Moving on from MoveOn.

Oh for fuck’s sake:

Dear MoveOn member,

Last year, President Obama offered Republicans a heartbreaking deal that would have slashed Social Security benefits by $112 billion over a decade.  MoveOn members overwhelmingly opposed it.  And together with allies, we won.

Hahaha.  Sure you did.  And as I recall, you spent your entire war chest in the service of re-electing—unconditionally—the same president who offered “a heartbreaking deal that would have slashed Social Security benefits by $112 billion over a decade.”

Now, here’s the state of play. Over the weekend, faced with Republican obstructionism, the president once again—and more clearly than ever—offered to put our social safety net on the negotiating table.

OMFG I AM SO SHOCKED!

We have a plan to launch an ambitious push, with allies inside and outside of Congress, to oppose any benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

The time for your “ambitious push” was before the November election.  Idiots.

Can you chip in $5 to fund our emergency campaign to save the social safety net?

Um, no.  But just FYI, I chipped in a whole lot more than that to Jill Stein’s presidential campaign.

Ambitious pushes = Ur doin’ it rong.

4 thoughts on “Moving on from MoveOn.

  1. I received the same urgent request, so I also am moving on from MoveOn. I find that their message no longer appeals to me. I think that everything should be up for discussion in trying to bring more equality to everyone, and most of MoveOn’s stand recently, maybe always was, not sure really, they are taking a “cut this and raise that – BUT, not tinker with things we like” This latest is absurd, “Obama’s possibly bending to discussing cutting SS benefits”. The quoted number in MoveOn’s email is for $112 Billion over a decade” I love it when the numbers are always quoted “over 10 years”, why not say $11.2 Billion a year? The 10 year number sounds more scary possibly. But, the total US Govt expense for SS in year 2012 was $768 Billion ( does that mean $7.68 Trillion over 10 years? Just asking) Anyway, that cut of $11.2 Billion a year ($112 Billion over 10 ) comes to a reduction of LESS than 2% a year, actually 1.4%. That’s reasonable, more than reasonable.

    A simple solution – in my opinion, would be for a 3% across the board cut in expenses, NO exceptions. Every program takes a little reduction. With a yearly budget of $3.4 trillion, that would save the US $100 billion a year. An across the board tax increase of 5% would increase revenue by $125 billion a year. Everyone shares the pain, but it’s not catastrophic pain.

    I read on this blog recently about someone running for office, think it was in Florida and there was a link to his website. His creds for running were that he would sign a pledge to NEVER cut social security or medicare. Seriously? This is no better than the members of congress who sign a pledge to NEVER vote to raise taxes, any tax. Same thing, in my opinion. Both stands become obstructionist eventually.

  2. #someoneiswrongonmyblog

    Anyway, that cut of $11.2 Billion a year ($112 Billion over 10 ) comes to a reduction of LESS than 2% a year, actually 1.4%. That’s reasonable, more than reasonable.

    No, it isn’t. There is no reason to cut Social Security. None whatsoever.

    It is currently projected that, if no changes are made to the system at all, the fund will be “exhausted” in 2036. Does that seem like an urgent problem to you?

    Further, even if the fund is “exhausted” in 2036 — and again, this is provided no changes are made to the system in the meantime — Social Security will still have enough of an income stream from payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of current benefits.

    The payroll cap for Social Security is presently $110,100. That is, Social Security taxes are taken out only as a percentage of the first $110,100 of a person’s income. No matter how much income you make over the cap amount, you never pay any more into Social Security. Increasing the amount of the payroll cap would instantly prevent this terrifying and urgent catastrophe looming over all our heads (in 2036).

    Meanwhile, $1,262 is the average monthly benefit for retired workers (obviously it’s less than that for half of them, and the average monthly benefit is lower still for the disabled and survivors). In 2011, nearly half of all elderly unmarried females receiving Social Security benefits relied on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

    A simple solution – in my opinion, would be for a 3% across the board cut in expenses, NO exceptions. Every program takes a little reduction. With a yearly budget of $3.4 trillion, that would save the US $100 billion a year. An across the board tax increase of 5% would increase revenue by $125 billion a year. Everyone shares the pain, but it’s not catastrophic pain.

    Of course it’s catastrophic pain. It’s catastrophic for people surviving on $1,262 (or less) a month. A 5% tax increase on the working poor is fucking catastrophic.

    Soon we will have blown through a trillion dollars on the boondoggle that is “Homeland Security.” Taxpayers subsidize too-big-to-jail banks to the tune of $83 billion a year. We give billions in foreign aid to countries like Israel whose citizens enjoy universal healthcare, and we allow corporations making record profits to stash untold billions in cash in the Caymans to avoid paying taxes. Why the fuck should U.S. seniors — who paid into Social Security all their working lives — “share the pain”? In what world is that “more than reasonable”?

