Obama offers Social Security cut in $4 trillion package
“President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.
At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.
As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending….
Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade, stabilize borrowing, and defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode as the cost of health care rises and the nation’s population ages.”
That has all the earmarks of a game-changer. At the very least, it ratchets up the pressure on Republicans to negotiate more seriously.
In fact, according to The New York Times, “The president’s renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts.”
The Post story, however, quotes a Boehner spokesman as saying only that “there are no tax increases on the table.”
As that confusion suggests, few if any details are available. However, the proposal to cut Social Security is probably based on the plan offered by the Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction commission. If so, I have no argument with it. Among other things, that proposal changes the way that annual Social Security benefit increases are calculated, making them more reflective of what retirees experience. The changes would have the greatest effect on the most affluent 20 percent of retirees, with low-income workers actually seeing an increase in their benefits.
Most important, the Bowles-Simpson approach treats Social Security on its own terms. It does not cut the program as a way to balance the overall budget, and it gives the program full credit for the many billions of dollars that have been borrowed from it over the last quarter century to fund general government. The changes are intended to make the program actuarially sound on its own terms, and that’s a good thing. Even the AARP last month embraced reform proposals that cut future benefits as long as it’s part of a package to make the system fiscally sound.
But again, we’ll have to see what exactly the president is proposing, and in turn what the Republican reaction will be. In recent days, we’ve seen signs that the GOP’s united front against revenue increases was beginning to crack. Message discipline had broken down as Boehner, Majority Whip Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a variety of GOP backbenchers began to sing different tunes.
This proposal by the president may break that wide open.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
468 comments Add your comment
stands for decibels
July 7th, 2011
7:52 am
the proposal to cut Social Security is probably based on the plan offered by the Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction commission. If so, I have no argument with it. Among other things, that proposal changes the way that annual Social Security benefit increases are calculated, making them more reflective of what retirees experience.
oh goodie. Obama’s starting bid, once again, is a friggin’ compromise.
Hey, how’d that “let’s start from maybe-kinda-sorta pushing for a public option?” thingie work for you guys?
what a-holes.
stands for decibels
July 7th, 2011
7:53 am
Even the AARP last month embraced reform proposals that cut future benefits as long as it’s part of a package to make the system fiscally sound.
yeah, and eff them too.
Lord Help Us
July 7th, 2011
7:55 am
Rigid ideology in the way of practical policy…the tail wagging the dog.
Hopefully, Simpons-Bowles will be the backbone of the agreement…
Jay
July 7th, 2011
7:58 am
SFD, what’s your objection to a plan that makes SSI actuarially sound, on its own terms, as it must be?
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:01 am
Note that there is no description of what the cuts to Social Security
might be….
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones writes:
“I continue to think, as I have for a long time, that (a) Social Security ought to be put on a firmer financial footing, (b) this can be done with a very modest package of tax increases and benefit cuts, and (c) this would satisfy centrist critics like the Peterson foundation and the Washington Post, and without their help the ideologues who want to destroy Social Security would have no ground to stand on. They’d keep yelping, but no one would pay any attention to them.
A deal that increased revenue by about 1% of GDP and cut benefits by 0.5% of GDP, phased in from 2020 through 2040, could be done without adopting terrible ideas like an increase in the retirement age and would be practically painless for everyone involved. It would take Social Security off the table for a long, long time, and that’s well worth doing. Right now I don’t think you can get Republican support for a plan like this, and it’s not as if there’s any big crisis here that has to be solved immediately. But if a deal like this does become possible someday, liberals would be smart to take it.”
stands for decibels
July 7th, 2011
8:02 am
Jay, my primary objection is “strategeric.” It’s having this discussion in the first place. You tell the Goopers that SS gets handled after we look after ACTUAL FUNDING PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE.
Jimmy62
July 7th, 2011
8:03 am
Obama has offered to do a lot of things, like close Guantanamo. Until he actually does something, his words are worth less than the paper they are written on or the teleprompter they are read off of.
Cuts have been offered. Cuts have NOT been made. Not a single real, significant, useful cut has been made, and until one has been made, I won’t accept a tax increase, and nor should the GOP. Cut first. Actually cut. Don’t just agree to cut, actually truly cut spending. It doesn’t count till it’s actually happened.
