What’s more, this is even with the Southern-Strategy-milked bias against unemployment benefits as “something mostly nonwhites get”. Notice that when aid to needy Americans is phrased as “unemployment aid”, it’s not popular — but when it’s described as “aid to US needy” or “aid to US veterans”, it’s quite popular.

Obama’s position of Social Security is a true betrayal of his base given that just three percent of Democrats think Social Security spending should be reduced.

Um. Obama’s base is not really the Democratic party. It’s more like, say, for starters, Wall Street and the military industrial complex.

Spending someone elses money is always popular. The responses are to “Government Spending”.

What would they personally be willing to fund? Presumably those answering the questions pay federal income tax and that’s where the money used for Government Spending comes from.

Should have given the respondents $20 at the start and taken one away each time they wanted to spend the same or more on something. Put some skin in the game as they say.

Whenever you write, I am reminded of FDR’s description of the blindness of the powerful to the real needs of the American people:

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

How dare you come here day after day to tell Americans that their Social Security pensions which they earned and paid for, now do not belong to them, or that you would pay them out ninety cents for every dollar they paid in. We do have skin in this game, our skins and they don’t belong to you, and they are not yours to choose to spend elsewhere.

*from FDR’s speech, oct. 31, 1936.

At the moment, the center of the country doesn’t matter as much as the center of the Congress.

Oh when are those liberal moochers going to stop making allan in texas pay for everything. If i were king allan i would exmpt you from paying your 300 millionth share…and i would charge you a metered fee for every single service everyone else pays taxes for – roads, trash disposal, etc., …except for police and fire wich you would pay whatever it costs you, if you can find cops and fireman willing to be on call just for you 24/7…thats between you and them. As for the Umbrella of Millitary Protection you enjoy from being within the US proper..well theres just no way to give you a separate check for that one, and its reeeeeeaaaaaall expensive

You may be exaggerating for effect, but I don’t believe I ever said Social Security does not belong to those who paid in (the Supreme Court said that, not me), or that I would pay out ninety cents on the dollar of what was paid in.

The only positions I’ve had on SS is that there is a real probability of a shortfall in 2036 and beyond (according to the SSA), and we should figure out a way to ensure that doesn’t happen (otherwise we’ll only be paying out 75% on the dollar). Some people say chained-cpi would help and not hurt too bad. I say honestly that it’s a reduction in the COLA increase year over year and that people do substitute when prices go up. I also have said it won’t solve the shortfall, so why bother. My preferred fix for SS is to raise payroll taxes 1%. There, there’s some skin in the game for everyone.

If you are in the 41% who want “Government Spending” to increase for SS, are you willing to pay for it? Or is a “Government Spending” increase only OK if it doesn’t take a penny out of your dollar. You prove my point, it’s easy to spend other peoples money.

I’m happy to pay. No snark. And chaining the CPI will hurt some people, alan. Badly. We should be better than that. We really should.

Alan, I know this is not the place to get into the weeds on this but I want to make a few points. First, the fact SS fund goes negative that far in the future is pretty meaningless, even more so if you take into account the fact that the government can always pay for SS since we are a soverign issuer of the currency. (we don’t need a fund). Second, will the money paid out be sufficient to help the elderly at that time? If inflation is too high or things that elderly buy (like health care) are not available what then? These are real things that any amount of money may not help. Third, to help with those “real” things in the future we would be advised to get those twenty million people to work and do things like infrastructure and education.

People have their own favorite solutions to SS. Obama wants a change to cpi, others want the cap or the tax raised and others want the age increased. We don’t need any of them at this time.

In our conservative ages – and this is a conservative age, just one that doesn’t much involve most citizens – and conservative impulses, American politics is never about specific policies, it’s always about emotions. With very few exceptions, this has been the case in the South since at least the 1820′s. Americans in general were repelled by our first large scale interaction with the world in World War I, and had an emotional reaction – one which resulted in the 1920′s in isolationism, racism, union-busting, and political and regulatory hedonism – i.e. we let the corporations run riot.

This conservative era, and the ability to conduct it with low citizen input, has a great deal to do with the fact that our news media no longer report policy specifics per se, but have taken to reporting exclusively about the political effects of policy rhetoric – in other words, the emotional reaction to descriptions of policy, rather than the content of the policies themselves.

The entire “death panel” debate of August 2009 is a fine example of this, more or less in isolation. Very little political happens in August of odd-numbered years and the cable tv mill needs constant grist, so Palin and other Republicans’ attack on government death panels in the ACA was the main topic of political conversation for a month. The fact that the ACA did not provide for death panels was reported as Democratic defense, not as cold fact. This was all reported as a controversy, but not a controversy over facts, but over the success or failure of rhetoric – that a lot of people were opposed to the ACA because of the death panels. Indeed, this approach characterizes most civic discussions about proposed policies – more or less fact-free as to the content of the policies and their impact themselves, but stuffed full of emotional discussion about them.

