Watch what Obama et al DO, not what they say. Pretty words go pretty far in bamboozling the public, but, sooner or later, people are going to catch on the Obama Corporatist bent and how well he takes care of Big Bidness. He just doesn't see the need to help out the little people that way.  

Oh, he'll use pretty words to get their votes; he just may not fulfill any of those promises. Based on his presidential campaign, he tends to save his more truthful comments and promises for those private fund raisers or other private meetings with the powerful and wealthy.

Ask yourself --and Obama if you ever get the chance-- just why he put SocSec in play, to be attacked by the Republicans? And Corporatists in his ostensible party? Recall that he did this early in Dem primaries, causing Krugman and others to raise the alarm.  Now, we're stuck with him as our president.  What will we do to contain his rightward tendencies???

BTW, recall that in 1983, all SocSec payers began to "pay forward" with higher deductions to manage the Baby Boom Bulge. And ages for full SocSec were raised. At the time, I thought nothing of it; no problem: I had education and experience, there would be no issue with working until 66.

D'uh.  Downsizing at a "bad" age to find another job. Cancer, so now expensive to cover with health insurance. Major recession (looking more like a depression for employment). Suddenly, getting to 66 is not going to be in any way "easy."

I have a great mechanic, but, alas, last time I was in getting work done on my aging car, he was having to take pain pills repeatedly...for arthritis in his elbows. Working on cars and trucks is hard physical labor; it takes a toll on the workers' bodies. And this guy is supposed to do this work until 70 so Obama can please Repubs who hate SocSec??? And he dasn't really tax the wealthy? Wow.

Take a moment to think about the effects on others, those who aren't desk jockeys. Please.

The Democratic leadership will seek to brand every Republican running for office with my road map. Ironically, if Democrats succeed in demagoguing to death efforts [my plan lol] to save Medicare, that political victory will hasten the program's end. While I am proud to have 13 House Republicans co-sponsor the legislation, and have been overwhelmed by the support outside the Beltway....

I'm sure Obama doesn't want to "privatize" Social Security, but I am also sure he will be looking to the catfood commission to give him and "conservatives" of both parties in congress the political cover they need to "strengthen" Social Security through some combination of cuts to scheduled benefits and/or raising of the retirement age.* His post-partisan unity shtick line where he says he is "committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security" is the tell.

OK--read and weep for our public discourse.

The assignment is this and this post by Susan G at Daily Kos about Social Security myths. The first is this one about life expectancy, which is something that has driven me crazy for years. Much of the literature about "problems" with social security will tell you that longer life expectancy was unanticipated by the people who designed the system, which is ridiculous. They certainly did. And they will also tell you that life expectancy was only 63 at the time social security was designed, which is true, but they neglect to explain that life expectancy in those days was was shorter mostly because of childhood diseases, which means that the financing ratios were never affected. After all, kids who die at 3 never pay FICA in the first place. Anyway, the upshot is this, from Nancy Altman's important book on the subject The Battle for Social Security: From FDR's Vision To Bush's Gamble:

For Social Security purposes, the correct question is not how many live to age 65, but rather how long those reaching age 65 live thereafter. Here the numbers are not as dramatic. In 1940, men who survived to age 65 had a remaining life expectancy of 12.7 years. Today, a 65 year old man can expect to live not quite three years longer than he might have in 1940, or 15.3 years beyond reaching age 65. For women, the comparable numbers are 14.7 years beyond age 65 in 1940; 19.6 years in 1990.

(My emphasis throughout)

See why these zombie myths are so insidious? They tell you part of the facts, which can mislead even those who know better, have been through this political fight before (BushCo, remember? When Josh Marshall marshalled his readers to demand that their Congress Critters spell out exactly where they stood on SocSec issues???) tend to forget all the niggling details. I did; I needed to refresh my memory. I knew it was untrue, but I'd forgotten the factual basis for proving it was untrue. If you don't recall the facts, the lies sound feasible, rational...and once we buy the premise, we can be sold the bad, bad deal.

These politcal rats depend on our being busy, distracted, easy to bamboozle. Beware the deadly SocSec Myths!