That's great, Mr. President, but the REAL issue now is: Will Democrats allow SS to be GUTTED in Dec?

[Faryn Balyncd]

It's certainly good to hear you state that you will not cave on SS privatization of SS. :toast:

But the immediate present danger to Social Security is NOT immediate privatization.

The immediate danger is the plan to ram through this fall's lame-duck session after the November election, without legislative input, the Simpson/Bowles Commission "reform" now being ginned up behind closed doors.....




The REAL issue is:

Will Democrats allow the GUTTING of SS benefits (by fraudulent rigging of CPI/COLA calculations, as well as by changing the retirement age) for Americans who have in good faith paid for these benefits (and seen their surpluses raided for decades by Republicans to finance wars, corporate welfare, and tax cuts for the wealthy) with decades of hard earned payroll & self-employment taxes?

While everyone's eye is on the retirement age, the really big money is in the CPI and COLA calculations. Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out, but few are talking about, the fact that the CPI has ALREADY BEEN RIGGED (by the Boskin Commission in the 90's) to underestimate inflation, for the specific purpose of stealthily cutting SS benefits.

But Allan Simpson & his cronies are spreading the lie that COLA's overestimate inflation & are gunning to further rig the CPI calculation. This is complex, and by fraudulent accounting Simpson et al aim to gut SS benefits through COLA chicanery to a much greater extent than any delay in retirement age.

Privatizing SS is not the issue presently on the table.

The RW figures that if they can let future inflation destroy the value of Social Security benefits, they will win the battle by stealth.




What we need is a president, and Democratic Congress, that will commit to not gutting the benefit calculations for those that have in good faith paid a lifetime of payroll, and self employment, taxes.

That is the pledge we need you to take, Mr. President.


http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/16/social-security-...






:kick:

[stevedeshazer]

1. Jeez, can't we just bask for one moment in the sunshine?

Whoa.

That's tomorrow.

:wow:

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. Might a little sunlight shone (on what Simpson et al are up to) help?

....While they meet behind closed doors to formulate obscure formulaes that a lame duck Congress will have to vote up or down without amendment, input, or modification?

While the forces of darkness work in the shadows?




:hi:


:kick:

[obxhead]

8. While the sun is blinding you from the front windows you should

take a moment to glance at the shady back door they may be using to rob you blind.

[sabrina 1]

16. I think that's what we've been doing while they've been busy

figuring out every day, how to get their hands on the SS fund.

[Greyhound]

56. It would be easier to do that if the "sunshine" wasn't just a fraud to blind us to

what they're doing while we celebrate the "victory".

[hlthe2b]

2. Al Franken is the one member of Congress that I feel confident...

"gets it" and will fight for us on SS. He frequently speaks to the fact that SS benefits were the only way growing up that his wife, her siblings and mother, were able to make it after the death of her father. He speaks quite eloquently to the issue. I only hope others will listen.

[quinnox]

3. Wow, someone unrec'd this?

So who wants social security gutted? Let's hear your argument why the OP is wrong... *crickets*

[Faryn Balyncd]

9. At least 10 "Silent Un-Rec'ers" have struck. They are desperate to keep this issue in the closet.

[Ignis]

33. Message discipline for the punters, but not for the politicians.

We certainly can't expect our elected Democratic politicians to abide by the party platform (e.g., supporting a public option), but BY GAWD we're quick to keep the proles from getting too loud with their dissent.

:spank:

[nashville_brook]

42. if they want this issue to go away so badly, maybe they should get on the right side

and make sure this doesn't become Obama's legacy.

[NorthCarolina]

22. Rahm apparently has an army of professional unreccer's for sites like DU. eom

[Jim Sagle]

28. Maybe Little Timmy Geithner took time out of his busy day to give us some attention.

;)

[bluethruandthru]

5. I've been a little leary of the President's comment.

Yes, privatization is ONE worry.....but even Bush, with all his popularity at the time, was practically booed off the stage during speeches to the already brainwashed. That's a pretty safe thing for Obama to say.

How about saying that Social Security won't be touched or altered?
How about saying he won't allow the retirement age to be raised to 70? What a joke that is! Most 50 year olds have trouble finding work and many more worry constantly about being let go for a younger/cheaper replacement. Not to mention all the jobs that very few 70 year olds would be able to physically perform.

