Yeah, sounds like Biden got out in front of his skis a bit.

Scary deficit! Entitlement reform! Government has to tightenitsbelt justlikeyourfamily!

Also too, Lily Ledbetter.

Aw, c’mon Jon. Biden’s promises are as genuine as his hair plugs and his resumé. But really, “no changes”, Joe? Some changes DO need to be made, like remove or raise the payroll tax cap at the least.

Biden may be yelling and promising that OBAMA will not change Social Security, because of the problem listed below:

The OBAMA problem everyone wants to ignore

Ohio polling is showing something that should concern Obama a lot, and make Dems run away from OBAMA

Obama is only leading Romney by 3 points

Democratic Senator Ohio Sherrod Brown is leading his challenger by 12 points

This means a lot of Dems are not voting for OBAMA, however they are voting for Down Ticket Dems.

Obama is getting kill by DC Group Think, no one on the left thinks cutting Social Security, Medicare, etc. is a great thing to do!

Obama also made 1 huge mistake! he done nothing for LEFT! he done nothing for Progressives, these are the main groups that vote for minority candidates.

Obama should have at least done something big for Progressives!

Obama is going to need the Intelligent Left to hold their noses and vote for him in Nov. ” Obama can’t expect low inform Dems to carry him to finish line”

This is why Biden is yelling to the Intelligent Left, hey guys we are not going to cut Social Security, Medicare, etc. because he knows like Obama knows, without Progressives they don’t win.

I simply can’t put much stock in this promise from the Obama campaign

Word. That dog don’t hunt.

Well, we had this conversation yesterday when Dayen broke the news, but I still believe that this is an easy promise for the WH to make, that they’ll be only too happy to let talk center around SS, characterize the Republicans as heartless, and be cutting the deals to sell out Medicare and Medicaid in the half-empty ballrooms of the second inaugural. (The American people sure won’t be showing up for them this time.)

Biden’s just the avuncular Joe to sell this meme.

Of COURSE it’s politics, but this wouldn’t be such a tough one to stick to, as Dayen pointed out.

I think it’s past time that campaign promises are put into writing, witnessed, and notarized. Should the candidate be elected and not work to fulfill these commitments, they will be subject to removal of body parts and financial penalties as justification for failure.

Much will depend on if, or how quickly, Biden is made to walk this back.

It’s been nearly twenty-four hours, and he hasn’t tried to “clarify” his remarks. That’s a good sign, as we can now hold him and Obama to this promise.

I’ll hold, you kick.

Obama is getting kill by DC Group Think, no one on the left thinks cutting Social Security, Medicare, etc. is a great thing to do!

You can include most voters; Dem/GOP/Indie or other.

Actually they don’t need to do anything. But we all get the vapors worrying about that silly fund, so yeah something will be done. Still stupid.

People are stupid and the pols know that. Obama cuts the payroll tax and Amero-dummies don’t understand he is cutting Social Security. The young people have already been brainwashed into believing SS won’t be there for them so why pay for “a bunch of old people” now. Progressives have done a HORRIBLE job defending SS in the MSM.

Ok but if he wants it to have any impact at all O will have to say it too. Otherwise, it is just Crazy Joe shooting off his mouth.

I wish, but you know how Biden says silly shit still, the longer this goes on without clarification the harder it will be to walk it back.

To be redundant:

Would you buy a used car from this guy??

No changes to Soc Sec?? My butt. And the changes that WILL BE made (count on it) no matter who “wins” the “election,” will NOT be the ones that should be made – like raising the FICA Cap, etc. Nup, the changes that WILL be made will enure to the benefit of the 1%, not the 99%.

You can take that to the bank…

What progressives are in the MSM?

If you can find one with an electron microscope, please let me know. /not really snark, but no offense intended.

Could be because the corporate MSM doesn’t contain or interview real progressives, just poseurs.

Well, why not,just let JPMorgan mange the fund with a little help from Bain?

In a speech today Obama said that no one will lose any money from their SS. He seems(?) to have gotten the message.

All of the Obama Administration’s other promises have been kept…

Seems Legit.

That doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement for future retirees.

Why didn’t you let me know you were typing that response as I was typing mine? Well, I guess redundancy may be appropriate in this case. Anything to disabuse people of the misconception that “experts” making tons of money for their opinions are relevant.

