Breaking: Obama Cuts Deal Reducing Social Security, Medicare and all Entitlments

[Gatekeeper]

I'm going to reserve judgment until I see what they come up with. I'm not somebody who approves of Social Security/Medicare anyway on Constitutional grounds. But in consideration of the fact that they do exist... they must be dealt with. Entitlement expenses are out of control and wrecking us.

Based on this one article, it sounds like this board can only make recommendations to the legislature, and while I have no trust left for Obama appointees, it's hard to imagine they could do much worse than Congress has done so far.

While I agree that the Constitutionality of both Medicare and Social Security has always been in question, care has to be taken here.

Promises have been made and people have planned their lives around those promises. Those promise must be honored.

Yes, they should. But... long term a Constitutional solution must be found.

Exactly.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm going to reserve judgment until I see what they come up with. I'm not somebody who approves of Social Security/Medicare anyway on Constitutional grounds. But in consideration of the fact that they do exist... they must be dealt with. Entitlement expenses are out of control and wrecking us.

Based on this one article, it sounds like this board can only make recommendations to the legislature, and while I have no trust left for Obama appointees, it's hard to imagine they could do much worse than Congress has done so far.

While I agree that the Constitutionality of both Medicare and Social Security has always been in question, care has to be taken here.

Promises have been made and people have planned their lives around those promises. Those promise must be honored.

Yes, they should. But... long term a Constitutional solution must be found.

I believe one exists without jeopardizing the promises made to those who now have to much invested and are dependent upon both.

It requires a compromise from all sides though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is an opinion piece of shit not news!
1. eliminate payroll tax.
2. pass health care through reconcilia

Which will come first,
1. you changing your avatar?
2. you remembering to use spell-check?

 

[chanel]

When I read the headline, I thought this was a piece from the Onion.

 

[rdean]

Every time something good happens like in the election of Scott Brown, Obama goes behind closed doors during the euphoria of it all and plots. Read this.

Obama Cuts Deal that Will Reduce Social Security, Medicare and all Entitlements

washingtonpost.com

The Obama administration literally collapsed yesterday. Any pretense of liberal change was washed away in a closed door deal to cut entitlements. While the Massachusetts voters were casting their ballots to install the upstart Republican Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, President Obama was hammering out an agreement with Democratic leaders to support a plan to issue an executive order to cut entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

As the Washington Post explains this morning:
Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs — including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — that threaten to drive the nation’s debt to levels not seen since World War II.

So what if he does? Republicans don't want Medicare, Medicaid nor Social Security, so in their eyes, wouldn't that be a good thing?

And why do Republicans keep crying, "Where are the jobs?" and then complain that "government does too much"?

I think it's just a case of "hate Obama".

 

[PoliticalChic]

What alternative do they have now? SS is bankrupt! All their SS that they paid in is

G O N E

I am talking about people like grandma's and grandpa's out there right now that depend on it.

Singapore has a law that literally makes it illegal to NOT save for your own retirement. Perhaps we need a law like that.

In 1981, Galveston County withdrew from the SS system.

I have read reports, some of which claim that their workers did better than SS, other reports say the opposite.

"The Galveston Plan. In 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it - and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages - or find a better way. We sought an "alternative plan" that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.

Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability.

Galveston officials held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Galveston County employees passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 - just in time.
•Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
•Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
•Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
•Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
•Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.
Galveston County: A Model for Social Security*Reform - Brief Analysis #514



But-

"The Social Security Administration’s Office of Policy conducted a study of the Galveston plan. It found that benefits under the plan are generally inferior to those that Social Security provides:[6]

■The Galveston Plan “offers a lower initial ongoing benefit than Social Security for single workers with low earnings and for married workers at the low, middle, and high earnings level” (emphasis added).
■The Galveston offers lower subsequent benefits for nearly all workers because the initial benefits are eroded by inflation: “after 15 years Galveston’s benefits are lower than Social Security’s for all family/earner types with the exception of single, very high earners. After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”
The Social Security Administration study also found that the comparison of disability and survivors benefits under the Galveston plan to those that Social Security provides depends on an individual’s specific circumstances, but that in general, people who receive these benefits for longer periods of time would be worse off under the Galveston plan because the benefits under that plan fail to keep pace with inflation."

Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


I don't have the expertise to pick out the truth.

Anybody?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Why does anyone think this "opinion piece" is anywhere near accurate?

Interesting though that the righties are suddenly pro SSI. Aren't you the ones who wanted it privatized?

That was when they thought they could find a way to make a profit off of it!

 

[ProudFossil]

Why does anyone think this "opinion piece" is anywhere near accurate?

Interesting though that the righties are suddenly pro SSI. Aren't you the ones who wanted it privatized?

That was when they thought they could find a way to make a profit off of it!

If my memory serves me right, in one of his State of the Union speeches President G. W. Bush said they had tried to set up some type of panel, similar to the one the great Zero is trying to do, to evaluate how to fix Social Security since it was running out of money. He then said due to the opposition of the Democrats that idea had been dropped. The ENTIRE DEMOCRAT side of the aisle stood up and cheered and laughed and took all the credit for saving Social Security.
Here it is several years later and now the same IDIOTIC democrats want to do away with it entirely. Lying bunch of misfits who would not know the first thing about helping anybody except for their own pocketbooks.

 

[Murf76]

I'm going to reserve judgment until I see what they come up with. I'm not somebody who approves of Social Security/Medicare anyway on Constitutional grounds. But in consideration of the fact that they do exist... they must be dealt with. Entitlement expenses are out of control and wrecking us.

Based on this one article, it sounds like this board can only make recommendations to the legislature, and while I have no trust left for Obama appointees, it's hard to imagine they could do much worse than Congress has done so far.

While I agree that the Constitutionality of both Medicare and Social Security has always been in question, care has to be taken here.

Promises have been made and people have planned their lives around those promises. Those promise must be honored.

Yes, they should. But... long term a Constitutional solution must be found.

I'm in agreement with you both. I don't think we can simply end Social Security/Medicare. It's not right to pull the rug out from under people like that.

I do think we could phase it out over time though.

 

[AmericasBrave58]

Every time something good happens like in the election of Scott Brown, Obama goes behind closed doors during the euphoria of it all and plots. Read this.

Obama Cuts Deal that Will Reduce Social Security, Medicare and all Entitlements

washingtonpost.com

The Obama administration literally collapsed yesterday. Any pretense of liberal change was washed away in a closed door deal to cut entitlements. While the Massachusetts voters were casting their ballots to install the upstart Republican Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, President Obama was hammering out an agreement with Democratic leaders to support a plan to issue an executive order to cut entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

As the Washington Post explains this morning:
Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs — including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — that threaten to drive the nation’s debt to levels not seen since World War II.

H e don't give a shit, what happens to the Seniors,Poor and Disabled and anybody else, who is not living off a silver platter.He is one worthless greedy selfish, piece of shit!!low-life Poor Killing good for nothing traitor., and i am soooo!!! sorry i helped bring his worthless ass into office.So!!! Help me God!!!! I am.

 

[namvet]

There's nothing wrong with this and it's actually something that is needed, Clinton did the same thing with the Kerry-Danforth Commission and the commissions findings were quite solid (too bad special interests killed any chance of any of them being turned into policy).

We need to do something about the skyrocketing costs of entitlements because they will, in the not too distant future, completely bankrupt this country. I just hope that President Obama can convince people like Peter J. Peterson to participate on this commission like Mr. Peterson did on the Kerry-Danforth commission, along with at least some other rational non-Keynesian worshiping economists, perhaps something quite useful will come out of it.

Do you think we need to do away with SS all together?

Personally I think it should have never been implemented in the first place, however we are stuck with it now as I do not see any real possibility (in my lifetime) of eliminating it other than by some catastrophic circumstance. So to answer your question, yes I would prefer to see it eliminated but I'm a realist.

That being said, I found the contents of the Kerry-Danforth Commission findings as to how we can make SS sustainable over the long term very interesting and logical (to me anyways), if you're interested in the subject Mr. Peterson wrote an excellent book on the subject (as well as many other related topics).....

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Running-Empty-Democratic-Republican-Bankrupting/dp/0312424620/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264092138&sr=1-1"]Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It[/ame] - By Peter G. Peterson

your an idiot