Good health care legislation will die. Next up .... cutting social security benefits

[Better Believe It]

It's coming.

They are already talking about the next great reform.

They couldn't get the so-called "private accounts" proposal adopted under Bush and today people sure don't want their social security funds invested in the stock market.

So the next best thing is changing the formula for cost of living increases and jacking the full benefits age up to 70.

Party leaders in Congress (Democratic and Republican) prefer appointing a special commission to "study" various social security "reform" proposals and than present the commission proposal to Congress for an up and down vote. Under this procedure there will not be "any need" for congressional hearings.

More on this later for those interested in knowing how they plan to cut our social security benefits. It will be a bi-partisan affair. The Republicans can't do it all alone.

On health care, single payer Medicare for All isn't even on the Congressional agenda and the so-called "public option" will either be watered down to the point of being meaningless or it just won't be passed in any form.

We shall watch and see as spectators .... they don't want us involved with all that messy Medicare for All stuff that the public wants. It's what the insurance companies and health industry wants that matters.

[OHdem10]

1. Right on Point--Thanks for posting this.

[sabbat hunter]

2. they want to fix SS

get rid of the income caps on the tax. make all income subject to it.

[FrenchieCat]

4. that's all that Obama ever stated in reference to a SS fix.....

upping or getting rid of the cap altogether.

I guess that fear mongering takes many forms. The poster is great at it!

[Terran]

12. Does the OP care to respond?

Because this is what I understood also to be Obama's goal, and, if it happens, it will be real reform. Or does the OP just have a lot of hot air and nothing else?

[FrenchieCat]

32. 2nd option about poster.....and you can better believe it!

[billyoc]

15. Obama has already cut Social Security and increased the cost of medicare.

Do you really think people aren't seeing these things?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/politics/03benefits.html

[SpartanDem]

26. No he has not

SS cost of living adjustments are determined by formula that been used since the 1970's the President can't unilaterally raise or lower SS payments.

[Yupster]

68. My two ideas

1. Get rid of income cap.

2. Make all employees join social security.

[ellacott]

3. SS needs reform

It will run out of money. What would you do?

Single payer was never on the table. Why are you all upset about them not doing something that they told you they were not going to do?

[Hannah Bell]

5. it won't "run out of money". the ruling class wants money to keep their taxes low.

crap, who needs jails when they can convince you to rob yourself?

[ellacott]

6. Translation please

How are they convincing me to rob myself?

[snowdays]

30. They want more money in the Soc Sec. pot so they can raid it.

[HamdenRice]

50. A little Marxism is a dangerous thing

It allows people to substitute their new vocabulary for actual analysis.

(That's not to criticize real Marxist analysis, of course.)

[Hannah Bell]

57. your observation doesn't apply in this case. i doubt many folks have

read the trustees reports or know the assumptions on which SS projections are based.

i do, but don't let that stop you from making irrelevant comments based on vocabulary choice.

[Cleita]

8. Right wing talking point right out of the sixties up to the present.

SS will never run out of money as long as we have a nation at work. If that happens, that almost everyone is unemployed, watch for the revolution to come and it will be bloody.

[ellacott]

9. I don't agree with that

It isn't just the right wing who has been talking about reform. Why is it that the assumption that reform automatically means cutting benefits?

[Cleita]

10. Yes, some Democrats have too, but they are wrong. n/t

[ellacott]

11. I don't agree

I think the cap should be raised.

[Cleita]

16. Oh, I agree with you there. Make some of the uber riche pay their fair share

instead of the majority of the burden being on the poor and working middle class.

[ellacott]

20. Yes

I think that's the extent of any reform that the President has talked about.

[Cleita]

23. Yes, the President, but the Darth Vader wing of the nutso GOP want

us to turn our money over to financial planners to gamble on Wall Street. This has so not worked England and Chile so we don't want it here.

[ellacott]

27. That's something that definitely won't work

Hopefully with our recent financial crisis people will understand how dangerous that is. Bush wasn't able to gather much support for this. Hopefully people have opened their eyes.

[Telly Savalas]

42. So what?

The nutso wing couldn't get an inch closer to getting this implemented when the GOP controlled the White House and both legislative chambers and the stock market was steadily rising. Why is it going to be any easier now?

[Hannah Bell]

36. it's not a reform, it's the creation of a new constituency to take down SS.