No, it doesn’t – we shall see. Mitt/Paul would get rid of it within 6 months if elected.

He’s quite adept at lying, but I’m sure he’s being truthful this time./s

Didn’t hear that. Does that confirm what Biden said?

Of course the Obama administration will make no changes to Social Security.

That would be difficult. He proved with Health Care Reform which turned into health insurance reform that he won’t fix anything if it’s difficult.

The 2011 deficit of tax income relative to cost was $148 billion, and the projected 2012 deficit is $165 billion. The sizes of these deficits are largely due to a temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax for 2011 and 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers from the General Fund of the Treasury to the trust funds to “replicate to the extent possible” revenues that would have occurred in the absence of the payroll tax reduction.

Raising the payroll tax cap doesn’t really do much unless you change the benefits formula.

And if you’re going to change the benefits formula anyway, you don’t need to raise the payroll tax cap.

Ol’ Joe is frequently “hangin’ ten”.

Red flag…………Let’s go to the replay booth.

(I know you were just kiddin’)

That would be nice.

1. public option and 2. renegotiate nafta all come to mind.

I think that depends on what your definition of “noone” is.

So, Obama says that no one will lose any money from SS? Sounds like weasel words to me.

I have no idea what that means.

You’d think the odds would eventually catch up with him. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I may eventually be willing to consider Romney’s pick of Ryan an indirect good thing.

Romney’s pick of Ryan is only a good think if you think of the increased honesty we can expect from the political press now. Ryan will tell us in no uncertain terms what we can expect from the White House over the next four years, regardless of who wins the election.

Dear Twain, I have been beating the bushes out there in Google land looking for a quote from Obama saying what you said he said.

Do you have a link for that?

HA!
there it is – ‘loose no $’
those are code words for private accounts people. obama, as per usual, following his heroes b.clinton&g.w.bush – weasel words from a sneaky selfish weasel

private accounts are the ‘end of soc sec as we know it’ to express it in billy-boy’s orwellian framing

the simple fact (as noted by ADC14) is that, by ending the payroll tax Obama has already 1. changed soc sec and 2. consciously weakened the program to ensure that the program goes further in the hole and thus making it easier for a faux dem such as he is or a predatory repub such as romney to trot out the scary ‘deficit’ boogieman and slash away, recalculate interest rates, raise the retirement age, allow banks to profit from the ‘investing’ of soc sec $s, otherwise known as private accounts (we saw in 2007&8 how that sh*t works out for retirees & the sick)

the goal of both of these big business lap dogs is to deliver the soc sec trust fund to the private hands of the rich&felonious – that’s it

the simple and uncontrovertible fact is that to support either candidate is to ensure that you will be less secure & the banks will have more of your money & the killing and warrantless surveillance will continue

here’s an idea to cut the deficit – stop the illegal wars

Sounds like he’s saying there’s no money left to lose.

They would if they could. However, the Democrats in Congress might actually fight them since their desire to be bi-partisany will likely be smaller.

Mind you THAT is a gamble too since the Dems are rollover artists when push comes to shove 9 times out of 10.

He, by funding the payroll tax cut through general funds, has effectively negated the argument that Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit.

cwaltz is correct – not only did obama diminish the trust fund, but he also broke the commitment of the original plan..that the $s generated for the fund would pay out soc sec insurance – the specific proposal was written so that $s could not be copped from the fund by sneaky politicians – sneaky weasel obama did both, diminish the fund & destroy its scantity –

woo hoo .. DLC-Dems are thieves

by the way what’s with the meme that it somehow benefits the dems that romney picked ryan because ryan ‘wants to cut soc sec’?

- obama has been very clear that he wants to further impoverish our children and elderly by destroying the Soc Sec promise, he hired simpson/bowels, he speaks plainly about his vulture like desires to reduce Soc Sec benefits, in fact he whines about not getting more credit for throwing Soc Sec under the banker’s bus – who on earth believes that Ryan and Obama don’t have the same exact disgusting and amoral scheme in their lap dog little brains? – - to please the rich by robbing the sick&old

Rmoney & his Ayn-Randian-fixated-goofie sidekick are peddling (in response to string pulling puppet-master-doofus Rich Lowry) that the Dems are gutting Medicare.