This smacks of a political move, a statement designed to put the GOP on the defensive and fool people like Bookman into thinking he has any intention of cutting spending on anything. This way he can pressure the GOP to agree to tax increases, and then conveniently not make any cuts.
Jimmy62
July 7th, 2011
8:07 am
Granny: SS was started to help out people who lived long past the expected age of death. Since life expectancy has increased significantly since then, what’s your reasoning on why raising the SS age is a terrible idea? Is that because raising the age would make SS more like what it was supposed to be (and was sold to voters as) instead of the welfare program it has become?
Realize this: SS was only able to come in to being because it was promised it would never be the welfare scheme it has turned in to. And thus a very good reason to never trust politicians when they come up with new programs that last more than the length of their term in office.
Doggone/GA
July 7th, 2011
8:09 am
“Obama has offered to do a lot of things, like close Guantanamo”
Obama signed the order to close Guantanamo. Congress refuses to fund closing it.
Finn McCool
July 7th, 2011
8:10 am
Cut all you want, but start by cutting the services Jimmy62 uses.
Peadawg
July 7th, 2011
8:10 am
That’s a good boy, Mr. President. Here’s a treat for ya.
SKH
July 7th, 2011
8:11 am
I don’t know how and to what extent the entitlement programs need to be reformed. But I will tell you that I have a good friend who rents scores of houses to Section 8 tenants and he has told me some unbelievable stories which indicate to me there is rampant fraud and abuse going on: women having children by multiple fathers, spending their income on big screen televisions and other luxuries, shacking up with different men who mooch of them and migrate from one house to another while constantly getting drug or high on drugs – all of this on our dime! I assure you this is NOT made up.
I’m curious, Jay and those of the liberal persuasion: do you see this as a problem and what would be your solution to it?
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:11 am
jimmy62
better review your data on life expectancy.
Jay
July 7th, 2011
8:11 am
“Granny: SS was started to help out people who lived long past the expected age of death.”
Absolutely, totally false. If you start from such a ludicrous position, it’s no surprise that you end up in a ludicrous position.
Peadawg
July 7th, 2011
8:11 am
Now raise the age to 67 and let’s move on.
Gordon
July 7th, 2011
8:11 am
This is great news and very encouraging. $4T over 10 years is $400B a year which is still well short of our deficit projections, but it is a huge step in the right direction. But so far it is just talk. Let’s hope both sides follow through.
stands for decibels
July 7th, 2011
8:11 am
of course, foolishly offering that payroll tax cut, effectively working to put SS in the red, wasn’t terribly bright stategery either…
That’s a good boy, Mr. President. Here’s a treat for ya.
my point exactly.
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:13 am
SKH
Treat all fraudsters the same – be it individual or corporate welfare.
Put them in jail.
That ok with you?
arnold
July 7th, 2011
8:13 am
Jimmy62 is correct that the age for SS was based on the life expectancy at that time of 65 years old. It was adopted from Germany where Bismark originally used the age of 65 for their system for the same reason. The age should be raised a bit.
Obama offers Social Security cut in $4 trillion package – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) | Conservatives for America
July 7th, 2011
8:16 am
[...] Obama offers Social Security cut in $ 4 trillion packageAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)“President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue. …Obama, Republicans grudgingly grind to debt dealAFPRepublicans using Twitter town hall to take shots at ObamaWashington Post (blog)GOP: Some tax breaks may goWashington Timesmsnbc.com -Richmond Times Dispatch -LubbockOnline.com (blog)all 5,160 news articles » [...]
@@
July 7th, 2011
8:16 am
Whenever there’s agreement among the two, I become a bit suspicious. But….
Obama offers Social Security cut in $4 trillion package
I’m happy to read ^^^ that. Saw it yesterday…didn’t wanna get too excited.
Now, if the revenue comes thru elimination of some tax credits and subsidies for ALL taxpayers, they will have done the right thing.
Jay
July 7th, 2011
8:16 am
SFD, part of the agreement on that payroll tax cut was that the lost revenue would NOT count against the SSI trust fund.
In other words, you’re wrong.
Jay
July 7th, 2011
8:17 am
Arnold, you are correct, but that is not what Jimmy wrote.
