Social Security -- Dead on Arrival

[JDPriestly]

Firedog Lake has an excellent article on the Catfood Commission:

Here are the beginning paragraphs.

The very rich are different from you and me.” Yes, and that’s why their representatives on the Catfood Commission are horrified that their fellow commissioner Alan Simpson was so indiscreet as to reveal what they think of most Americans: Namely, that we’re “lesser” than them.

Honestly, just check out the list of the Catfood Commission’s current membership, starting with the ones appointed by Obama:

ERSKINE BOWLES, co-chairman — Like his late father Skipper, an investment banker as well as a big-wheel politician in North Carolina. Prominent Clinton Administration figure (In January of 1998, Business Week called him “Corporate America’s Friend in the White House“) and deeply involved in the Gingrich-Clinton pact to kill Social Security — a pact derailed by Monicagate.

ALAN SIMPSON, co-chairman — Another son of a prominent politician, and also the father of one, Simpson is not exactly a man of the people no matter how many rodeo badges he wears. Fortunately for us, he doesn’t hide his upper-class arrogance as well as he thinks he does, hence his rather revealing outburst against us “lessers” last week.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/06/26/come-saturday-morning-were-all-lesser-people-to-the-elites-on-the-catfood-commission/

Anyone 45 and older who doesn't have a very fat government pension waiting for them in a few years needs to read this article.

For those of us who are retired and have no fat pension (most of us between 63 and 75), regardless of how much you might have managed to save, that very small Social Security check is probably just about the only cash flow you have now.

We have to work together to defend Social Security. Any ideas?

[nashville_brook]

1. this is terrifying. k n r

[Greyhound]

2. K&R for more of that "change".

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. ...

:grr:

[jgraz]

4. I've got an idea! Let's elect a Democratic president and give him HUGE majorities in Congress!!

Oh wait...

[LWolf]

5. +1

[Blue_In_AK]

11. + another one

[Dinger]

105. + another

[Spheric]

14. +1 Exactly.

It hurts to be swindled.

[Horse with no Name]

28. Homerun! n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

30. Seems like a good idea. But how about...

We stop paying attention to FriedDog Lake.

[jgraz]

50. From the information content of your posts...

my guess is you stopped paying attention a long time ago.

[Raineyb]

120. I don't ignore information because I've capriciously decided that

because the person behind the info isn't cheering every thing the President does that they don't know what they're talking about. You should try it.

[donco6]

158. How about explaining why?

Or maybe you're too busy pulling up your socks?

[mmonk]

43. The Democrats created it so they are the only ones that can get rid

of it and medicare.

[readmoreoften]

44. That's a great plan!!! +1

He'll protect social security for sure!!!!

[Catherina]

47. + 1000 n/t

[wroberts189]

63. You know I hardly post anymore but you hit that ball out of the park. nt

[defendandprotect]

65. +1000% . . . what a joke!

[patrice]

77. What am I missing here . . . What HUGE majorities in Congress?

The House, yes, pretty much, but the Senate not by a long shot.

That's pretty obvious, so why is everyone pretending Dems have a huge majority in the Senate?

[liberation]

81. You do understand what "majority" means, right?

The GOP was able to push their agenda through both houses for a decade with lesser numbers than the Dems have right now. IMHO You can move the goal posts for so long before people start wondering about the honesty of the requests, and we start seeing desperate stalling techniques for what they are. The truth is that as a whole, there is little difference between a big chunk of the Dem platform and the GOP. And that is tragic beyond words.

But by all means, let's play coy. Wink, wink.... so carry on!


Cheers.

[patrice]

86. Yes and I also understand what the word huge means. The post to which I replied is correct on one

count, yes we do have a majority, but no it is not huge and/or Blue Dogs weren't replaced with real Democrats. That's a political reality that affects the party platform.

Yes, Republicans are able to do that, because they have party discipline that we can't even imagine, discipline that consists of at least a few folks who either aren't getting what they want on some issues or are being put on hold, something that seems impossible to expect on our side, resulting in a lack of discipline that affects platform, because Republicans can COUNT on Democrats being made vulnerable by Democrats.

The truth is also that amongst Democrats there is very little engagement beyond, in effect, after-the-fact requests, reactionary demands, and sulking. Lack of grassroots engagement is why there is no congressional discipline. I have done lots of stuff for the party and the fact is that EVERYTHING is way too top-down and no one seems to want to do the work of changing that, except Dr. Dean and DFA. As long as it is like that, as long as Democrats think politics is something you do for a few weeks every 2 or 4 years, policy is going to be what TPB think they can make work, not what we want.

Contrast the lack of Democratic engagement with what Republicans have: they have "issue based" focus grouping going on non-stop, year 'round, in their churches. Things are simplified there and Republicans are motivated constantly. There is nothing for the Democratic party that parallels this kind of opportunity for grassroots engagement, hence no congressional discipline, hence crappy platforms and policy, resulting in a small impotent "majority".

[patrice]

87. e.g. The other day there was a HUGE thread yelling about SEC provisions to insure

stockholder proxies, which could permit shareholder participation in CEO pay decisions, being removed from financial sector reform legislation - BIG thread, a couple of hundred posters yelling about weak-ass Democrats, of which there are a significant number, I grant you. I jumped into the thread and posted the capital phone numbers, all in subject lines, and called for a tally of persons who called Washington right now to tell them what they think of the loss of those SEC provisions for stockholder proxies.

Guess how many responses I got to those phone numbers?

One.

[Lorien]

152. Repeat "We CAN'T do it! We CAN'T do it!!!!!" it's our new mantra

majorities schmororities. We're all helpless. Bush could twist arms and threaten, but we're victims of the Big Bad Blue Dog repub...er,"Democrats". The minorities have us held hostage. Oh, and we can't give Americans single payer, can't plug a hole in the ocean floor, can't close Gitmo, or end two wars, can't save public schools, can't do a thing about unemployment... WE CAN'T DO IT, whatever it is...except pray that we lose majorities in both houses in November so we'll have better cover going forward.

[Nay]

92. It's a sad thing, isn't it? We supposedly DID elect a bunch of Dems,

and we get these ppl on the Catfood Commission.....I don't care what anyone here says about how we have to support Obama, we're getting swindled. And I voted happily for him. I am beyond pissed, and truly don't know what else to do.

[defendandprotect]

169. Well, doing the same thing over and again isn't going to change things -- !!

Corporations have bought our government and our two political parties --

now what?

[WillyT]

100. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

What A GREAT Idea!!!

Wish somebody would have thought of that.

:evilfrown:

[MannyGoldstein]

101. +6.02x10^23

Although I don't think you're allowed to say that on DU anymore... good luck...

[awoke_in_2003]

162. when did Avogadro's number

become verboten?

on edit: I was so surprised to see that number that I didn't realize what you were saying :hi:

[mdmc]

133. 1

[Individualist]

138. +1

[Lorien]

151. That's the ticket!!

;(

[tekisui]

159. The truth hurts.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

6. The fix is in, no vaseline and no kiss, just bend over sucker.

[Octafish]

7. Sic AARP on this.

Their newsletter is the largest circulation, around 23.4 million circulation.
Their magazine is second-largest, around 23 million.

(Going from memory...)

