HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Lawrence O'Donnell and Ro...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:43 AM

Lawrence O'Donnell and Robert Greenstein on the FACTS of the Soc Sec CPI

DU has largely had a rush to judgment on the changes on the Social Security CPI.

I haven't had much time to read them all but the threads that I have read were very heavy on opinion, outrage and emotion and very light on facts.

Here is LO and Robert Greenstein discussing the technical parts of it. First, who is Robert Greenstein? LO introduces him as one of the 'go to' experts on the left when it comes to Social Security. Here is his Wiki page


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greenstein

Robert Greenstein is founder and executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a Washington, DC think tank that focuses on federal and state fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals. According to his CBPP bio, Greenstein is "an expert on the federal budget and in particular, the impact of tax and budget proposals on low-income people".

Greenstein was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 1996, and the 14th Annual Heinz Award in Public Policy in 2008. In 1994, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve on the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. Prior to founding the Center, Greenstein was Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service at the United States Department of Agriculture under President Jimmy Carter. In November of 2011, Greenstein was included on The New Republic's list of Washington's most powerful, least famous people.



Here is the 10 minute web only discussion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/#50254663

Some highlights.


1) Greenstein agrees that the change would make the CPI indicator more accurate, and that has been proven by economists.

2) He also suggests that the current CPI MAY be more accurate to some segments of society, like the elderly, but there is no proof of that yet.

3) He also discusses something about a 5% offset, an additional income payment for elderly and poor SS recepients that would almost entirely offset the changes in the CPI, something I have not seen in any other DU thread (but again I read only a few).

4) He understands that there would be other parts of the package included, including raising the contribution cap that a) we want and b) would strengthen SS.

5) If it is part of a larger deal that increases tax revenue and cuts defense spending, etc then it is something he would support because it has a very minimal impact and "you can never get everything that you want".

O'Donnell again concludes with the obvious, but universally overlooked at DU, bromide: "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to". You cannot take one item out of the package without looking at the whole package, and the whole package isn't agreed to until everything is agreed to.

It is a highly technical discussion from one of the country's leading liberal defenders of Social Security.

When asked about his opinion of the proposed change on the Rachel Maddow Show, Howard Dean said (paraphrasing, couldn't find the video)

"Well its very involved and I haven't seen the details. It is something that Leader Pelosi is always on top of and if she says that it doesn't represent a major change to the benefits then I trust her".

LO said that actual impact to Social Security recpients would be less than 1%, amounting to about $ 3 a month in the following year.

51 replies, 2497 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lawrence O'Donnell and Robert Greenstein on the FACTS of the Soc Sec CPI (Original post)
grantcart Dec 2012 OP
reformist2 Dec 2012 #1
grantcart Dec 2012 #6
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #26
reformist2 Dec 2012 #43
99Forever Dec 2012 #2
grantcart Dec 2012 #7
99Forever Dec 2012 #13
grantcart Dec 2012 #15
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #18
99Forever Dec 2012 #23
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #14
grantcart Dec 2012 #17
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #24
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #39
grantcart Dec 2012 #42
99Forever Dec 2012 #44
librechik Dec 2012 #22
99Forever Dec 2012 #30
librechik Dec 2012 #40
99Forever Dec 2012 #41
librechik Dec 2012 #46
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #27
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #3
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #8
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #16
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #21
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #32
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #34
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #37
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #38
byeya Dec 2012 #35
grantcart Dec 2012 #9
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #20
byeya Dec 2012 #36
GeorgeGist Dec 2012 #4
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #5
frazzled Dec 2012 #10
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #33
frazzled Dec 2012 #48
Report1212 Dec 2012 #11
reformist2 Dec 2012 #12
grantcart Dec 2012 #19
dawg Dec 2012 #25
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #28
ProSense Dec 2012 #29
grantcart Dec 2012 #47
1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #31
reformist2 Dec 2012 #45
closeupready Dec 2012 #49
forestpath Dec 2012 #50
Liberal1975 Dec 2012 #51

Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:46 AM

1. The only people who think the CPI overstates inflation are in DC or on Wall Street.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:55 AM

6. lol Greenstein disagrees, but I am guessing you didn't watch the video.



Are you also against the 5% income offset?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:25 AM

26. Economists have been saying this since the early 1980's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:06 AM

43. All the "experts" adjust prices down due to technological advancements, but it's a sham.

Example: That 19" color TV that you paid $200 for in 1980 may now cost only $100 if they still sold it brand-new, but good luck finding it in any store. All the new TVs that size are HDTVs and cost about $300.

So, while the economists rave about how the cost of technology went down by $100, the typical consumer actually paid $100 more. So did the price of TVs go down, or did they go up? I'll side with the consumer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:51 AM

2. Tell us Grantcart...

Does either "Lawrence O'Donnell or Robert Greenstein" depend on Social Security for their very subsistence? How about Medicare for there entire "healthcare option?"