Set in the context of that biggest of all big lies, Joe Biden is right: compared to the repugs, the dems are keeping their hands off my social security! You go, Joe!

sneaky weasel obama did both, diminish the fund & destroy its scantity

He may have destroyed its sanctity, but by diminishing the fund he’s furthered its scantity .

The young people have already been brainwashed into believing SS won’t be there for them so why pay for “a bunch of old people” now.

Partially agreed, but a lot of young’uns I know also know that all they’re getting are these crappy 401k’s, to fund with lower wages than their parents got.

So the potential young audience *is* there.

-stewartm

And if you’re going to change the benefits formula anyway, you don’t need to raise the payroll tax cap

I keep telling you that it’s fully possible to *double* benefits if you tax ALL income with no cap.

-stewartm, plus you’ll have money left over.

I hope that Biden is forcing Obama’s had, as he did on gay marriage. OTOH, Obama will promise anything to get elected.

Chained CPI was the only thing likely to happen and with colas at record lows there’s no urgency, so this is a pretty easy promise for Obama to keep.

You may have told me, but I never saw the numbers. If we lift the cap tomorrow to $500,000, Those high end earners will pay an extra $48,347.60 per year (12.4% x ($500,000-$110,100).

If they maintain that income level for the next 10 years, their average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) using the current SS formula comes out to $17,629, which equates to a monthly retirement benefit of $3785.69 or $45,428.28 per year.

The rich will pay in more, but take more out at retirement. Per my math using the existing formula you can raise the cap 5x to $500,000 and you only add about 10% ($68.5B) to the fund. You have to do more than just raise the cap.

You may have told me, but I never saw the numbers.

Doubling Social Security would cost an additional $650 billion.

Raising the cap on *wage* income would raise $377 billion.

Taxing dividends the same rate as wages would raise about $124 billion.

Taxing capital gains at the same rate as wages would result in more than $164 billion.

That alone would result in $665 billion, more than the $650 needed, and we’ve not even added the revenue from taxing interest income at the same rate as wages.

(All these figures are from calculations from applying the same taxation rate to the aggregate totals of wage income, dividend income, and capital gains income).

So yes, Virginia, you CAN save Social Security and double it at the same time.

-stewartm

>>
you are right pokums – & a spell check snafu creates a wonderful way of expressing what the shifty republicrat obama did to SocSec in his first 4 years…say it with me – -

The Democrat, Barack Obama destroyed the sanctity AND increased the scantity of America’s best working and most useful government program –

f*cking great !! he’s sooo much better than those scary rebublicans

Thanks so much for numbers and link.

The part of my argument you have not addressed is the benefits formula.

Benefits at retirement are based on 35 years of reported income (currently maxed out at $110,100) indexed for inflation. Because of this, it is possible to calculate the “maximum retirement benefit” that could be paid. Assuming you hit the max for the last 35 years, your benefit would be around $2310 per month or $27,720 per year. That’s what Romney and Buffett will get.

Now if you decide to raise the limit without changing the formula, you will also be raising the retirement benefit of those high income earners. I did the math (assuming all other variables unchanged) with the cap raised to $500,000. The added amount of payroll tax paid per person making $500,000 would be $48,347 per year. If you paid in for 10 years, your new benefit would be $45,428.

I could drone on, but as you can see, ONLY raising the cap (and taxing other forms of income) is only half the picture.

Now if you decide to raise the limit without changing the formula, you will also be raising the retirement benefit of those high income earners.

Yes, but (I’m pretty sure) these calculations are based upon using the current formula, merely doubling the current benefit. So in this case Romney and Buffett would be getting 2 x 27,720 or $54,440.

I agree with doing just this for a three reasons:

One, SS is the main source of income for most of today’s elderly;

Two, the kids nowadays get no pension, only crappy 401ks, which with diminished incomes and benefits compared to what their parents got they can even less afford to the necessary contribution.

Three, doubling the benefits under the current formula would in effect apply the same cost/benefit situation for making payments up to $220,000–which covers about 98 % of US households. So 98 % of the population comes out winners (or at least not losers) in this system.

The top 2 %? Well, they don’t have to worry about retirement income anyways.

-stewartm