Furthermore, the retirement age has already been raised.
kayaker 71
July 7th, 2011
8:18 am
The American SS system….. the biggest Ponzi scheme that Congress ever produced. The system is bankrupt and insolvent for a reason. Those crooks in Congress, both parties, have used these funds to contribute to runaway spending for government programs that we could not afford. They have not “borrowed” this money……. they have stolen it from SS contributors for the last 40 years. And you want to give them more tax revenue to do the same thing? Some never learn, Granny.
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:18 am
arnold….
and the balance of his data on life expectancy?
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:19 am
kayaker 71
SS is not bankrupt.
The Gipper
July 7th, 2011
8:19 am
This is a good shot across the Republican’s stern by Obama. I think he can also readily counter their next shot with some comparable changes to Medicare as well. Once again, the Republican’s true agenda will be forced front and center. They have no interest in reducing the deficit or debt. They only wish to eliminate all social safety nets and give the wealthiest more and more tax cuts.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 7th, 2011
8:20 am
Did you forget they were shopping at Whole Foods too?
You want us to assume as accurate or fact for every person on Section 8 that some undocumented story that you heard from a “friend” who claims to have information about his tenants about their very personal lives (talk about an invasion of privacy) means that somehow this is not already addressed by current rules. Its up to all the “liberal persuasion” to address your personal antedote as relayed? Has your friend reported this information to the appropriate authorities? Have you got the evidence or we just suppose to assume the “big screen TV and other luxuries”.
arnold
July 7th, 2011
8:20 am
Granny. Beats me.
My wife turns 66 next month and receives her first check. I hope she’s around a long time.
real john
July 7th, 2011
8:21 am
Jay, while I understand your an opinion writer, your just guessing as to what Obama is proposing. Its funny, I was just reading an article on CNN about this and it was title how Obama is proposing $4-$5 trillion in cuts…HMM, thats what the Republicans have been trying to do for months and getting blasted for it, but now that the Messiah is proposing it, the libs love it..
The Democratic party has become so hypocritical is just laughable. When Boehner and the Repubs talks about cuts, the Democrats speak of the “Draconian” cuts and how it will send people to the streets and destroy the economy. Now that the Dems see that cuts are what the majority of Americans want, the are all in favor of cuts and suddenly they aren’t so “Draconian.”
For Obama and the Dems to know act like they are the ones pushing for big cuts is hilarious. All they have been talking about is raising revenue (i.e. raising taxes) for months.
stands for decibels
July 7th, 2011
8:21 am
part of the agreement on that payroll tax cut was that the lost revenue would NOT count against the SSI trust fund.
Did they pinkie-promise never to say it counted? Did Lucy promise not to yank the football?
Negro, please.
SKH
July 7th, 2011
8:21 am
“That ok with you?”
Sure, if they’d actually do it. But I doubt a Democrat would have the “political will” to do that given the demographics of this group of “recipients.” And I’m not sure either a Democrat of a Republican would have the political will do incarcerate the corporate frauds. And, in reality, enforcement would be next to impossible. So I would suggest the government investigate such abuses and figure out how to reform the entitlement program so this sort of thing is impossible.
It’s because of such gross examples of abuse that people start to feel we have become a “nanny state.”
Jay
July 7th, 2011
8:25 am
It’s written into the law, sfd.
The Gipper
July 7th, 2011
8:26 am
If SKH knows of people cheating tax payers through improper use of funds, etc., he could always man up and turn them in instead of spreading unsubstantiated rumors.
carlosgvv
July 7th, 2011
8:26 am
Those 65 and over on SS constitute a considerable voting bloc. You may be certain that if their current benefits are cut a large number of politicians will be voted out of office. Also, the Republicans still say they won’t accept any tax increases even though their definition of “tax increases” is tax breaks for the rich. This is a bite the bullet lose lose proposition any way you look at it and I suspect all politicians will use the band-aid approach as much as they possibly can.
godless heathen
July 7th, 2011
8:26 am
Obama is throwing grandma out into the streets!!! Horror of horrors!!
Jay
July 7th, 2011
8:27 am
Real John, a lot of Democrats, from Obama on down, have been saying that cuts will be required. The argument has been over the necessity of pairing those cuts with revenue increases.
You may not like that reality — it may not conform with what you wish it to be — but it remains reality nonetheless.