[jgraz]

8. Sorry, but they can't compete with the other AARP

American Association of Rich Persons. :banghead:

[Faygo Kid]

24. That's ridiculous. If we are to stop the deficit commission, we will need AARP.

There is no doubt that Simpson has it in for Social Security, which has NOTHING to do with the deficit.

I know how many here feel about AARP, but they have been crucial in passing health care reform and other stuff we support here on DU. They will stand up for Social Security, and it's past time to put the crapola aside and recognize that we have GOT to have them on board for this coming battle. I have no doubt that they will be on board, and no doubt that many here will cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Enough. We have to have allies.

[laughingliberal]

9. No one could read this list & credibly argue the destrution of SS isn't inevitable. nt

[safeinOhio]

10. Awaking the beast

and suffer the consequences. We may be old and in the way, but we are many. We vote also.

[Scuba]

27. If only your vote counted....

Last fall, ES&S quietly purchased Diebold, giving them 80% of market for electronic voting machings. And it's not just the un-auditable vote-counting; they now also own polling place check-in software (electronic pollbooks), voter registration software and vote-by-mail authentication software.

http://www.benalexandra.com/cool_stuff/diebold_ess.htm

This link has very disturbing information, all with appropriate citations, regarding what could easily be a mass-manipulation of our elections.

They've already been caught registering voters who thought they were just signing petitions. Getting total registered voter numbers higher gives them more room to fudge numbers.

When you buy a pack of gum, you get a receipt. Why is there no receipt/audit trail on our votes? I can only think of one reason.

[safeinOhio]

42. IN my state there is both

a paper and electronic record.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. Another good article here at Mother Jones

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/pete-petersons-anti...
Pete Peterson's Anti-Entitlement Juggernaut Gets Fueled Up by Obama
— By James Ridgeway
Wed Apr. 28, 2010 10:28 AM PDT

When Obama’s new Deficit Commission gets going, it has plans for "partnering“--in the words of executive director Bruce Reed--with outside groups. Among them will be the foundation run by Wall Street billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who on today is upstaging the president with his own fiscal summit in Washington. Obama insists he is keeping an open mind about how to deal with the deficit and national debt--but he’s already stacked his own commission with people who lean heavily toward one particular solution: cutting entitlements for the old, the sick, the disabled, and the poor. And if that wasn't enough, he now looks to be working hand-in-glove with a wealthy private organization whose central purpose is to cut Social Security and Medicare. Talk about foregone conclusions.


The White House set the stage two months ago when it created the euphemistically named National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform--commonly called the Deficit Commission or the Debt Panel. The commission's anti-entitlement bent was clear from the get-go based on Obama’s choice of Alan Simpson to co-chair the commission. The former Republican senator from Wyoming has already described his mission as “saving” the United States from “insolvency” by hacking away at entitlements. His longstanding dedication to cutting entitlements dates back several decades, according to Saul Friedman, and "as recently as 2005, Simpson, a conservative from Wyoming who left the Senate in 1997, supported attempts by President George Bush to privatize Social Security by turning part of the pension and insurance program into millions of individual investment accounts, which by now would have lost 20 percent of their value." And even now, "Simpson, who should know better, conflates or deliberately confuses Social Security’s long term fiscal problems, which are minor, with its supposed contribution to the federal deficit, which is almost nil."

We need to wake up people - they are trying to get the last golden eggs from the goose!

[JDPriestly]

31. Somehow I did not get the right article at that link.

Could be my computer.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

71. weird,since the link states what it is. Here is a new link.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/pete-petersons-anti-entitlement-juggernaut-gets-fueled-obama
seems to work. Great article.

[annabanana]

89. +1 for this EXCELLENT Mother Jones article.

Every progressive should know this name and know it well.

[Lasher]

13. Catfood Commission, heh heh.

I like the gallows humor.

I am going to as my House representative to promise he will oppose the Catfood Commission's recommendations if they contain any cuts whatever in Social Security or Medicare. I will do the same with my two Senators. Our best hope is to block this via Senate filibuster but if wouldn't surprise me a bit to see Reid & company use reconciliation to get around that.

I have been hoping to run across a list of those members of Congress who have made such a pledge but so far I have not seen anything like that.

[Mithreal]

18. +1 It's simply good framing

[undergroundpanther]

15. One thing these rich assholes

forget throughout their pampered lives is...people with nothing left to lose and only have survival left will have a tremendous amount of anger and feelings of betrayal, they will fight harder and smarter than the ever shrinking 'pool' of comfortable people who'd rather avoid 'getting involved' left in this country. If these well fed,pampered narcissists cut my access to treatment,and the tiny check I need to survive and such I will be among those with nothing left to lose,I will be free in my mind like always but also add another layer to my issues .I will be ungodly pissed and I will show them how much I despise them,they who have too much and still take more from those who have less and less. Remember the reasons behind Guillotine you greedy fuckers!! Eat the rich,tax them,take it back! I already feel excessive wealth is not a 'right'.I think there should be limits on how rich people,families,corporations and churches can have,and like the wall of separation between church & state,that wall should also include for profit corporations too.Kill the profit motive ,for profit is theft in the hands of the ones who have too much and want more. Winner take all profits without responsibility or consequences enabled heartless toxic greedy people who own and run corporations to buy our government from under us and remake it in their own selfish design.

[RC]

21. I stole a line from your post

Remember the reasons behind Guillotine you greedy fuckers!!
And put it here: http://timws.com/page2.html

It would make a good bumper sticker.

[undergroundpanther]

167. thanks

Honored that it inspired you.If you make bumperstickers I want one! :)

[liberalmike27]

140. It is Really Unfair

To ask the simple question how much is enough, when 40 million of us in the U.S. are living in relative poverty, and we're 12 Trillion in debt, and the general fund owes like 3 Trillion to the SS fund?

We just need to go back to the system to taxing amounts over, say a million a year, about 90 percent. It helps keep the ridiculous CEO wages down too. And none of this 15 percent capital gains cap either, all income goes into the pool for taxation by the FIT.

[Paper Roses]

16. Nightmare material. It is all I have. With a little luck, I'll be here

a few more years. Take away SS or reduce the dollar figure and I can go on welfare.

Great end to a heretofore good life.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

17. Arrogant, condescending POS n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Maybe SS can borrow some money from the Pentagon..they'e awash in it. K&R

[JDPriestly]

32. Excellent idea.

Why are we fighting all these wars all over the world? If the wars need to be fought, wouldn't some other countries be more willing to pitch in and do the work? I know we have a few token Europeans in Afghanistan, but really, we seem to be the only ones paying for that mess and doing most of the dying.

As for Iraq, I distinctly remember being told by Karl Rove that the development of Iraq following the invasion would be paid for by the Iraqis' oil. So why are we paying for it?

Why didn't we leave long ago.

We won WWII in five (5) years. That was in the 1940s. We didn't have all this technology, this sophisticated equipment. And we were fighting in a number of areas of the world all at once -- North Africa, Europe, the oceans, nearly all of Asia.

So now we have been in Iraq for seven (7) years -- and they are still fighting from what I read.

And Afghanistan -- nine years now.

What changed? Oh, privatization. Back in WWII, private companies were not allowed to profit from war. Now, the whole point of war is to generate profits for corporations. Amazing how a little "improvement" like privatization can change so much.

