Remarks By Obama To The WSJ CEO Council...We Need To Cut SS & Medicare Benefits

[Oilwellian]

Last Tuesday, top global CEOs gathered in Washington, D.C., for the annual meeting of The Wall Street Journal CEO Council. Obama shared with these corporate CEOs, his fondest dream of cutting our earned benefits. This is just one more example we can add to the list, and we must remain vigilant on this issue.

For the deniers:

Now, one way to do that is just to make health care cheaper overall. That’s I think the best way to do it, and that’s what we’ve been doing through some of the measures in the Affordable Care Act. There are some other provisions that we could take that would maintain our commitment to seniors, Medicare, Social Security, the disabled, and Medicaid, while still reducing very modestly the costs of those programs.

If we can get beyond the tactical advantages that parties perceive in painting folks as extreme and trying to keep an eye always on the next election, and for a while at least, just focus on governing, then there is probably 70 percent overlap on a whole range of issues. A lot of Republicans want to get infrastructure done, just like I do. A lot of them believe in basic research, just like I do. A lot of them want to reform entitlements to make sure that they’re affordable for the next generation; so do I. A lot of them say they want to reform our tax system; so do I.

If we do those things, that solves our real fiscal problem, and we could take some of that money, a very modest portion on the front end, and invest in infrastructure that puts people back to work, improve our research and development.

So the idea would be do some things in the short term that focus on growth; do some things in the long term that deal with the long-term debt. That’s what my budget reflects. That’s what a multiple series of negotiations with John Boehner talked about, the so-called Grand Bargain. We couldn’t quite get there in the end, mainly because Republicans had a great deal of difficulty with the idea of putting in more revenue to balance out some of the changes that were made on entitlements.

If someone rejects an offer and you propose it again and again, it is not a concession: it is what you want.

Transcript

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. you really have an agenda if THOSE are the comments you isolate out of so many good points he made

even the ones you're making do not even mean cutting by one penny what people on social security receive. reform of social security or Medicare or any other program does not only mean cutting them. For instance, some cuts in REIMBURSEMENTS TO DOCTORS in Medicare were a part of ACA/Obamacare and have the effect of reforming an entitlement but do nothing to reduce services to elderly on Medicare.

So your focus on those few words out of the entire transcript are borderline dishonest.

[FLyellowdog]

3. Thank you. nt

[Oilwellian]

4. Yes, I have an agenda

I'm fighting against any cuts to SS and Medicare benefits. Are you?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. yes. and when it is clear those are really on offer...you will watch a nuclear bomb of rage go off

in this country. right now, you look like someone trying to find reasons to be negative about a president that has done more for working class people in this country than ANY since Johnson.

[Oilwellian]

10. You must have missed it in Obama's 2014 Budget Proposal

The Budget contains the President’s compromise offer to Speaker Boehner from December. As part of that offer, the President was willing to accept Republican proposals to switch to the chained CPI.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-protections

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. looks like you didn't read it very closely. did you know people who are millionaires can draw SS?

as your own link points out, the thing you guys keep harping about 'it's going to force retired impoverished people to accept less and less real $ each year so they will not be able to survive' when, in fact, it would only be agreed to by this president if it was accompanied by the protections and safeguards for the elderly poor mentioned right below it. Namely, increased amounts indexed based on how long a person was long-term on social security and starting at age 75 which is 9 years after someone can currently retire and receive full benefits.

So, contrary to the spin put out by you and others, the president's agreement to even consider chained CPI comes with a number of caveats which address the very thing you throw out there as a scare tactic.

Thanks for the link. You will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

[eridani]

25. There are no protections for the elderly poor. They get an extra stipend which comes nowhere

--NEAR making up what they will lose from the chained CPI. In return for that, people slightly above that level get forced INTO poverty. It means fuckall that millionaires collect SocSec, since payouts to people at that level amount to a fraction of a percent of total payouts.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

40. You say that with the authority of someone who doesn't know

What they are talking about.

[eridani]

65. What is it with people who refuse to use Google?

You'd have to be a totally amoral sociopath to think that. because hamburger can substitute for steak, there is a substitute for insulin. Health care with no substitues possible accounts for a much larger share of seniors' income.

