all) insisted on collecting their check because they paid in, goddamit, and it's theirs.

SS was supposed to be a safety net for people who got screwed over or made a mistake or whatnot, not another way to provide those people who made out with the best our society has to offer with yet another bit of green.

[Skink]

5. Raising the cap is sort of means testing.

It would be a better approach in that it would be easier to implement. Also people collecting Social security pay taxes on it that support local governments. Unless they only shop on the internet in which case they aren't gonna like Skink's internet sales tax.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Many and maybe most people

who collect Social Security pay Fed income tax on all or a portion of that. So it is not just sales tax that they pay. Income tax.

[defendandprotect]

42. Raising the cap moves the burden slightly more onto higher earners. . .

The cap now, I think, is still below $100,000 . . . ???

A minor change in that would be good --

[Hannah Bell]

52. The cap is 102K, last time I checked. It's always been designed to

cover about 90% of wages, & pay out capped benefits in a somewhat progressive fashion to everyone who pays in. Setting the cap over 90% of wages just means higher payouts for those with higher lifetime earnings, unless you shift the payout schedule in the direction of "welfare".

Which is not a good idea. One of the reasons SS has survived so long is because it's difficult to label it "welfare".

[defendandprotect]

65. The last suggested increase -- if the loan aren't repaid -- was for something

well under a half of one percent on FICA ceiling.

Currently, SS is soluable thru 2040 or more ---

Even Bush administration had to confirm thru 2038 -- !!!

If loans were repaid, SS would be infinitely soluable!!!

[BonnieJW]

8. Warren Buffett receives Social Security checks.

Unless a ceiling is placed on it, everyone is entitled to receiving SS. I think more scrutiny will go toward Farm Aid to billion-dollar agribusinesses while denying aid to Afican American farmers. I'm hoping that's what a performance office will investigate.

[MajorChode]

22. There are a lot of problems with SS

SS came about because too many old people were eating out of trash cans (literally). In fixing that problem, SS has been enormously successful. However now too many people see SS as something it's not. It is not a retirement program. It is not an investment program. It is an insurance program designed to keep you from eating out of trash cans in your elder years if your other plans fall through. That's it.

When SS was originally implemented, the eligibility age was higher than the average life expectancy. Now the average life expectancy is far higher than the eligibility age. People are expecting higher benefits. We are saddled with this Raygun trust fund abomination. Withholding taxes are several times more than when the program started and the effect is crushing the lower and middle classes who are the only ones paying for the program.

[Hannah Bell]

31. So the solution would be to reduce the rates by 25%, back to pay

as you go - not to put in spurious "fixes" that in reality, just screw recipients.

[MajorChode]

45. There's a whole host of fixes I would suggest

First of all, I would suggest that FICA gets levied on ALL income, not just wages. Next, SS obligations should be looked at as an obligation to society as a whole, not just workers. So do away with the SS maximum income level. Whatever rate is set, that's what you pay regardless of income and EVERYONE pays it right off the top. Those two changes would create a huge windfall which could be used to further reduce the withholding tax for everyone.

With those two simple changes the withholding would drop to about 3% or so. That alone would put $1600 in the pocket of a family making $50K and it would put $1600 in the pocket of the employer. It would be good for workers and employers and not one single person would need to have their benefit reduced. If you wanted to make the withholding progressive, you could increase the benefit to working families even more.

As far as benefits go, I would increase the eligibility age of all new employees entering the workforce to the average life expectancy age during the year in which they entered the workforce. No more should government provide the promise of a taxpayer funded retirement plan. We will keep you from eating out of a dumpster when you can't work anymore, but that's it. You need to make your own plans for retirement and who better to do that than yourself?

[Hannah Bell]

50. Your fixes would just screw it up more. SS was designed to be pay as you go,

with each generation of workers paying for the retirement of the previous one. It was designed to be a slightly progressive, workers' SELF-INSURANCE program, not a welfare program (which is what assessing taxes on capital & higher incomes would make it).

Your changes turn it into "welfare" or "socialism," & spell destruction of the program.

Currently, SS collects 25% more in taxes than needed to do this; it's been like that since the 80s. Returning to pay-go would take some burden off today's workers without impacting future benefits in the least.

Life expectancy changes for workers 20 & over are insignificant to the big picture.

[MajorChode]

62. The USSC defined SS as "welfare" in 1937

And it defined FICA withholding as a tax.

So SS has already has been defined as such for the past 70 years or so. Furthermore people at the bottom derive far more benefit from SS as a function of what they pay compared to those who make more, so we already have a system of welfare regardless of what you think. It's just a system where only the middle classes pay for it.

Welfare and socialism have nothing to do with each other, and welfare spending is an inherent right of government guaranteed by the constitution.

Returning to paygo at this stage of the game would guarantee a workers' revolt as withholding would skyrocket in just a few years. It would solve nothing other than throwing a few crumbs back to workers today and would guarantee that radical changes to benefits would have to be made later down the road.

Life expectancy changes in benefits will keep SS as a viable program 40 years from now and restore SS back to it's original intent.

[Hannah Bell]

63. uh, no, it didn't define ss as welfare. & that reading is straight from the right-wing

propaganda mill.

Returning to pay-go would do nothing of the sort. It would reduce current rates, & require future rates no higher than those already in the pipeline.

Life expectancy changes are immaterial.

[MajorChode]

69. Bullshit

My reading is straight from numerous USSC rulings.

Flemming v Nestor
Steward Machine Co. v Davis
Helvering v Davis
Carmichael v Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper

Not only has the USSC defined it as welfare, it has ruled that paying FICA tax does not guarantee you benefits. You should better educate yourself.

Your suggestion of returning to paygo ignores the effect of the boomers and would be ridiculous to suggest that much higher FICA withholding would not be the direct result in just a few years.

[Hannah Bell]

91. Bullshit yourself. Pull out the cases & show me where the SC defines

SS as "welfare".