[Enthusiast]

109. If these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

are so essential we would be fighting them with many hundreds of thousands of troops because we would have a draft. But it is exactly like you say. The reason we are at war is profit. So, IMHO, there is nothing one bit patriotic about these wars.

[jgraz]

54. Convenient, since most of their money has been looted from SS

Just sayin...

[defendandprotect]

66. Social Security money has been paying for wars and tax cuts for elites . . .

just those little expenses that they need slush funds for!!

And the burden of providing that Social Security surplus was put totally on the

shoulders of the poor and middle class decades ago -

[Mimosa]

173. ^ Amen!!!! ^

There's never enough money for schools or social programs, or to create jobs but there's always enough for the never-ending war.

I'm scared. I'm over 50.

[Cleita]

20. Yes, I fit into the category of being between 63 and 75.

When DH and I first retired, we had a nice income from interest to our savings. Then interest rates on saving got lower and lower to where they were insignificant. We switched to investments to increase income. In the years that followed between DH's illness and death and the prolonged recession, it pretty much took care of the rest. Today, I must rely mostly on my Social Security and a part time job to survive. It used to be that no politician would dare touch Social Security or Medicare, but today they feel they can ignore us. The only power we ever had were numbers and our vote. It seems they are not worried about those factors anymore. I am frankly at a loss as to what to do.

[annabanana]

90. They may be whistling past their own graveyards.. Boomers DO age. . .

I know, I know.. We all LOOK younger than Springtime, but numbers is numbers.

[amborin]

22. K&R change we can believe in

[bvar22]

23. Nothing good will come from this.

The "Centrist" Democrats will succeed where the Republicans have failed....
the destruction of Social Security and Medicare.

Just like "It took a Nixon to go to China,"
it will take a Democrat to destroy Social Security.

WAKE THE FUCK UP!
The writing is On the WALL for everyone to read.

[Shireling]

25. Social Security should definitely be left alone.

But, if cuts are to be made, put a limit on the income of a retired person. Someone who is already financially secure in old age or during disability can do without, while those of us who aren't, can still have this safety net. This safety net is already way too small, especially if you are disabled.

:hippie:

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Hell just take the cap off earnings that are taxed

for Social Security. What is it, capped at 106k? Take SS taxes out up to 250k of earnings. I just get fucking SICK when these guys talk about cutting, cutting, cutting, but it's NEVER the DoD. And they NEVER talk about raising taxes on the wealthy who pay less taxes than just about anywhere in the developed world.

[JDPriestly]

33. Why stop at $250,000?

Instead, tax all income for Social Security but at a lower rate.

One big problem is that the incomes of lower income people have not risen much in the past 10 years. And fewer people are working. So there is less tax revenue coming in from the Social Security tax. They need to change the tax rate as we are suggesting.

[PBS Poll-435]

34. I say keep the 6.2% rate on wages. Lift the cap.

Social Security is NOT a retirement plan.

It is a program to keep the elderly & disabled from eating cat food.

[JDPriestly]

35. See my post below.

Right now, seniors are not getting much if any income, any interest or other income on the money they have saved. So even if they have some savings, Social Security is their entire cash flow each month. That is the reality for most seniors.

Let's say that you started working in 1965, and you earned $6,000 that year. (Yes, that was a reasonable amount for an ordinary person back then.) Over the years, you earned in today's dollars an average of $50,000, and you saved in today's dollars 10% of that or the equivalent of $5,000 a year.

Now keep in mind that you did not actually save $5,000 in 1965. You only saved $500 that year, but thanks to interest and growth in your investments, that amount more than doubled over time. On the other hand, you earned $35,000 in 1980. You saved $3,500 and that amount doubled but the money you have saved since 2000, that is the years in which you really earned enough to save the arbitrary amount of $5,000 per year has not grown by much at all, maybe at most 3%.

You worked 45 years and would be lucky to have saved the equivalent of $5,000 per year. You might have $225,000 in savings. Add some to that because your saved money probably increased in value over the years. Let's say you actually have $400,000 in savings. You never had a rainy day. You never lost a job. You always saved and never took anything out and your investments did well.

You are now getting an interest rate in your secure investments (the ones they advise seniors to go into) of 0.7 to 1.39% per year. Wow! You might actually earn around $5,000 per year. Surely, you wouldn't need Social Security what with that much money. Not unless you just want to spend down your principle. But if you do that, you will receive even less interest.

Of course, fewer people than you would believe now in their 70s actually managed to save $400,000 over the course of their lives. So, the idea that Social Security is not your pension is a big joke perpetrated by the wealthy, by the people who not only make above average salaries for many years but who also set aside about 10% a year, are lucky in their investments and stay very, very healthy.

Actually, you may have more worth than the cash you saved. But if you sell your house, you have to buy another one. In today's real estate market, you are better off staying put.

Another alternative is that you inherit money. But I would include those who inherit significant enough money to make a difference as "wealthy."

The rest of us rely on Social Security. And don't think those government pensions will remain sacred for long once they attack Social Security.

We are living in an age of reverse Robin Hoods. The rich are stealing from the poor. And if you think you will be independent when you reach the age of 70, you need to think again.

[Enthusiast]

112. "It is a program to keep the

elderly & disabled from eating cat food."

And living in a tent or under the bridge.

[socialist_n_TN]

116. OK by me.................

I think we agree on the point of the matter. These capitalist fuckers automatically take raising revenue (ESPECIALLY from those who actually CAN afford it) off the table. It's dishonest.

I read something on this when they were talking about the "meetings" they were going to have in various cities for discussion of this. Simpson said something along the lines of we're going to talk about solutions and everything's on the table, but that anybody who suggests raising taxes will be placed in stocks or drawn and quartered or SOMETHING like that. Even though he was supposedly "joking", THAT'S STILL THE ATTITUDE. No new revenue from the wealthy, just cuts for the poor.

[JDPriestly]

29. Very few people who are receiving Social Security are that

financially secure. If you have a high income, you pay taxes on it, and that, in effect, reduces your Social Security to almost nothing. In other words, if you are truly wealthy, you pay as much as half of your Social Security benefits back to the government. I am not among the fortunate who have that problem. But I know someone who is.

And the whole saving for retirement thing is a joke. Let's say that you are over 65 and have managed to save $600,000 in your 401(K). If you are smart, you are probably investing it in really secure places -- like bonds and insured bank accounts. (Not that I have that much. By no means.) In the first place, if you earned on the average $50,000 per year and managed to save 10% of it each year, or $5,000 per year, you would have to work and save for 120 years or the equivalent to accumulate $600,000. If you started working in the mid-1950s and are now in the early years of your retirement, you were probably lucky to earn $5,000 per year back when you started out. That was a pretty decent wage. So the $600,000 would include money you may have earned on your investments as you went along.

Anyway, if you were so lucky as to have $600,000 in your retirement accounts, I figure right now, you would, most likely be earning $7.50 in interest every six months. Over the course of the year, you could buy a pizza for your grandkids.

So, I agree with you. Cuts to Social Security would be downright criminal. People on disability and Social Security did not cause the economic problems in this country. The bankers did. They should pay. Not us.

I worked and saved and trusted the mutual funds, the purveyors of 401(K)s and the banks. They cheated me. I want my money back. And I want my Social Security.