Jimmy62
July 7th, 2011
8:27 am
Finn: I don’t use any government services these days. I tried to get my hands on some free money, but I’m not poor enough or lazy enough for any of those programs, and I’m the wrong color for others. All I do is give them money. I pay for public transportation I never use… In fact, the main government service I do use, roads, I pay plenty for. Police have been less then useless whenever I’ve needed them. I tried the 401k thing, but then when I needed money it wasn’t available unless I was willing to give the government a lot of it.
Jay
July 7th, 2011
8:28 am
Carlos, I am quite sure that no current benefit cuts are being proposed, for the very reasons you note.
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:28 am
SKH
Are there any members of the GOP that would have the “political will”
to do that given the demographics of this group of “recipients.” ?
Who are they and why would you expect them to “do it”?
stands for decibels
July 7th, 2011
8:29 am
the biggest Ponzi scheme
yawn.
oh, and Mr. Preznit? That’s the drooling-baboon mentality you’re “negotiating” with. Brilliant!
Paul
July 7th, 2011
8:30 am
The four trillion is what the Pres offered in, what, April? It was over 12 years and Republicans derided it because ‘it is two years longer than our plan.’ But thank heavens for short memories, for this is now a new proposal at a critical time and puts Republicans on the PR defensive by doubling their offer.
This is a huge step, putting SS on the table. Reps will have a tough time objecting, as they’ve floated all sorts of reforms. But, this is a “I put this on the table, you put on the table something that’s sacred to you – revenue increases.”
IF Spkr Boehner met with the Pres on this, then good for him. He’s doing quite a sleight of hand, maintaining a public stance, meeting with the Pres, then slowly shifting the public stance. Still shows the fear of tax-cut ideologues, though.
Is the message mangled among the Rep leadership? Sure is. And they’ll have some big adjustments to make. Just this morning I heard Rep Cantor say (and I played it back three times to be sure) that if Pres Obama wants to cut the corporate jet loophole, then “we gotta have offsetting tax cuts.” In other words, gov’t revenue is to remain neutral. Not just no new taxes, but no increase in revenue after closing loopholes.
Either that’s a real position, or he’s so used to stringing sound bites together his mouth goes on autopilot.
But if it’s Obama and Boehner, there may be progress. Is Sen McConnell feeling left out? Good for us that he is.
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:30 am
jimmy62
“and I’m the wrong color for others”
Yes, yellow.
arnold
July 7th, 2011
8:30 am
For there to be a compromise, both sides have to give up something they don’t want to give up. Some changes in SS benefits by liberals and tax increases by conservatives. We need to increase revenues and decrease spending. Just like in your family budget.
SKH
July 7th, 2011
8:31 am
“They have no interest in reducing the deficit or debt.”
Really? Logical fallacies will fell you every time. I was watching This Week with Christiane Amanpour this past Sunday (fancy that, a conservative watching ABC News!) and she had two Republican governors (not including Chris Christie, along with a Democratic governor and the mayor of LA) on to discuss how they are handling the debt problems in their states. And guess what? From what I heard, your blanket statement doesn’t apply and is thus invalid. Try interjecting the qualifiers “some” or “most” or “few” into your statements and they will be more truthful
bob
July 7th, 2011
8:31 am
Granny, look at your last Social Security statement. The commisioner clearly states SS is broke, he would be a better source than you.
Mick
July 7th, 2011
8:32 am
At this point, it’s no surprise the way obama negotiates; why do the repubs revile him so much? He’s their best friend when it comes to negotiating. I give him very low marks in that area but he is a very clever politician; be prepared for obama/clinton in 2012 which will negate the possible romney/bachmann ticket…
Gordon
July 7th, 2011
8:34 am
If this gets pulled off, I’m beginning to think a Democratic President and a Republican Congress is the best combination out there. It worked well in the latter Clinton years. Either side controlling both is a disaster.
Doggone/GA
July 7th, 2011
8:34 am
“Either that’s a real position”
It’s a real position. The latest meme is that no REVENUE increases will be considered, because even revenue increases are “tax increases” – no matter how they come about.
real john
July 7th, 2011
8:35 am
Jay:
Yes, but the Democrats talk about cuts that are basically meaningless to the overall budget. Freezing discreationary spending, closing Big Oil and Corporate tax loop holes are a drop in the bucket. These are only to score political points.