Flemming is the case the reichists always misrepresent: it says nothing of the sort.

Section 202 (n) of the Social Security Act, as amended, provides for the termination of old-age benefits payable to an alien who, after the date of its enactment (September 1, 1954), is deported under § 241 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on any one of certain grounds specified in § 202(n). Appellee, an alien who had become eligible for old-age benefits in 1955, was deported in 1956, pursuant to § 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, for having been a member of the Communist Party from 1933 to 1939. Since this was one of the grounds specified in § 202(n), his old-age benefits were terminated shortly thereafter. He commenced this action in a single-judge District Court, under § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, to secure judicial review of that administrative decision. The District Court held that § 202(n) deprived appellee of an accrued property right and, therefore, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[MajorChode]

98. You probably shouldn't have stopped on the first one

As all the rest of the cases clearly refer to SS as welfare, but since you've decided to cherry pick, lets do go there.

Flemming v Nestor was the case that said you have no rights to a SS benefit just because you paid into the program. If that doesn't strengthen the case that FICA withholding is indeed a tax and benefits are indeed welfare, I'm not sure how much more convincing you need, but I suspect the bar far exceeds any degree of reasonableness.

[Hannah Bell]

110. The declaration that there is no inalienable "right" to receive SS does not

equal a declaration that SS = "welfare".

People can be alienated from various benefits & rights for many reasons - that doesn't make those benefits "welfare".

Welfare recipients don't have to vest into a "welfare fund" to be eligible for benefits. Their benefits have no relation to contributions they've made.

SS recipients do, & their benefits are related to their contributions.

"Welfare" = "charity".

SS = insurance - which one also has NO inalienable right to, but is not "charity."

The SC has NEVER made the judgement you claim it has. SHOW ME THE TEXT.

[Jim Sagle]

118. Hey, ease up. Even a major toad's gotta make a living,

[druidity33]

133. Smack down!

Love it! "Show me the text!"... like a combo of "show me the money" and "you can't handle the truth".


:hi:

[Enthusiast]

134. Exactly! The right has voice on DU. nt

[defendandprotect]

71. Remember, Greenspan/Poppy increased FICA, putting the burden mainly on middle class and poor . . .

and they did it to raise more petty cash for Bush Sr.'s administration --

Bush's first impulse was to send the IRS out after the poor ---

bad reaction to that so Greenspan made this very quiet move in middle

of night in Congress--!!!


TOTALLY disagree with your last paragraph, however ---

We don't want more "retirees" having to come back into the work force.

We have enough problems now with supply jobs for young.

And, of course, we do not want to increase homelessness and poverty and

hunger -- right?

Meanwhile, the supposed inflation indexes have been fudged --

otherwise the SS checks would be twice as large as they are now.

We have no problems with SS or retirees -- our problems are, as usual,

with the dishonest among us -- thieves.

[Enthusiast]

132. That would be a MAJOR disaster, Chode!

"We will keep you from eating out of a dumpster when you can't work anymore, but that's it. You need to make your own plans for retirement and who better to do that than yourself?"

And now we hear from the right wing perspective. Yeah, like workers getting by on this service oriented society can put away a nest egg. What you said sounds like it came directly from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh.

[closeupready]

36. OMG, ROFLMAO. You are so full of it.

SS is more than just a program which was designed to keep the elderly from eating out of trash cans. Give me a break. :eyes:

[MajorChode]

46. Do you have a clue how and when SS got started, and what was going on at the time?

Obviously not.

[Hannah Bell]

51. Do you? It was started during the Depression. And somehow, we could

"afford it" during the worst economic conditions in our history, but we "can't afford it" now.

Go figure.

& yes, SS was designed to do more than keep old people from eating out of garbage cans.

[MajorChode]

55. SS was considerably different back then

Payroll deduction was 1%, most workers weren't covered, most old people lived in poverty.

We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-stricken old age.
--President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1935

[Hannah Bell]

57. no, it wasn't so different at all. in 1937, rate increases were already

scheduled, as was increasing coverage of workers. Rates have been scheduled years in advance since the foundation of the program.

Most old people still live in poverty, duh. 1/3 of retirees rely totally on SS for their income, 2/3 rely on SS for 50% or more of their income.

What you don't seem to get is that left to its own devices, our system ALWAYS produces poverty for most non-workers.

[MajorChode]

64. Ok, let's review the schedule

In the 50's, FICA was still only about 2%, so whatever "rate increases" there were, they were quite small.

If your numbers were correct (and I'm not saying they are) it's simply a testament to the fact that SS has been an utter failure as a retirement program, but that was never it's intent in the first place.

Percentage of income is very misleading. Many elderly own their own home outright or have at least saved some measure of wealth. Their expenses are far less than a working family. Only 15% of the elderly depend on SS for all of their income, or less than half what you claim, so the vast majority of Americans do have other sources of income. Keeping FICA rates high insures even less Americans can afford to accumulate wealth for retirement, and more of them will live with less income and higher expenses. SS was never intended to be a retirement plan. If Americans see it that way, they are destined to live out their retirement in poverty.

If we need a more robust system to keep the elderly off the poverty rolls(as you seem to suggest), then raise the eligibility age and give those who are truly unable to work more. Call SS what it is, and finance it from ALL sources of income, not just the wages of the middle class.

[Hannah Bell]

87. Scroll down to the middle of the page.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguide_socialsecurityfacts

Now provide me the citation for your "15%" figure.


No one said SS was designed to be a "retirement" program. What was said was it was designed to do more than keep people from eating out of dumpsters.

One of the reasons more people own homes today (pre-crash, that is) is that SS allowed old people to keep theirs, & removed the need for younger people to be responsible for the total support of their elders - i.e., enabled creation of two households v. one.

The other reason is a loosening of credit.

[MajorChode]

96. Wow! So I can only use YOUR source...

...which doesn't even support your "1/3 of retirees rely totally on SS for their income" claim.

