Republicans immediately begin playing games with Social Security

[RobDownSouth]

Republicans now have a majority in the Senate.

They've immediately manufactured a crisis by putting a hold on routine transfers to/from retirement to disability accounts, essentially pitting retirees against the disabled.

Thankfully, Elizabeth Warren called them out on their cowardly Vettemanesque behavior.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Warren is proving to be quite the national asset.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

She's proving to be quite the radical commie the both of you will be toe sucking on in the absence of Obama.

I'll join in on that!

 

[KingOrfeo]

She's proving to be quite the radical commie the both of you will be toe sucking on in the absence of Obama.

Do you even understand what this is about?

Wednesday, Jan 7, 2015 02:53 PM EST

GOP’s new attack on Social Security: Yet another result of government for the 1 percent

Why is the GOP Congress immediately targeting Social Security? Because it's what their real constituents want

Elias Isquith

As I and many others wrote at the time, one of the few unifying characteristics of last year’s midterm elections was their paucity of greater meaning. Granted, that’s always the case with midterms, at least to some degree, when the literally hundreds of federal and state-level elections lack a presidential campaign around which to position themselves. But as I argued then and still believe today, the 2014 cycle was especially perfunctory, especially shambolic and especially tangential to the truly important issues facing the United States today. And voters seemed to agree — or at least that’s my explanation for why so few of them bothered to show up.

However, even if I still can’t quite tell you what 2014 was about, I can tell you one thing that it most certainly wasn’t about: a supposedly pressing need to make significant cuts to Social Security, which remains one of the precious few big government programs that still enjoys high levels of widespread, bipartisan support. That’s not to say Americans don’t support reforming Social Security, or that they’re not open to considering making some benefit cuts (primarily for the wealthy); they do and they are. But it is to say that no one could argue, at least not with a straight face, that cutting Social Security benefits was a major topic of the year’s many debates. And yet, according to two of the Senate’s most popular and influential liberals, that’s one of the very first things the new, GOP-controlled Congress is trying to do.

According to a Tuesday report from the Huffington Post’s Arthur Delaney, both Sen. Sherrod Brown and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have decried a new parliamentary rule just established by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives that will, they and other Social Security advocates say, make it nearly certain that millions of Americans will see their benefits slashed. The reasons for this are a bit arcane — Kathy Ruffing of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank has a good rundown here — but the gist is that Republicans will now mandate that a routine shifting of funds from one part of Social Security to another can only be done if it’s accompanied by cuts (which most Democrats will oppose) and/or tax increases (which nearly all Republicans will oppose). And if these hurdles go predictably uncleared? An estimated 11 million Americans on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) will see their benefits cut by 20 percent.

As the underrated Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik correctly notes, the rule change is a result not only of conservatives’ traditional antipathy for Social Security but also of their newfound conviction that SSDI, in particular, is out of control. (A conviction that was strengthened by no less a liberal darling than Ira Glass.) They’re wrong on this score — the number of people on SSDI has indeed increased, but not because of any moocher chicanery — but because the SSDI-handout-machine narrative has become an article of faith among the conservative rank-and-file, it hardly matters. Brown, Warren and left-of-center activists and wonks can rail all they want — but they no doubt understand as well as House Republicans that launching a campaign against a parliamentary maneuver is, politically, a tough sell.

Of course, it’s not surprising to hear that liberals are incensed over this cloak-and-dagger attempt to bleed Social Security. What’s more noteworthy, I think, is the way in which the move by Republicans (which, keep in mind, they did on the new Congress’ very first day) is so dramatically removed from whatever motivated those few voters who showed up last November to hand the GOP its big win. Cutting SSDI has no serious effect on the issues that motivated most conservative voters — cutting taxes, dismantling Obamacare, approving the Keystone XL pipeline and increasing deportations for undocumented immigrants. It wasn’t even on their radar. Politicians are supposed to react to their constituents’ wishes; who was clamoring for this?

Well, you can probably guess who: the Republican-supporting members of the 1 percent. As Princeton’s Larry Bartels and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page and Larry Seawright found in a 2013 study that I consider essential reading for those who want to understand U.S. politics today, the only significant demographic group in America that wants to see cuts to Social Security ASAP is the 1 percent. Wealthy Americans, Bartels and Page wrote in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, not only care much more about the budget deficit than most Americans, but are “also much less likely to favor raising taxes on high-income people” as a solution, preferring instead “that entitlement programs like Social Security and healthcare be cut.” And as an equally important 2014 study from Page and Princeton’s Martin Gilens found, D.C. politicians care vastly more about the concerns of the wealthy than they do those of anyone else.

