Tweet
By Alex Lawson, Communications Director for Social Security Works.
This is the fourth installment of our weekly livestream of the Closed Door Debt Commission. The best action is around 9:15am and 11:30am, right as members of the commission are entering and leaving.
With unemployment hovering around 10 percent following the worst economic collapse in 70 years you would think that members of Congress would be working day and night to get Americans back to work. You would be wrong.
The deficit fear mongers have done such a number on the thinking in DC that members of Congress think that when the American people say "we need jobs!" that they are really saying "cut my Social Security." But, I guess that when a billionaire Wall Street banker spreads $12 million dollars around town it can really confuse people.
So now we are faced with another DC closed door meeting where lawmakers are going to talk about what government services they can cut to placate bondholders (who in reality don’t need much placating).
Every week I am looking for interesting questions to ask the members of the commission, if you have any ideas please leave them in the comment section.
This week is the meeting of the Mandatory Spending Working Group. See the membership of the working groups below.
35 Comments
I think I just heard Alan Simpson say “no one is ‘cutting’ Social Security”–with “cutting” said in such a way that you could practically see the air quotes.
Jesus a Far-right and center-right make-up, would it have killed them to include one token liberal or even just a Keynesian?
When they talk about cutting ss what do they mean? Will they just announce something like “Hey! Poor old people, you will now be getting 20% less of your social security! Too bad. So sad.”
I’m just not seeing how this would ever pass any Congress with half a brain. The administration used up most of it’s veal pen mojo in the healthcare debate. Also, I love how I guess we should balance the budget on the backs of pensioners when we have such a vast wealth disparity and a beyond bloated military budget.
Are they talking specific catfood brands yet, or are we not that far along?
Correction:
“Hey! Poor old people, you will now be getting 20% less of your social security! Too bad. So sad. Another magnum of Dom over her for Rep. Ryan…”
Glad I could help.
A question for co-chair Alan Simpson:
You have repeatedly made false statements about cost of living adjustments for Social Security.
Why does this not disqualify you from serving on this commission?
Jeebus, why doesn’t Simpson ever question the amount of money being borrowed for wars?
Is it because killing off American troops means they won’t be here to place a burden on the Social Security system in 60-plus years?
This is very simple. Any politician who tries to cut Social Security will LOSE. Any political party that tries to cut Social Security will LOSE. The same is true for Medicare. But I think support for Social Security and Medicare is likely to be a WINNER.
Also Pete Peterson should return the hundreds of millions of dollars he received from the Insurance due to the destruction of World Trade Center 7. Why should he profit from the murder of three thousand people. Then he uses his profits from 9-11 to steal our Social Security.
Wal-Mart store brand. No other options even being considered.
On edit: That would be the kind made in China with poison as a major ingredient. What better way to cut ss than to decrease the number of people collecting it ‘by attrition.’
Scarecrow has a fresh cross-post up: It Takes Real Money to . . . Change a Nation: Time for a Firedoglake Fundraiser
Proposed question:
If you’re genuinely concerned about the deficit, have you considered the possibility of raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations as well as taxing churches, rather than screwing the middle and working classes and the poor on behalf of your corporate paymasters?
Here’s a question: Ask them how do they expect to reduce the deficit with high unemployment and the attending falling off of tax receipts. Wouldn’t creating jobs increase tax revenue and therefore lower the deficit? Ask them if they have ever heard the axiom, “You have to spend some money to make money”. I know these seem basic and almost puerile but it seems to me like we’re dealing with children so puerile is appropriate.
Here’s my question: Why can’t we draw down the Social Security Trust Fund?
The answer is that we would have to raise taxes to do that, and these toads and the billionaires they toady for would have to pay more. We can’t have that, now can we?
Better to make average citizens pay twice, first to fill up the Trust Fund, then more to make sure we don’t have to repay it.
It wouldn’t have killed them but such inclusion wouldn’t have produced the desired, indeed the pre-ordained result.
I wish someone would ask them how much Social Security has contributed to our nearly $12 Trillion debt. Because I’m pretty sure the answer is zero. Therefore, if the answer is zero, why is Social Security even in the discussions.
Assholes.
Because it’s a kabuki panel composed of right wingers.
EDIT: But I’m sure it’s just more eleventy seven dimensional chess by out genius in chief.
Screwing the middle and working classes and the poor on behalf of your corporate paymasters is the whole idea. Democrats and Republicans are tools of the Oligarchy. If you support either of the legacy parties you are digging your own grave.
Yeah, but what I don’t get is why NO, I mean not ONE, media type asks that question.
I mean WTF?? We get attacked by a bunch of guys from Saudia Arabia acting in the interests of an organization based in Afghanistan, and we respond by attacking Iraq????
So now, we run up huge deficits, never seen before, and we attack something that hasn’t added one penny to that debt???
Dog bless America.
