Well, I don’t know that it should be a shock to anyone that Obama intends to “reform” Social Security – and by that, I mean gut it. Either through benefit cuts or partial privatization, Obama will do the bankers’ bidding:
In Conclusion, I submit to you that after this long litany of Obama’s own words and actions, there can no longer any doubt that Candidate Obama’s soothing words were a ruse, but that President Obama is relentlessly pushing forward what he said all along he would do: create a commission to examine changes in Social Security, and then enact them. It is not on process but on substance that Candidate Obama lied. Oh, sure, payroll tax increases might “also” be considered — tax increases that surely he will ‘push forward’ with all of the vigor he ‘pushed forward’ critical elements of Health Care Reform.
No real Democrat is “agnostic” about Social Security. As Obama himself solemnly swore, “On issues as fundamental as how to protect Social Security, a candidate for president” does indeed “owe it to the American people to tell us where they stand,” and on the ultimate substance of his stand Candidate Obama lied. So nobody should be surprised if millions of democratic voters become “agnostic” about the re-election of faux “democrats” who do what no Republican has been able to do — to wantonly gut the program which Candidate Obama rightly called “the cornerstone of the social compact in this country.”
_________________________
(New Deal sent me some updates which I attempted to get inserted correctly. But I’ll just put this in as his alternative conclusion)
That controversy erupted here as well, prompting me to write a diary explainingThe Truth about Social Security, in which I pointed out that Social Security is not in “crisis”, and is not a “real problem,” manageable or not, needs no “fix,” nor any intermeddling “Commission.” As stated by the official projections by the Social Security trustees at that time, the program will be solvent without so much as lifting a little finger for decades to come. At worst, even after the “Great Recession”, the problem is several decades away and is hardly an urgent priority. Even then, the core retirement program is not the issue; rather the deficits come from other programs such as Social Security disability.
——
Two final notes:
(1) Remember how Candidate Obama constantly proclaimed that an increase in the ceiling for payment of payroll taxes was the only change that Social Security needed? I searched and searched for any statement by President Barack Obama that that was still his position. After December 2008 there are no such statements to be found anywhere.
(2) Even if Obama’s assumptions are correct and his plan restores “solvency” to Social Security, the GOP will not cease their campaign to destroy it. They will loot it again the next time they are in power. And Barack Obama will have set the precedent for the “solution” of further benefit cuts.
Can we admit yet that Barack Obama is a DINO?
DINO? BINGO!
Barrack Obama is a bullshit artist in the service of special interests.
ONE TERMER.
Warren Harding reincarnated.
Wanna see some more Pentagon shooters? Start fuckin with old folks Social Security and some old-time nut cases are gonna come out of the closet! Nothin left to lose, ya know? Plus, at this point in the game, looks like Obama may as well start learning how to build houses with Jimmy.
Although young at the time, I remember when Dan Rostenkowski proposed some kind of change with Medicare and Soc. Security and he was literally attacked by the geezer squad on walkers and waving their canes at him. Fast forward to today and that would be mild in comparison.
Someone either in the blog world or in the press better start reminding him of those proposals about lifting the cap on payroll taxes. Also, Hillary mentioned (from the link) something about that affecting firefighters and such. Probably not. A lot of them are covered under their local governments for retirement and do not pay into social security. At least I’ve read that before.
And Susie, hope you don’t mind if I share Angry Bear’s link around to a few places.
The danger to SS is mainly from the Republicans who are clearly our Talibans. I spend very few nanoseconds thinking about Obama. He is horrifically inept and will not harm SS. In the long run, The Republican hate us all unless we are very rich. We should concentrate on the real problem. Obama is 2009 story; ignore him.
A few things. Barack Obama is a middle of the road Democrat. When you fools call him a DINO, you are demonstrating only that you are on the far left side of the spectrum. Barack Obama will be reelected and possibly, depending on the Repugnant candidate, in a land slide. There is NOTHING wrong with reassessing our social programs. The French, the Canadians, the Brits, et al, do it almost annually, in what must be an ongoing search to make these programs work better. When the Repugnants last tried to privatize Social Security, it didn’t work and it won’t work NOW. Americans by the millions will not allow it. Finally, please do NOT post or say that people supporting Social Secutiry will start shooting. I really want to believe that ONLY Repugnants make claims that people will or should start shooting, and by those claims, encourage turning America into Iraq or Afghanistan…We ARE supposed to be past the tribal phase of development.
If Obama is a centrist Democrat, why is the majority of the party to the left of him?
If there is ONE thing the Democrats have always stood for, no matter what, it’s the safety net of Social Security and Medicare. Now the idea of cutting benefits is “middle of the road”? And believing Obama’s corporate-friendly agenda is outside the party mainstream makes me a “fool”? Hmm.
We are in the middle stages of a major depression because Obama doesn’t want to upset the bankers, nor does he want to support a public works program to put people back to work, the way FDR did. In fact, many mainstream economists are starting to describe his economic policies as “Hooveresque.” Millions of people are losing their homes, and Obama’s solution is to prop up the housing bubble for the banks instead of helping the victims.
Yet you still consider his policies in the Democratic mainsteam.
The only reason privatizing Social Security didn’t work the last time is that the Democrats mobilized against it. What do you think will happen when the Democrats are actually leading the efforts?
Finally, if I were that far left, I wouldn’t be a Democrat. I’d be a Socialist. But the closer the Democratic party gets to the far right of the Republican party, the more I wish we had a viable national Socialist party to push the Democrats back to the left.
Walked into a gas station early Sunday morning, elderly white guy & african american cashier having a conversation re: evils of socialism, every man for himself, government regulation is the problem, etc. They bought the rethuglicans’ lies hook, line & sinker, and these people are reasonably intelligent. I mentioned that I am a Socialist and they both laughed politely, thought I was joking (I was only half joking)…