So you feel no need to support your claim with a citation that actually says what you claim, but I have to and furthermore I get my hands tied by only your source. Pardon me if I find that a bit asinine.

I'll untie my hands and gladly provide the citation:
It constitutes at least 90 percent of income for one-quarter of the elderly. For 15 percent of the elderly, Social Security is
their sole source of income.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-8-99socsec.pdf

No one said SS was designed to be a "retirement" program. What was said was it was designed to do more than keep people from eating out of dumpsters.

Actually plenty of people assume SS is a retirement program. Furthermore you're defining SS by what it has become, not by what it was designed.

[Hannah Bell]

99. I said, show me YOUR source. But you didn't. Guess you don't have one.

[MajorChode]

102. Now you are just outright lying

First, that's not what you said. Since you neglected to actually read what YOU wrote, I'll list it here:

Scroll down to the middle of the page.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguide_socialsecurit...

Now provide me the citation for your "15%" figure.

Then I actually DID provide a link that said exactly what I claimed, and actually took the trouble to copy and paste the relevant section.

So if you want to lie about it to make yourself feel better, be my guest. Just don't expect anyone to be so stupid that they can't click one and two posts up and see you're completely full of shit.

[Hannah Bell]

106. I didn't see the link. Checking it, I find a 56-page document.

Page # would be helpful.

Your quote 15% sole source, 24% at least 90%.

Little different from my cite: 1/3 =(90)-100%.

If I got the max possible SS, my 10% would be about $3000/yr.

Which is little different from "zero" in terms of being able to live on it: $250/mo.


Now tell me about the SC declaring SS to be "welfare" in Flemming.

I've gone through every SS report going back to 97, I know the models & the assumptions they're built on, & I know more about SS than 95% of the people posting on chatboards.

You're mouthing boilerplate.

[MajorChode]

125. That's why I copied the text (duh)

So now you finally acknowledge that I did post a link even though you're apparently not adept enough at performing a text search, but you don't acknowledge falsely accusing me of two errors I never made.

You almost acknowledge you were wrong, but it was close enough (even though you were off by 100%).

Then you claim it really doesn't matter that you were off by so much because that's not what YOU were talking about (which is still anyone's guess as you appear to be making it up as you go along).

Now you want to claim that you know far more about SS than practically anyone else (even though you can't get your facts straight), because you've managed to read all the trust fund reports, so you must be right and everyone else is just "mouthing boilerplate".

You may want to slow down and really take the time to evaluate how asinine you sound, but that's just a humble suggestion from someone who apparently doesn't know 5% of what you know.

[Hannah Bell]

146. Why should I take your word for it? You say the SC declared SS to be welfare.

Give me the page number or shut up.

[MajorChode]

156. I'll take option 3

Which is to advise you to learn how to use the "search" function if you want to verify that the text I posted is indeed valid. The citation was provided in a manner such that even the most obtuse could figure it out.

You've already proven you have no intention of being rational and I've already done far more than you deserve.

[Hannah Bell]

157. You made the claim; it's not my responsibility to search for the proof.

[MajorChode]

158. It's not my responsibility to educate the uninformed

Yet I did it anyway, eh?

You really should stop blaming others for your own inadequacies.

[Hannah Bell]

160. Standard right-wing tactics. No decent case for your argument? Personal attack.

[MajorChode]

163. So why do you continue to make personal attacks?

But I do agree. You have no decent case for your argument, which is most likely why you resort to personal attacks, but that's certainly not the only tactic you've used. I've see a lot of red herrings, circular arguments, and sweeping generalizations from you also. So I would never suggest that you are single faceted in your fallacious rhetoric and I think you are too harsh on yourself in that regard.

[defendandprotect]

66. We're the wealthiest nation in the world -- like other countries we deserve SS and Medicare --

Are you saying that other countries can do this but we can't . . . ???

[MajorChode]

70. Non sequitur

I never suggested anything of the sort.

[defendandprotect]

89. Good . . . but ---

Re this . . .

We are saddled with this Raygun trust fund abomination. Withholding taxes are several times more than when the program started and the effect is crushing the lower and middle classes who are the only ones paying for the program


SS is not a government program. It is administed by the government at about 3% administrative

costs per year -- compare that with private companies!

The reason why FICA was raised has to do with Bush Sr's need for petty cash ---

He was first going to send the IRS out after the poor but everyone thought that smelled.

So quietly Greenspan arranged to increase SS SURPLUS by increasing FICA payments on poor

and middle class. Greenspan did that in the middle of the night in Congress.

And -- regularly , the surplusses have been near or over $100 billion a year or more!!!

Some petty cash!!! W has borrowed from the SURPLUS for his tax cuts for wealthy and

for his wars, etal.


Btw, SS should not be in the general budget at all -- it's there to hide the tremendous

MIC spending/war spending --




One of the main reasons SS exists is because parents were suing their children for

assistance ---

Do you want to support your parents?

Like other social retirement programs in other nations, this program exists to end

homelessness, poverty, hunger among elderly -- and with Medicare to provde health care!

That's what other nations do -- and usually better.

There are a lot of problems with SS
SS came about because too many old people were eating out of trash cans (literally). In fixing that problem, SS has been enormously successful. However now too many people see SS as something it's not. It is not a retirement program. It is not an investment program. It is an insurance program designed to keep you from eating out of trash cans in your elder years if your other plans fall through. That's it.

When SS was originally implemented, the eligibility age was higher than the average life expectancy. Now the average life expectancy is far higher than the eligibility age. People are expecting higher benefits. We are saddled with this Raygun trust fund abomination. Withholding taxes are several times more than when the program started and the effect is crushing the lower and middle classes who are the only ones paying for the program.

[Enthusiast]

135. Rein in The Military Industrial Complex!

This is welfare for the wealthy & connected. There is zero justification for spending as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.

