Obama vows cutback in Social Security

[red states rule]

Wow, when Pres Bush wanted to reform SS libs screamed bloody murder. Will those same libs do the same now?


Obama vows cutback in Social Security
He pledges reform after party hinders Bush

President-elect Barack Obama vowed Wednesday to tackle Social Security and Medicare spending as this year's deficit was projected to reach $1.2 trillion and with Congress preparing to run that figure even higher with its economic recovery package.

Mr. Obama didn't say how he would control the two major entitlement programs, instead promising details in February. But even raising the issue was a bold move, coming just four years after his own party helped block President Bush's Social Security reform efforts.

"We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part, of those plans," Mr. Obama told reporters at a brief press conference in Washington called to announce his pick for a chief accountability officer, a new position designed to scour the federal budget for failed programs and wasteful spending.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/08/entitlements-on-the-line-as-deficit-rises/

[Joe Steel]

Wow, when Pres Bush wanted to reform SS libs screamed bloody murder. Will those same libs do the same now?


Obama vows cutback in Social Security
He pledges reform after party hinders Bush

President-elect Barack Obama vowed Wednesday to tackle Social Security and Medicare spending as this year's deficit was projected to reach $1.2 trillion and with Congress preparing to run that figure even higher with its economic recovery package.

Mr. Obama didn't say how he would control the two major entitlement programs, instead promising details in February. But even raising the issue was a bold move, coming just four years after his own party helped block President Bush's Social Security reform efforts.

"We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part, of those plans," Mr. Obama told reporters at a brief press conference in Washington called to announce his pick for a chief accountability officer, a new position designed to scour the federal budget for failed programs and wasteful spending.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/08/entitlements-on-the-line-as-deficit-rises/

You're reading too much wishful thinking into Obama's statement:


President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

...

Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.

Obama Promises Bid to Overhaul Retiree Spending (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08obama.html?em)

Obama said he was going to look-into Social Security and Medicare and wingnuts like you, the Washington Times and the New York Times interpreted it as a cut in spending. He didn't say that.

Obama is a center-right, white-bread politician. He believes and says what he has to say to get elected and maintain the smoothest possible political course. When he's talking about the massive deficits and economic devastation the Republicons are leaving, he has to say "popular" things simpletons understand. The yelping dogs of the AmeriCorporate media with their rightwing bias and the conservative wacky world want to hear him attack the things they don't like so Obama tossed them a bone.

[red states rule]

You're reading too much wishful thinking into Obama's statement:



Obama said he was going to look-into Social Security and Medicare and wingnuts like you, the Washington Times and the New York Times interpreted it as a cut in spending. He didn't say that.

Obama is a center-right, white-bread politician. He believes and says what he has to say to get elected and maintain the smoothest possible political course. When he's talking about the massive deficits and economic devastation the Republicons are leaving, he has to say "popular" things simpletons understand. The yelping dogs of the AmeriCorporate media with their rightwing bias and the conservative wacky world want to hear him attack the things they don't like so Obama tossed them a bone.

With trillion dollar defcits, the messiah will have to do what Pres Bush wanted to do - reform the program and let people finance their own retirment

Obama ran as a liberal, but he sees he does have the money to pay for all his cradle to grave promises

[stephanie]

he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare,

this seems to be the standard for the little Marxist..he must not have gotten the plans yet from his bosses..the Clintons, Bill Ayers, George Soros..

[red states rule]

this seems to be the standard for the little Marxist..he must not have gotten the plans yet from his bosses..the Clintons, Bill Ayers, George Soros..

and where is the liberal outrage?

Anytime a conservative uses the words "reform" and "Social Security" in the same sentence; the knives come out, and that person is savaged

I have yet to see anything from the left sicne the messiah made the comment

I wonder if Chris Matthews got a tingle up his leg when he heard it?