So if you’re scratching your head over why Republicans are so eager to attack a program as beloved by voters as Social Security, don’t. Just keep in mind that so long as American politics is dominated by the hyper-wealthy, the hopes and fears of regular voters only matter until the final ballot is cast. Once the latest election is over, once lawmakers begin their brief sabbatical between the last campaign and the next, Washington returns to its real primary concern: doing the bidding of their real constituents, the 1 percent.

 

[RobDownSouth]

She's proving to be quite the radical commie the both of you will be toe sucking on in the absence of Obama.

She could probably kick your pathetic cowardly America-hating ass.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Do you even understand what this is about?

Wednesday, Jan 7, 2015 02:53 PM EST

GOP’s new attack on Social Security: Yet another result of government for the 1 percent

Why is the GOP Congress immediately targeting Social Security? Because it's what their real constituents want

Elias Isquith

As I and many others wrote at the time, one of the few unifying characteristics of last year’s midterm elections was their paucity of greater meaning. Granted, that’s always the case with midterms, at least to some degree, when the literally hundreds of federal and state-level elections lack a presidential campaign around which to position themselves. But as I argued then and still believe today, the 2014 cycle was especially perfunctory, especially shambolic and especially tangential to the truly important issues facing the United States today. And voters seemed to agree — or at least that’s my explanation for why so few of them bothered to show up.

However, even if I still can’t quite tell you what 2014 was about, I can tell you one thing that it most certainly wasn’t about: a supposedly pressing need to make significant cuts to Social Security, which remains one of the precious few big government programs that still enjoys high levels of widespread, bipartisan support. That’s not to say Americans don’t support reforming Social Security, or that they’re not open to considering making some benefit cuts (primarily for the wealthy); they do and they are. But it is to say that no one could argue, at least not with a straight face, that cutting Social Security benefits was a major topic of the year’s many debates. And yet, according to two of the Senate’s most popular and influential liberals, that’s one of the very first things the new, GOP-controlled Congress is trying to do.

According to a Tuesday report from the Huffington Post’s Arthur Delaney, both Sen. Sherrod Brown and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have decried a new parliamentary rule just established by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives that will, they and other Social Security advocates say, make it nearly certain that millions of Americans will see their benefits slashed. The reasons for this are a bit arcane — Kathy Ruffing of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank has a good rundown here — but the gist is that Republicans will now mandate that a routine shifting of funds from one part of Social Security to another can only be done if it’s accompanied by cuts (which most Democrats will oppose) and/or tax increases (which nearly all Republicans will oppose). And if these hurdles go predictably uncleared? An estimated 11 million Americans on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) will see their benefits cut by 20 percent.

As the underrated Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik correctly notes, the rule change is a result not only of conservatives’ traditional antipathy for Social Security but also of their newfound conviction that SSDI, in particular, is out of control. (A conviction that was strengthened by no less a liberal darling than Ira Glass.) They’re wrong on this score — the number of people on SSDI has indeed increased, but not because of any moocher chicanery — but because the SSDI-handout-machine narrative has become an article of faith among the conservative rank-and-file, it hardly matters. Brown, Warren and left-of-center activists and wonks can rail all they want — but they no doubt understand as well as House Republicans that launching a campaign against a parliamentary maneuver is, politically, a tough sell.

Of course, it’s not surprising to hear that liberals are incensed over this cloak-and-dagger attempt to bleed Social Security. What’s more noteworthy, I think, is the way in which the move by Republicans (which, keep in mind, they did on the new Congress’ very first day) is so dramatically removed from whatever motivated those few voters who showed up last November to hand the GOP its big win. Cutting SSDI has no serious effect on the issues that motivated most conservative voters — cutting taxes, dismantling Obamacare, approving the Keystone XL pipeline and increasing deportations for undocumented immigrants. It wasn’t even on their radar. Politicians are supposed to react to their constituents’ wishes; who was clamoring for this?