[Hannah Bell]

90. Bogus statistic. The life expectancy you refer to was from BIRTH.

The most important factor in keeping them low was HIGH INFANT & CHILD MORTALITY.

If someone lived to working age, they could expect to live nearly as long as they do today.

In 1950, if you made it to 65, you could expect to live about 14 more years.

Today, it's 18.7 - 5 more years of life than 60 years ago.

This is totally insignificant in terms of the big picture - about $100,000/retiree living past 65.

Your "solutions" are bogus.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/nvsr52_14t12.pdf

[MajorChode]

101. Who cares what it was in reference to?

Are you going to suggest people do not live longer today?

Furthermore people today have a better QUALITY of life in older age, which means people have the ability to be productive longer.

Furthermore the retirement age (at least for early retirement) is 3 years PRIOR to what it was when SS originated.

So even using your numbers, people are living longer and collecting benefits for several more years.

And those changes ARE significant, assuming you are interested in actually meeting the original intent of the program rather than trying to pretend SS is something that it's not.

[Hannah Bell]

104. uh - only someone who understood the issue, i guess.

life expectancy from birth is immaterial.

If 50% of infants die at birth, & the rest live to 100, you get average life expectancy = 50.

But 100% of people who enter the workforce live to 100.

Get the difference, & see why your stat is irrelevant?

In the past 60 years, average life expectancy at age 65 has increased 5 years. That's .083 extra per year.

The increase is insignificant to SS's stability.

[MajorChode]

105. I made no claims as to "SS's stability"

That must have been your imagination running away with you again.

[Hannah Bell]

107. this is a claim about the program's stability: "crushing the lower and middle classes",

as is your insistence that retirement ages need to be changed. There were others too, i believe.

[MajorChode]

124. Non sequitur

Try again.

[MajorChode]

127. Which has nothing to do with the program's stability

and everything to do with the fairness of the program which is a not so subtle point I've been making all along.

Your point is (at least as far as I can tell because it changes regularly) that SS is just fine the way it is. We shouldn't mess with it because it's perfect (except for that little trust fund thing which is an easy fix). Old people are almost completely dependent on it, yet most of them don't get enough (which apparently contradicts your other point of it being perfect). Rich people shouldn't have to help pay for the program because if we dare ask them to assist in society's ills that might "kill" the program somehow because they might frighten people by calling it "socialist" (even though they do anyway). And finally, that SS is not welfare (even though it fits the definition) because you say so and you know more than 95% of everyone who dares express an opinion on the subject.

[Hannah Bell]

147. Express your opinion as you please; just don't try to put up a bunch of lying

bullshit in support of your opinion, cause you'll get called on it.

The SC never declared SS to be welfare. SS does not fit the definition of welfare, & only trolls & shills would say it does. No one gets SS who didn't pay into the system. Unless, of course, you consider it to be "welfare" if I get more on an insurance claim than I put in. But I'm sure you don't.

Rich people DO help pay for the program, but they get something in return; the same benefits everyone else gets. If you want rich people to pay more taxes, let them pay more INCOME TAXES, don't turn an insurance program into a welfare program.

SS is not "fine," but its problems are highly exaggerated in the media. Most have to do with 30 years of flat wages for the working class & the 80s-era greenspan "fix". Your solutions won't do diddly for either.

And yes, I know more than 95% of the people posting on the subject, because, instead of just reading opinion pieces, I took the trouble to wade through 10 years of data & actually READ the court cases & all the supposed "supporting evidence" of the winger/libertarian propaganda mills.

[Telly Savalas]

159. An average of 14 years of retirement is now 18.7. That's about a 34% increase.

A 34% increase in the expected payout to social security recipients is not insignificant.

[Hannah Bell]

29. Buffett paid in, & he receives just like everyone else who did.

There's a cap on what he receieves, just as there was a cap on what he paid in.

[defendandprotect]

43. Everyone who paid into Social Security is entitled to collect a check . . .

why would you deny the few and endanger the many?

This isn't a welfare program and never should be ---

These are right-wing ideas and WSJ ideas pushed by r-w propaganda.

[lldu]

12. It is mine Dammit

Social Security is more like an insurance policy (SSI Social Security Insurance, or sumpin like that). You want it to be a welfare program.
You are wrong.

If it becomes a welfare program, they need to refund everyone's money.

[MajorChode]

15. You are correct

Social Security is an insurance program. In fact, just look at the acronyms:

The Social Security program is actually called the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)

The withholding you pay is called the Federal Insurance Contributions Act(FICA).

That's what Social Security is and that's how it should be viewed.

[davekriss]

17. Many thoughtful people...

...believe a good reason for the longevity of this program is because it is NOT needs based, it is NOT a welfare program and is not perceived to be so. I kind of go along with that idea.

Your remark about "very wealthy" insisting on collecting their checks reminds me of the Reagan cannard of "welfare queens" driving up to the till in Cadillacs. It was a false red herring then and it is a false red herring now. Cutting off the wealthy from their checks will not significantly impact social security financing.

[Hannah Bell]

34. It IS theirs. They paid in, they get the benefits they deserve. SS was designed to be UNIVERSAL

old age INSURANCE, not WELFARE for the poor. You don't get benefits if you, your spouse or your parent didn't pay in.

[defendandprotect]

41. That's an idea from those who want to turn it into a hated Welfare system . . .

So what if wealthy people collect Social Security?

You deny the few and hurt the many!

And your ideas about SS are wrong -- it's an INSURANCE program which protects families

as well as injured, handicapped, widows/widowers and children ---

The greedy and the short-sighted will buy into ideas like this.

[sendero]

92. It's nothing like "insurance"..

.... it's a Ponzi scheme BY DEFINITION and we're the tail-end suckers.

Anyone that thinks SS will be, in 10 years, ANYTHING NEAR what it is now in terms of benefits is, well, innumerate.