[PostmodernProphet]

I propose the following.....if you have an income in excess of $75,000 a year in retirement, we don't pay you $12k a year in SS benefits......if you have an income of $0 in retirement we double your benefits to $24k a year.....everyone in between receives a progressively graded SS benefit.....

then, we eliminate all earned income credits and other income tax credits justified on the basis that we are reimbursing people for the SS deductions taken from their paychecks......

and we eliminate SS withholdings on the poorest one third of Americans and eliminate the withholdings cap which makes the upper one third tax free......

so, maybe you get screwed if you don't need the money, but if you make a mistake and give your $50 billion to the wrong guy to invest for you, at least you know you won't have to live on cat food for the last twenty years of your life.....

[red states rule]

I propose the following.....if you have an income in excess of $75,000 a year in retirement, we don't pay you $12k a year in SS benefits......if you have an income of $0 in retirement we double your benefits to $24k a year.....everyone in between receives a progressively graded SS benefit.....

then, we eliminate all earned income credits and other income tax credits justified on the basis that we are reimbursing people for the SS deductions taken from their paychecks......

we eliminate SS withholdings on the poorest one third of Americans and eliminate the withholdings cap which makes the upper one third tax free......


Why should the folks who paid into the system all their lives - not get their benefits because they planned fro the retirement and have a good retirement income?

Why should we double SS beenfits for people who did not plan for their retirement?

The SS program was sold to us as - "you get what you pay into it"

Now it seems you want to make it a welfare program

[PostmodernProphet]

Why should the folks who paid into the system all their lives - not get their benefits because they planned fro the retirement and have a good retirement income?

Why should we double SS beenfits for people who did not plan for their retirement?
The SS program was sold to us as - "you get what you pay into it"




they should not get their benefits because 1) they don't need it and 2) since the money isn't there it can only be given to them if taxes are raised.....why should tax payers pay more to give something to someone who doesn't need it?.....are you prepared to pay more in taxes so Donald Trump can get his $12k?..............giving something to someone who doesn't need it is welfare, giving something to someone who does is help......

we all know that SS was sold and operated on a flood of lies.....


Now it seems you want to make it a welfare program

actually, I am changing it into an insurance program....

[red states rule]

they should not get their benefits because 1) they don't need it and 2) since the money isn't there it can only be given to them if taxes are raised.....why should tax payers pay more to give something to someone who doesn't need it?.....giving something to someone who doesn't need it is welfare, giving something to someone who does is help......

we all know that SS was sold and operated on a flood of lies.....

So you decide who is entitled to the benefits? They pay into the system, and you tell them "sorry you do not need it"

Why not do the same to military vets who have a similair retirement income?

Why not retired government workers who have a similiar retirement income?

So your solution is to rip off those who worked hard, and achieved their retirement goals


You are right about the money. But it is so bad, that nobody may get anything


snip

Entitlement spending is the fastest growing part of the federal budget. In just the past 40 years, entitlements have nearly doubled as a share of federal outlays, climbing from 32 percent of total outlays in 1962 to 60 percent of the federal budget in 2002. But the problem will soon get much worse. The elderly will be a much bigger share of the population once the baby-boom generation retires. And since the elderly consume most entitlement spending, the fiscal outlook will worsen—particularly if the drug program isn’t repealed. According to the Congressional Budget Office, mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare will nearly double as a share of the gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 40 years.

Financing those benefits will be a huge challenge. Although Social Security and Medicare spending are projected to explode, payroll tax revenues to finance these programs will remain relatively constant as a share of GDP. The net result will be huge long-term deficits, and Medicare is the main problem. According to the trustees’ reports on Social Security and Medicare, the combined deficit of the two programs will swell to more than 8 percent of national economic output in 2075, with Medicare accounting for about three-fourths of the red ink. According to government data, the Social Security cash-flow deficit through 2078 is $25.85 trillion in today’s dollars. But this is spare change compared to the Medicare cash-flow deficit, which is a staggering $111.4 trillion over the same period.

