http://www.cbsnews.com/8301...20078789-503544.html Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 By Corbett B. Daly Topics Economy ,White House ,Congress 654 Comments Have Your Say Email Story Send to a Friend 1974 Shares Tell Your Friends Tweet This Tweet This More Share It
President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.
The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2.
Lawmakers from both parties want to use the threat of that deadline to work out a broader package on long-term deficit reduction, with Republicans looking to cut trillions of dollars in federal spending, while Democrats are pushing for a more "balanced approach," which would include both spending cuts and increased revenue through taxes.
The Debt Limit fight: A primer
Democratic and Republican lawmakers are expected to hold another round of negotiations with Mr. Obama at the White House Tuesday afternoon on long-term deficit reduction, though talks have yielded little results to date.
Mr. Obama told Pelley "this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."
The interview will air Tuesday evening on the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley.
Mr. Obama's comments followed remarks from the Senate's top Republican, who said Tuesday that he did not see a way for Republicans and Democrats to come to agreement on meaningful deficit reduction as long as Mr. Obama remains in office.
"After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in remarks on the Senate floor.
Still, McConnell said Republicans would "do the responsible thing" to avoid default, suggesting that a deal on the debt ceiling could be reached without a "real" deficit reduction package.
"The president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm. So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure that the government doesn't default on its obligations," he said.
Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants a deal that would allow the U.S. to avoid confronting the issue again until after the 2012 elections and vowed on Monday that he would "not sign a 30-day or a 60-day or a 90-day extension."
"This the United States of America and, you know, we don't manage our affairs in three-month increments. You know, we don't risk U.S. default on our obligations because we can't put politics aside," Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House yesterday.
Let me get this straight, he wants to hold checks from people who paid into social security? that money should have never been touched in the first place but the government did anyway. Now, instead of cutting on all the pet projects this president has pushed including Obama care which we cant afford, he is threatening SS? Unbelievable.
Not only is he threatening the elderly, he is threatening veterans, and the disabled. This makes me sick. Michele just gets home from a multi-million dollar trip, he refuses to cut any of the trillions in spending he has increased since he came into office, and yet he has the nerve to threaten SS!? If the American people are "entitled" to anything, it's SS. This is like putting your money into a CD account at the bank that is secure, and the bank decides to spend it to float other projects, and decides it cant pay you your deposited amount back.
IP: Logged
02:59 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
well, you are correct that SS should not be ANY part of this in fact - every dollar in question should be pulled directly from DoD funding, which is where all the debt came from in the first place
IP: Logged
03:04 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9706 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
This is GREAT news! This is proof positive that there is no such thing as a Social Security "lock box". It also proves that there is no Social Security trust fund. If there really was a trust fund then federal budget issues would not effect Social Security payments.
President Obama has unwittingly shown the sham that is Social Security. It is just a big Ponzi Scheme.
Well he could be saying this to associate the republications with stopping the flow of SS money. Sounds like Politics as Usual.... scare people. Anyone know if there really is money in SS, or has it be "borrowed" so the coffers are empty?
IP: Logged
03:14 PM
faaaaq Member
Posts: 3856 From: Madison WI, USA Registered: Sep 2009
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Well he could be saying this to associate the republications with stopping the flow of SS money. Sounds like Politics as Usual.... scare people. Anyone know if there really is money in SS, or has it be "borrowed" so the coffers are empty?
I seem to remember that the huge pile of $$$$ being "stashed" was in fact borrowed against regularly, and has LONG been consumed, and filled with IOUs from Congress.
IP: Logged
03:20 PM
rpro Member
Posts: 2920 From: Rockledge, FL Registered: Jun 2006
This is nothing but political posturing to make the republican's look as though they are stone-walling and heartless. Obama's entire career is based on fear motivation and demonizing the opposition. This time (unlike the Clinton/Gingrich budget deal) he doesn't even have the support of his own party.
[This message has been edited by rpro (edited 07-12-2011).]
It just makes me sick that our president could have such arrogance. He is nuts if he thinks he will be reelected acting this way. Welcome to Chicagoland!
IP: Logged
03:38 PM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by rpro: This is nothing but political posturing to make the republican's look as though they are stone-walling and heartless. Obama's entire career is based on fear motivation and demonizing the opposition. This time (unlike the Clinton/Gingrich budget deal) he doesn't even have the support of his own party.
um, the republicans ARE stonewalling. have been all along. and, yes - due to his willingness to attempt to actually DEAL, and not stonewall right back, he has in fact lost support.
IP: Logged
03:39 PM
DRA Member
Posts: 4543 From: Martinez, Ga, USA Registered: Oct 1999
I was planning on a tune up for the cherokee next month, got about $70 to get through this month, maybe I should spend that on ramen. Just when I thought I could not get any more frustrated with the federal government.
