Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Planned 3 Percent Cut to Social Security; Obama and the Democrats Are on Board

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 18, 2013, 9:03 a.m. EST by GirlFriday (17445)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

According to inside Washington gossip, Congress and the president are going to do exactly what voters elected them to do; they are going to cut Social Security by 3 percent. You don't remember anyone running on that platform? Yeah, well, they probably forgot to mention it.

The bottom line is that President Obama and many leading Democrats are prepared to give seniors a larger hit to their income than they gave to the over $250,000 crowd. And the whole reason it is necessary is that the Wall Street types who wrecked the economy say so. Is everybody happy?

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/planned-3-percent-cut-social-security-obama-and-democrats-are-board?paging=off

72 Comments

72 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"...And now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your fuckin retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it ALL from ya sooner or later because they Own this Fuckin place. It's a Big Club...And you Ain't In It!" -George Carlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJeFrqBJF6E

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

This plan, at least in the link leaves a lot of specifics unanswered. Is this just another trial balloon rumor?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

It very well could be.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

democrats cut it with republicans in the 90's... why would they stop now?

how many years have to go by with warrantless wire taps, no habeas corpus, all while giving trillions to banks and corporations... how many years have to go by before people realize republicans and democrats have formed a Wall Street government?

I keep saying it but so many people refuse to believe it (this is not aimed at you GirlFriday)... the people funded by Wall Street are not going to save you from Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Well they here do plan to take it all.So it is not like this is anything new.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2240) 1 year ago

peeing myself with glee - can't wait to retire at 83- SSI AGE is going up at the same rate as your Comcast bill. (You don't know how but you swear it was three numbers lower last time you checked.)

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i am convinced at this point that this country is going to burn and very soon.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17601) 1 year ago

"Unemployment and Poverty in America : 75 Economic Numbers From 2012 that are Almost too Crazy to Believe…", by 'The Economic Collapse Blog' :

Ain't no fkn 'Trickle Down Crapitalism' anymore, GF - its outright 'Hoover Up Kaputalism' - & I'm sick of these greedy bastards & forego future karma to curse The Parasitic 0.01% from the darkest depths of what's left of my soul !!! Shit !! I'm scaring myself now, lol !

consilio et animis ...

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/uk-seeks-to-water-down-arctic-oil-drilling-proposa/

Hoover Up Kaputalis'

That is funny. I can't remember where I was at online last night but I came across something that suggested that the American people were more in favor of socialism. I had started to post it but didn't because the information came from a poll and it did not list the questions or any of that.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17601) 1 year ago

"Why I Am a Socialist ?" by Chris Hedges : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21586.htm

"How Socialists Built America", by John Nichols : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27907.htm ,

"Nine Myths about Socialism in the US", by Bill Quigley : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25187.htm &

"Trends to Barbarism and Prospects for Socialism", by James Petras : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26052.htm

And a tune - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7plNRs5kwgE - 'coz I'm trying to restore my equanimity here, lol !!! I'll go look at your link now - hope it doesn't get me riled up !! & breathe, sssigh & solidarity !

pax ...

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Well, they eliminated COLA increases for 2 of the last 4 years, so this seems to be a natural extension of that.

And people wonder why I, at the age of 32, think Im not going to get anything close to decent.

With the way this thing is going, I probably wont even want to be living in this country in 30 years.,

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 1 year ago

30 years? You are an optimist!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21289) 1 year ago

Moral turpitude.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Well - all things taken into consideration - this country really does need to concern itself with supporting the wealthy subsidies and all . . . ack . . hack . . . cough/choke. . . damn . . . can't breathe...................

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

It is mind blowing that all of this is based on bs lies. It's solvent. Lies.

Amazing.

[-] 0 points by zippyhorn (-5) 1 year ago

The alternet article is BS. "In law and in practice it is a separate program". It is NOT a separate program. That was decided in the supreme court in 1937.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

It's not solvent long term. Just read the report from the government trustees. All the numbers and analysis from the government are there.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/tr2012.pdf

Oh! Look who it's signed by. It ain't Wall Street or Republicans.

DKAtoday doesn't know what he's talking about. Wealthy subsidies have NOTHING to do with social security and SSDI going broke. When you set up a system where you have less and less workers for every retiree, eventually the math breaks down, because the GD thing is a ponzi scheme. You could take every penny from the rich and not come close to solving the disaster that SS, SS disability, medicare, and medicaid are.

There used to be 16 workers for every retiree. Now there are about 2.5.