This was the key to the entire Reagan Administration’s transformative success. Reagan said he thought government was too big, too intrusive, too expensive, too wasteful; that Americans were smart enough to take care of themselves in the marketplace and didn’t need a nanny state to do so, etc.: broad-brush, flattering rhetoric that was suggestive of policy directions, but didn’t say anything specific about it. Much of Reagan’s genius (his staff’s genius really) was to provide a frothy mix of policy generalities and carefully-chosen isolated examples which sounded as if they related to right-wing policy goals. Reagan was popular. His specific policies never were. But since most Americans knew very little about what his policies actually were, it didn’t matter. And they didn’t know because the press had stopped reporting any facts or specifics which were in contention, and simply reporting sets of rhetorical allegations about them.

Of course Americans don’t want the government to keep back the Social Security they have been paying into all of their working lives so that the wealthy can pay the lowest tax rates since the 1920′s. Of course we don’t want to cheat wounded veterans. But that’s not what we hear about in our civic debates. Instead we hear about budget deficits, and job creators and a bunch of generalities that have little to do with proposed policy changes. We also have a president who talks out of both sides of his mouth. That’s not helping.

Cool. Do you really know how chained Cpi will hurt some – notice Obama’s proposal said he’d protect them.

Let’s say the low end are protected, now we get up to averages. If chained-cpi was in affect last year, the average SS check would have gone up $18 per month, instead of $20. Instead of going from $1230 to $1240 per month, you’d only get $1238.

That’s average. The lifetime high wage earners who get over $2k monthly benefit (who probably don’t even need SS) would see their increase go from $100 per month down to $90 per month extra.

At least the Chained-cpi is progressive. And as I said, it doesn’t solve the problem so I wouldn’t care if we took it off the table. I’d just like people to present it honestly and stop using “CUT”, “GUT”, “DESTROY” SS when talking about a .2% change in increases that is intended to help the overall system.

Probably too much to wish for.

Wage earners at the low end of the income scale have all their skin in the game, because they’re paying the SS tax on all their income, compared to those paying on part or none of their income.

Whatever it is you think you’re protecting, it isn’t the people who have less than you that are a threat to it. Once they’re reduced to having nothing at all, where do you think those who have more than you will look next to “cut spending” ?

I agree, wage earners at the low end of the income scale pay there 12%, sure enough. Higher wage earners have their 12% skin in the game too.

If you don’t understand the benefit formula, you should look into it. I you do understand, you should be honest enough to admit that as a cohort, persons paying in at the low end, get back a bit more than those at the upper end.

BTW, I’ve said, I’d be willing to pay extra to help others, would you? Bump the payroll tax by 1% and fix the system.

For every item on the list where I would answer that there should be the same or more spending, I would be happy to pay more in taxes.

I do understand the benefit formula. I’m in favor of progressive forms of taxes, not regressive ones, SS benefits tied to contributions, and some adjustmments of benefits at the very top or bottom, though (assuming any proposed adjustments were based on sound actuarial grounds)would reserve judgment about the fairness of those adjustments till I saw specific proposals.

I think you’re one of the few that really understands, or at least tries to respond in calm terms.

BTW, I’m not up on the details of the latest S/B proposal, but I think it includes just what you’re saying, adjustment of benefits at the top (downward bending bend points).

Considering what I hear about the chained-cpi (less of an increase), I’m not thinking an actual reduction of benefits (even for top enders) is going to go over too well. We’ll see.

Well said. Well said.

-stewartm

Spending someone elses money is always popular.

Capitalism is nothing but about “spending someone else’s money”.

-stewartm

I would pay out ninety cents on the dollar of what was paid in.

SS is a social insurance policy. If only I could get “ninety cents on the dollar” from private insurance plans.

-stewartm

If you don’t understand the benefit formula,

Which could be changed at any time, and you treat it as the immutable Word of God.

-stewartm

Not true at all I’m well aware any aspect can be changed. You know what else they can change at any time? CPI to Chained-CPI, but you treat it… well, you know.

As I said above, considering what I hear about the chained-cpi (less of an increase), I’m not thinking an actual reduction of benefits formula is going to go over too well. We’ll see.

Polls matter only when they support actions Obama or the Republicans already planned to take.

And this poll certainly should be disregarded. Did the people answering the poll questions have a clue what any department spends or what it does with the money that it spends?

Between the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, D of D and all the anti “terra’ stuff they sneak into agency budget after agency budget, we are bankrupting ourselves and ruining our quality of life.

Somewhere in hell, Osama is still laughing.