[Hannah Bell]

35. the "uber rich" don't work for wages. & where they do, they can easily

arrange to get those wages in other forms.

how about raising top bracket income & cap gains, so they can pay back the two trillion they already stole?

[Cleita]

40. That would be fine too, but many do make millions in wages as well. We

need to tap into all of it.

[Hannah Bell]

48. "that would be fine too" ain't happening so long as all the suckers are

cheering for raising the cap.

that way, the top 1% will never have to pay back the money they stole or have their income taxes raised.

& since they don't depend on wages for their income, they can arrange to take a salary of $1 at their "jobs", & still rake in millions on capital gains, dividends, trust funds & stock options & never pay a dime in SS tax.

Meanwhile, the upper middle folks you just raised the cap on, the ones who *already* pay a higher % of their income in SS & income tax than the super-rich & don't get much benefit from SS, are going to be lobbying for reductions in their taxes, higher benefits for themselves, lower benefits for you, or individual accounts. You just created a powerful constituency to kill SS.

Suckers.

[Cleita]

52. Hannah this is true, that they can take $1, but the fact is that there are

millions out there that do take millions a year in wages. Rush Limbaugh, for one is a high profile example of that and they aren't paying their fair share. I always had the idea that lowest wage earners shouldn't have any FICA at all taken out of their wages, that only the employer pays the 7.5% for each employee but after a certain amount, say $50,000 a year, then the payroll tax kicks in with no cap of course. It's the reverse of how we do it.,

[Thothmes]

59. What does Rush pay in taxes a year?

[Cleita]

61. What he pays in income taxes and other kinds of tax has nothing to do

with payroll tax or FICA. I think 7.5% of his millions is fair. Also the 7.5 that Clear Channel has to match in his wages would probably make them think twice about paying that fat jerk such a huge salary.

[Better Believe It]

22. Because they say reform means cutting benefits. Reform has become a code word for cuts.

Increasing the retirement age to 67 was a two year elimination of benefits for people who without that "reform" would have collected full benefits at the age of 65. That's a cut in benefits and it happened when the last "reform" bill was passed.

[Overseas]

58. Exactly!

I don't recall hearing about any reform that increases benefits to social security recipients.

[Hannah Bell]

34. that's because the entire ruling class wants you to be poorer, not just pubs.

& you buy into it.

"yes, steal from me! take more, more!"

[Better Believe It]

19. In 2037 it might or it might now. What to do? That's simple. No CAP on incomes.

Apply the social security tax on all incomes. Bingo! No "crisis" in 2037 or whatever bogus date they wish to throw out.

"Why are you all upset about them not doing something that they told you they were not going to do?"

And who is "they"?

[Hannah Bell]

37. if the crisis is bogus, why do you want to give them more money to steal?

[Better Believe It]

39. Because then we can increase benefits more and lower the full retirement age to 62

[Hannah Bell]

47. and if they're hyping a bogus crisis to take more of people's money, why do you

think they'd use it to lower the retirement age?

[Better Believe It]

51. If there is a crisis why does Congress permit the yearly raid on social security trust funds?

Do you think the Democrats and so-called "moderate" Republicans will push to improve social security benefits or do you think they will try to cut benefits under the guise of "reform".

You know the answer to that.

They want to cut benefits so that more of the social security taxes can be used to finance other government programs .... like wars for example. They could put a "lock box" on the social security funds if there was actually a financing crisis but they haven't done that and won't do that.

[Hannah Bell]

56. so why do you want to give them more money?

[Better Believe It]

71. Because I want rich people to pay more ss taxes and want to take away any excuse

to cut social security benefits.

[snowdays]

28. Having an open proces and open debate was what Obama promised. But he put insurance

companies ahead of the people.

[nichomachus]

31. SS needs tweaking -- not reform

SS is not broken. That is just the regular bullshit from the people who want to dismantle it. First, they have to convince people that it's bankrupt and that it's going to fail.

We could "fix" SS very easily.

[Cleita]

7. Well, you will see a revolution when that happens, not necessarily from the

old people who are already fighting chronic diseases, but their children who are going to have to take care of them at a time that they are trying to put their children through college. Politicians who read this, take note. It's a really bad career move for you guys.

[leftstreet]

13. Deregulate, privatize, gut social spending. What a country!

I'm just so proud

[Telly Savalas]

43. What's been deregulated under the Obama Administration?

What's been privatized?