Why Social Security Recipients Shouldn't Be Shackled With the Chained CPI
Institute for America’s Future http://www.ourfuture.org/

The advocates of the chained CPI implicitly admit that it is not an accurate measure of inflation faced by seniors. They are now scrambling to propose modifications that will "protect" the oldest and poorest seniors from the effects of a change they claim is technical. But if the chained CPI were an accurate measure of the cost of living, why would 80-year-olds need protection? In fact, the measures proposed to blunt the effect of the chained CPI on vulnerable populations are shamelessly inadequate. For example, even with the most commonly proposed compensatory measure – a bump-up in benefits after 20 years, starting at age 82 – an 85-year-old would still lose more than $12,000 in benefits over a 20-year period.

http://www.nwlc.org/chained-cpi-what-it-and-what-it-means-women

NWLC’s new analysis finds that for the typical single elderly woman – a woman whose initial benefit is $1,100 per month, the median benefit for single women 65 and older:

• The cut from the chained CPI would reduce her monthly benefits by an amount equal to the cost of one week’s worth of food each month at age 80. She would still have two years to wait before receiving any help from the bump-up.

• The Bowles-Simpson bump-up would restore her monthly benefits to current-law levels for only two years – and then her benefits would fall behind again.

• By age 95, the cut in her benefits would equal the cost of three days’ worth of food each month.

The report also explains that the bump-up would provide no relief to most of the poorest elders who rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI). SSI beneficiaries would get a double hit from the chained CPI, because it is used to adjust both the initial benefit level and subsequent benefits. But every additional $1 in Social Security benefits reduces SSI benefits by $1 – so a small increase from the bump-up would provide no additional income to most SSI beneficiaries. And some SSI beneficiaries could be even worse off, if the bump-up in their Social Security benefits pushed them slightly above the SSI eligibility threshold – and they lost automatic Medicaid eligibility.

People disabled at an early age also would be severely impacted by the chained CPI. The Bowles-Simpson 20-year bump-up would apply to recipients of disability benefits, starting 20 years after the disability determination. But some proposals for a “birthday bump-up,” such as the proposal in the Rivlin-Domenici deficit reduction plan, would provide no help to recipients of disability benefits.

http://www.nwlc.org/our-blog/typical-single-elderly-woman%E2%80%99s-social-security-benefit-won%E2%80%99t-fully-recover-chained-cpi-%E2%80%93-un

Typical Single Elderly Woman’s Social Security Benefit Won’t Fully Recover from Chained CPI – Unless She Lives to 104

http://www.thenation.com/article/171830/proposed-social-security-bargain-makes-no-sense-elderly#

While some people have tried to foster a myth of the elderly as a population living large, the facts don’t fit this story. The median income of people over age 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of the elderly rely on Social Security benefits for more than half of their income and nearly 40 percent rely on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income. These benefits average less than $15,000 a year.

The proposed cut in the annual cost of living adjustment will be a substantial hit to a population that for the most part is ill-prepared to see a cut in its income. The effect of this cut on the income of the typical beneficiary will be larger, measured as a share of income, than the return to Clinton era tax rates on the richest 2 percent will be to the people affected. It is also worth noting that this cut to benefits will affect current retirees, not just people who will be collecting benefits 10 or 15 years in the future, who might have some opportunity to adjust to a cut.

[Oilwellian]

43. I'm glad you agree cutting SS benefits is scary

as it should be.

[MH1]

41. I'm not against raising the income cap for those taxes. I'm not against

some sort of voluntary option for a person to continue working full time past the normal retirement age and defer drawing their SS check. I think the second one is sort of already in place but there's a point where the person really needs to retire or they lose benefits. If I understand correctly. So, there is a reform option there that would not hurt people who want to retire at the normal age, but for those who feel great and want to continue working, there wouldn't be such a loss of benefits. That kind of change could reduce the aggregate sum of benefits paid out to the beneficiary pool in any single period (by continually deferring a subset of payments), while not reducing benefits for a single person.

There are probably several possible ways to "reform entitlements" that don't actually force a benefit cut on beneficiaries. I am open-minded to consideration of those options.

From an environmental standpoint - also known as the future of the human race - we MUST figure out how to support a demographically aging population at an acceptable standard of living, as population growth ceases and ultimately reverses. An absolute no-brainer is to remove barriers and disincentives from healthy people working to a later age rather than retiring too early. At the same time we have to recognize that the traditional retirement age is still a reasonable age for retirement for people who are in physically demanding professions or have various medical conditions. We shouldn't be arbitrarily raising the retirement age across the board. But we are smart people and can figure out a way to achieve both goals. If we try.

