In Heated White House Meeting, Democrats Try to Bar Social Security From Bipartisan Negotiations

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON—Top Senate Democrats tried to scotch efforts by Majority Whip Richard Durbin to include Social Security in comprehensive deficit-reduction negotiations, illustrating the challenge facing the bipartisan talks.

The discussion occurred during a closed-door White House meeting this week among negotiators including Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a key lieutenant.

President Barack Obama attended, although his contribution to the conversation couldn't be learned. Previously, the administration has offered general support for bipartisan debt-reduction talks.

The confrontation, as well as a flare-up on the right over taxes, illustrates the difficulty of reaching a deal on deficit-control legislation, and how fear of upsetting the party line on particular policies could trump the issue of controlling the debt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703803904576152693403847716.html


Hold the line, troops, hold the line....

to destroy us all.

That is what they want you to believe because 'bought out' is worse.

This needs to be repeated.

...and might take a moment to remind people that SS is also off-budget.

he want to cut it?

How does anyone get away with saying cuts to SS will have any affect on the deficit?

I used to think he was one of the smarter ones. Get on the phone, Illinois...

http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

He's been trying to chop social security for quite awhile. I said if he's suddenly soooo concerned about the deficit, why doesn't he work to raise taxes on the rich and stop the two "wars" that are bankrupting our country.

But corporate money trumps all.

I'm a big believer in letting politicians know that not everyone is obliviously glued to Glee and American Idol.

make up their minds.

of natural causes, of course...


mark

He defended social security and rejected the notion that it should be included in negotiations. He was the only one there who said SS should be "off the table". So, either Durbin is flip-flopping all over the place or the article is just the usual WSJ bullshit propaganda. I'll go for the latter.

Unless there was a reporter in that closed door session, and have a tape of what was said, and by whom, I will say that the WSJ is not the most informed.

I'll believe it when I see them go public with that support.

They need to end the cap on Social Security so that the wealthy pay into it all year! Plus, I think it was Warren Buffet who said there is no reason why he should be getting a Social Security Check & I agree!

Seriously, I cannot say I fully understand the so-called trouble Social Security is in but my guess is just ending the SS Cap would go a long way to fixing the problem.

Would love to hear from anyone who really does understand the SS financial situation...Even posting "creditable" links to where I could read about it.

Thanks!

Then instead of a program that everyone benefits from, it becomes a program for the poor. As history shows, programs for the poor get demonized and have lower support than programs which benefit more people.

It would be politicized as a program for the poor & middle class...as another poster suggested?

What about just the cap on SS...Where the wealthy pay into SS all year but would still receive SS when they reached the applicable age?

appear 30 years from today.

social security isn't a savings program.

raising taxes now, cutting benefits now -- in order to pay for something that may -- or may not -- occur 30 years from now -- just gives the fuckers more money to "borrow" today, so that rich people can keep their income taxes low.

the only "sancrosanct" budget items, apparently, are bullets & tax breaks for the super-rich.

That is all you need to know.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a campaign contribution. I was way way wrong. He is 'one of them'. He is dead to me.