And other than the OP's unfounded speculation about what he thinks might happen, what sort of gutting of social spending are we seeing?

Obama's far from perfect, but you might want to update your bumpersticker.

[leftstreet]

44. LOL nice try. The OP didn't mention Obama, nor did I

Is there something in the water at DU?

:shrug:

[Lorax7844]

14. Why not just stop cutting checks to people over a certain income

John McCain does not need SS benefits.

Talking about this makes me nervous.

[Cleita]

17. Another right wing talking point from the sixties.

John McCain may not need it, but he paid into it and should get his benefits. Many rich do not take their SS benefits because they don't need them or they pass them on to a poorer relative, but the minute you tell them that they have to pay into the system but can't take their benefits because they have too much money, then you will see doubled up efforts to end the program.

[Lorax7844]

18. no I disagree with you

he may be entitled to his money but still it's better spent elsewhere.

[Cleita]

21. Of course you disagree with me. However, where would you spend his

money being that it belongs to him and not you? I see that you are fairly new to DU. So let me tell you this issue has been argued for years and the progressive view is that social programs like Social Security and Medicare are paid into by everyone and are received by everyone. This levels the risk so that everyone can participate. That means the very rich and the very poor will be included as beneficiaries when the time comes. If you buy into life insurance, and John McCain buys into the same life insurance, should he not get his benefits because he's rich?

[Lorax7844]

25. I still disagree

my newness is not a factor into my disagreement. While I see your point that it is about fairness, I am thinking about the deficit and how we are giving money to people that don't need it.

[Cleita]

33. Social Security doesn't have a deficit because it operates independently of

the General Fund. If what you are advocating is taking the Social Security trust money and paying off Bush's debts, I'm so not agreeing with you on that.

[Hannah Bell]

49. you aren't giving money to anyone. the people who don't need it are giving it to you.

[truedelphi]

45. Actually poorer people can pay into Social Security and never

See a penny of it, as they are apt to die before they qualify for their bennies.

Chris Rock jokes that Black males shoul dstart getting their benefits at age 29. And every black person in his audience gets it.

[Cleita]

53. This is true. But the same can be said about life insurance.

You can pay into it all your life, yet you won't see a penny of it, the day the policy expires and you don't renew. But as I said in another post, I don't think the lowest earning wage earners should have FICA taken from their checks if they earn less that $50,000 a year. Only their employer should be required to contribute the 7.5% towards the payroll tax.

[truedelphi]

54. Ilike your idea. My feeling is one reason that poorer people die so early

is lack of medical care.

It's always seemed ironic that they can snatch some 7.5 % out of my salary - and often it is twice that as I am often an indie contractor. Yet since I was in my thirties, I have been uninsurable, due to previous, minor health conditions that allow the insurance companies to exclude me.

[Cleita]

55. I hope that real health care reform can happen so that people like you

aren't denied health care anymore. After all, it's the sick and disabled, who really need health care, not the healthy.

[Better Believe It]

24. Just apply the social security tax to all of John McCain's income

[Hannah Bell]

38. because those people paid in, that's why.

you want a new welfare program, fund it through the general budget.

[cottonseed]

65. You don't "pay into" jack squat.

It's an active payment from the working population to the elderly. It's not a damn retirement fund. It's what it's name implies, "social security". If you don't need it, you shouldn't get it.

[Thothmes]

60. Does not matter if he needs SS Benefits

John McCain paid into the system. He is entitled to the benefits that he paid for. Under the current system, SS is not means tested. That is the FDR wanted it. It is a contributory system. You pay in, you are entitled to the payout. My wife never paid in enought to the system to be covered by it. She is blind and bed ridden, yet she is not eligible for any help from the SS system because she never paid into the system. SS is not a welfare program. change it into a welfare program and it will be destroyed eventually.

[cottonseed]

64. Why don't they call it a "pension fund" in instead of "social security"

It's not a retirement account. It is a wealth transfer from the working population to the elderly to help them through. It's not something you "pay into".