------------------ Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: you've solved the wrong problem, work hard to improve.
IP: Logged
03:41 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
um, the republicans ARE stonewalling. have been all along. and, yes - due to his willingness to attempt to actually DEAL, and not stonewall right back, he has in fact lost support.
um, the democrats ARE stonewalling. have been all along. and, yes - due to his unwillingness to attempt to actually DEAL, he is stonewalling right back, he has in fact lost support.
Why didn't the dems when they had the super majority deal with all of this, or didn't pass a budget, or vote to let Bush's tax cuts expire? Because they knew three things. 1. It would have been political suicide. 2. They knew they were going to get whipped in the last election and figured doing nothing they could hold on to the Senate. 3. They could just kick the can down the road and blame the republicans, and enough misinformed folks will believe it is the Republican's fault so we can get our power back in 2012.
Uh, hey, guys.....President Obama needs to borrow your credit cards again.....just for a month or so. He'll get them back to you as soon as he can ( or hits the limits )....
Uh, hey, guys.....President Obama needs to borrow your credit cards again.....just for a month or so. He'll get them back to you as soon as he can ( or hits the limits )....
Cant be out of money the check book still has checks in it.
IP: Logged
04:35 PM
Old Lar Member
Posts: 13797 From: Palm Bay, Florida Registered: Nov 1999
So Obama has officially gone on record saying as of today Social Security is insolvent and the only way we can continue benefits is by borrowing money.
Most projections have SS running out of money by 2027, but according to Obama - it's all gone NOW. If he was trying to coming up with a political sound bite to pit "them" vs "us" he could have found something that wasn't so mind-numbingly stupid to say. Remember that, retirees. If Obama doesn't get his way - he'll spend YOUR money before he'll cut any entitlements to his friends.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 07-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:39 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Pisses me off to no end that the politicians do this, and play games with peoples lives who often rely on this stuff, as they were promised many many years ago. Any politician who pulls a stunt like this should be removed from office immediately as they are not qualified to represent 'the people'.
IP: Logged
07:08 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
That, I have always agreed with. Some want to make it Republicans~v~Democrats, but those are not the REAL players. It should be about those that are RULED against those that RULE. THOSE are the real players.
We need to stop falling for the biggest lie that was ever perpitrated against us; That VOTING is how we CONTROL them, and our destiny. Becouse whats the use of changing the faces, when the game remains the same. We are not using them, they are using us.
THAT is the game.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:31 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
It seems to me like everything the GOP, Hillary and even Joe Biden were predicting 3 years ago would happen is happening. And everything Obama said would happen...uh, well, so much for the great experiment.
one more year! one more year! one more year!
IP: Logged
07:33 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9114 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
So Obama has officially gone on record saying as of today Social Security is insolvent and the only way we can continue benefits is by borrowing money.
Most projections have SS running out of money by 2027, but according to Obama - it's all gone NOW. If he was trying to coming up with a political sound bite to pit "them" vs "us" he could have found something that wasn't so mind-numbingly stupid to say. Remember that, retirees. If Obama doesn't get his way - he'll spend YOUR money before he'll cut any entitlements to his friends.
I agree that this is the way most would interpret his statement, but I'm sure someone will clear this up and tell us what he really meant. lol sample: What he meant was a possible shutddown would effect the federal governments ability to print and mail the checks, those recieving their disbursement through direct deposit should not be effected.
------------------ Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: you've solved the wrong problem, work hard to improve.
um, the democrats ARE stonewalling. have been all along. and, yes - due to his unwillingness to attempt to actually DEAL, he is stonewalling right back, he has in fact lost support.
Why didn't the dems when they had the super majority deal with all of this, or didn't pass a budget, or vote to let Bush's tax cuts expire? Because they knew three things. 1. It would have been political suicide. 2. They knew they were going to get whipped in the last election and figured doing nothing they could hold on to the Senate. 3. They could just kick the can down the road and blame the republicans, and enough misinformed folks will believe it is the Republican's fault so we can get our power back in 2012.
X2
Obama should have made cuts elsewhere, but this really was a smart move as a politician. The blame goes right to the Republicans, and Obama comes out as someone fighting for the elderly.
What I want is for SS to slowly fade away. It'll continue to be for years, but will be slowly fading.
Introduce a system to fail SS: All people 50+ will receive their benefits on time. People 45-50 wait until they are 68. 40-45 wait until 70. 35-40 wait until 75. 30-35 wait until 80. All under 30 do not ever see SS.