[defendandprotect]

112. And, do you have no idea that ....

You're spouting the WSJ "Kool Aid" ...

It's a "pay as you go system" NOT intended to run a surplus --

and not intended to be part of general budget where its HUGE SURPLUSSES

hide our military budget/and war costs.

Even the W Bush administration confirmed SS solvent to 2038 ... and now

longer.

If the loans covered by Government Treasury notes were repaid, SS would

be infinitely soluable.

The SS SURPLUSSES have exceeded $80 Billion. $100 Billion -- and now

over $120 Billion...???? This is excess money poor and middle class are forced

to pay out, not legitimately, but to provide SURPLUS for borrowing.

That's how W covered his tax cuts for rich and his wars.

The huge FICA increases on poor and middle classes were arranged by Greenspan

to provide Poppy Bush with more petty cash. Bush's original plan was to send

IRS out after poor. Greenspan did this with Congress in middle of night.

In other words, question right-wing propaganda...


PS: It is an "insurance" program which provides for those disabled, for widows

and children, etc. A program few individuals could afford to pay for.

Social Security Insurance

[sendero]

122. It's you ...

... that has drank the Kool Aid.

There IS no surplus, it has all been spent. All the gov't has is the ability to tax in the future. With things the way they are, how great do you think that ability is?

Several notable and sensible people have pointed out that our projected SS and Medicare expenditures are UNFUNDABLE and I believe them. If you are planning on getting those funds you had better make other plans.

[Hannah Bell]

149. Bullshit, "it's been spent". Then so have the dollars of everyone else,

every financier, every "investor," every counting house, who loaned money to the feds.

But THOSE people will NEVER hear "it's been spent" in regard to THEIR loans.

Now I see where you're coming from, & yes, it is indeed the standard right-wing/libertarian bullshit position.

[defendandprotect]

151. SS runs a huge SURPLUS every year . . .

the burden of which is paid by poor and middle class Americans.

Yes. . . it is then borrowed -- and SS Trust Fund has Government bonds in return.

Are we defaulting on them. Seems we just gave completed $8.8 trillion in bail-outs

to save capitalism . . . AGAIN!!!

It's obvious you do believe the right-wing . . . what are you doing here?

[Hannah Bell]

113. It's not a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi = I pay early investors' "profits" with later

investors' capital, with no intervening production. Since each set of investors expects "profits," I have to keep finding more capital or the profits stop, & the latest "investors" lose.

SS = I work, creating goods & services. Part of the value I create is diverted to my elders.

Then you enter the workforce, create goods & services, & part of the value you create is diverted to me.

Your generation's capacity to create value, its productivity, will be higher than my generation's - because my generation created the (tools, infrastructure, educational systems) which makes your increased productivity possible.

Thus your cohort can create more food, housing, ideas etc. with the same or less labor - enabling you to support more people with the same, or less, labor.

This is not a Ponzi scheme.

1. It's backed by real production.
2. It doesn't require an ever-increasing number of workers.
3. It is, in fact, the only way it's possible to support non-workers. The consumption of non-workers is ALWAYS, & NECESSARILY, diverted from workers' current production.


The dollars serve to disguise the fact, but it's true.

[sendero]

123. I understand..

.. how SS works INTIMATELY, and your characterization is factually correct and yet wrong. SS would sorta work as long as there is a very even birth/death rate, which thanks to the baby boom and longer life expectancy is not the case.

When you have 2.5 workers for every benefit-taker, you have a problem, and we have a problem in about 10 years.

Something people need to get through their heads, not every inconvenient truth is a right wing talking point conspiracy. SS/Medicare are headed for major cutbacks, there is no other possibility.

[Hannah Bell]

148. No, the age argument isn't strictly a right wing meme; it's a RULING CLASS meme,

promulgated by both the right & left wings of our political "leadership".

I'll give data & figures to support the case tonight when I have a bit more time.

What is your intimate association with SS, btw?

[OHdem10]

6. Giving 40% of the stimulus to Business TAXCUTS makes me

wonder if I am still in GOP Governance.

[defendandprotect]

73. We're at the least in DLC governance . . . and that ain't good--!!!

[Enthusiast]

136. No shit. I'm thinking the same. nt

[napi21]

7. I have read that Obama was investigating the Medicare Advantage Plans.

Those are the Medicare "supplemental plans" where medicare sends an insurance co. your medicare payment + what the gov't pays for each patient each month, and in exchange the insurance co. pays your medical expenses directly to the dr, hosp, or drug store. My husband & I each have an Advantage plan, and so far are very happy with it.

I realize Obama may make them go away if he finds that it's costing the program more than it benefits the people, but I'm going to trust him to come up with alternatives that are as good or better.

That's the only specifics I've heard so far.

[Cleita]

39. Good for you. My husband and I were happy with his too at first when he

didn't need it. However, surprise, surprise when we had an emergency out of state (he had a massive stroke) and couldn't call for approval for an ambulance ( in this case a helicopter). We got stuck for the whole thing involved in this emergency and it was thousands of dollars. Medicare wouldn't pay because we had signed our benefits to the private provider. Then we found out that they didn't pay for end stage renal disease which this brought about. We had to go back on traditional Medicare. Nowadays no doctors in my area accepts any of the advantage plans because they got sick of being underpaid and often stiffed in payment for services. This is why they an offer such excellent coverage, they don't pay for very much in the long run. Also, these advantage plans have eroded Medicare into the ailing patient it is today, barely able to function, but still so necessary for us elderly who have nothing else. I can give you many other horror stories of people who don't get the coverage they were promised by these insurance company parasites.

[defendandprotect]

74. So who is supporting the lousey "Advantage Plans" . . .????

[Cleita]

95. Our new administration apparently or have you read this OP? n/t

[defendandprotect]

100. Didn't see it in this article nor article I posted . . .

I picked up the info on "Advantage" from another poster mentioning how bad they are!

I presume this is DLC agenda . . . ?