Sorry, I should have added the snark tag. yep, I knew exactly what you were saying. I too wonder why nobody but Barney Frank seems to want to cut the defense budget down to something more rational.
Another question:
It goes without saying that non-billionaire elderly should be put down upon reaching the
age of Social Security eligibility. Some say that this should be done by the
Department of Health and Human Services or Homeland Security,
but wouldn’t that be a Federal power grab of a function that rightly belongs in the private sector?
I’m not a journalist and these may be silly questions, but I’d like to say these questions, among others:
“I’m sure the commission is also working on a replacement plan to feed and house the disabled and old, since I know that good Christian people like you wouldn’t leave them to starve on the streets. I’d like an outline of the plan that the commission is forming. I’ll walk with you to your office to pick it up.”
“Why do you think Obama chose you to be on the commission? Which, of your many gifts and experiences, do you most use in working through the difficult lengthy process of deciding how to serve our old and disabled?”
“Why have you prioritized Social Security over the Defense Budget to trim our deficit?”
“Why pick Social Security reduction rather than reducing tax credits to our largest corporations, since they, of all among us, are doing the least bad?”
“Since the Social Security fund is still in surplus, will the FICA tax be lowered as you phase out SS? Why not?”
“We are aware that the government has used all the monies for our social insurance and has replaced them with empty bonds. Is the commission working on establishing better regulation, with teeth, to make sure that this will not continue to happen with money put into our insurance fund? Why not?”
“Is the commission also working on plans to reduce pensions to federal government employees? Why not? If you are planning to reduce the only “pension” that many workers have, then federal employees also must take the hit.”
“Has the commission been working on a proposal to reduce SS only for those who have other working pensions, or who have retirement savings over a certain amount, or who have large inheritances? What do you think of this idea? Why do you think it is the wrong way to go?”
Well, you know, they can’t have people pushing oxygen tanks wheelchair-marching on DC, so they will probably just raise the eligible age, cut the $$, ask nothing of the wealthy and grandfather in those already getting checks. They know they don’t have to worry about working-age folks making a fuss because we are too busy just trying to survive. I fear that my cats’ current food will be too expensive before long and we will be fighting over that Walmart crap. Note to self: grow longer, sharper fingernails.
Hormel chili is people!!
We all know that the MIC provides a good jobs program and wealth builder. I think eventually we will go to building nothing but MIC products and, since the products have to be used, constant war. The increase in war will give the politicians good excuses to thank our war fighters and attack anyone that might possibly think that war is not the best path for our country. Anyway, that will cut down on the number of people needing Social Security. Everything the commission does is a win for everyone. Those who used to have jobs can now feel good that they’re supporting the war effort by not taking any desparately needed resources and, thus, live happily under the bridge.
I’m so glad that we have an example of how transparent this wh admin is with this deficit commission. I just can’t find the correct outlet so I can watch the debates as we were promised by obamarahma the candidate.
Is anybody going to realize that Social Security does not affect the deficit at all before they cut it?
It’s not a question of actually affecting the deficit. This is part of the dismantling of FDR’s “socialist” agenda. You can’t have the State taking care of people, even if they have contributed their own money. This State care makes a people soft. If there is no State care, the money can be pushed into the for profit sector and safely put into stocks to provide for a comfortable retirement. Also, people will more likely be available to become cannon fodder because they have no place else to turn.
I beg to differ and completely agree with PublicTakeover. There is a great series on Social Security this week–why it’s necessary to the health of our country and our citizens, and how it is fiscally sound. We need to get the counter argument out there, because our voices are being drowned out by the deficit hawks. Check it out, well worth the read: http://www.newdeal20.org/category/social-securitys-fiscal-fitness/
For the umpty-millionth time: Adjust the FICA contribution cap upwards a little teensy bit and this problem goes away. The time is right in that everyone now realizes tax rates for the ultra rich have become unsustainably low, and this is about the least painful way to begin to address that reality.
I realize that I’m answering this late and you probably won’t see it, but my answer was snarky. I didn’t think I’d have to explain considering my general answer and “cannon fodder” specifically. I just feel that snark loses some of its punch if you have to mark it plainly.
The deal is to eliminate employer 6.2% FICA, so business makes more money and the elderly die sooner. Plus VAT, no dividend tax, and lower corporate rates. It’s coming, thanks to Conrad, Gregg and Obama.
That’s because they’re going to put it in the stock market in time for the next crash. See? you have to read between the lines…..
Simpson says: “There is no surplus in there. It’s a bunch of IOUs….which have been used to build the interstate highway system and all of the things people have enjoyed since it has been setup.” Wasn’t that money taken from the people with the promise it would be used for SS? Was he in Congress when it was spent on Highways? Who gave him permission to take the money, spend it on highways, and replace with IOU’s? Wasn’t that a fraud on the people?
well fuck us running
just looking at that cast of characters tells me everything I need to know about my golden years