Funny how all of those that think gutting these bare minimum lifeline, safety net programs is okay, NEVER are dependent on them, themselves.

Fuck Lawrence O'Donnell and Robert Greenstein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:56 AM

7. Yes yes I know fuck them all


Are you also against the 5% income offset that would reduce the CPI change to almost nothing (less than 1%) to affected seniors?

Just guessing you didn't watch the video and don't really have the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:01 AM

13. Goin to answer the questions or not?

Does either "Lawrence O'Donnell or Robert Greenstein" depend on Social Security for their very subsistence?


How about Medicare for their entire "healthcare option?"


Easy to talk about how easy and painless something is when it doesn't affect you, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:04 AM

15. If you bothered to watch the Video then you would have learned that the proposal (presumably)


also includes a 5% income addition for affected low income seniors.

Are you also against the offset, or are you going to even bother with facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:13 AM

18. So gc, the proposal can either be 'presumed' or 'factual'.

To say the proposal presumably includes a thing followed by calling that presumption 'fact' right in the same post. Which is it?
Can you show the details, coming from an actual elected official rather than a speculation from a pundit on tv?
If you are presuming, that's all fine, but shouting at others that the presumption is actual fact is a big much without showing the official proposal, the actual facts free of presumptions and speculations.
I'd really like to see the details from an elected Democrat, if you have them, post them. If not, speculation and presumption don't really cut it for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:21 AM

23. I am against "Democrats" playing chicken...

... with the most vulnerable peoples pittance piece of "the pie" while billionaires get fatter and fatter and all the fucking breaks.


Now.

Going to answer the questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:01 AM

14. Show me an elected official saying there was a 5% offset. If it is a 'fact' because LO's guest says

it, that's not enough for me. All you offer is some TV chat show guest saying he heard this, no proof is offered at all. Yet you claim the man's word is a fact? You should then be able to show us support for that assertion from an actual official. Can you? Or is this really what it seems to be, just some guy on TV rattling off some stuff to say on TV?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:12 AM

17. Show me an elected official that said they have a complete agreement on anything.


This isn't 'some guy' but apparently, one of the leading liberal experts on it. LO said that he was the 'go to' expert that liberal legislators have gone to on the subject for years. "The New Republic's list of Washington's most powerful, least famous people". So I am going to trust him more than 'some guy' DU rattling some stuff just to try and show that they are more radical than Obama.

But if you wanted to quote an elected official then I would quote Pelosi who said that it (the changes) wouldn't have a major impact.

Howard Dean said on the Rachel Maddow Show that he "trusted Pelosi on the subject, that it was very technical".

So IF there is a 5% offset as part of the agreement would you agree that the overall change would be negligible and that all of the outrage on DU was misplaced?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:21 AM

24. I see that capped out IF right there at the end. So the offset is speculation, by a non official

and yet you are howling at other posters to accept 'the facts'. Facts come free of capped out 'IF's. A fact is not an 'if' it is not a 'presumable' it is a simple fact.
You are offering one paid pundit's opinion and speculation. That's great. But to claim that the opinion and speculation is 'fact' and say that others who don't join the speculation are not looking at facts is dishonest. It just is. A fact is a fact, no 'IF' involved.
I'd love to hear the facts. Actual, official facts. Thus far, it is all speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:50 AM

39. Pelosi...she said the chained CPI would not be much of a cut. She sits on 35 million dollars while

she offers up part of the 20 dollar raise the elderly got this year. We are in fact splitting hairs for a millionaire over 20 bucks old people get. It is what it is. It is a rich person talking about taking some of grandma's 20 dollar raise and claiming that it is not so bad for grandma. It is absolutely disgusting to hear Democrats say these things. I do not expect you to find picking the pockets of the most needy as any problem at all, Nancy told you it is fine, so that means it is fine.
When Nancy took accountability off the table for GW Bush, did her doing so make that instantly correct in your view?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:05 AM

42. Interesting thata Dean said that he trusted Pelosi on the issue.



So are you against the income offset as well?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/#50254663

Seems like you have left out rather major parts of a larger package.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:10 AM

44. I've made it quite clear what I am against.

But if you want to keep making up bullshit strawmen to battle, have at it. Until you've answered the questions i posed to you, I couldn't care less what you think. I've dealt people like you before, I'm fully aware of the games you play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:20 AM

22. anybody who thinks 5% (over many years, BTW) is "gutting"

isn't living in the world I live in that has arithmetic.

DUers are hysterical about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:33 AM

30. Fucking right I'm "hysterical"...

.. about so called "Democrats" cutting Social Security in any fucking way, shape, or form. Or even considering it. Period.

So maybe you have enough integrity to answer the questions I asked the OP and he has danced and dodged around.