The math is breaking down and it's no corporations fault. It's do-gooder democrats like FDR and LBJ who couldn't understand math to save their lives.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

No, it's not. First of all, let's put it in context.

It also is bizarre that Social Security would even be considered in the context of the deficit. In law and in practice it is a separate program, financed by its own designated stream of revenue. Cutting benefits as part of a deficit deal means that we will be making cuts to Social Security with zero quid pro quo in the form of increased revenue. That hardly makes sense if the point is to protect the program.

Now look here, http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

It's a separate account. See?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Very sane and true comment - how come so many others can not see/understand?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

There has been so much crap spread in order to confuse people that it has gotten in the way. So much cash spent on intentional confusion.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And the beat goes on .................

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

That was funny.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Insidious media.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

You got the good stuff.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Shhhhh someone might hear you. um see um U know what I mean

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

I know, right?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Can't be 2 careful - Hey?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

Pretty funny.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Funny that someone already had the thought and pictured it.

synchronicity? or I am just not an original thinker - huh - synchronicity definitely - yep that's my story and I'm sticking 2 it.

[-] 0 points by zippyhorn (-5) 1 year ago

No, it is NOT a separate account. It is part of the general fund. Period.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm

Case Information Helvering v. Davis

No. 910

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

301 U.S. 619

May 5, 1937

May 24, 1937

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

"Held:

(1) Title II being valid, there is no occasion to inquire whether Title VIII must fall if Title II were void. P. 645.

(2) The tax upon employers is a valid excise or duty upon the relation of employment. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ante, p. 548. P. 645.

(3) The tax is not invalid as a result of its exemptions. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ante, p. 548. P. 646.

89 F.2d 393, reversed." <-------- See ?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

http://www.ssa.gov/history/genrev.html

The provisions for what is a disability is constantly changing to include more and more people, who then also get their kids financed as well:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=169678964

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think it is also funded by FICA too?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

Nope. HOW IS SSI DIFFERENT FROM SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS?

Many people who are eligible for SSI may also be entitled to receive Social Security benefits. In fact, the application for SSI is also an application for Social Security benefits. However, SSI and Social Security are different in many ways.

Unlike Social Security benefits, SSI benefits are not based on your prior work or a family member's prior work. Social Security benefits may be paid to you and certain members of your family if you are “insured” meaning you worked long enough and paid Social Security taxes.

SSI is financed by general funds of the U.S. Treasury--personal income taxes, corporate and other taxes. Social Security taxes withheld under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) or the Self Employment Contributions Act (SECA) do not fund the SSI program.

In most States, SSI beneficiaries also can get medical assistance (Medicaid) to pay for hospital stays, doctor bills, prescription drugs, and other health costs. Most States also provide a supplemental payment to certain SSI beneficiaries. SSI beneficiaries may also be eligible for food assistance in every State except California. In some States, an application for SSI benefits also serves as an application for food assistance. SSI benefits are paid on the first of the month. To get SSI, you must be disabled, blind, or at least 65 years old and have "limited" income and resources. In addition, to get SSI, you must: ––be a resident of the United States, and ––not be absent from the country for a full calendar month or more or for 30 consecutive days or more; and ––be either a U.S. citizen or national, or in one of certain categories of eligible non–citizens.

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Hmmm interesting. I always thought they were funded by FICA. Thanks for that.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

What is your point?

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Since military wages were not covered employment until 1957, spending several years in the military would result in reduced Social Security benefits. Even after military service became a form of covered employment, the low cash wages paid to servicemen and women meant that military service was also a financial sacrifice. As a special benefit for members of the armed forces the Congress decided to grant special non-contributory wage credits for military service before 1957 and special deemed military wage credits to boost the amounts of credited contributions for service after 1956. These credits were paid out of general revenues as a subsidy to military personnel. So, each year since 1966 the Social Security Trust Funds have in fact received some relatively small transfers from the general revenues as bonuses for military personnel.

In 1965-66 Congress also identified another "disadvantaged" group: elderly individuals (age 72 before 1971) who had not been able to work long enough under Social Security to become insured for a benefit. People in this group were granted special Social Security benefits paid for entirely by the general revenues of the Treasury. These were known as Special Age 72, or Prouty, benefits. Over time, of course, these beneficiaries will disappear as Father Time claims members of the group.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

Where are we going with this?

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I was just posting stuff that shows they have dipped into the general funds to keep up with the payments.

I find it very intersting that they frame SS taxes as your own retirement, but in reality since the beginning the taxes have been used to pay for those already retired.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

You mean that the general fund made payments for other members that wouldn't have qualified? Difference between that and dipping.