[Oilwellian]

42. Raising the retirement age isn't what the Dem leadership is proposing

Perhaps what we should focus on is what is actually being proposed in Obama's 2014 Budget...Chained CPI. That guarantees seniors will be facing benefit cuts.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Because what kind of depraved person wants to starve old people?

It's not just another point of many; it's sociopathy.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. what are you on

about, Manny?

[Egalitarian Thug]

66. Exactly. n/t

[JNelson6563]

27. "Borderline"? I'd say blatant.

[Whisp]

56. Thanks for saying that.

I didn't see anything there that meant cutting grandma's SS cheque so she has to eat Cat Food.

gawd.

[Voice for Peace]

2. wow, I didn't get that at ALL from what he said.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. some people love to bring people down with falsely negative slants

which is what this is.

[Voice for Peace]

8. kind of an oily way of looking at things

[Oilwellian]

11. Now, now, that wasn't very nice n/t

[Voice for Peace]

21. I have been feeling guilty ever since I posted it.

[JaneyVee]

12. You can reduce cost of programs without reducing benefits.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. EXACTLY! It is already happening under ACA. You can also increase medicare contribution payroll

deduction percentage. you can dramatically increase the cap on social security deductions on pay. Many ways to fix this, but the Obama naysayers are convinced he's selling poor elderly people down the river. Because CNN/NBC/CBS/NYT say so.

[Oilwellian]

16. Acutally, it's Obama's 2014 Budget Proposal that says so n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. read my comment above about that. your red herring that old poor people are getting the shaft

with Chained CPI is bogus. As per your own link to the documents.

[Oilwellian]

20. Are you saying the Chained CPI won't cut our benefits?

And please, show me where Obama has proposed raising the cap on SS. I can't seem to find it in his budget proposal, but I do see him asking for the Chained CPI.

[Oilwellian]

15. Yes, well...

we all know what the Chained CPI proposal that's in Obama's 2014 Budget will do to our benefits, right?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. see my comments about your statement on 2014 budget above

[JaneyVee]

19. I'm completely against any cuts to SS and Medicare.

[NYC_SKP]

22. I guess Jackasses don't understand that "reform entitlements" might include raising the cap on SS.

I pity the fools who say "don't touch it" at the expense of making changes that might actually make it possible for some of us to see some return on our lifetime investments.

Jackasses, that's what they are.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Obama spoke of raising the cap during his campaign, it was exciting to me and helped win my vote

because it is a great idea. Obama's particular version was 'doughnut hole' style, so the tax would still stop for a bit and resume, so those barely breaking the cap would still get a tax break and those paying more would be of very large income. More complex than a simple removal of the cap, but very workable and a good idea. Sadly since that time Obama has rarely mentioned such an idea, and instead he either speaks vaguely about specifics or speaks of the CPI alterations.
He needs to get back on the lifting or ending the cap message, clearly and without indulging any any form of rhetoric that instills fear in the people who have earned these benefits. That form of rhetoric is morally unacceptable. This is an area where one must speak one's mind without all the political bullshit that greases the world of DC bullshitters.
Right now, raise the cap is in a bin with the Public Option and 'No mandates' gathering dust since Obama got elected and put his good ideas aside for the sake of moderate mediocrity, idiot compromises and open ended offers to the goniffs in the Republican Party.
Cute that you call others 'jackasses' but that only makes your argument look weak and based on personal snark and insults rather than facts on hand.

[NYC_SKP]

44. It's not like the OP is filled with facts. Instead, it's based on speculation.

Which, to me, is a form of jackassery.

If you really think that Obama could have persuaded congress to go with a public option, if you think he didn't really want the best for us but couldn't get it, then we probably don't have grounds for a conversation.

We may differ in that sense.

Same thing with social security.

Happy Sunday.

[Oilwellian]

46. It's glaringly obvious...

when Obama puts Chained CPI in his 2014 budget proposal, and speaks of the Grand Bargain to corporate CEOs, just this past week, he still intends to cut benefits. He didn't even wait for negotiations to begin and he could then (wink wink) call it a concession. Now it's a flat out proposal written in HIS own budget.