While the long-term outlook is catastrophic, even the short-term prognosis is grim. The baby-boom generation will begin to retire in about 10 years, and the fiscal consequences will be profound. The combined deficit from Social Security and Medicare will rapidly expand, climbing to 1 percent of GDP in 2015, 2 percent of GDP in 2020, and 3 percent of GDP in 2025. To put that figure in perspective, 3 percent of GDP today would be almost $344 billion, or more than $3,000 per household.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm462.cfm

[PostmodernProphet]

So you decide who is entitled to the benefits? They pay into the system, and you tell them "sorry you do not need it"

Why not do the same to military vets who have a similair retirement income?

Why not retired government workers who have a similiar retirement income?

So your solution is to rip off those who worked hard, and achieved their retirement goals


as opposed to ripping off some taxpayer who makes $40k a year so some guy who makes $75k a year from his interest, dividends and rental payments can get another $12K??......yeah, I say rip em off

[red states rule]

as opposed to ripping off some taxpayer who makes $40k a year so some guy who makes $75k a year from his interest, dividends and rental payments can get another $12K??......yeah, I say rip em off

Well, I guess nobody should work hard, take risk, and try to accumlate wealth. You want to punish them, and take their money and give to those who decided not to plan, and save

You must agree with Obama when he said he wanted to spread the wealth around

[Classact]

I think they should put this off until 2011 to mess with SS, why two reasons, one if they screw with SS now the House of Representatives will play hell trying to get reelected in 2010 and two, I start my SS in 2010. My house is paid off this Oct. and SS will start the following Sept.. Mess with my plans representative and I'll replace you in congress.

[red states rule]

I think they should put this off until 2011 to mess with SS, why two reasons, one if they screw with SS now the House of Representatives will play hell trying to get reelected in 2010 and two, I start my SS in 2010. My house is paid off this Oct. and SS will start the following Sept.. Mess with my plans representative and I'll replace you in congress.

Sounds like you do not need the SS payments CA. Why not be a good guy and give up your benefits for the sake of the common good?

[Classact]

Sounds like you do not need the SS payments CA. Why not be a good guy and give up your benefits for the sake of the common good?Asshole! I have thousands of deadbeats that worked one or two years paying SS and then worked under the table and they are getting their checks and no one asked them ... hey where have you been for the last 40 years...

[Little-Acorn]

I propose the following.....if you have an income in excess of $75,000 a year in retirement, we don't pay you $12k a year in SS benefits......
The most strident screams from liberals, EVERY time any Republican even mentioned "looking at Social Security", concerned the idea that "people have paid into the SS system all their lives, and government promised them that money when they retire, and now REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO BREAK THAT PROMISE AND STEAL IT ALL!!"

How quickly they forget..... :cheers2:

[red states rule]

Asshole! I have thousands of deadbeats that worked one or two years paying SS and then worked under the table and they are getting their checks and no one asked them ... hey where have you been for the last 40 years...

I have been around CA

I was using the principals of PostmodernProphet. Based on what he posted, you do not need it

You worked your ass off in life, you planned well for retirement - and you deserve that money

I am afraid SS may not be around long enough for to get the meney you paid in however

[Classact]

I have been around CA

I was using the principals of PostmodernProphet. Based on what he posted, you do not need it

You worked your ass off in life, you planned well for retirement - and you deserve that money

I am afraid SS may not be around long enough for to get the meney you paid in howeverI know you were pulling my leg and I agree with you and want to get on SS as soon as possible because my wife will never see hers.

[red states rule]

I know you were pulling my leg and I agree with you and want to get on SS as soon as possible because my wife will never see hers.

Did nto want to take any chances.

The entire entitlement will implode. The taxes can't be raised to where they need to be to fiance them

The numbers are there for all to see. Liberals refuse to accept them, and keep adding to the giveaways and handouts

[PostmodernProphet]

Well, I guess nobody should work hard, take risk, and try to accumlate wealth. You want to punish them, and take their money and give to those who decided not to plan, and save

You must agree with Obama when he said he wanted to spread the wealth around

yeah right....and you want to punish the guy making $40k a year, take his hard earned money and give it to some guy making $75k a year.....that's a fucking brilliant idea.....

