Obama ready to deal on Social Security?
Lynn Parramore notes the part of Social /security in the debates:
Watching Wednesday night’s presidential debate, you’d have to be a crack political code reader to know what Obama was really saying about Social Security. It was quick. It was subtle. But it was one of the most telling moments of the debate.
First, let’s get a few things straight. Social Security is solvent. It’s America’s most successful retirement plan to date. It’s extremely popular across party lines . Social Security adds not a penny to the deficit. And, as Nancy Altman has argued , it’s “the poster child for fiscal responsibility.” The program is prudently managed, cost-effective, and carefully monitored.
Obama could have mentioned these facts and cheered the success of a program that Democrats – and all Americans — should be proud of. Instead, the discussion went like this:
“Lehrer: Do you see a major difference between the two of you on Social Security?
Obama: You know, I suspect that, on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill.”
Ladies and gentleman, that was the sound of your president offering to screw you on your retirement. This revealing exchange was followed by some politically strategic talk by both candidates about how current retirees shouldn’t be worried, because, as we all know, their votes are needed in the short term. But the rest of us? Be very, very worried.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock
Dog bites man film at 11!
Seriously, Mr. Bogama has been saying stuff like this going back to the primaries in 2007. Digby has covered his inability to articulate the truth Lynn Parramore states since forever pretty much…
So have we amateur socialist…so have we. Just a reminder.
Of course Dan. I apologize for the unintended slight. I learned the politics at digby’s blog but you guys at AB taught me the math 🙂
Remember that “all politics is local.” Start now calling your Senators and House Reps. Call those who are out of your local geographic area, not only the ones on your local ballots. Be direct. “No screwing with Social Security if you want my vote in the next election.” The President can’t do shit without the cooperation of the Congress. Call multiple times. Send messages. Don’t focus on the WH, they could care less what you think. That goes for Repubs and Dems. There are certainly differences between Obama and Romney, but not so much so on the issue of SS. That’s where the Congress comes into play. Call, write, message, etc. your local representatives in both Houses. “No changes in the program or I’ll change my vote.”
Jack,
Obama and Romney disagree on almost every issue, yet they agree on this.
Do you think you might be missing something?
sammy
what you are missing is that the big money has been trying to kill Social Security for years. They have just about reached a critical mass of lies where they can pull it off. I can’t tell if Obama is bought off, or if he just believes the lies too.
But there is absolutely no doubt that
Social Security has not a damn thing to do with the deficit. and
Social Security is not going broke. and
if the workers want to keep the present retirement age and the present replacement rate, they would need to raise their own payroll tax about eighty cents per week per year, while their wages are going up about eight dollars per week per year.
or they could do absolutely nothing, and keep the present tax and still get a pension worth about 20% more in real dollars than the current pension. I don’t think it would be wise to “save” eighty cents per week out of an eight hundred dollar a week paycheck at the cost of trying to live on less than $200 dollars a week when you are too old to find work.
you would think i was calling you names if i said you were stupid. but what would you call someone who believed lies despite having a chance to learn the truth beyond mathematical doubt?
“Obama and Romney disagree on almost every issue, yet they agree on this.
Do you think you might be missing something?”
Fools seldom differ.
Chalk Obama’s SS remark (“there’s not a lot of difference between me and Gov. R on Social Security”) to an unaccustomed fit of honesty. The President has supported P.G.Peterson’s views on austerity from the start. Which means not only the Catfood Commission debacle but also PGP’s view of SS. Most recently, PGP has been described as thinking SS doesn’t contribute to the deficit but belongs in any Grand Bargain anyhow. Why? Just makes sense to Peterson and from all appearances, the President, too. So, Parramore is right–Romney and Obama do agree. FYI, sammy. Things aren’t as they seem. NancyO
sammy: “Obama and Romney disagree on almost every issue, yet they agree on {Social Security}.”
Well, at least in the debate, they agreed on jobs policy. But they made it sound like they did not. (And in actuality, I don’t think that they do. If the Reps end up with both the Congress and the White House, Romney will go along with Congress, no matter what he thinks himself.)
coberly,
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but THE SS TRUST FUND IS MEANINGLESS. It is an artifice, to be rightfully ignored. You choose to focus on it because you are selfish.
The relevant thing is the overall budget deficit. We are currently spending $1.40 for every $1.00 we take in. Social Security is 20% of spending. What happens to Social Security is 100% political and 0% actuarial.
Hey Sammy guess what: The “meaninglessness” of the SSTF is also political.
And the political calculation that tries to render the SSTF irrelevant to this issue from both parties is going to cost its advocates dearly. Count on it babe.
“Hey Sammy guess what: The “meaninglessness” of the SSTF is also political.” A.S.
Not also, but completely and only. There is nothing meaningless about the fact that the Trust Fund is a legislatively defined creation that serves as an accounting mechanism for excess revenues when they occur on an annual basis. It is the source of all benefit payments and the recipient of all revenue sources for the SS program. Any other interpretation is a lie. It is simply a fact of legislation created by a previous Congress and signed into law by a previous President. Granted that one act of Congress can be revised by a subsequent act of Congress, therefore my prescription to make your voting intentions known to your local elected officials, especially in the Senate and the House. “Tamper with the current SS Act at the risk of losing my vote and the votes of as many people I can influence.”
“THE SS TRUST FUND IS MEANINGLESS. It is an artifice,”
In the sense that “money” itself is an artifice, yes.
I’m not sure why typing in all caps makes your point, though.
“Social Security is 20% of spending.”
Social security is paying for itself. Has been all along.
Smarter trolls, please.
Sammy
you try my patience. I have argued here that the Trust Fund is not important… not because it is “phony iou’s” but because if it disappeared today, SS could continue to Pay as you Go without a hitch.
And one more time: SS doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the budget. It is paid for by the workers who will get the benefits.
So I don’t choose to focus on the SSTF. I do point out that the workers can continue to pay for their own SS forever, and that they ought to, because it is the best deal they will ever get.
Social Security is 0% of budget spending. Try to understand that. It’s critical.
“Try to understand that. It’s critical.”
Yes, Dale, understanding that is critical.
However, sammy is not here for understanding. sammy is here to troll. “Understanding” has nothing to do with it.
here’s team obama, speaking out of the other side of the president’s mouth, trying to say he’s really not the optical isomer of romney on social security:
Obama Campaign “Clarifies” Approach on Social Security
thanks joel.
i have less faith in humanity than you. i think sammy is about as intelligent as he sounds.
and that is pretty close to what the average voter is capable of without real leadership.
which in our case, we have not got.
i do get to talk to “real people” quite a bit. they are often very nice people, and quite smart about their own affairs, but easily fooled about stuff they have no reasonable way to know anything about. and hard to unfool.
and yes, an easily touched reservoir of fear that can easily be turned to hate.
Some liars are highly intelligent. We call them sociopaths.
am soc
i agree. though i don’t think sammy qualifies, Romney does. i would go further and say psychopath, but i am not sure of the exact clinical distinction.
Romney/Ryan/Simpson/Bowles/Peterson certainly present a sociopathic view of business and government… and, what’s worse, bring that behavior to the fore in people who are otherwise not evil, but can be persuaded to forget their own decency long enough to do evil things.
One thinks of the twentieth century master of such persuasion. While we have not yet reached the scale of his “success” we are well on our way to justifying to ourselves a kinder gentler version of it.