Is "Advantage" actually mentioned ?

[Cleita]

111. Advantage doesn't have to be mentioned.

Privatized Medicare plans are euphemistically referred to as "Medicare Advantage" by the industry itself. By calling them this, it's assumed you know what is being spoken of.

[defendandprotect]

117. No ... I didn't ... Thanks ...

[LiberalHeart]

161. My mom's experience has been the opposite of yours.

Her Medicare HMO has provided excellent coverage. No problems at all. It may be because it's a community-based insurance company and is tied to a teaching hospital. It does provide coverage for out of area illnesses, too. You can't sign up if you already have end stage renal disease, but if you get it after signing up, you're covered.

[shraby]

9. Maybe he is putting medicare back to

being run by the government instead of the private sector. CVS runs it right now. I didn't know it until I became eligible for it.

[defendandprotect]

77. CVS runs Medicare -- ??? Could you elaborate on that cause ...

I'm in the dark on it --- !!!

[Cleita]

10. Well, he's probably going to find out like Arnold did in California that all

the "wasted spending" didn't exist. I hope he doesn't do what Arnold is doing in cutting expenses by cutting back benefits or cutting wages of civil service employees who manage these programs and who are underpaid anyway. Social Security excesses were pared back decades ago to the bare bone.

[cbayer]

11. If Medicare is going to be used as the prototype or launching pad for a universal

single payer system in this country, it will need significant overhaul prior to proceeding. It is an inefficient, poorly run mess of a system in it's current state.

[Cleita]

19. Yes, but it's still run better and for less cost than any other health

care payer. I agree. I would want Conyer's plan, HR 676 to be implemented as it fixes all the problems Medicare has and gives better coverage than the present system that has been eroded with the privatized Medicare plans siphoning off funds to the insurance companies.

[defendandprotect]

78. There is no reason why Medicare should be ....

anything but well run --- let's get rid of any private influences on

the program --- and expand it to cover everyone.

Covering just the elderly makes problems in itself!

[dflprincess]

14. If I were president a "central part" of my efforts to control spending

would be to examine no bid contracts. The ones that had been given to companies that have moved their headquarters to foreign countries would be canceled and any CEO who couldn't account for where the money went would be speaking to the Justice Department.

[Cleita]

20. That would be how it should be done, however, instead it seems like

every time the politicians look at spending they target civil service employees instead, lowering wages and benefits and sometimes eliminating them. It's happened in California under Arnold.

[dflprincess]

26. Civil Service employees and any program that might actually help people

like SS, Medicare, housing, food supplements, etc.

[defendandprotect]

79. How about MIC, wars that are harming planet and civilization . . . ???

[Enthusiast]

137. I like your thinking! dflprincess you are

so right!

[damntexdem]

24. The best reform for SS would be to raise or remove the cap on FICA-taxable income.

That would make SS solvent for the foreseeable future -- and also help with Medicare.

The first needed reform for Medicare would be to ditch the current Part D and substitute a true drug benefit.

[defendandprotect]

81. Right . . . the burden is now on the middle class and poor ---

Greenspan arranged this so that Bush, Sr. would have more

ready cash at hand -- i.e., it increased the SURPLUS and opportunities

for borrowing. SS runs surplusses of over $100 Billion every year.

Money that the poor and middle class shouldn't have to be providing for

presidents to BORROW!!!

[Hannah Bell]

116. It's ALREADY solvent for the forseeable future.

If fixes are needed in 2042, easy enough to do them in THEN.

Look, do you think the Department of Defense will be solvent 30 years from now? Maybe we'd better set up a Trust Fund for that, too, & prefund it.

In fact, let's prefund the whole damn government.

Only for SS do we attempt to predict the future 75 years from now. The whole exercise is bogus, & done purposely to create a phony sense of emergency.

DON'T DRINK THE KOOLAID.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/1

[MadHound]

25. First and foremost place Obama could cut unecessary spending is with the military

But somehow I doubt that he has the courage to even touch that. However if military spending isn't brought under control soon, we're going to go the way of the USSR, bankrupted due to excessive military spending.

[closeupready]

33. I agree, and no he doesn't have the courage to do that but he has the courage

to attack a government program that is helping the most vulnerable members of society. Sheez. What can I say.

[Cleita]

35. Winding down these unnecessary wars would be a start, however, if we

are a humane people after this is all over, we are going to need to institute Marshall plans to rebuild those countries we have destroyed and radicalized to hate us. That will cost money as well.

[defendandprotect]

82. Who could possibly argue that we can afford WAR? Or the MIC???

[Enthusiast]

138. Only recipients of that WELFARE program.

Those being enriched at our expense. The MIC sacred cow needs to be reined in. We can have as an effective military on half as much.

[defendandprotect]

154. The MIC bought legislators who enriched and protected them . . .

and they're still there --- !!!

[Enthusiast]

155. That is correct. nt

[MiniMe]

27. Did he really say, in those words, that Social Security is an entitlement program?

:banghead: For the very first group of people that received Social Security, it was an entitlement program. The rest of us have paid for it for our entire working lives. That really needs to be made clear.

[defendandprotect]

83. Yeah . . . I agree, poor choice of words; kinda like "Welfare Queens" . .. !!!

And this from the Democratic President-Elect --- ??!!!

Where do we go from here?

[closeupready]

32. This leaves me cold.

I'm really not impressed with his inability to suggest things like raising taxes on the wealthiest, or once suggested, to back away from it. What is he afraid of? He has this super mandate from voters, but talks like an economic neocon.

The fact is that the wealthy need to pay more, and taking away from the elderly, the retired, and others drawing on social security is not the sort of change people voted for. Wake up, dammit! :mad:

[defendandprotect]

84. The game being played is DLC ...

the Democratic Party is largely gone -- co-opted by the Republicans

and moved to the right --- totally weakened.

This has been the message for more than 30 years now . . .

when will the public hear it????