[red states rule]

yeah right....and you want to punish the guy making $40k a year, take his hard earned money and give it to some guy making $75k a year.....that's a fucking brilliant idea.....

You are not giving him anything. Both paid into the system - or did you forget that?

Or do you think all money belongs to the government?

[PostmodernProphet]

The most strident screams from liberals, EVERY time any Republican even mentioned "looking at Social Security", concerned the idea that "people have paid into the SS system all their lives, and government promised them that money when they retire, and now REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO BREAK THAT PROMISE AND STEAL IT ALL!!"

How quickly they forget..... :cheers2:


dude, it's been stolen every year since they started it.....the money simply isn't there....the question isn't "should it be stolen"....the question is, "how do we replace it"........

[red states rule]

dude, it's been stolen every year since they started it.....the money simply isn't there....the question isn't "should it be stolen"....the question is, "how do we replace it"........

It impossible to replace it. No mtter how high taxes are raised, or how many people get screwed out of there money

[PostmodernProphet]

I have been around CA

I was using the principals of PostmodernProphet. Based on what he posted, you do not need it

You worked your ass off in life, you planned well for retirement - and you deserve that money

I am afraid SS may not be around long enough for to get the meney you paid in however

darn right!....if you make more money than I do, you certainly don't NEED my money.......

[PostmodernProphet]

You are not giving him anything. Both paid into the system - or did you forget that?

Or do you think all money belongs to the government?

neither....I think that money was spent years ago.....are you pretending it's around somewhere?......

[red states rule]

darn right!....if you make more money than I do, you certainly don't NEED my money.......

Even though he paid into the system? At least Jesse Jame used a gun

[PostmodernProphet]

It impossible to replace it. No mtter how high taxes are raised, or how many people get screwed out of there money

then why are you arguing....neither the guy who makes $75k a year or the guy who makes $45k a year or the guy who makes $0 is getting anything......

[PostmodernProphet]

Even though he paid into the system? At least Jesse Jame used a gun

yes, even though he paid into the system, because what he paid into the system is gone....just like everyone else, in order to get anything, it has to come from someone else.....

[red states rule]

then why are you arguing....neither the guy who makes $75k a year or the guy who makes $45k a year or the guy who makes $0 is getting anything......

To prolong the implosion you think it is fine to screw over people who YOU deem do not need their benefits

The only way to fix the program is to end it

[PostmodernProphet]

Look, your never going to solve the SS problem if you continue to inhabit some fantasy world where the SS fund actually exists,,,,people paid into the fund....it is gone....to give anyone anything, taxes are going to have to be paid.....

[PostmodernProphet]

To prolong the implosion you think it is fine to screw over people who YOU deem do not need their benefits

The only way to fix the program is to end it

okay then....newsflash....SS is over.....nobody gets anything.....end of story.....

[red states rule]

Look, your never going to solve the SS problem if you continue to inhabit some fantasy world where the SS fund actually exists,,,,people paid into the fund....it is gone....to give anyone anything, taxes are going to have to be paid.....

Do you any idea the tax rate needed to fix SS and Medicare?

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you any idea the tax rate needed to fix SS and Medicare?

at what levels......to fix SS and Medicare the way I propose, less money than is paid in now on an annual basis.......your way?.....probably 110% of everyone's income......

[red states rule]

at what levels......to fix SS and Medicare the way I propose, less money than is paid in now on an annual basis.......your way?.....probably 110% of everyone's income......

Here are the numbers

Unpleasant options

The tax implications of these big deficits should concern all responsible lawmakers as well as taxpayers. Raising revenue by just 1 percent of GDP next year would require an annual tax increase of more than $100 billion. Over the next 10 years, the tax increase needed to finance such a deficit would be more than $1.5 trillion. Such a tax increase would be a body blow to the economy, threatening European-style stagnation and higher unemployment.