Even the AARP is fighting back...jackasses that they are.

Today the White House confirmed that their budget proposal would include a major cut to Social Security in the form of a shift to chained CPI.

The Chained CPI reduces the growth of benefits by using a different index to measure inflation.

The AARP, one of the nation's most powerful interest groups for people aged 50 and over, is prepared to mount a counter-assault.

Shifting the cost of living adjustment to chained CPI serves as a major long-term cut for Social Security benefits. It has infuriated liberal groups and members of Congress, but raising the ire of AARP — a key supporter of his health care reform — could turn a previous ally of the President into a powerful adversary.

Cristina Martin Firvida, the director of financial security at AARP, told Business Insider Wednesday that Obama's plan to toggle with Social Security benefits is potentially historic.

"What's so surprising about the momentum behind chained CPI is it's the only time anyone has put on the table a cut to current benefits for deficit reduction. It's not a phase-in. You're already retired."

http://www.businessinsider.com/aarp-chained-cpi-barack-obama-budget-2013-4

[madfloridian]

67. Obama's "superlative CPI"...remember that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417077

"House Republicans have proposed indexing federal benefits, most notably Social Security, to a slower inflation rate known as the “chained Consumer Price Index (CPI).” That would slow the growth of Social Security benefits, which increase periodically with Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs), the next of which is scheduled for January.

The president has countered with his own inflation offer, a “superlative CPI” that the White House says would shield the neediest beneficiaries from the change. Liberals have cried foul about all of it.

...The best number to know is $130: That’s how much a typical 65 year-old would lose in yearly benefits, three years from now, under the GOP’s “chained CPI” proposal."

Don't let the deniers bully you.

[dreamnightwind]

23. Modesty

"while still reducing very modestly the costs of those programs."

Note that wording. If he was talking about reducing costs of the program rather than benefits paid, he wouldn't be stressing the modesty of the reduction. Sounds indecent to me.

[Morphia]

24. Strange how the President keeps asking for cuts that some people say he does not want

If he does not want to implement cuts why does he keep asking for them then?

[Myrina]

30. Oh silly grasshopper ...

It's all part of his brilliant 47-level origami mind-chess that mere mortals like us cannot understand.

Just trust his brilliance and accept that he knows more than we ever will.

/sarcasm

[Morphia]

31. Oh that nonsense again mmmm OK.......

I will stick with reality thank-you very much.

[SidDithers]

38. Welcome to DU...

Si

[woo me with science]

39. Amazing.

[L0oniX]

50. Because he is with those that want to keep the gorilla in the room.

Gorilla = a military that consumes over half of the yearly budget.

[polichick]

51. He works in mysterious ways, like God. We're just not smart enough...

to get what he's up to.

[ann---]

26. Always thought he was

Republican-lite. Sorry I voted for him.

[Scuba]

28. A twice-elected Democratic President speaking of "reforming entitlements" ...

... to pay for the follies of our wealthiest, at the same time those wealthy folks are raking in cash and enjoying historically low tax rates.


Yet some here deny the corporatists have taken over our Party and want yet another.


NO MORE CORPORATISTS.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. Bogus bullshit headline. nt

[struggle4progress]

32. Hmm. You misrepresent a quote and pre-emptively call those who will disagree "deniers"

IMO constant cynicism isn't really a style of political analysis but just a species of intellectual laziness

I actually do believe in the importance of maintaining some healthy paranoia, but I don't think I can classify this predictable rhetoric as "healthy paranoia" -- and it doesn't seem to be a form of political organizing either, since no action suggestion is attached

Nope. This just looks like the old familiar "both parties are the same" that has been so often carefully cultivated in selected demographics to suppress voter turn-out by causing voters into pointless disempowered despair

[Oilwellian]

35. I misrepresented nothing

In his pretty speech to corporate CEOs, Obama mentions, yet again, his desire to resurrect the Grand Bargain. That means he's still pushing for devastating cuts to Social Security. He wants it so bad, he dispensed with calling the Grand Bargain a "concession" and boldly put it into his 2014 Budget Proposal. I'll stop mentioning it here, when Obama takes it out of his speeches and budget proposals.