[Naturyl]

37. Dump the cap and means-test it.

I frankly don't give a DAMN about any complaints of "unfairness." Let's get over our bizarre pathological right-wing induced fear of welfare programs and stop sending tens of millions of checks to people who simply do not need them. *So what* if means-testing makes Social Security a welfare program?

[Statistical]

47. Support for it will drop

Politicians on both sides a reluctant to change SS because it is POPULAR.

Despite the problems most Americans like SS. That includes Republicans.

Sometimes it called a tax but it not a tax it is insurance. It is not more a tax than paying into a pension is a tax or health insurance premiums are a tax.

You make it means tested then it is no longer and insurance it is welfare. Instantly you lose support of everyone above the means test. People get very unhappy looking at their check seeing that 8% going to "poor people". Even those not affected by the means test will likely be less supportive. Everyone is an optimist. They think they are going to strike it big and when they do they "wasted" all that money because they paid into a system for "poor people".

Welfare = horribly unpopular.
SS = insanely popular.

You make it means tested and I guarantee you within 10 years the Republicans will have support to cripple it to a tiny shadow of its former glory.

SS has remained relatively unmolested even during the Bush years because it is UNIVERSALLY POPULAR. Since it is insurance even the rich (not uber rich but normal rich) see it as a benefit. A security blanket. Change that and you WILL KILL IT.

[Naturyl]

48. Then let's change attitudes about welfare

Instead of throwing our hands up.

There's not much any of us can do individually, but if we all start re-framing welfare as a *positive* thing, it will add up. I've been at it for years.

[Hannah Bell]

53. Because "welfare" is the first step to "CUTS". SS's imminent bankruptcy is MYTH, get it?

You want to raise taxes on the rich, do it through the GENERAL BUDGET.

SS is workers' SELF-FUNDED OLD AGE INSURANCE.

INSURANCE.

SELF-FUNDED.

[galileoreloaded]

59. I appreciate your passion, but SS is a ponzi scheme, requiring an ever increasing population

to maintain solvency. Alternate funding methods must be found. Accounting for inflation since the program started, working 50 years only pays for 10 or so. The formulas came from an 1880's German program, and were never really modified.

[Hannah Bell]

60. No, it's not. You don't understand what a Ponzi scheme is.

A Ponzi scheme doesn't produce anything. The profits of the initial investors come straight from the pockets of later investors, with no "investment" between the two.

Social Security, on the other hand, works like this:

You work. You create goods, services, infrastructure. A portion of the added value you create supports the aged.

Then I work. I create more goods, services, infrastructure. Part of my work supports you.

Workers work, producing goods & services. The value of the work creates the value of the benefits. THE WORK is the "investment," & it's the only thing that creates real value in this world.

There is no requirement for more workers every generation. In fact, the system can run just fine with more workers per beneficiary, less workers, or an equal number of workers.

IT's not a Ponzi scheme. It's the most successful retirement security program in history. Your accounting & history is just plain wrong.

[antigop]

80. Why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009010709

It was inevitable that once the phrase "Ponzi scheme" returned to the news in the wake of Bernard Madoff's alleged swindle, a chorus of angry voices would rise to condemn Social Security as, in their words, "the biggest Ponzi scheme of them all."

Their argument -- gaining momentum on the web, among some television commentators, and elsewhere (for examples, see "The Ponzi Scheme That is Social 'Security,' " "The Real 'Mother Of All Ponzi Schemes': Social Security" or "Madoff only the No. 2 Ponzi scheme") -- has a certain appeal because there are indeed some superficial similarities.

Essentially, here's their pitch: a Ponzi scheme is a fraud in which money from one group of people is used to pay promised returns to another group of people. The money isn't invested, it's just transferred, and at some point the scheme collapses because there's not enough income to satisfy withdrawals. (Madoff reportedly confessed to one of his sons that his $50 billion investment business fit that description.) Social Security's critics say it's a multitrillion-dollar Ponzi scheme because although individuals have "accounts," in fact the government uses income from current workers to pay benefits. When benefits exceed income, they say, the system will crumble, just like Madoff's.

It's hard to knock down such a persistent and seemingly elegant analogy. But since it creates a false impression of Social Security, and since I for one consider real Ponzi schemes too important and interesting to obfuscate, it's worth rebutting this myth.

[defendandprotect]

114. That's simply r-w propaganda ...

You're spouting the WSJ "Kool Aid" ...

It's a "pay as you go system" NOT intended to run a surplus --

and not intended to be part of general budget where its HUGE SURPLUSSES

hide our military budget/and war costs.

Even the W Bush administration confirmed SS solvent to 2038 ... and now

longer.

If the loans covered by Government Treasury notes were repaid, SS would

be infinitely soluable.

The SS SURPLUSSES have exceeded $80 Billion. $100 Billion -- and now

over $120 Billion...???? This is excess money poor and middle class are forced

to pay out, not legitimately, but to provide SURPLUS for borrowing.

That's how W covered his tax cuts for rich and his wars.

The huge FICA increases on poor and middle classes were arranged by Greenspan

to provide Poppy Bush with more petty cash. Bush's original plan was to send

IRS out after poor. Greenspan did this with Congress in middle of night.

In other words, question right-wing propaganda...


PS: It is an "insurance" program which provides for those disabled, for widows

and children, etc. A program few individuals could afford to pay for.

Social Security Insurance

[Enthusiast]

140. But unaccounted for billions for the MIC

is somehow alright? Wake the fuck up!

[defendandprotect]

85. What you are saying is . . .

stop paying the few wealthy who have paid in ---

and make everyone else a welfare case . . .

that's the old r-w propaganda which works for them, if you've noticed!