I’ve written on this blog several times that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security HAVE to have major reform to stay solvent. Everyone knows this. Yet, when Paul Ryan or George W Bush made attempts to try and fix the long term solutions, the Democrats played scare tactics to score political points.
Social Security was a great idea, but it cannot continue to be a defined benefit type plan. With advances in medicine, people will simply continue to live much longer. Both of my grandmothers are in their 90’s. Think of how long they have been on Medicare and Social Security. People laughed at President Bush when he proposed more of a 401K type Social Security plan where the government would give some sort of match and when you retire, you get a lump sum. THIS WILL be the future of both Social Security and Medicare at some point. The sooner we move to more of a plan like that, the sooner the U.S. will get back on a path of financial solvency.
Aquagirl
July 7th, 2011
8:36 am
It’s because of such gross examples of abuse that people start to feel we have become a “nanny state.”
What is this obsession with “those people?” There are certainly people who defraud welfare, download endless babies, etc. However the dollar amount they waste is not multiplied by your outrage. For y’all, balancing budgets or fiscal solvency is completely blanked out because you’re foaming at the mouth over welfare cheats.
The recent brouhaha over Planned Parenthood funding exposed the Republicans for what they are: a party driven by ideological nutcases, pouting, whining, and spouting statements not intended to be factual.
The Gipper
July 7th, 2011
8:36 am
Really?
Yes, really. And your logical fallacy appears to be that you mistake a talk about federal debt and deficit with governor’s talk about their particular states.
Fletch
July 7th, 2011
8:37 am
Great, we’ve got Medicare and SS on the table. That’s 2 of the BIG 3. The third being Defense. What cuts have the GOP come to the table with in regard to reducing the overinflated military spending? If we could get all 3 on the table, paired with an expiration of the tax cuts for ALL income levels and the elimination of the EITC and the tax credit for children, there might actually be a chance to achieve the goal.
Gordon
July 7th, 2011
8:38 am
real john@8:35,
While I agree with some of what you wrote, a lump sum for Social Security would defeat its purpose. Many people simply cannot manage money, and would blow their lump sum. Privatizing or partially privatizing social security does not mean it has to be paid out in a lump sum. Many private pension plans do not offer lump sums.
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:39 am
Bob
have you got yours handy? mine’s filed.
get us the quote will ya’?
cause frankly I don’t believe you.
stands for decibels
July 7th, 2011
8:39 am
when Paul Ryan or George W Bush made attempts to try and fix the long term solutions
Lessee–one guy offers a coupon book in exchange for Medicare; the other guy doesn’t even offer specifics, merely saying when pressed that “ah’m not gonna “negotiate with mahself.”
it cannot continue to be a defined benefit type plan. With advances in medicine, people will simply continue to live much longer. Both of my grandmothers are in their 90’s.
and the Reaganite “anecdotes iz metrics, for realz” card is played.
oy to the friggin’ vey. I’ll be back when it don’t stink so bad in here…
kayaker 71
July 7th, 2011
8:40 am
Granny,
Hell, not only is SS broke but the whole government is broke, thanks to our US Congress and the last few presidents. When the money to fund the program has already been spent on other things, I would call it broke. Who balances your checkbook?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 7th, 2011
8:40 am
I understand that the Republicans have agreed to allow the the deficit to rise if someone will take that dang Matthew Lesko and his question mark suits off the air and his how to get “free” money from the government off the air.
Seriously I agree it often seems that the President gives up a lot of ground going into negotiations. He has accomplish some large tasks in doing so. I dont agree with where he always ends up or even where he starts sometimes. All I can hope for is that he is strategic and getting the door opened a crack on some issues and resolving problems that have not been dealt with in years by either side. I can urge him to do more and hope that he is listening and has a long term plan to get there. In politics, sometimes to make the giant leap, you have to take some small steps.
SKH
July 7th, 2011
8:41 am
“If SKH knows of people cheating tax payers through improper use of funds, etc., he could always man up and turn them in instead of spreading unsubstantiated rumors.”
I don’t actually know if they are breaking the law or not. But they ARE doing just what I said. And that obviously should not be allowed. Yet it is. The government is dolling out massive amounts of money to unnecessarily dependent people in an grossly irresponsible way. But you know, maybe I should look into just what the law is AND report them if they are violating it.
Just out of curiosity, G-dawg, do you imagine I’m lying?