[dflprincess]

37. The problem with that is, who gets to decide what is "financially secure"

If this went the way of other government programs that have means testing the income limit would be at or near the poverty level.

[mikehiggins]

96. limits on what retirees can earn

Well, this is at least halfway to what Simpson, et al, are shooting for and, frankly, it is typical of the Democrat response to everything. Give it all away BEFORE you start negotiating and you can clear up the rest in a hurry.

Why limit the income of retirees if you have a cap on how much income is subject to the SocSec tax? Aren't people making those amounts of money more able to pay the tariff than "well to do" retirees?
To be blunt, I do not know ONE retiree who is economically secure WHO did not START OUT wealthy to begin with. I do know scads of folks who did the right thing, invested in 401k's and IRAs and the market and who have been eviscerated by the economic thefts and scandals of the last decade.

And now some sort of standard should be set so that the poor among us can stay that way, even if they are ready and willing (and find it necessary) to hold down a part-time job? Does anyone really think retirees work because they want to? So they can have a ROlls instead of a Bentley?

Hands off Social Security. IF it ain't broke, don't break it.

[Enthusiast]

119. This was never a 'Democrat

response to everything' until VERY recently. Just sayin'. I wouldn't want to be overly critical of anyone.

[sabrina 1]

36. No one who cared about providing SS benefits to the elderly

would ever, in their wildest dreams, appoint someone like Alan Simpson to any commission on Social Security.

Do these people EVER go away? Why are the still around interfering in business that is supposed to be taken care of by elected officials? He is not elected.

Why is the 'commission' not made up of elected officials anyhow? Why do we bother electing people if they cannot do the job and we end up with people we would NEVER elect knowing their background and what they believe in, influencing the government like this?

This is really bad. Bush couldn't get that job done so I guess they passed it on to Democrats. I know one thing, if Democrats are the ones to destroy SS, we can look forward to Republican rule for a very, very long time. But what public funds are left for them to raid after SS? The Cato Institute has still on its website, a plan to get their hands on the SS fund written a decade or so ago.

We can only be grateful that Bush failed to hand that huge fund over to the Wall St. Casino. But it looks like they will not quit until they get their greedy hands on it. Probably after the Nov. election. But every candidate who is running in the Fall should be asked about his Commission and how much their 'findings' will influence them. I know, we can't really trust what they say when they need votes, but we should have them on the record at least, because they will be running again in a couple of years.

[TBF]

38. His words 2/24/09 -

"To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans."


Cite so y'all can read it for yourselves - http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-obamas-speech-before-congress-following?pagenumber=1

[JDPriestly]

64. We already have tax-free savings accounts.

They are called, among other things, 401(K)s. And, when the stock market crashed so did the mutual funds in which so much of the 401(K) money is "saved."

No, no, no. Personal savings accounts are a rip-off. That's just another Wall Street gimmick to grab your money so they can bet against your money and rip you off for commissions and charges for managing your accounts.

One company that has 401(K)s among its products advised me that I could either get my statements electronically or pay $10 per month to receive them in the mail. I have an account that no doubt seems small to them but is actually pretty big from my point of view. I earn pennies on my money every month -- and they want to charge me $10 to send me the statement.

Can you imagine being a little old lady in your 90s and having to manage the investments in your "personal savings account." I know someone in her 90s. She is sharp. No sign of Alzheimers or any other memory or mental loss. But when it comes to managing money, even balancing her checkbook, she feels overwhelmed. It's too much for a person in her 90s.

This personal savings account idea is the brainchild of rich people who can afford to pay someone else to take care of their money. Most of us will never save that much.

I oppose the idea of personal savings accounts. They are a rip-off. It's ridiculous to impose responsibility for managing money on a 90+ year old. If someone that age wants to manage their money, that's their problem. They are a tiny minority.

And don't suggest that some family member or friend could manage the very elderly person's personal savings account. Elder law is an entire field. Seniors, especially seniors who do not live near close, trusted family members, are easy prey for con-artists.

Personal Savings Accounts are a cruel joke.

[sabrina 1]

73. 'Tax free savings accounts'. It is so transparent.

And who would be handling those accounts? Well, it really is up to the people now. Obviously they are prepared with the same arguments they gave us for not producing a national care system.

In France this past week, the government announced an 'austerity' program. All over the world, social programs are being attacked. Austerity doesn't apply to the wealthy just the working class. Immediately there was a strike. We'll see how it works over there, but it will be a lot harder for them in Europe. In Iceland they are arresting the perpetrators who destroyed their economy, here we are giving them even more power and more money.

Americans are very tolerant, or too entrenched in the party system to be able to fight back. Still, there is a breaking point which we apparently having reached yet. I hope SS will be it.

[TBF]

113. I hope so too Sabrina,

just sad that it has come to this. When Obama talked about his admiration for Ronald Reagan during the campaign, more of us should have listened. This drive to privatize everything only helps the very wealthy.

[socialist_n_TN]

114. Simpson is on there to represent the FAR right position

Bowles would probably be considered "centrist". I haven't looked at the makeup of the rest of the commission, but I would be willing to BET that MOST of them are right wingers with a sprinkling more of FAR right wingers. I would also be willing to BET that there is NO representation for "far" left positions (like mine) and VERY few moderate left positions.

They're setting up the "compromise" position as right or even far right. If you have compromise negotiation between the center, the right, and the FAR right the "compromise" position is PREset as a right wing position.

[Enthusiast]

121. Alan Simpson in charge

of Social Security is like Max Baucus in charge of health care reform. Hey........

There are no coincidences.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

154. +1

[sabrina 1]

157. Exactly. Hey, it was a winning strategy. Shut out

anyone on the left, call right of center 'Democratic' and voila, anyone from the left who complains when they privatize Health Care funds, I mean, Social Security, is just 'whining because they didn't get their pony, and they don't understand how politics works in DC, or they like playing the martyr, or they are just haters who will never be satisfied. Or, the best one of all 'so you prefer McCain/Palin'.

I hope at least they get some new talking points for this one. We at least deserve that if nothing else.

[Liberal In Texas]

39. Sam Seder's take on this:

http://www.youtube.com/user/SamSeder

Social Security Broke: That's Bullshit

[Enthusiast]

125. That's great.

Now, if only someone with alternate view on social security was allowed a seat at the table. Just like HCR, single payer was "off the table". No good reason, just off the table. Same deal.

[LeftyFingerPop]

40. Raise the FICA cap. Period.

[november3rd]

41. Occupy Washington

Today's version of the Bonus Army is the only thing that can shame the bloated ticks in the Senate, the White House, the halls of Congress and the Treasury Department into ceasing sucking the life out of our society.

We have to physically remove them (without tearing their heads off!)

[readmoreoften]

46. No head-tearing off necessary. We just to corral them into nice white collar prisons.

Where they can work 8 hour days like the rest of us for minimum wage.

[Catherina]

49. We do need to march on Washington. If we take this lying down, we're to blame too n/t

[tomp]

126. absolutely true, but no one is stepping forward to organize...

...probably because many democrats/liberals/progressives are stuck behind obama (i.e., fooled by the charisma, the "eloquence", the mask of "progressive", and the reluctance to attack a dem president after bush/cheney, inc.).

someone's gotta step forward or we're done, if we're not done already. and it's gotta be someone big or the march will be ineffective and therefore probably worse than if it never happened.