I'm glad you agree this proposal disempowers voters. Obama campaigned on "raising the cap" in 2008 and 2012, but once elected, did a switcheroo and proposed the Chained CPI instead. I suspect that had a huge influence over the rather anemic Dem turnout in 2010. It's not the Dems who point this out that disempowers voters...it's the proposal to cut our benefits that weakens the party.

[struggle4progress]

61. As far as I can tell, Obama never said a word about cutting SS in that speech:

what you present as fact is nothing more than an interpretation you hope to impose on the text

[Oilwellian]

62. Let's see...

How about this part:

There are some other provisions that we could take that would maintain our commitment to seniors, Medicare, Social Security, the disabled, and Medicaid, while still reducing very modestly the costs of those programs.

Or here:

So the idea would be do some things in the short term that focus on growth; do some things in the long term that deal with the long-term debt. That’s what my budget reflects.

And what did Obama put in his budget regarding SS? Chained CPI, and there's nothing modest about it.

The end.

[struggle4progress]

63. Of course, if you're concerned about chained CPI then you might more profitably post on that

(rather than just posting vague excerpts from speeches as evidence of nefarious intention) --- it might at least lead towards definite action suggestions

[jsr]

33. Manufacturing more "kick me" stickers for himself and Democrats

[NaturalHigh]

36. The President doesn't seem to understand...

that the big business types and right wingers will always hate him no matter how much he sucks up to them.

[ProSense]

37. Actually,

Now, one way to do that is just to make health care cheaper overall. That’s I think the best way to do it, and that’s what we’ve been doing through some of the measures in the Affordable Care Act. There are some other provisions that we could take that would maintain our commitment to seniors, Medicare, Social Security, the disabled, and Medicaid, while still reducing very modestly the costs of those programs.

...costs are not benefits.

Krugman: Real Entitlement Reform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024068848

[gulliver]

45. If Social Security and Medicare are ever cut it won't be the Dems' fault.

The fault will lie squarely with seniors who voted Republican or failed to vote Democrat.

[Oilwellian]

47. You mean we should support the same Democrats who propose cutting benefits?

That's some circular logic you have going on there. It makes me dizzy. But at least you agree, there is blame to be had.

[gulliver]

49. Well, in a way. You should definitely support the Democrats.

And everyone should really just ignore your absurd take on the situation completely, including you. That way at least you will be doing the right thing while thinking it is the wrong thing. The latter is basically your problem. Sorry.

[Oilwellian]

52. Personally...

I find it to be a problem we all share. To ignore the obvious and pretend a faction of our party doesn't want to cut SS benefits, well, it must be so la la landishly divine. Most seniors don't have the luxury of pretend.

[SoCalDem]

48. A quick note to younger people who think this is a fair idea:

Every penny cut from SS/Medicare for your parents/grandparents, makes them a penny closer to living down the hall from you in your spare room

or from them needing financial help from you

[Turbineguy]

53. That settles it!

I'm going to vote for republicans from now on!

[Oilwellian]

58. Well, Obama did say this to the corporate CEOs

If we can get beyond the tactical advantages that parties perceive in painting folks as extreme and trying to keep an eye always on the next election, and for a while at least, just focus on governing, then there is probably 70 percent overlap on a whole range of issues.

Do you agree with Obama when he says Democrats and Republicans are 70 percent in agreement on the issues? I had no clue our ideals were so similar to that of the Tea Party.

[Turbineguy]

59. Would not a general reduction in health care costs

result in a reduction of medicare costs? Would not a different SS program where multi-millionaires and billionaires didn't get SS result in lowered SS benefits?

Think of it as telling a story. Are you going to start by turning off your audience?

[on point]

54. No we don't. But we do need to cut pols who keep pandering this nonsense!

Return tax rates to pre bush amounts already.

Or cut social security ONLY after you are ready to pay 50 cents on the dollar for other US govt debt like tbills

[duffyduff]

55. There is NO need to cut benefits or tamper with SS and Medicare

This is all about ego with Obama, to try and paint himself as something like Bill Clinton WRT "welfare." It's truly despicable.

He is what he is, and that is a neoliberal. He doesn't work for us at all.

[JoePhilly]

57. This is it, here it comes .... any second!!!!

[wildbilln864]

60. k & r! n/t

[woo me with science]

64. kick

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Your headline promises Obama saying benefit cuts. None of your bolded quotes say that.

Please change your highly misleading headline. Thanks in advance!