Road Scholar
July 7th, 2011
8:42 am
What riles me is that recently, after a disclosure of fraud in welfare, and other finacial assistance programs,is that the head of the agency stated that it is now a top priority! What was it before?
The alledged proposal by President Obama, while lacking detail , is a big step in negotiations and compromise. Remember, the Repub statement of how they are for compromise as long as they get only what they want applies to the left also.
As for the transportation bill negotiations, we need increased funding to address not only needed infrastructure improvements, but to address the funding lapse for the past 10 years that Bush….and Obama has let happen. If Repubs are truely interested in job creation, this is the program that historically addressed our infrastructure, created/maintained jobs, stimulated the economy (a dollar spent is turned over at least 7 times, creating growth and prosperity) addressed lagging maintenance, and improved our quality of life.
I know the price of gas has gone up substantially, but we need a better/larger revenue stream to fund transportation and economic recovery. This is a tax all pay, and all benefit from! Raise the gas tax now!
If you want painless, stick you head in the ground, go nowhere, and stop whinning about anything!
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:43 am
kayaker 71
the government and social security are not broke.
who balances your checkbook?
The Gipper
July 7th, 2011
8:44 am
But you know, maybe I should look into just what the law is AND report them if they are violating it.
Yes, you should do just that.
Obama proposes cuts to Social Security – CBS News | Conservatives for America
July 7th, 2011
8:46 am
[...] "If the president wants to talk …Obama, Republicans grudgingly grind to debt dealAFPObama offers Social Security cut in $ 4 trillion packageAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Officials: President Obama seeks $ 3 trillion to $ 4 trillion in [...]
Aquagirl
July 7th, 2011
8:48 am
The government is dolling out massive amounts of money to unnecessarily dependent people in an grossly irresponsible way.
Yeah, I’m also angry about the entire boondoggle fleet of unusable F-22’s. Now what were you mumbling about flat-screen televisions?
MountainMan
July 7th, 2011
8:48 am
Jay,
Please don’t use SSI to refer to regular social security. SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is a welfare type payment from Social Security. It was implemented when SS Trust fund was flush with cash and has since been a further burden on the fund.
Gordon
July 7th, 2011
8:49 am
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:43 am
“the government and social security are not broke”
Whew! I feel so much better! Start spreading the news.
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
8:51 am
Gordon
Always glad to be of help.
Road Scholar
July 7th, 2011
8:51 am
SKH: “I don’t actually know if they are breaking the law or not.”
Then why did you state it is happening?
DebbieDoRight
July 7th, 2011
8:51 am
Have you got the evidence or we just suppose to assume the “big screen TV and other luxuries”.
Correct. Also tell SKH that there’s such a thing as Lay-A-Way — growing up in a big family my mother used to use this system quite often to buy things for the home and also to use it for back to school clothes/accessories. Just because someone has something, it doesn’t mean that they are “cheating the system” — most people on Section 8 have JOBS, the jobs may not pay more than $8/hour but it’s still a job. Section 8 gives them the option of having affordable, nice housing in a nice neighborhood – the alternative would be for them to live predominantly in low rental places like trailer parks and tenements.
I wish people would understand that just because someone has something it doesn’t mean that they “cheated” to get it. Perhaps people like SKH need to grow up a little and see more of how other people live before they cast their stones.
RAMBLE ON!!!
July 7th, 2011
8:52 am
Why does Jay always quote from the New York Slimes?
…ever heard of Jayson Blair?
Adam
July 7th, 2011
8:53 am
Jay: The changes would have the greatest effect on the most affluent 20 percent of retirees, with low-income workers actually seeing an increase in their benefits.
Yes. Do it. Thank goodness we have a proposal that does THAT.
dB: As for an opening bid, this isn’t an opening bid. It’s a newer bid on the same negotiation.
@@
July 7th, 2011
8:54 am
This is so funny! jay’s locker room is in turmoil.
schnirt
Lord Help Us
July 7th, 2011
8:55 am
‘Increase of 157,000 in private-sector payrolls comes in more than double the consensus forecast, fueling enthusiasm over what Friday’s government data on nonfarm payrolls will show.’
Good news…
DebbieDoRight
July 7th, 2011
8:56 am
SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is a welfare type payment from Social Security
WHAT!?!