[snowdays]

29. We have Dems talking RW talk in the WH, Congress and here on DU.

[Faryn Balyncd]

41. They have ALREADY cooked the books by fraudulently RE-DEFINING the inflation CALCULATIONS.......

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Faryn%20Balyncd/13



In "Return of the Robber Barons", Paul Craig Roberts (who, while serving Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, wrote the first Reagan tax cut bill), explains how the inflation calculation formulae have now been rigged so as to cheat beneficiaries:


.....Indeed, their plight is worse than the official statistics indicate. During the Clinton administration, the Boskin Commission rigged the inflation measures in order to hold down indexed Social Security payments to retirees.

Another deceit is the measure called “core inflation.” This measure of inflation excludes food and energy, two large components of the average family’s budget. Wall Street and corporations and, therefore, the media emphasize core inflation, because it holds down cost of living increases and interest rates. In the second quarter of this year, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), a more complete measure of inflation, increased at an annual rate of 5.2 per cent compared to 2.3 per cent for core inflation.

An examination of how inflation is measured quickly reveals the games played to deceive the American people. Housing prices are not in the index. Instead, the rental rate of housing is used as a proxy for housing prices.

More games are played with the goods and services whose prices comprise the weighted market basket used to estimate inflation. If beef prices rise, for example, the index shifts toward lower priced chicken. Inflation is thus held down by substituting lower priced products for those whose prices are rising faster. As the weights of the goods in the basket change, the inflation measure does not reflect a constant pattern of expenditures. Some economists compare the substitution used to minimize the measured rate of inflation to substituting sweaters for fuel oil......


http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts0802200...


_____________________________


So the next "reform" is to gouge us even further.

[quidam56]

46. We need a cure for health care in America

Profit Care is more important than Patient Care in East Tennessee and southwest Virginia. Sad.

http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62

[jeanpalmer]

62. SS is not in bad shape

Incoming SS tax revenues exceed SS payment until 2016. And the reserves in the trust fund can make up the difference until 2037. At that point, it will become pay as you go.

Medicare has a bigger funding probelem.

The problem with SS is that the politicians have been spending SS money on wars and every other damn thing. We're reaching decision time -- are we going to de-fund the military or de-fund SS. That's what it comes down to.

We've spent in excess of $10 trillion on defense and related spending since the end of the cold war in 1991. Most of it was a waste. $30 trillion since the end of WWII.

It makes you sick when you see your own party voting for this military shit. Bankrupting SS and Medicare to wage wars of aggression and pander to the right wing. Obama playing military conqueror in Afghanistan. What a dumbass. We can't do anything about the past criminals who got us into this position, but Barack Obama has the ability to put us on a new course. So far, he has chosen not to. It's time for real change.

[Zynx]

63. Something has to be done on Social Security. It doesn't have to be much.

A relatively small change in either taxes or benefits now will save the program.

[jeanpalmer]

66. Over the past 30 years

they've milked SS to pay for wars and other useless spending. Instead of raising taxes or cutting benefits, how about milking the bloated military budget to fund for SS. Is that too much to ask?

[Better Believe It]

67. Why cut benefits when ending the tax CAP should keep it solvent for at least half a century?

[Zynx]

69. I don't believe I said anything in conflict with that.

[Better Believe It]

70. Like I was saying .... One really doesn't need a crystal ball

[Honeycombe8]

72. There are probably as many different "good" plans as there are posters on DU.

Just because it isn't YOUR plan doesn't mean it isn't good.

As for Social Security, yeah, we've known for years that benefits will be cut or the age for retirement will go up (again), the cap on income that is taxed will rise, and Soc Sec taxes may go up. That is because Social Security is almost bankrupt.

So, ask yourself: Do I want decreased Social Security? Or do I not want Social Security at all? There is no "Do I want the same Social Security?" option. It's just the numbers. It's not the administration. Bush got us into this mess, but here we are.

Hell, people were even complaining a couple of weeks ago that the benefits this year weren't raised for inflation! The benefits weren't cut, the retirement age wasn't increased, or any of the hard things that will have to be done in the next few years. And there was very little inflation this past year (although every dollar is important to many of our senior citizens).

What is YOUR plan to fix Social Security so that those retiring in the next 50 years will be guaranteed to get benefits? (You DO understand that the benefits of each round of Social Security recipients are paid for by CURRENT WORKERS. Because of the baby boom generation, in a few years there will be more recipients than there are workers paying into the fund. It's a very real problem. All the solutions I've heard about are tough. But something will have to be done, or many recipients won't receive ANY benefits. There simply won't be enough money.)