But the Obama plan is to take it in somewhat smaller quantities.

Like so many other things on the national stage these days.

The government isn't doing enough to actually stave off the effects of climate change, but when we hit the wall we'll be going at a somewhat lower velocity with Obama than with Willard.

And the rich won't actually be taxed in proportion to what they suck out of the country, but they won't be getting away with quite as much under Obama's tax plan.

Corporate or Corporate Lite.

Take yer pick.

I don't expect SS to go unscathed regardless of who wins this election. Both candidates have attempted to dance around the issue, but I believe if Romney wins there will be a hard push toward privatization. If Obama wins I think the damage will be limited to a raise in the eligibility age for full benefits and it may even be offset by an increase in or elimination of the salary cap for deductions.

Of course the only way to stop changes to SS is widespread popular outrage and you can bet that'll happen if anybody proposes any changes.

Fortunately for Obama, everybody in the world is so busy talking about his sleepwalking through the debate that they have forgotten that he said his position on SS was the same as Romney's. So it won't be hard to undo whatever damage that remark caused.

We know that Romney and Ryan will agtressively go after Social Security. There is just too much money sitting there to not try to suck those funds out of goernmnet safekeeping and into the hands of privatized account on Wall Street.

Why doesn't he say that? If Romney really doesn't want to privatize, then let him go on record absolutely clearly to that end. And then it is fair game to question the trustworthiness of any such commitment from Romney.

As far as offering up his own plan, once again, this is just not complicated. All he has to say is that the fund is very solvent today, but to make sure it is solvent for 75 years, there are some minor tweaks we'll need to do, and these are very similar to the last batch of tweaks in 1993. We just need little adjustments and they can be phased in over decades. Indeed, the 1993 changes are STILL being phased in.

There is no reason to be timid about this. Say it out loud.

1) We should continue to adjust the age of benefits to track with life expectancy. That can be done in a way that is a minor impact on anyone. We can still allow early benefits at age 60, but adjust the date if you want the full monthly payout. We are talking about a few months difference for somebody nearing retirement and a year or so for people who are much younger. No big deal. Say it out loud.

2) Eliminate the cap on contributions -- or at least move it up to something like $250,000 of annual income. People making that kind of money can afford to pay their share. That is really very little to ask of people who have prospered so handsomely from teh American life.

Do those two things and Social Security is good to go for 75 years. You don't have to look at privatization or any other radical changes.

Say it out loud. People will be surprised at how simple it is. And force Romney to take a position on it.

Because to do so would be easy. They're going to put SSI on the chopping block, "for the greater good."

Oh, and the 1% will continue to get their tax breaks from the Bush era....cuz, you know, they're the Job Creators(TM)!

We've already seen it happen- John Boehner of all people blinked!

Between Social Security and Medicare, they should be destroying Ryan and Romney. The fact that Obama/Biden are barely bringing it up leaves us to conclude that they are not really going to fight for these programs.

would be as a negotiation tool for the upcoming "fiscal cliff" debate. If the Democrats do not take anything off the table, including Social Security, it might pressure the Repubs not to take taxcuts off the table? Perhaps it's not so logical?

Vague platitudes about not undermining retirement security, and a promise not to privatize Social Security? Really?

How much trouble are we in, when the only specific promise we can extract from the Democratic nominee for re-election re: Social Security is that he won't PRIVATIZE it? Who the hell expected a Democrat to PRIVATIZE Social Security in the first place?

Where are the promises not to cut or slow benefits?

Keep raising hell, people. This is not acceptable.