Perhaps a little research would be best before you make such blanket statements…..
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):
It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.
Adam
July 7th, 2011
8:57 am
DebbieDoRight: I wish people would understand that just because someone has something it doesn’t mean that they “cheated” to get it.
But of course they cheated! According to some, it’s all because of choices they made, which of course they knew all along would lead them exactly where they are, such as allowing themselves to be born to parents who are poor, allowing themselves to grow up in poor neighborhoods, and being freeloaders for 16-18 years. You know, choices like that.
Or, they purposely chose to live a life of less income for decades just to be able to get on government assistance so they never have to work a day in their liv… wait a minute did you say they have jobs? *CONSERVABOT HEAD ASPLODE
SKH
July 7th, 2011
8:57 am
“Yes, really. And your logical fallacy appears to be that you mistake a talk about federal debt and deficit with governor’s talk about their particular states.”
Not at all. To refresh your memory, here’s what you said:
Once again, the Republican’s true agenda will be forced front and center. They have no interest in reducing the deficit or debt.
Your statement, a blanket one, implies that all Republicans have no genuine interest in reducing the deficit or debt. Even an ignoramus would know that is patently false. Your statement, a blanket one, implies that all Republicans have no genuine interest in reducing the deficit or debt. It’s a dumb charge to make. There may be some Republicans who aren’t interested in doing that, but the burden of proof is upon you to substantiate your wider claim. The point is, you are simple ripping Republicans and not making honest statements.
As to the people on the show, one of the governors, John Kasich of Ohio, was actually in the House for a number of years and worked to cut spending in surprising ways and was the chief architect of the Balanced Budget Act.
SKH
July 7th, 2011
8:59 am
“Then why did you state it is happening?”
Is adultery wrong? Is it illegal?
DebbieDoRight
July 7th, 2011
9:00 am
The government is dolling out massive amounts of money to unnecessarily dependent people in an grossly irresponsible way.
How ’bout those Oil Subsidies? That’s the biggest “dependent” on the payroll that i’ve seen.
Adam
July 7th, 2011
9:00 am
SKH = WOW?
The Gipper
July 7th, 2011
9:00 am
What does @@ know about Jay’s locker room that is so funny. You got a Youtube to share.
class warfare
July 7th, 2011
9:01 am
Wake up People…before its too late. Call & write your congressman. Lowering benefits and raising taxes on the middle class to subsidize tax breaks for millionaires and tax shelters for companies that are flush with profits but cant seem to hire anyone or pay a living wage. This is the continuation of a broadening gap between the haves and have nots. To make it worse the country is flooded with illegals who have lowered the compensation of the physical labor sector. That means you not only cant afford to send your children to college anymore to hopefully enter the lottery for a vanishing middleclass life but that there is virtually no jobs left that require no college but pay fair wage. To complicate it further, Americans can no longer compensate the lower wages by mortgaging themselves into oblivian…how do you suppose we keep up you ask? We dont…the great american machine is broken…and it gets worse. You know how Reagan severed millions of middleclass jobs so we could have cheaper asain made goods. Well for awhile it was great we’ve enjoyed paying less for almost everything in are lives which has compensated for the lower wages/benefits. Thats ending the great asian monster we have created has awaken, like America after ww2, and now we have succesfully transferred are standard of living to them. They are rising and we are falling… what does that mean, it means your grandchildren may work in a factory 15 hours/day making cheap goods for the chinese. Its not too late we can still save this thing but it means not being jealous of union workers but embracing a notion that workers should have a voice, it means forcing companies to come back to american soil to provide middleclass jobs to americans as the price to do business here… it means sending illegals back to mexico so are youth that are not cut out for college have a job waiting for them. The teaparty grew out of frustration and to be honest jealousy, I get it youve lost your job while your neighbor a teacher or firefighter is still doing ok and the family down the street is recieving welfare, it doesnt seem fair but attacking them will only help the powers at be widen the gap… and guess what theres not a spot for teapartiers in the wealthy catagory. Greedy corporations will take this thing were the profits lead them and when the american middleclass is all but gone they will pack up and move to china. WAKE UP AMERICA, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!
Adam
July 7th, 2011
9:02 am
DebbieDoRight: How ’bout those Oil Subsidies? That’s the biggest “dependent” on the payroll that i’ve seen.