How about defending Social Security against those (like the ones on the cat food commission that Obama himself appointed) who would gut Social Security in order to further destroy the working class?

[Me.]

15. Add My +1 To Your Column

Along with this by Glenn Greenwald: “It appears that the Democrats intend to try to win the midterm elections by scaring Americans into believeing that a GOP victory would endanger their Social Security benefits -- a tactic which Susie Madrak correctly condemns as "one of the most cynical political moves I've seen." The reason for that characterization is obvious: because, as Madrak explains, echoing Krugman: "the imminent threat to Social Security right now is from the administration -- and its pet Catfood Commission." Obama's speech this weekend focused on the GOP's plan to privatize Social Security, but that plan has zero chance of succeeding: both because only a handful of Republicans (such as Paul Ryan) support it ever since Bush's privatization efforts were defeated, and because Obama retains veto power to prevent it even with a GOP victory this November. The true threat to Social Security is Obama's Deficit Commission, which has inexcusably been working in total secrecy throughout the year, cooking up its recommendations to be released in December and likely to be voted on by Congress once the elections are nice and over with.”…cont,,,

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/democrats

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Given that Obama appointed two leaders who've tried to slash SS before...

And given that the vote has already been scheduled for a lame-duck Congress, where it's easier to bribe outgoing members...

I think Obama can sleep tight and have a relaxed vacation, knowing this one's in the bag.

[Jim Sagle]

29. But...but...but THAT would mean he doesn't CARE about the midterms, or a second term either.

It's almost as if he's looking ahead to his corner office at BP or Wellpoint or Goldman Sachs.

I'm really shocked at your cynicism. ;)

[madfloridian]

7. Just one look at the fiscal commission should cause us to worry.

And Obama appointed them. If you appoint someone to an important commission, you approve of their goals.

Shocking to see Peterson and Simpson and others on the panel...
in charge of "fixing" Social Security. It's rather chilling to me. A couple seem ok, but even Durbin warned us
"bleeding heart liberals" what was coming.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)

David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)

Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)

Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.)

Andrew Stern, former President, Service Employees International Union

[Fumesucker]

10. What is this "allow" shit?

There is a difference between allowing something to happen and making it happen.

[laughingliberal]

11. K & R nt

[nightrain]

12. knr. yes, good that Obama isn't going to privatize during his presidency, and

definitely COLA and CPI are of huge concern.

Now, if they are parsing words, perhaps privatization would be scheduled to occur after his administration, and of course there are a myriad other ways that SS benefits could be reduced. I fear Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth, again.

BOGers, are any SS benefit cuts okay with you folks? Which ones and why?

[Dr.Phool]

38. If you read Kevin Phillips' "Bad Money", he shows how they already rigged it.

Here's an excerpt from two years ago in the St. Pete Times.

Hard numbers: The economy is worse than you know

Kevin Phillips, Harper's Magazine
In Print: Sunday, April 27, 2008

(snip)

The corruption has tainted the very measures that most shape public perception of the economy:

• The monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), which serves as the chief bellwether of inflation;

• The quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which tracks the U.S. economy's overall growth;

• The monthly unemployment figure, which for the general public is perhaps the most vivid indicator of economic health or infirmity.

Not only do governments, businesses and individuals use these yardsticks in their decisionmaking, but minor revisions in the data can mean major changes in household circumstances — inflation measurements help determine interest rates, federal interest payments on the national debt, and cost-of-living increases for wages, pensions and Social Security benefits.

And, of course, our statistics have political consequences too. An administration is helped when it can mouth banalities about price levels being "anchored" as food and energy costs begin to soar.

(snip)


http://www.tampabay.com/news/article473596.ece

[nashville_brook]

43. oh man -- that is an outstanding piece from Harpers. worth the subscription price just to

have access to old gems like that.

[Better Believe It]

13. K & R

[bvar22]

14. K&R...and here is the blueprint for HOW they will gut Social Security:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8969793

[sabrina 1]

17. What I want to hear Obama say is that SS has nothing to do with the

deficit. I haven't heard him say that, in fact I've heard him say that because of the deficit they will have 'fix' SS. That is a lie, a rightwing lie.