[Enthusiast]

129. Yeah

I read about the Bonus Army. They sent a Republican general in to attack them with weapons, even tanks. Our own heroic veterans were attacked. Maybe they will attack social security protesters.

[midnight]

45. K&R Defend and invest in the Americans who have defended

and invested in America. Don't let those who consider themselves the big people vs. us little people have any more say over our futures.

[Catherina]

48. This is one long nightmare n/t

[ProSense]

51. The commission can only make recommendations. Here is President Obama's position on Social Security

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Here’s the situation with Social Security. It is actually true that Social Security is not in crisis the way our health care system is in crisis. I mean, when you think about the big entitlement programs, you've got Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. These are the big programs that take up a huge portion of the federal budget. Social Security is in the best shape of any of these, because basically the cost of Social Security will just go up with ordinary inflation, whereas health care costs are going up much faster than inflation.

It is true that if we continue on the current path with Social Security, if we did nothing on Social Security, that at a certain point, in maybe 20 years or so, what would happen is that you start seeing less money coming into the payroll tax, because the population is getting older so you've got fewer workers, and more people are collecting Social Security so more money is going out, and so the trust fund starts dropping.

And if we did nothing, then somewhere around 2040 what would happen would be a lot of the young people who would start collecting Social Security around then would find that they only got 75 cents on every dollar that they thought they were going to get. Everybody with me so far?
All right. So slowly we're running out of money.

But the fixes that are required for Social Security are not huge, the way they are with Medicare. Medicare, that is a real problem. If we don't get a handle on it, it will bankrupt us. With Social Security, we could make adjustments to the payroll tax. For example -- I'll just give you one example -- right now, your Social Security -- your payroll tax is capped at $109,000. So what that means is, is that -- how many people -- I don't mean to pry into your business, but how many people here make less than $109,000 every year? (Laughter.) All right, this is a pretty rich audience -- a lot of people kept their hands down. (Laughter.) I'm impressed. (Laughter.)

No, look, what it means is basically for 95 percent of Americans, they pay -- every dollar you earn, you pay into the payroll tax. But think about that other 5 percent that's making more than $109,000 a year. Warren Buffett, he pays the payroll tax on the first $109,000 he makes, and then for the other $10 billion -- (laughter) -- he doesn't pay payroll tax.

So -- yes, somebody said, "What?" (Laughter.) Yes, that's right. That's the way it works.

So what we've said is, well, don't we -- doesn't it make sense to maybe have that payroll tax cut off at a higher level, or have people -- maybe you hold people harmless till they make $250,000 a year, but between $250,000 and a million or something, they start paying payroll tax again -- just to make sure that the fund overall is solvent.

So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine. All right? (Applause.)

link

Protecting Social Security

President Obama believes that all seniors should be able to retire with dignity, not just a privileged few. He is committed to protecting Social Security and working in a bipartisan manner to preserve its original purpose as a reliable source of income for American seniors. The President stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.

link

Executive Order -- National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform:

<...>

Sec. 4. Mission. The Commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. Specifically, the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. This result is projected to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers. The magnitude and timing of the policy measures necessary to achieve this goal are subject to considerable uncertainty and will depend on the evolution of the economy. In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.

<...>

While making investments for future economic success, President Obama outlined the tough spending cuts to reduce the current deficit, and proposed a freeze in government spending for three years, excluding benefits from Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and benefits for veterans. He discussed the $20 billion in cuts for programs that are inefficient or have outlived their usefulness, and cuts for worthy programs that must be trimmed accordingly. "We have to do what families across America are doing: Save where we can so that we can afford what we need."

link

Why are people speculating that the President plans to abolish, cut or privatize Social Security when everything he has said runs contrary to that?

[jgraz]

52. Sounds a lot like his position on the Public Option

How'd that work out for us? :shrug:

[ProSense]

56. So you think Congress is going to vote to cut Social Security?

Really?

The President has said nothing about cutting Social Security, until he does, you have two choices: believe him or not.

If you choose not to believe him, then the OP is an exercise in futility, as you have already made up your mind.

[jgraz]

58. Unless we make a huge stink about it, it's gonna happen.

I think it can be stopped, but that is clearly the intention of this commission.

[William Z. Foster]

82. wow

Let me get this straight -

What is being said is nothing at all like what is happening. Therefore until and unless something different is said, we have the choice to either believe or not believe what we are being told.

That is one of the strangest things I have ever read.

* Look at what is being said and then choose sides - believe or not.

* Don't look at the fact that what is being said is nothing like what is happening.

* Until something different is said, keep believing what has been said - or not.

* If you do not believe, then nothing you say has any value because you have already made up your mind.

Damn. That is one of the most interesting arguments I have ever seen.

But the truth is all right there.

[tomp]

128. that's anti-sense at work. and yes, a truly bizarre statement. nt

[Whisp]

170. o my, aren't you the clever one

calling people names in ways you can probably get away with.

how about if I call you something other than your DU name? I have a few in mind. Just ask.

[Enthusiast]

134. You were not supposed to point

this out. :spank:

[William Z. Foster]

84. thanks

You just provided some missing pieces to the puzzle.

- The Republicans want to paint the bridge red.

- A Democratic candidate says "I want to paint the bridge green, make no mistake about that" and "I have always been an advocate of a green bridge" and people who want a green bridge support that politician.

- Evidence accumulates that something is amiss - the person appointed to be in charge of the bridge painting has been a red bridge advocate their entire life, red paint is being ordered...and people start questioning this.

- The response from defenders of that politician is "listen to what he says. You can believe or not. If you don't believe, you are helping the red bridge people."

- The bridge gets painted red.

- The response from defenders is "he wanted a green bridge, but the red bridge people stopped him. Did he ever say that he wanted a red bridge?"

That is the pattern. It has happened again and again.

The politician is in the clear - all he said was that he "wanted" something. He can't be held to any promise. He can't be held to any responsibility. The critics are bamboozled and then routed. The supporters are in the clear. They never said that anything could be done, just that the politician supposedly "wanted" those things to be done.

[tomp]

130. brilliant exposure of anti-sense....

....and the serious dangers of advanced obamaphilia.

[Enthusiast]

135. +1

[BuelahWitch]

148. Especially when he packs the commission with all those red painters

If he really wanted to paint it green, the red paint people would be locked out. :hi:

[awoke_in_2003]

163. +1000. nt

[NorthCarolina]

108. You put a lot of "faith" in a politician. eom

[sabrina 1]

160. I believed him when he said he was against Offshore drilling

and when he said he opposed mandated insurance among other things.

When asked about his reasons for his change of mind on those and other issues, he responded that his 'thinking had evolved'. That was apparent when he put Max Baucus in charge of Health Care Reform and his administration excluded progressives from the entire process.

History repeats itself with SS 'reform'. He made an earlier attempt before this commission, by setting up a summit to discuss 'entitlement programs'. Once again, progressives were excluded 'until the last minute'.

Because of the uproar over this, the summit was shortened to a few hours.

Next came this Commission. Speaking of which, and whether or not we ever believe the WORDS of a politician rather than wait to see what they do, Candidate Obama opposed this kind of Commission.