*insert clapping emoticon here
Poor Boy from Alabama
July 7th, 2011
9:02 am
Granny,
Use this link to see a summary of what the trustees for Social Security and Medicare say about their solvency:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Here are some excerpts:
The financial conditions of the Social Security and Medicare programs remain challenging. Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.
Relative to the combined Social Security Trust Funds, the Medicare HI Trust Fund faces a more immediate funding shortfall, though its longer term financial outlook is better under the assumptions employed in this report.
Soothsayer
July 7th, 2011
9:03 am
Here are your morning funnies!
Enjoy!
Road Scholar
July 7th, 2011
9:03 am
SKH: What? besides I’m not interested in your personal life!
DebbieDoRight
July 7th, 2011
9:03 am
Your statement, a blanket one, implies that all Republicans have no genuine interest in reducing the deficit or debt. It’s a dumb charge to make. There may be some Republicans who aren’t interested in doing that, but the burden of proof is upon you to substantiate your wider claim
Perhaps he’s using history to base his opinion. I mean when the sitting Republican President along with the republican led house and senate did away with Clinton’s Pay-As-You-Go plan with resounding cheers from the republican faithful, a move — along with many other, that put this country firmly in atrocious debt — one has to wonder why you are so up in arms about the statement he made.
The Gipper
July 7th, 2011
9:04 am
SKH,
Wrong.
Larry
July 7th, 2011
9:05 am
Hopefully, the president has some specifics in this and is not doing this to get sound bites in the public relations war. If so, this is the 1st significant public step taken by this administration in reducing the rate of spending. We’ll have to see if these cuts are immediate or like Obama care, spread out so far in the future to make them meaningless projections from the CBO.
Road Scholar
July 7th, 2011
9:06 am
class warfare: Do ya think that the world market is the reason for US wages being flat, or reducing?
Howard
July 7th, 2011
9:07 am
If social security is cut then our representatives and senators better make damn sure they raise taxes on the richest Americans and close loopholes for mega rich corporations.
poison pen
July 7th, 2011
9:08 am
Granny Godzilla
” Note that there is no description of what the cuts to Social Security
might be….”
Granny, You will know what’s in it after it’s passed… Sound familar?
Adam
July 7th, 2011
9:09 am
DebbieDoRight: one has to wonder why you are so up in arms about the statement he made.
In internet-speak, it’s called being “butthurt.”
DebbieDoRight
July 7th, 2011
9:09 am
Morning Adam! Happy Thursday!
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
9:10 am
Poor Boy from Alabama
Have you changed your name in the last half hour so you could post info we all have understood for years – that still does not say the Social Security is broke?
Doesn’t bother me that you waste your own time….
poison pen
July 7th, 2011
9:10 am
Howard
” If social security is cut then our representatives and senators better make damn sure they raise taxes on the richest Americans and close loopholes for mega rich corporations”
Howard, How about we eliminate most loopholes for everyone?
MountainMan
July 7th, 2011
9:11 am
DDR,
I stand corrected on the source of SSI payments, but my main point is Jay uses SSI as a reference for Soical Security. SSI is administered by SSA and it is a welfare program.
Loophole for everyone
July 7th, 2011
9:12 am
What did I do?
Granny Godzilla
July 7th, 2011
9:13 am
Poison Pen
I am always disappointed by the lack of civics education displayed by the silly folks who post that old nut.
What a complete lack of understanding you and they show.
I used to think you and they couldn’t really be that dense, but no longer.
SKH
July 7th, 2011
9:15 am
“Have you got the evidence or we just suppose to assume the “big screen TV and other luxuries”.”
I don’t have photographic evidence to present to you and this isn’t just a friend, but my very best life-long friend who is like brother to me. Instead of impugning my integrity and honesty, why don’t you stop playing dodge ball and answer my question: what should be done (I really want to know what liberals would say – I’ve never asked them that question) You’d be dumb to argue abuse does not occur and probably naive to think it doesn’t occur on a wide scale. Sure, there are no doubt plenty of examples of honest, hard-working people receiving aid. I will readily grant that. But my friend has no reason to lie to me, he sees these things every week and I believe him. If you don’t, then go bury your head back in the sand.
The Gipper
July 7th, 2011
9:15 am
You will know what’s in it after it’s passed… Sound familar?
Is this your argument. To what end.