[-] -2 points by zippyhorn (-5) 1 year ago

Uhhh, BS.

"But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself."

It has no effect on actual operations until it does. In other words, until the government runs out of money and the SS Admin admits there's only IOUs for SS.

Stop being a drone Girlfriday and start thinking for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

Holding of the Court: "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

What part of 1939 are you having a problem with specifically?

And please, expand on your IOUs.

[-] -1 points by zippyhorn (-5) 1 year ago

What part of the Supreme Court decision are you having a comprehension problem with?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

Again, what part of 1939 are you having problems with?

[-] 0 points by zippyhorn (-5) 1 year ago

Again, what part of the Supreme Court decision are you having a comprehension problem with?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

Look at the date of the supreme court case and then look at the 1939 creation of the Fund and try again.

[+] -4 points by zippyhorn (-5) 1 year ago

The fund is a myth. It's Bernie Madoff on a longer timescale. The idea of a fund is for suckers like you.

"The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by zippyhorn (3) 0 minutes ago Ah well, at least you capitulate gracefully. Thanks fer playin', amateur. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


No need to. You are a bonafide douche bag-all the way around. I'm going to remind you of this.

[-] 1 points by zippyhorn (-5) 1 year ago

Jump!

Higher!

Again!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

You stupid piece of shit.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Done trying to talk to zippy ?

[-] -1 points by zippyhorn (-5) 1 year ago

Ah well, at least you capitulate gracefully. Thanks fer playin', amateur.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I was not kidding when I said that the government was being manipulated into treating the general population as another corpoRAT sacrifice zone.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

No you weren't.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

If this is not a wake-up call to the general population - I do not know what is.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

Most of them have already woken up. They were awake when dumps with toxic waste were placed near those neighborhoods with the poorest populations. They were awake when they realized that the elderly where living on the streets because the rents skyrocketed. They were awake when the elderly were buying medication from Canada and going to Mexico to obtain it.

This is intentional. And again, I ask........when do we begin to call this, looking at our homeless population and at the local ordinances not to feed them, etc. and so on............genocide?

[-] 1 points by Renneye (3294) 1 year ago

Mm-hmm. Government killing it's own people = Democide.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

TRUE - HARSH??? NOPE!!!! Just the Plain TRUTH.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

I can't pretend that these elected officials somehow don't get this. I think they very much do get it.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

How could they miss the significance of what is happening in government - no matter what I think - THEY ARE NOT BLIND.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17445) 1 year ago

They aren't. I am over this disposable people.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Results of decades long promotion of a disposable society. Broken? not a prob - throw it out. Old and boring? not a prob throw it out and replace it...

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Well DK, we may disagree on guns, but completely agree on this. The government is corrupt and owned by special interests. My wife and are on SS, but have other income so a 3% cut won’t hurt us, but millions of other seniors aren’t as lucky. What will probably happen if the cuts occur is a lot of old folks will go on welfare.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Whats 4 dinner? - Yum - not brought to U by the American beef council.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5783) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

You know, I don't know how many people missed this but years ago when it started becoming public knowledge that a lot of poor people had to resort to eating dog and cat food to survive, what did TPTB do about it? RAISED THE PRICE OF DOG AND CAT FOOD!!!!!

Sorry for yelling. I usually don't do that, but when that happened I practically went ballistic.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sick fucks aren't they? Gonna get that very last dollar any way they can.

I can relate to the anger - I am not a violent person - but that kinda shit makes me want to be able to beat such assholes with a stick.

Worse then raising the price ( in a way ) that was about the time they started marketing the stew like dog food with real vegetables.

Public flogging for such people(?) would be a slap on the wrist.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5783) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Ah, you did catch that about the raise in prices then? I'll bet a lot of people didn't. And I agree, a public flogging would be way too kind. I'm kind of fond of the visual of 'head's on pikes on the road into town' like in days of yore. THAT"S the kind of thing that get's peoples attention.

"People" with a question mark? Yeah, I'm thinking maybe we need a different spelling for their ilk to separate them from the rest of us. Maybe 'peeple,' because that's about all they're good for, pissing on. Like they've been doing to us for far too long.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH yeah I caught that and thought it sick that they would then introduce dog food stew - they even nuked it so that it would steam - cause even your dog likes a hot meal.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

OK, I clicked on the link. What's your point?

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34847) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

TWEETED

Think about it http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/planned-3-percent-cut-social-security-obama-and-democrats-are-board?paging=off The Gov being manipulated to treat the public as another corpoRAT Sacrifice Zone. R U ready?