[meow2u3]

61. Based on what I heard, Obama wants to get rid of the Medicare HMO's

These "Medicare advantage" programs, a.k.a., Part C, has been ripping off seniors and disabled persons since they've been instituted. They charge out-of-pocket premiums in excess of the Medicare premium--which goes directly to the insurance companies--and then charge high co-pays if you see a doctor in their network, and you don't even get to choose your own doctor. The company picks one for you, and if you find out the doctor doesn't accept new patients, you're SOL.

These are Medicare advantage programs, all right--they're set up to take unfair advantage of some of our most vulnerable adult members of society--persons 65 and over and disabled adults 18 and up.

[defendandprotect]

86. That would be good news--!!! This article doesn't seem to be good news . . .

[LiberalHeart]

162. Since the one I join in March is wonderful, I would rather they just make the HMOs meet standards.

They could use my (soon) company as a model for what the Medicare HMOs should be like.

[Hekate]

76. How can Obama fix what Bush broke unless he studies and reforms it? That's how I see it. nt

[defendandprotect]

88. I think it is the DLC . . . .

dictating the reform ---

That's how I see it --

And what is DLC's overall influence at DU . . . ?

Other than the gang of posters who show up????

[Hekate]

144. Why do you think that? Obama gets a pounding here every time he turns around...

AND HE'S NOT YET IN OFFICE. Sorry, didn't mean to yell, but I'm more concerned about the gang of posters who keep pounding on him in advance of his actually being in the White House.

Since 2002 when I signed on at DU, I have seen several instances here where opinions about this or that public person were very high -- until DUers turned on them like a pack of dogs. Aaron Brown was the first case I witnessed and I have not forgotten how quickly it happened.

As for Barack Obama, I still trust his character, temperament, and judgment. If I disagree with this or that statement or appointment, it doesn't make him a traitor, a DINO, or a DLCer. Possibly it means he has more information than I do, or that the reality on the ground looks different than it does from my computer screen 3,000 miles away. That assessment doesn't make me a traitor, a DINO, or a DLCer, either. It just means I'm willing to wait and see longer than the end of today.

Hekate

[defendandprotect]

152. Are you saying . . .

the "pounding" is not deserved . . . ??

Larry Summers . . Guptka . . . ?

Rahm Emmanuel . . . on and on --- Gates!!
??????????????????????????????????????????

And look at the resistance at DU to the criticism!!! Ye Gads you would think

that the world stopped at DU's doorstep. It doesn't. This is the world looking

at this line up and wondering what's going on.

You're saying that Obama critics --- repeating what outsiders are saying --

are a "gang of dogs" . .. ??

And the DLC are purists?

You may be willing to "wait and see" . . . but most of us think that it's over.

On the other hand, we'll all keep hoping Obama succeeds.

[mmonk]

94. How about a watchdog for the militray industrial complex spending?

Bet there won't be much budget cutting there. It provides the oil for the political machinery.

World Military Spending- $1100+ Billion
Rest-of-World (combined)-$500 Billion
United States- $623 Billion

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

[Hannah Bell]

119. I demand yearly reports explaining how we'll maintain DOD's solvency

75 years into the future, just like Reagan mandated for social security.

I think DOD's going bankrupt. I don't think it's possible to continue these kind of budget increases into the future. We wont have enough workers to pay for it.

I think the generals should hold a bake sale & create a trust fund. Double tax the top 1% for 30 years to pay for it.

Then we can borrow from the DOD trust fund every year to pay back the billions borrowed from SS.

[Enthusiast]

143. Woo hoo, Hannah! I like it! nt

[Enthusiast]

142. That about says it all, mmonk!

Not only do we spend more than everyone but there is also NO oversight. This bullshit has got to stop!

[HughMoran]

115. "reforming massive government entitlement programs" sounds like a good idea

I'm sure a Democrat would be best to do this whereas a Republican would just screw the lowest income people.

[Faux pas]

120. Uh wow, was looking for the bright side, and got educated instead.

Thanks for all the comments and insights.

[anitar1]

121. I had a sick feeling when I read this statement earlier yesterday.

Anytime a politician starts talking about "Fixing" Social Security, I know it can't be good. Why do they hate FDR? Seems everyone of them try to destroy FDR's programs. Sounds like more Bush crap to me. Maybe they want to throw us to Wall Street, as if anyone would trust that big Casino.

[DCKit]

130. K&R for both the OP and the ensuing debate. n/t

[SmileyRose]

139. He SHOULD screw with Medicare

If all he does is get the law changed so the US government can negotiate for pricing with the drug companies for Med part D that will save us a ton. And the rest of medicare is financially in deep shit anyways. It needs some serious screwing to save it.

SS will be fine if we can stop raiding it to pay for corporate pork.

[merh]

141. I think you are reading it wrong

or more importantly, you are believing the slant the article tries to create and are reading more into what was said.

Tell me how you get "screwing with SS" out of this language:

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that reforming massive government entitlement programs — such as Social Security and Medicare — would be "a central part" of his effort to control federal spending.

Obama made the pledge but provided few details as he named Nancy Killefer as his administration's chief performance officer, creating a new White House position aimed at eliminating government waste and improving efficiency.

It appears that he is looking to better manage the programs from the government standpoint rather than reforming the program or altering the program itself. Better operations of the division that is responsible for the program, cutting government waste, being better stewards of the money.

This is what his position has been on SS:

#
Barack Obama will protect Social Security:

Obama and Biden are committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. They are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Protect Social Security

Obama and Biden are committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama and Biden will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama and Biden will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, they will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.

Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee).

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/seniors/index.php

[Madison knows]

150. SS should be okay, but Medicare is doomed...

Those who saw the financial crisis coming and did nothing will do nothing about this impending "crisis" either.

[defendandprotect]

153. Medicard is a single payer system which works . . .

when Congress is willing to protect it from THEFT by organized corporations

stealing from the program.

And if we get rid of Bush's inane DRUG program which put insurance companies

in to reward them!

In fact, we should just extend Medicare to all as John Conyers is recommending!!

Let's go -- it's ready made!!