Once again, not a Progressive in sight and worse, the worst kind of right-wing extremists in terms of taking care of the old, infirm, sick etc.

Now, can you explain why time and time again, each time an issue of such importance is raised, (we saw what happened with HCR) progressive Senators and members of Congress are excluded??

And why, since you are asking people to take the president at his word, have his actions, on SS and HCR and Oil Drilling NOT matched his words? And given that, explain why anyone should sit back and wait to find out if this time, his actions and words will match?

So far, his actions are in direct contradiction to his words on Social Security. Do you trust Alan Simpson and Pete Peterson with the well-being of the elderly?

Does Obama, is the better question, and the answer seems to be obvious, far more than he trusts any Progressive expert on the subject. How do we know that? Because there is not a Progressive in sight, once again.

[donco6]

165. I believe they not only will vote on it, but they will vote FOR it.

The Republicans will back them into a corner with this "fiscal irresponsibility" bullshit, and because they have already demonstrated their lack of . . . political will, they will find themselves forced to vote for it. And then we'll be hearing from you about why the bill isn't so bad, that it was necessary to win Election X, and that Obama couldn't help it because he didn't have more votes.

[inna]

55. i have to admit, you can be pretty funny at times

[ProSense]

57. Yeah, it's really hilarious to actually listen to the President and what he has to say.

It's a much more serious endeavor to delve into wild speculation and predictions of doom.

[jgraz]

60. Not hilarious, just really, really bad strategy.

Scenario 1: We make a huge stink about this commission even though Obama has every intention of protecting SS

Scenario 2: Obama is going to punk us on SS and we do nothing about it.


I know which scenario I prefer. How 'bout you?

[ProSense]

61. "Obama is going to punk us "

Conspiracy?

Like I said earlier: The President has said nothing about cutting Social Security, until he does, you have two choices: believe him or not.

If you choose not to believe him, then the OP is an exercise in futility, as you have already made up your mind.

[jgraz]

62. The problem with taking my quote out of context is that my full post is right there ^^^

I gave you two hypotheticals, not conspiracy theories. You KNOW which strategy is correct, but instead of admit it you chose to misrepresent my post. Nice.

[ProSense]

67. The President isn't trying to "punk us" n/t

[Hannah Bell]

70. you completely ignore the point of the post & obsess over word choice = bad faith.

[ProSense]

72. The point of the post is a false choice. n/t

[jgraz]

75. Only if you don't understand what "false choice" means.

For it to be a false choice fallacy, I would have to have said or strongly implied that my two scenarios were the ONLY possible choices. I did no such thing. Given that each scenario included two decision points (protest/accept, punk/honest), simple binary logic establishes that there must be a total of FOUR possible scenarios.

For example, let's look at option 3:

3. We blandly accept what Our President tells us, we smile and do nothing and everything works out great and we all live happily ever after.

We'll call that the "ProSense" option.

You'll pardon me if I don't find the "ProSense" option particularly compelling.


And finally, there is the fourth option in the (protest/accept, punk/honest) matrix:

4. We are about to get screwn, and we make a giant stink about it.


As usual, there is little potential downside to letting our voices be heard, and a HUGE potential downside to taking our politicians' statements at face value and bowing our heads.

I know which way I'm gonna go.

[William Z. Foster]

78. there is a real problem with that

You keep saying that we should listen to what is being said.

We have been. Millions have been.

See the problem?

If what was said matched what later happened, in so many areas, there wouldn't be any criticism.

[ProSense]

83. "See the problem? " Yes,

you've made up your mind. So are you mourning the alleged death of Social Security or celebrating that you believe you were right about President Obama?

If you can't listen to him and refuse to believe a word he says, then what's the point of even speculating that he's going to do something you know without a doubt that he will?

[William Z. Foster]

85. thanks again

It is becoming remarkably clear.

I have made up my mind? About what? I am not "mourning the alleged death of Social Security" nor "celebrating that I believe I was right about President Obama."

Then you say "if you can't listen to him and refuse to believe a word he says."

This is so interesting. Look at that sentence. Why should anything depend upon "believing" a politician?

You say if I don't believe a politician - fail to believe no matter what - that my opinion is therefore invalidated. Amazing, truly amazing. You said it. It could not be any more clear than that.

And more - "what's the point of even speculating that he's going to do something you know without a doubt that he will?"

Do we know that? That seems to be what you are saying.

Remarkable series of posts.

- Don't compare what is being said with what is happening.

- Believe what is said no matter what.

- If you don't believe, then your opinion is worthless.

- What is going to happen is going to happen, and you already know what is going to happen, so why speculate?

[tom_paine]

97. Very well stated and you caught his spirit PERFECTLY.

For those of us who watch what people DO, it is difficult to understand the Cheerleaders.

Creepily, if a REPUBLIC President gets into power, suddenly they'll be all skeptical of what was said vs. what actually happened.

(slaps forehead)

Anyway, enough about the near-universailty of the human frailties of denial and ego.

Well said, though you will certainly fall on deaf ears and your attempted use of rationality on human beings is wasted.

[myrna minx]

106. Thank you.

[tomp]

132. again, brilliant summary of anti-sense.

his/her thinking is so illogical as to be quite near-pathological. and if it were just anti-sense saying these things it wouldn't be so bad, but he/she represents a section of the punditocracy whose sole aim is to confuse, misdirect, and mislead. truly dangerous people.

[Starry Messenger]

141. And there it is.

:thumbsup:

[jgraz]

146. It is not possible to overestimate the amount of WIN in this post ^^^

:applause:

[Lorien]

153. ...

:thumbsup: :applause:

[tekisui]

156. BAM!

:toast:

[donco6]

164. Speaking of knowing what's going to happen -

I have this odd feeling I should do a screen cap on this entire exchange.

[girl gone mad]

166. and..

you just summed up 90% of her posts in 4 short lines.

[Laelth]

176. Well said. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[socialist_n_TN]

131. As I said below, WE BELIEVE HIM...............

We're just giving him some cover from right wing attacks about it!

[Raineyb]

172. Wow! Reading comprehension is NOT your forte. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

127. Hey I believe him..................

I'm just trying to give him some cover for his position. He can point at me and say, "Hey this Leftist wants to take away all the millionaire's money and give it to the poor through Social Security! Not only that, but he wants to cut the DoD budget by HALF to pay BACK the SS fund for all the money they've borrowed for wars. We can't let this Leftist do that to our military and our rich people! We'll just make these LITTLE tweaks like I've always said and we won't let this Leftist win!"

See? I'm just giving him some cover! I'm a good Democrat playing the "bad cop".

[Enthusiast]

137. You are to be commended

for your generosity. :rofl:

[BuelahWitch]

149. The minute he appointed Alan Simpson to head the commission it was clear

He had no intention of preserving the safety net.

[NorthCarolina]

117. I listened to the President as well.

I listened when he said he "was in favor of a public option", and then watched as he held closed door meetings that excluded public option advocates.

I listened when he said he was against ANY form of a public mandate for private insurance, and then watched as he signed into law Romneycare that included the very same mandate he was "against".

I listened when he said he would end DADT, and then watched as his cabinet appointments fought behind the scenes to reinforce the DADT policy.