Well, you can probably guess who: the Republican-supporting members of the 1 percent. As Princeton’s Larry Bartels and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page and Larry Seawright found in a 2013 study that I consider essential reading for those who want to understand U.S. politics today, the only significant demographic group in America that wants to see cuts to Social Security ASAP is the 1 percent. Wealthy Americans, Bartels and Page wrote in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, not only care much more about the budget deficit than most Americans, but are “also much less likely to favor raising taxes on high-income people” as a solution, preferring instead “that entitlement programs like Social Security and healthcare be cut.” And as an equally important 2014 study from Page and Princeton’s Martin Gilens found, D.C. politicians care vastly more about the concerns of the wealthy than they do those of anyone else.

So if you’re scratching your head over why Republicans are so eager to attack a program as beloved by voters as Social Security, don’t. Just keep in mind that so long as American politics is dominated by the hyper-wealthy, the hopes and fears of regular voters only matter until the final ballot is cast. Once the latest election is over, once lawmakers begin their brief sabbatical between the last campaign and the next, Washington returns to its real primary concern: doing the bidding of their real constituents, the 1 percent.

First, why do you constantly cite those who write for notorious liars such as Salon?

Second, there is no pending reduction in Social Security benefits. If there were, those who collect such benefits would have been notified.

Third, despite the similarity in names, Social Security and SSDI have almost nothing in common. The former is a pension, paid into by individual workers and their employers throughout the lives of those workers and doled out once retirement and the age of at least 62 is reached. SSDI is a form of welfare and is given to people who convince social workers they have such serious injuries or illnesses as to preclude their ever again being self-supporting. That is not meant to be a criticism of most SSDI recipients, because most of them are honest.

I mention these differences to show how dishonest the cited article is.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Grampa Kiddiefucker is in full dudgeon again, the article talks about upcoming benefit cuts but that not what he's criticizing them for.

Like the good Nazi he is, he hates Salon.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't cite Salon because Repubicans hate it but when have they actually been caught in a lie? I feel like they are the site equivalent of Rachel Maddow. Hated by the team she calls out and unsupported by the people who should champion her but rarely wrong and apologizing when found wrong.

And there is a pending decrease though I would definitely side with the argument that calling 2016 pending is extraordinarily misleading.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Your Internet badness is probably as credible as her native American roots.

Fuck off, RoboStomach.

I notice you don't deny the fact that she'd likely kick your ass, your two navy crosses notwithstanding.

You're such a wimp.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why should I have to deny an impossibility, in support of your lies, and false premise?

You sure do talk tough.

 

[jomar]

Gotta hand it to Republicans, though. They're better in the trenches than Democrats. Obstructionists are now calling for compromise like that's what they wanted all along so how dare Obama use his presidential powers. Who was the guy who benefitted from Affirmative Action now against it? And it takes some brass to blame a man for something you did.

I did some state level political stuff and it was ugly and not for the faint of heart. And the best and the brightest dont necessarily have the public's best interest in mind, though I suppose that's fairly obvious.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't cite Salon because Repubicans hate it but when have they actually been caught in a lie? I feel like they are the site equivalent of Rachel Maddow. Hated by the team she calls out and unsupported by the people who should champion her but rarely wrong and apologizing when found wrong.

And there is a pending decrease though I would definitely side with the argument that calling 2016 pending is extraordinarily misleading.

There is actually an increase this year.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...0/22/5-social-security-changes-coming-in-2015

ETA: Perhaps I should have said they make misleading statements. If you look at the article, you will see the writer often refers to Social Security when he should be referring to SSDI.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There is actually an increase this year.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...0/22/5-social-security-changes-coming-in-2015

ETA: Perhaps I should have said they make misleading statements. If you look at the article, you will see the writer often refers to Social Security when he should be referring to SSDI.

I concur that the statement is misleading. The cuts are in 2016 and only if nothing is done. The only reason this is even close to newsworthy is that the Republicans over the last four years have proven they are willing to ignore decades of this is what needs to be done and have no fear of crashing us into the rocks. But i have to believe the fever has broken.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I concur that the statement is misleading. The cuts are in 2016 and only if nothing is done. The only reason this is even close to newsworthy is that the Republicans over the last four years have proven they are willing to ignore decades of this is what needs to be done and have no fear of crashing us into the rocks. But i have to believe the fever has broken.