    I read on this blog recently about someone running for office, think it was in Florida and there was a link to his website. His creds for running were that he would sign a pledge to NEVER cut social security or medicare. Seriously? This is no better than the members of congress who sign a pledge to NEVER vote to raise taxes, any tax. Same thing, in my opinion. Both stands become obstructionist eventually.

    Are you seriously suggesting that cutting Social Security is just as reasonable and necessary as raising taxes on the wealthy? Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) is aware of the twin facts that (1) the United States is not broke, and (2) neither is Social Security. He knows that conservatives (in both parties) want to privatize it as a massive giveaway to the aforementioned too-big-to-jail bankers. There is no good reason to cut it, or otherwise “reform” it, except to raise the payroll cap. And Grayson pledged not to cut Medicare because he wants to expand Medicare — to everyone. Single payer is vastly cheaper and far better than for-profit health care, and yet curiously, the same people who claim to care oh so much about the debt and the deficit have taken it off the table.

    If liberals cannot draw a hard line against cuts to SS and Medicare, who and what, exactly, should they ever stand for?

    Here is a picture of wealth in the U.S.

    (You should watch the movie if you haven’t already.)

    Take a good look at that chart, particularly the bottom 50% of it, and then go ahead and defend your “share the pain” 3% cuts to every social program and 5% tax increases across the board. Congressman Grayson has his facts and priorities straight — unlike the people who sign Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes on that d00d on the right. One of these things is not like the other.

    Just because your “solution” is simple does not mean it is rational or just.

    • My recommendation was only in trying to work within the established framework, not changing the ages for eligibility of either social security or medicare. If things could be really changed, I’d shoot for entitlements based on NEED, whether it’s social security or medicare or rent controlled apartments or “Senior discounts” But, I’m just a loyal reader, not a policy maker.

      My comment about the reduction of 1.5% in social security benefits not being too drastic, I made without knowing what the average monthly social security check was, now I do. Thank you for the data. So, since it’s $1,262, that would be a reduction of $18.93 a month, which is $4.40 a week.

      From your post, you mention what will happen in the year 2036 when the trust fund is expected to be depleted.

      “Further, even if the fund is “exhausted” in 2036 — and again, this is provided no changes are made to the system in the meantime — Social Security will still have enough of an income stream from payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of current benefits”.

      From my calculations, that’s a reduction of 25% and all things being equal, that monthly check of $1,262, would in 2036 be $946.50. That’s $315.50 LESS each month. Let’s see, $18.93 a month reduction or $315.50 a month? That’s a tough choice, but I’d guess, most people would take door number one, $18.93.

      Social security was not an investment, the surpluses were not invested – other than in treasury bonds. and whether it’s social security or medicare, the money collected by the recipients over the years after eligibility far exceed the amount they paid into the plans. So if a reduction is necessary to continue, than that’s what has to happen. The attitude of “let’s not worry about something that will happen in 24 years” – is what gets the US into some of the messes it finds itself.

  3. Do you even read what I write? Because the only way I can make any sense of your comment is to assume that for some reason, you think my argument is “let’s just ignore the problem for 24 years and not do anything whatsoever about Social Security’s solvency in the meantime.” That is not my argument. My argument is that raising the payroll cap would close the gap, and it would do so without benefit cuts. There is no reason to cut Social Security; in fact there is every reason to expand it. Of course liberals have been making this case for ages, but look: here is a fucking conservative that even agrees with me on this point.

    And your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that “a cut of $18.93 a month is better than Iris’s preferred solution of doing absolutely nothing about Social Security for the next 24 years, which would result in a cut of $315.50 a month.” This is a really, really dumb argument, because (a) these are not the only two options, (b) in any case that is not my proposed solution, (c) no one is arguing that bigger numbers are not in fact bigger than smaller numbers, and (d) there is no reason to cut Social Security.

    Social security was not an investment, the surpluses were not invested – other than in treasury bonds. and whether it’s social security or medicare, the money collected by the recipients over the years after eligibility far exceed the amount they paid into the plans.

    Please provide citations that this allegedly ginormous gap cannot be closed (and then some) by a raise in the payroll cap.

    So if a reduction is necessary to continue, than that’s what has to happen.

    A reduction is not necessary to continue, therefore—by your own logic—that is not what has to happen. Why do you continue to insist that it is? Do you have a bad case of Austerity Fever or something?

    The attitude of “let’s not worry about something that will happen in 24 years” – is what gets the US into some of the messes it finds itself.

    Well gosh, then it sure is a good thing no one writing on this blog takes that position, huh?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s