I listened when he said he was against NAFTA, and CAFTA and would replace them with better, more equitable trade policies, and then watched as nothing happened.

I listened when he said he would end the wars and bring the troops home, and then watched as he escalated the war in Afghanistan.

I listened when he said some serious concessions will have to be made in entitlement reform, then read this OP, and the writing was on the wall for all to see.

You just need to open your eyes.

[Enthusiast]

136. Yes, I wish all you people

would stop with the wild speculation. I've had about a belly full of it <throws ballcap on the floor in anger>.

[JDPriestly]

69. What Obama says and what he does are two different things.

I remember when Obama spoke to his supporters not that long before the Health Care Reform Bill was signed and assured everyone that he wanted a public option.

We did not get the public option, and, you can draw your conclusions from that, and I will draw mine. In my view, had Obama really wanted a public option, he would have permitted single payer advocates to have a seat at the table just to balance the anti-public-option spokespeople.

And now, I look at what Obama is doing, not what he is saying. If Obama were really committed to saving Social Security and Medicare, he would not have appointed the people to this committee that he appointed.

In fact, if Obama were really committed to funding Social Security and saving it for future generations, he would have appointed different people to his cabinet.

[grahamhgreen]

111. He needs to get on top of this and repeat it often!

[TBF]

115. Wrong.

His words:

To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-obamas-speech-before-congress-following?pagenumber=1


He is clearly talking about privatization of social security.

[socialist_n_TN]

122. Because Obama tends to try an be a

"compromiser". He LIKES the idea of a "compromise" position. And on this commission the "compromise" position is going to be, BY THE VERY NATURE OF THE COMMISSION MAKEUP, a RIGHT wing compromise more or less. And that's more or less RIGHT wing.

[inna]

53. Must read - "Whacking the Old Folks"

http://www.thenation.com/article/whacking-old-folks


ETA:

What's extraordinary about this assault on Social Security is that a Democratic president is leading it. Obama is arm in arm with GOP conservatives like Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson, who for decades has demonized Social Security as a grave threat to the Republic and has spread some $12 million among economists, think tanks, foundations and assorted front groups to sell his case. If Obama pulls the deal off, this will be his version of "Nixon goes to China"—a leader proving his manhood by going against his party's convictions. Even if he fails, the president will get some protective cover on the deficit issue. After all, he is targeting Big Government's most beloved and trusted program—the New Deal's most prominent pillar.

[Better Believe It]

59. K & R

[midnight]

68. I wonder if the war was ended today if those who are

counting on social security would have to eat cat food?

[defendandprotect]

74. kick to read tomorrow --

[eridani]

76. Hey! The Catfood Commission has an email addy!

Demand That the Fiscal Commission Keep Social Security and Medicare Intact
Public Meeting & Public Feedback

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will hold a public hearing in the afternoon on June 30th in Washington, D.C., wherein the chairmen and commissioners will hear ideas from members of the public. If you or your organization would like an opportunity to be a part of this public forum, please send an email to [e-mail] with the information below, and we will contact you as the date approaches.

1) Name
2) Will you be representing an organization?
3) If so, what organization will you be representing?
4) Email Address
5) Phone Number
6) Zip Code
7) Any additional information

Unfortunately, due to time and space constraints, we are not able to accommodate everyone. However, anyone can submit comments, ideas, and suggestions at anytime via email by contacting [e-mail]. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record.

Email comments to [e-mail]
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

[yurbud]

79. tell your senator & congressman that going along with this will cost them their job

[yurbud]

80. or send them a letter saying you plan to move into their office when you retire since

you won't be able to afford to live on your own.

What's for dinner anyway? And could you stop having all your corporate friends coming and going? They keep interrupting Dr. Phil.

[Citizen Worker]

88. It took a democrat to...

Pass NAFTA, GATT and the WTO. When N30 erupted in Seattle in Nov 1999 the elites were shaking in their jack boots. They sent Senator Tom Harkin out here to quell the crowds and when that didn't work Bill Clinton was sent. The Battle in Seattle is an example of what is possible when we band together.

to "end welfare as we know it"

waive anti-trust laws and allow media consolidation

and it will take a "democrat" to end Social Security

It's the DLC agenda. Get used to it, or put an end to the DLC.

[Enthusiast]

139. Pretty hard to

come to any other conclusion. Democrats should have to recite an oath of office similar to the Hippocratic oath - First of all, do no harm.

[Honeycombe8]

91. Poorly written article. Is that just a blogger article?

First, never defines the Catfood Commission.

Second, says this person referred to others as "lessers," etc., etc.,...but careful never to source anything or give quotes.

In other words, this whole article is unbelievable, if not unreadable.

[William Z. Foster]

161. poorly written post

What difference does it make if the opinion piece is "just a blogger article?"

If you do not know what is meant by "Catfood Commission" you have not been paying much attention to this issue. Why don't you ask if you don't know?

Simpson is on tape "referring to others as 'lessers,' etc." The snide implication - "careful never to source anything or give quotes" is false. Most people have seen the tape. Again, you have not been paying much attention.

In other words, your entire post is unbelievable, if not unreadable.

[1776Forever]

93. Check the following out: What seems like a good thing is actually disguising support to get rid of S...

America Speaks on U.S. budget deficit
City group joins national effort questioning nation's spendingBy Jennifer Feals
[e-mail]

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100627/NEWS/6270340/-1/NEWSMAP

June 27, 2010 2:00 AMPORTSMOUTH — One hundred locals joined with thousands across the country Saturday to debate the federal budget with hopes of spreading their voices to Washington, D.C.

During a national town meeting, held at 19 cities across the country including Portsmouth, "America Speaks: Our Budget, Our Economy" participants tackled the country's $1.3 trillion budget deficit in their own way.

.............

When you first read this you might think - oh that sounds like a good idea but read on!

Town Halls support needed for Medicare and Social Security - The fight is just beginning!
Posted by 1776Forever in General Discussion
Wed Jun 23rd 2010, 10:14 AM

Healthcare-NOW! http://www.healthcare-now.org / sent this email out today:

For decades, Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson has been trying to privatize or get rid of Social Security and Medicare.

Now he is funding AmericaSpeaks, a private company that is organizing town hall meetings with citizens across the country on Saturday, June 26th.

Pete Peterson wants to use these meetings to shape the national discussion so they can provide feedback to the President's newly appointed Fiscal Commission, an 18-member group charged with giving Congress a report next December on how to reduce the national deficit. This commission is stacked heavily in favor of slashing benefits in both Medicare and Social Security. On top of that, the commission's staff is being provided by Peterson's Foundation.

We need to attend these meetings on Saturday to speak up for Social Security and Medicare. Let's keep it simple. These programs didn't cause the deficit problems. Two wars and tax cuts to the wealthy did.

Social Security and Medicare have proven to be the most successful social programs in our nation's history, without which the poverty rate for seniors would be 48% instead of 10%.
By implementing an improved Medicare for All program, as in HR 676, real cost controls can be used to save money and get the economy back on track by negotiating drug prices, budgeting for hospitals, and reducing the outrageous administrative waste that consumes more than a third of our health care dollars.

Stay tuned for more details on rallies at the town halls across the nation in support of Medicare and Social Security. This fight is just beginning.