I am glad he has addressed privatization, but and how often we are told now that we just heard him wrong on certain issues, I want to know what Congress plans to do in that lame duck session.

Obama opposed Commissions like this in the Campaign. He stated that they were a stealth way of getting things passed without public debate in Congress. Then he went back on that and created this Commission and stacked it with enemies of SS and haters of FDR

So much as I'd like to trust him, how can anyone trust any of them when they flip flop so often after they get what they want from the voters?

If they touch SS that will be my last straw. Alan Simpson's rantings revealed what they were planning and cause much outrage, so the way I see it Obama is trying to calm people down before the election.

The financial meltdown is the cause of the deficit. He is wrong when he tries to tie SS to it.

HANDS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY!

[laughingliberal]

36. +1000 nt

[Greyhound]

18. "I will veto any bill which does not include a robust public option."

And here's another quote I haven't seen for some time, but fits nicely on this thread;

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." GBS
:kick: & R

[Ignis]

32. +1, love that Shaw quote.

But you're just begging to be dogpiled by the "we can't do anything without 60 progressive Senators" crew. ;)

[Greyhound]

49. I'm on most of their ignore lists.

:evilgrin:

[Ignis]

52. You're lucky, then.

I think I'm on the "Attack personally at every opportunity and tell all your friends to do the same, because we'll never suffer for it" lists.

I never thought I'd miss obscurity. ;)

[Greyhound]

54. Its pretty easy. Call them on their bullshit (check those links, most of the time

the linked article/opinion piece doesn't support their argument), and than refuse to engage them directly and keep bringing the initial point back. Your words get out to the much larger audience of lurkers and their lack of substance is highlighted.

Sure, you'll get 15 - 20 immediate unrecs, but thousands of eyes still read your point.

Skinner's post might just change that immunity (I really do tend toward optimism) thing.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

[Ignis]

55. I agree with your optimism. I'm hopeful for change, too.

But I've tried your advice, only to have my posts deleted while my attackers' posts stand.

It wasn't always this way here. :(

[old mark]

19. Rec. I have some money and a small pension, but Social Security

is a significant part of my income. I started Social Security as age 62, so I get the minimum, but I would be on the street without it. I have paid into the fund since I started working after school at age 14, so I feel I have done my share.

Come on, Mr. Obama - lets get a little re-assurance here. We KNOW there is no real problem with Social Security that a removal of the cap won't ease...stop giving gifts to the rich out of the pockets of the poor.

mark

Thanks, FB, for bringing this to my attention.

[Lost4words]

20. K & R!

:kick:

[harun]

21. Baucus = Bad

[DirkGently]

23. THIS should be our primary concern. Why all the fierce talk

about "privatization," when Republicans haven't forcefully suggested that lately? I hate to think our administration would engage in bait & switch tactics, but these small remarks about "adjustments" to SS, combined with the "doth protest too much" about privatization raise a red flag.

I too, would like to hear that SS is not a "deficit" issue, while we are spending $300 billion in Afghanistan and the Republicans have pushed for a trillions of dollars in deficit additions to renew Bush-era tax cuts.

SS is NOT the problem, either with the deficit, or with the economy. Let's talk about *that*.

Great post.

[another saigon]

24. k&r!

well said.

:thumbsup:

[Vincardog]

25. so call your congress critter and ask that they pledge to not cut benefits, not raise the age, and

tie adjustments to the real inflation rate.

[stray cat]

26. Will democratic voters allow it in NOV is the question

[dflprincess]

31. The Catfood Commission doesn't come back with it's recommendations until December

Just a coincidence that it's after the election, I'm sure.

Pelosi has promised the lame duck session will give the recs an up or down vote. No debate will be allowed, it might not be a good thing if the peasants got wind of what was going on.

But don't worry, I'm sure if there's anything harmful to Social Security or Medicare in these recommendations the Democrats will promise to go back and "fix it later". (And if you fall for that, I'm looking to sell a bridge you might be interested in.)

[Suji to Seoul]

27. Simple answer: Yes. Hard answer: Hell Yes

He will look for bipartisanship and will sell the farm, the orchard and all the children for one Republican "maybe."