You, sir, are an optimist.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

She's proving to be quite the radical commie the both of you will be toe sucking on in the absence of Obama.

So? You'll still be licking Republican taint, even if it's someone you don't believe in.

 

[Dumpington]

Playing games with Social Security?

Social Security will go bankrupt long before the Republicans can tamper with it.

President Obama and today's Democratic Party are all about giving out more & more government entitlements, and they will block any G.O.P. efforts to stop that, including with Social Security, because that's how their party survives.

In 2008, while campaigning for the oval office, U.S. Senator Barack Obama lambasted then-President Bush for adding $4-trillion to America's debt during Bush's eight-years in office, but in the six-years Obama has been president, our debt has already risen by $7.5-trillion and will easily reach $10-trillion by Inauguration Day, 2017.

The U.S. Democratic Party cannot survive without increasing our national debt.

 

[Disgustipated]

Social Security will go bankrupt long before the Republicans can tamper with it.

President Obama and today's Democratic Party are all about giving out more & more government entitlements, and they will block any G.O.P. efforts to stop that, including with Social Security, because that's how their party survives.

In 2008, while campaigning for the oval office, U.S. Senator Barack Obama lambasted then-President Bush for adding $4-trillion to America's debt during Bush's eight-years in office, but in the six-years Obama has been president, our debt has already risen by $7.5-trillion and will easily reach $10-trillion by Inauguration Day, 2017.

The U.S. Democratic Party cannot survive without increasing our national debt.

What are the GOP efforts?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Social Security will go bankrupt long before the Republicans can tamper with it.

President Obama and today's Democratic Party are all about giving out more & more government entitlements, and they will block any G.O.P. efforts to stop that, including with Social Security, because that's how their party survives.

In 2008, while campaigning for the oval office, U.S. Senator Barack Obama lambasted then-President Bush for adding $4-trillion to America's debt during Bush's eight-years in office, but in the six-years Obama has been president, our debt has already risen by $7.5-trillion and will easily reach $10-trillion by Inauguration Day, 2017.

The U.S. Democratic Party cannot survive without increasing our national debt.

Well lambaste is a strong word. If you mean the comment on raising the debt ceiling yeah, he's since learned.

You do know Social Security can't actually go bankrupt right? Or are you retarded?

 

[dan_c00000]

She's proving to be quite the radical commie the both of you will be toe sucking on in the absence of Obama.

It wasn't that long ago that radical toe sucking GOP representative demanded health insurance.

Now granted that was a while ago but let's see if he's up to anything new? Nope I guess not.

See vette look at more of your heroes demanding free government shit but taking it away from everyone else.

 

[KingOrfeo]

First, why do you constantly cite those who write for notorious liars such as Salon?

I've never yet caught 'em out in a lie.

Second, there is no pending reduction in Social Security benefits. If there were, those who collect such benefits would have been notified.

Third, despite the similarity in names, Social Security and SSDI have almost nothing in common. The former is a pension, paid into by individual workers and their employers throughout the lives of those workers and doled out once retirement and the age of at least 62 is reached. SSDI is a form of welfare and is given to people who convince social workers they have such serious injuries or illnesses as to preclude their ever again being self-supporting. That is not meant to be a criticism of most SSDI recipients, because most of them are honest.

I mention these differences to show how dishonest the cited article is.

SSDI is administered by the Social Security Administration and funded by the same FICA payroll tax as retirement benefits. It's Social Security; there's more than one form. Both are meant to support people who, for one reason or another, cannot support themselves with work. Though, as noted in the article linked, conservatives seem concerned to draw a distinction -- retirement benefits are too third-railey to mention, but they seem to regard SSDI as too much like welfare for their tastes.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Social Security will go bankrupt long before the Republicans can tamper with it.

Cite?

 

[Dumpington]

Sean Renaud wrote: "Well lambaste is a strong word."

Senator Obama said that President Bush was "unpatriotic" for allowing America's debt to rise by $4-trillion. Is calling somebody "unpatriotic" lambasting them?

Of course, under President Obama, our debt has already risen by $7.5-trillion in only six-years, which makes President Obama SPECTACULARLY UNPATRIOTIC by Senator Obama's standards.

Senator Obama would also most likely be outraged by this current president's multiple scandals and foreign policy incompetence.