[peace frog]

94. k/r

Much as I detest Sarah Palin, she made a point that hit uncomfortably close to home when she asked, "How's that hopey changey working for ya?"
Bingo. Bullseye. :scared:

[Whisp]

171. a Sarah Fan!

wow, you are a brave one! I commend you!

which palm did you write that one on?

[peace frog]

175. The one with the raised middle finger.

:rofl:

[Vinca]

95. Catfood Commission - that's perfect!

The "commissioners" should be forced to live as mere mortals for a month before they start grabbing the Fancy Feast away from Kitty and giving it to Granny.

[glowing]

98. To the big wigs its money they want and haven't been able to get.

Its ours.

[BEZERKO]

99. This is the first time I've seen this

"We’re trying to take care of the lesser people in society and do that in a way without getting into all the flash words you love dig up, like cutting Social Security, which is bullshit. We’re not cutting anything, we’re trying to make it solvent." What an Asshole! "lesser people" don't really matter do they? Why do they need to hold these meetings about my future in secret. Because people would get pissed off, if they heard what they really thought about us.

[Enthusiast]

142. I'll tell ya what.

There ain't no one "lesser" than Alan Simpson. He is as lesser as one can get!

[sulphurdunn]

102. The Cat Food Commission

is a giant fraud. From what I understand, Social Security is well enough vested in government securities now to pay 100% of current dividends with COLAs until 2037 and 75% until the end of the century. If taxes were raised above the current $100,000 to say $500,000 of wages/salaries (although I think it should also be paid on a percentage of investment income)it would be solvent for longer than this country is likely to exist should it remain under the boot heel of its present ruling class. These people greatly desire to eliminate Social Security's federal debt obligations by transferring it to securities markets where it can easily be made profitable through fee taking while simultaneously being vulnerable to speculative losses. Both outcomes are acceptable to our rulers.

Social Security at the federal level and Public Education at the state and local levels are the last huge direct government revenue transfers used to primarily benefit the public, comprising between 1/5 and 1/2 of those budgets. Both have been targeted by the country club looters for "privatization".

[Major Hogwash]

103. Put it in a lockbox.

Oh well, hell, forget, you guys didn't want to hear from him anymore anyway.
It wasn't the only inconvenient truth he told in 2000.

[Enthusiast]

143. Yeah. He also

wanted to reinforce cockpit doors. Too expensive! $300/plane! I'm so glad we didn't spend that money, it would have put airline companies out of business! Limbaugh said! :popcorn:

[BrklynLiberal]

104. I feel that I have just been punched in the stomach..

[WCGreen]

107. They have been attacking Social Security since 1935....

Look at how volatile life was before that time and how more stable our society became after 1935.

Look at how much has changed because people felt that the government was acting positively on their behalf.

This is a compact entered into between those who provide the work and those who demand out trust.

Now, after the republicans and conservative democrats, have put the future on hock for foreign adventures and the concentration of wealth in fewer hands, they claim it is Social Security that is killing this country.

How's about we stop spending a trillion dollars on defense.

Defense of what?

The whole world is now "alive" in Capitalism, why would economies attack one another if they depend on one another?

They want to cut Social Security now that millions of people lost huge chunks of their "private" nest egg to the folly of the few on top?

Fuck it. Things will unravel and the gates in the gated communities will not stop the turmoil.

[Enthusiast]

144. "Defense of what?"

Defense of the economic interests of millionaires.

[NorthCarolina]

147. The Democratic Party has now been moved rightward enough for the conservative dream

of ending social programs such as Medicare and Social Security a reality. I have always believed the DLC to be a pox on the Democratic Party, and the term 'Conservative Democrat' to be an oxymoron. Years of being allowed to vote only for the "lesser of two evils", a conservative owned and operated MSM working to discredit, malign, ridicule, and ignore any traditional Democrat hopeful in order to render them unelectable, and implementation of voting equipment with fewer protections than your local service station gas pump has taken it's toll on Democracy. The conservatives are now free to reap the benefits of two viable political parties that both represent the interests of the wealthy, at the expense of the poor and the middle class who are powerless to stop them. As Sen. Bernie Sanders said, the USA is now an Oligarchy. He wasn't kidding either.

[Mimosa]

174. ^ ITA ^

Who's fighting for us? The few who do get marginalized.

[grahamhgreen]

110. Simple: withdraw from Iraqistan, remove the SS tax cap on the uber-rich, increase tariffs. PAID.

With a whole lot left over for Medicare for All.

[Enthusiast]

145. Too easy, too liberal and

unsatisfactory for wealthy deficit hawks that have never voted against a weapons system or tax cut for millionaires in their career.

[earcandle]

118. Wait! How can they steal my taxes given to this for this purpose? SO that I can retire? Do I stop

paying them this money then?  And put it elsewhere?  

[WillyT]

123. Hey JD !!! - Have You Seen This ???

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8644569

:shrug:

:hi:

K & R !!!

:kick:

[tomp]

124. yet one more obama failure. nt

[moriah]

150. "Gingrich-Clinton pact to kill Social Security"???

Yes, I'm going to read the book to figure out just where you got this idea, but as far as I know the proposal from Clinton was not to take any of the current payroll taxes to put into private accounts, but to make private accounts available as an add-in and give incentives for low and middle class workers to save (matching funds up to $700 a year per couple).

It was called the "USA" plan:

President Clinton did not embrace the carve-out approach in announcing his proposal for extending the solvency of the Social Security system early this year. Rather, the President's proposal for private savings, Universal Savings Account (USA), would be an add-on to Social Security. It would give all lower- and most middle-income families an annual $600 federal tax credit to seed a tax-free personal retirement savings account. Most importantly, the federal government (through a refundable tax credit) would match private savings up to $700 per year per couple for low-to-moderate income families. That means an eligible household where the husband and wife each saved $350 per year would wind up with $2,000 a year placed in their USA account.

The proposal would let USA account-holders invest their savings in a range of government- regulated but privately operated investment funds, similar to the arrangement enjoyed by federal workers through the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. Assuming a 5 percent real rate of return, a two-earner family saving the maximum matched amount would have a $250,000 nest egg after 40 years, and obviously more if they chose to save beyond the matched amount.

The President proposes to pay for the USA accounts by reserving 15 percent of future federal budget surpluses for this purpose.

As I said, I'm going to read the book to see what they are saying Clinton was actually trying to negotiate for, but if it was just an add-on thing and not a current payroll-tax seeded solution I hardly see how anyone in their right minds could think that would kill social security.

[Mithreal]

155. This administration would never cozy up with the Newt.

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Bloomberg+Sharpton+Gingrich+Address+Media+dpQOAMG2Po7l.jpg

And what's odd is the President's Third Way Triangulation sounds so much like what the Newt was championing. I wonder.

Public schools were so 20th century.

[defendandprotect]

168. Looks more like we all need to defend ourselves against

Obama's panel!!

What the right wing Repugs couldn't get done, sadly Democrats are working on for them!!

Certainly, seniors have to organize -- AARP is an insurance company!

And that would seem obvious --

More and more decision making is being moved out of view --

how many seniors even know about this?

Btw, nice post -- thanks for picking this up -- I've saved it --

but you can also see the CHILL here vs Fire Dog Lake -- Jane Hamsher --

and other "leftbagging" interests!!