After all, we wouldn't want to exercise power now. That would be actual leadership! Rahm wouldn't like that.

[defendandprotect]

30. Looking at the Panel Obama set up . . . outcome seems clear -- "Cat Food for Seniors" --!!

[ctwayne]

34. Who Leads the Commission?

Barack Obama appointed Erskine Bowles, a conservative Blue Dog Democrat, and Alan Simpson, an ultraconservative, wingnut Republican, to run his Catfood Commission. Both are strong enemies of Social Security. Simpson, in particular, wants to take money from grandma, while, he himself, lives high on a fat senator's pension. Simpson, however, shows no interest in cutting the pensions of members of Congress. Obama would have been hard-pressed to find a more reactionary group of people-outside of a Tea Party convention.

[Dr.Phool]

39. And, it's partially funded by Pete Peterson.

A billionaire corporate raider, who's sworn life's work is dismantling Social Security.

[emsimon33]

35. Fool us once, Mr. Obama, shame on you...

fool us twice and then again and again...shame on us.

We know that you are either lying or misdirecting us with your words when we see your lips moving.

If you really want to strengthen Social Security, then set no income limits on deductions for Social Security.

[bonnieS]

37. I said just this on another post

the one so happy that Obama said he is not privatizing Social Security. Thank you for saying it so much better.

[Dr.Phool]

40. Kick and Rec.

[nashville_brook]

41. k n r -- they are going to screw us once again.

sure do wish we could afford big PR firms and lobbyists. we just don't count, otherwise.

[Starry Messenger]

44. k & r

[Capitalocracy]

45. Someone needs to tell Obama

that pledging unconditional support for something means not voting to break that promise just because it's part of a "package". Or, for that matter, setting up a system where unamendable "packages" must be passed to begin with.

:kick:

[bertman]

46. Too late to rec, so here's a KICK.

[scheming daemons]

47. November 2nd is the much more important date

What happens to SS will be determined by what happens in the midterm elections.

[lib2DaBone]

48. + 1000 Meet Peter Peterson.. Mr. Obama's appointee for Social Security Fix..

Peter G. Peterson
Chairman, Peter G. Peterson Foundation




Peter G. Peterson is chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and founder and chairman of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. He is chairman emeritus and co-founder of the Blackstone Group, a private investment banking firm, known for Asset Stripping, off-shoring, and Corporate Buy-outs.

Mr. Peterson was the co-chair of the Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise and was also chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 2000 to 2004. Prior to founding Blackstone, Mr. Peterson was chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers (1973 –1984). In 1971, President Richard Nixon named Mr. Peterson assistant to the president for international economic affairs. He was named secretary of commerce by President Nixon in 1972. Mr. Peterson works closely with Kissinger Associates and other Hedge Funds worldwide.


The audacious chutzpah of this Peterson “fiscal summit” is just breathtaking.

Wall Street billionaires who helped Bush blow a hole in the federal budget – and who also actively enabled the financial deregulation and speculation that created today’s economic crisis and deficits – are gathering (at the Ronald Reagan building!) to lecture senior citizens and the rest of us about the need to tighten our belts and allow them to slash Social Security and Medicare.

The problem is that Peterson has billions of dollars. To the national media and other actors in national policy debates, Peterson's wealth matters much more than whether or not what he is saying makes sense. That is good news for Peterson, but really bad news for the rest of us.

[burnsei sensei]

50. Simpson et al are meeting in secret.

Their decisions are arrived at in secret.
It gives the president complete deniability. He called the Catfood Commission.
He can honestly say that he believes they have more authority on the issue of Social Security and deficit reduction.
The things people like Alan Simpson and Paul Ryan want could be recommended as policy all the same.
Even if SS is not privatized, Obama has, whether he knows it or not, validated the idea of privatizing it for a future date.
He's opened the door even if he hasn't bothered to walk through. In that sense, if SS is privatized any time in the future, he can claim some credit for the policy.

[Mimosa]

51. Kicking this important topic. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

53. and again.

[great white snark]

57. More devisive outrage from Jaded Hamsher. (nt)