But we all keep paying until the system is completely over. Yes, the young'ns (me included) will pay a lot to never see it, BUT I'd rather have that than just "forget" about the debt any day. It should give everyone enough time to plan for their retirement. The people without much notice get it on time, and the people with increasingly more notice get increasingly more years to plan for.
I know it would be hard... but it's one of those "bit the bullet" plans. I can't think of another way to do it.
That, I have always agreed with. Some want to make it Republicans~v~Democrats, but those are not the REAL players. It should be about those that are RULED against those that RULE. THOSE are the real players.
We need to stop falling for the biggest lie that was ever perpitrated against us; That VOTING is how we CONTROL them, and our destiny. Becouse whats the use of changing the faces, when the game remains the same. We are not using them, they are using us.
THAT is the game.
The problem I see with this is that YOU could run for President, if you had enough support. The people running the show are citizens. They live here.. grew up here.. and somewhere along the line decided they wanted to help lead America.
You are putting the "US vs. THEM" by saying we are the People, THEY are the rulers. I don't agree.
But I think I see what you're saying.
IP: Logged
07:42 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
The proletariat is going to rise against the ruling class? Communism may still have a chance yet.
Not exactly "The Rulling Class", but those that are supposed to work FOR us, but instead work LIKE a ruling class. We need to get back to where they FEAR for their jobs on a DAILY basis. In a sence, fear US.
Just like we fear OUR bosses. If we don't do our jobs like we were hired to do, we get canned. And the boss DAMN SURE don't put up with us fighting amongst eaourselves, like we allow our governing body to do. We are REQUIRED to work together at our jobs to PRODUCE, and we should put up with nothing less from OUR employees (elected officals).
Or they can pick up their pink slip and get to steppin'. We'll get someone who WILL do the job.
You put it to them like that, stick with it and don't back down, and I bet we could get this country back on a paying bassis in no time.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:50 PM
PFF
System Bot
DRA Member
Posts: 4543 From: Martinez, Ga, USA Registered: Oct 1999
The problem I see with this is that YOU could run for President, if you had enough support. The people running the show are citizens. They live here.. grew up here.. and somewhere along the line decided they wanted to help lead America.
You are putting the "US vs. THEM" by saying we are the People, THEY are the rulers. I don't agree.
But I think I see what you're saying.
Average citizens do not run the government, money does.
Even with the best intentions the average joe would be drug through the mud, stoned, and hung trying to run for high office without the approval of big money and anyone with the peoples interest at heart would never get that approval and support.
IP: Logged
07:56 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
The problem I see with this is that YOU could run for President, if you had enough support. The people running the show are citizens. They live here.. grew up here.. and somewhere along the line decided they wanted to help lead America.
Maybe that is how it ONCE was, but nowadays, eventually all they see is an oportunity to aquire a degree of wealth & power. It's GREAT work, when you can get it by convincing the people doing the hiring that they NEED you. And just like an interview, you'll tell them what they want to hear.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
You are putting the "US vs. THEM" by saying we are the People, THEY are the rulers. I don't agree.
I mean they are our employees, but they ignore us and our needs like they are OUR rulers.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-12-2011).]
I agree that this is the way most would interpret his statement, but I'm sure someone will clear this up and tell us what he really meant. lol sample: What he meant was a possible shutddown would effect the federal governments ability to print and mail the checks, those recieving their disbursement through direct deposit should not be effected.
I know what he "meant." He meant evil Republicans will keep Grandma from getting her check to play politics. But that's not what he "said" and it's not what they'll explain as we he really meant.
IP: Logged
08:15 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
I know what he "meant." He meant evil Republicans will keep Grandma from getting her check to play politics. But that's not what he "said" and it's not what they'll explain as we he really meant.
Please stop. BOTH sides are doing this.
IP: Logged
08:21 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
You guys need to wait your turn. The Iranians, Afghanistanians, and Pakistani get there money first.
Exactly right. Starve the old here, feed the young there.
That's why I don't believe in ANY of this crap.
We are SO broke, but we still manage to send TRILLIONS to other countries. We ain't broke BY A LONG SHOT.
When we stop supporting other countries, THEN I will start to believe what I am hearing. How come no one is bitching at them to stop sending money we don't have to people we don't care about?
IP: Logged
08:28 PM
DRA Member
Posts: 4543 From: Martinez, Ga, USA Registered: Oct 1999
Exactly right. Starve the old here, feed the young there.
That's why I don't believe in ANY of this crap.
We are SO broke, but we still manage to send TRILLIONS to other countries. We ain't broke BY A LONG SHOT.
When we stop supporting other countries, THEN I will start to believe what I am hearing. How come no one is bitching at them to stop sending money we don't have to people we don't care about?
No one is bitching because the majority don't have a clue how much money is being sent out of the country, they also don't have a clue that it's borrowed money!