The fiscal outlook gets worse with every passing year. According to Medicare Trustee Thomas R. Saving, a professor of economics at Texas A&M University and senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Medicare program is now projected to consume 24 percent of all federal income taxes by 2019 and 51 percent of all federal income taxes by 2042.[1] This will leave lawmakers with three options:

Raise taxes to make up the shortfall. Payroll taxes would have to be increased by more than 100 percent to make up the overall financing shortfall in Medicare. Lawmakers could choose higher income tax rates, of course, but the net result will still be more money in Washington and less money for the productive sector of the economy. The additional per-household tax burden would be $2,227 in 2010, climbing quickly to more than $12,000 in 2030.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm462.cfm

[manu1959]

yeah right....and you want to punish the guy making $40k a year, take his hard earned money and give it to some guy making $75k a year.....that's a fucking brilliant idea.....

how bout the each get back what they paid in.....or is this your versions of a maddoff scheme

[Immanuel]

I expect President Obama to cast out the proposal to privatize Social Security and the Liberals and Democrats of the country to gobble up the idea as if it were their own.

:lol:

Immie

[red states rule]

I expect President Obama to cast out the proposal to privatize Social Security and the Liberals and Democrats of the country to gobble up the idea as if it were their own.

:lol:

Immie

Or this idea could make a comeback Immie


October 16, 2008
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.

“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.

She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.

“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

[red states rule]

and the liberal media is already waving the pom poms for Lord Obama - even though they were in full attack mode when Republicans and Pres Bush tried to reform the programs

I wonder why the difference in the coverage?


NYT on Medicare: Obama's Benign 'Overhaul' vs. GOP's Scary 'Big Cuts'
By Clay Waters (Bio | Archive)
January 8, 2009 - 16:35 ET

With a liberal Democrat coming to power, the New York Times has evidently gotten over the false fear of "big cuts" in Medicare it displayed when Republicans tried to trim the program back in 1995.

Thursday's lead story by Jeff Zeleny and John Harwood, "Obama Promises Bid To Overhaul Retiree Spending," characterized the president-elect's stated willingness to tackle huge entitlement programs Social Security and Medicare in mostly positive terms. The reporters described Obama's vague proposal as an "overhauling," an "approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare," and an "effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs."

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs

Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.

Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees.

The headline's subhead noted the "potential for risky fight" over the move, which Obama has provided no details on. Still, the story cast his vague "overhaul" in positive terms. Compare that to how the paper treated the last serious attempt to fix Medicare, back in the mid-1990s.

After taking over Congress in 1994, Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress proposed to slow the growth of the Medicare program by slicing spending by around $250 billion over a seven-year period. That would have trimmed the Medicare programs annual growth rate from 10 percent to around 7-to-8 percent -- not an actual spending cut, just a slowdown in the rate of spending increase. But the GOP's gallant (and failed) attempt to at least somewhat rein in the growth of Medicare spending was falsely blasted by the media as butchering the safety net with "big cuts."

A front-page Times story on October 26, 1995 was headlined: "Americans Reject Big Medicare Cuts, a New Poll Finds." A May 8, 1995 front-page headline read: "Gingrich Promises Big Medicare Cut With Little Pain."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/01/08/nyt-medicare-obamas-benign-overhaul-vs-gops-scary-big-cuts

[5stringJeff]

Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional redistributions of wealth. Both should be ended. Social Security should cease payments for all people 25 and younger, so born in 1984 or later. Medicare should stopp all payments for those 55 and younger. That gives people time to make up financially for both programs' disappearances.

[Kathianne]

Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional redistributions of wealth. Both should be ended. Social Security should cease payments for all people 25 and younger, so born in 1984 or later. Medicare should stopp all payments for those 55 and younger. That gives people time to make up financially for both programs' disappearances.

Agree 100%.

[namvet]

instead of shoes it will be cains and wheelchairs thrown at him.

[PostmodernProphet]

how bout the each get back what they paid in.....or is this your versions of a maddoff scheme

SS is a Maddoff scheme.....each person could get back what they paid in if what they paid in was there to get back.....as it is, the only way for anyone to get anything back is for somebody else to put something in.....do you want to put something in so Ross Perot can get something out?......