Obama's Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled

The Social Security reforms enacted in 1983:

That package implements over many years changes that ultimately cut benefits about 19 percent. The biggest change, by far, is an increase in the age when full benefits are available, from 65 to 67 in 2022. At that point, benefits claimed at ages 65 or 66 will be about 13 percent lower than they would had the retirement age not been boosted.

Here's an example of what happens when the full retirement age rises. If you were born between 1943 and 1954, your full retirement age is 66. "If you decided to take benefits early at 65, you would no longer get a full benefit, but a fraction of a full benefit," explains Virginia Reno, vice president for income security at the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI). "On the other hand, by waiting until 66, you used to get more than a full benefit when the full retirement age was 65--now you don't."

The Obama commission calls for increasing Social Security's full and early retirement ages, "based on increases in life expectancy." The changes would effectively reset full retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075; the early retirement age would rise to 63 and 64 in those same years.

That approach may sound reasonable and gradual, but it's not if you're age 29 or younger. You'll bear the brunt not only of the 1983 cuts, but yet another round of reductions on the order of 20 percent.
About Mitt Romney 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled

Obama, DickDurbin, NancyPelosi, all have "embraced" SimpsonBowles.  

Obama's DeficitCommission was designed to be as anti-democratic and untransparent as possible.  Its work is done in total secrecy.  It's filled with behind-the-scenes political and corporate operatives who refused to talk to the public about what they're doing.  Its recommendations were released in December2010, right after the election, to ensure that its proposals are shielded from public anger.   And the House passed a non-binding resolution calling for an up-or-down/no-amendments vote on the Commission's recommendations, long considered the key tactic to ensuring its enactment. 

The whole point of the Commission is that the steps which Washington wants to take -- particularly cuts in popular social programs, such as SocialSecurity -- can occur only if they're removed as far as possible from democratic accountability.  As the economist JamesGalbraith put it when testifying before the Commission in July: 

Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. . . . First, most of your meetings are secret. There's no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. . . . 

Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in SocialSecurity and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public . . . 

Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission's accepted support from PetePeterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut SocialSecurity and Medicare, raises the most serious questions.

That's why Commission co-chair AlanSimpson -- with his blunt contempt for SocialSecurity and other benefit programs (such as aid to disabled veterans) and his acknowledged eagerness to slash them -- has done the country a serious favor.  His outbursts have unmasked this Commission and shed light on its true character.  Unlike his fellow Commission members, who imperiously dismiss public inquiries into what they're doing as though they're annoying and inappropriate, Simpson's been aggressively engaging critics, making it impossible to ignore what the Commission's really up to.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

Go ahead; I did (see link up at first posted comment - Are you supporting the real Obama or the idea of Obama?). ;-)
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled

Don't you think you ought to find out what he means, precisely, before assuming?

Obama has led us astray on just about everything that he campaigned on in 2008.  He has a bad habit of secretly negotiating behind our backs and then railroading his bad deals (for the 99%) through to law.  Whether it was that corporate giveaway to insurance and pharmaceutical industries' ACA or continuing the Bush tax cuts, Obama has sold the 99%'s interests out.  

Obama has said that he's using Simpson-Bowles as a template.  He said that he liked what Reagan did.  What he offered Republicans already were cuts to benefits.  

Wake up.  Stop allowing politicians to be vague.  You're killing us all.
About Mitt Romney 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled

 Obama is embracing Simpson-Bowles and is "favoring" what Reagan did.

What do you believe is in Simpson-Bowles?  What do you believe Reagan did?
About Mitt Romney 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

Romney: The Less Effective Evil (Making Obama The MORE Effective Evil):


“Austerity is killing the economy and causing terrible hardships, but [Democrats] didn’t make that case.”

“[Democrats] leapt upon the words which even Romney called “inelegantly stated” and in the process showed their own brand of evil. [Democrats] could have pointed out that Americans should expect decent housing and medical care. They could have noted that there are nations around the world who do provide for their citizens’ basic needs, and that they are more advanced as a result.”

“Instead of shooting fish in the barrel when even conservative pundits piled on the Romney condemnation, they could have advocated for a different conversation about the role of government in our lives. Austerity is killing the economy and causing terrible hardships, but [Democrats] didn’t make that case. Because there are enough Americans with some degree of need for government support, the Romney comments made for great political theater. But if [Democrats] were interested it could have been an opportunity for so much more.”


“Obama proved that he has no more regard for people living on the margins than Romney has when he put Social Security and Medicare on the budget cutting table. He convened a budget deficit commission and packed it with pro-austerity conservatives without anyone in either party having asked him to do so. If he is re-elected he will waste no time in making another grand bargain with the Republicans which will come at the expense of the 47%.”
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument reeks of denial.  Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  
If Republican­s are such scvm (and I believe they are, and you must, too, as a democrat) and "so dangerous"­, why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g them?

Why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the greatest heist on the People in all history? 

Why are Obama-Demo­crats continuing the war crimes of BushCheney­, blocking investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns into their crimes?

How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminally corrupt administra­tion in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administra­tion. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the BushAdmini­stration). Instead of returning the democracy to the American people, Obama's AttorneyGe­neral has US attorneys going after legalized medicinal marijuana in the states and Bush-style obscenity prosecutio­ns: 

http://www­.pittsburg­hlive.com/­x/pittsbur­ghtrib/s_6­91667.html

How do Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain his putting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, et al, on the table for benefits' cuts?  

And then there's the escalation of wars, continued occupation of Afghanistan, NDAA, and Obama's atrocious environmental record.
 
You defend Obama at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporatio­ns and establishm­ent elites.

Why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republicans?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...