If so, here they are:

Does either "Lawrence O'Donnell or Robert Greenstein" depend on Social Security for their very subsistence?

How about Medicare for there entire "healthcare option?"


And while you are at, apply those same questions to your self.


It's easy and cowardly to make cuts in programs that keep people alive when they don't affect you, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:52 AM

40. It's not easy to make cuts and I certainly am not in favor of cuts.

My view is that the SS benefits should be doubled, at least, then pinned to inflation with real values, not technical strategies which underestimate true costs.

But I don't think it furthers the argument to get personal and demand answers that are beyond the scope of the OP. Shaming and false equivalencies, as are written in to your questions, don't help either. O'Donnell are the messengers, so you attack them personally because they bust your preconceptions? That's hysterical, not rational

You haven't responded to the FACT that seniors will be affected far less than is the hysterical impression of "CPI" which is running around the debate spreading misinformation. Prove your open minded ness and give the issue a think without fuming over the notion that O'Donnell and Greenstein (and me!) are evil millionaires who can't empathize wi the common man. Lawrence O'Donnell? Are you serious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:00 AM

41. When they feed me Republican talking points...

... I'll call it like I see it.

It's known as holding them responsible for their actions.

And so, I guess you, like the OP, won't be answering the questions.


Should I be surprised? Because I'm not, but then I am a FDR DEMOCRAT that actually thinks it matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:21 AM

46. your outrage is directed at the wrong people

and your hostility will bring you few friends. FDR was able to make friends and knew damn well who his real enemies were. And O'Donnell would have been on the list of friendlies.

Just FYI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #2)


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:52 AM

3. When a Democratic President wants to cut SS, he's going to do so. His first efforts will not be his

 

last ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:56 AM

8. Consider that if Obama lost the 2012 election, those predicting he was going to gut SS

would have been wrong. Some have regularly predicted, with regularity, that it was about to happen. DU bursts into flame with Outrage.
And then the evil deed didn't occur.

By winning a second term, Obama has given those folks get a second opportunity to make the same breathless predictions.

Meanwhile, John Boehner lays weeping in a pool of his own sick, with Obama's boot print on his ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:12 AM

16. All your metaphorical language doesn't change a thing. Walk toward the light. Come back to reality.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:16 AM

21. I live in reality. Those who make the same failed prediction endlesssly do not.

And they get to be outraged at Obama regardless of what actually happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:36 AM

32. What same failed prediction or predictions?

 

Does that include the prediction that he was insincere when he said that he was going to reform NAFTA? That prediction was confirmed to be true when he didn't even make an effort to do so.

In fact, he's signed three let's-send-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreements. His Administration is participating in negotiating a fourth one, one being called The NAFTA of the Pacific. It's going to send even more jobs to China.

How about the prediction that he wasn't going to end the endless wars and occupations in the Middle-East? Or are you among those who believe that turning Iraq over to the CIA and mercenaries was an end to the Iraq war and occupation?

So now he's said, after saying that SS was "off the table," that SS is on the table and he wants to cut it. Why shouldn't we believe him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:42 AM

34. We were discussing predictions about Social Security, and you change the subject ... not

surprised.

Now, he has not done enough about NAFTA. Having said that, not every trade agreement is an evil thing.

As for the wars. He said he'd get us out of Iraq and he did. Said he'd INCREASE troops levels in Afghanistan and he did. Said he'd pull us out by end of 2014 and is on track to do so.

The breathless predictions about SS cuts started during his first year. DU bursts into flames with cries that its about to happen every 4-6 months. If Obama is trying to gut SS, he sucks at it.

We used to see the same nonsense around DADT. Obama was never going to end it. Nope. Never. It was predicted here that he was NEVER going to get us out of Iraq.

You don't like Obama I get it. You'll be stuck with him for 4 more years. You might want to start finding the progressive candidate you want for 2016. They'll need to hit the ground running by 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:44 AM

37. Actually, "If Obama is trying to gut SS," he is persistent.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:47 AM

38. Sounds like a win-win for you ... you can be outraged either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:42 AM

35. As Obama strays closer to Blue Dog territory, he needs longer and harder pushes from the left.

 

Maybe then, he'll stumble forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:57 AM

9. Didn't watch the video did you. Have no idea about the 5% offset, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:15 AM

20. So you didn't hear him say that SS was off the table, until it was back on the table?

 

Which is it?

Is Social Security off the table, after it has been put back on the table?

Or is it off the table again?

When you are dealing with someone who engages in using duplicitious language, you have to know that talk about a "5% offset" after saying that SS is "off the table" is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:43 AM

36. Hear! Hear!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:52 AM

4. ROBERT GREENSTEIN ANSWERS CRITICS ON CHAINED CPI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:53 AM

5. Late to the game. Now the official OFA line on DU is that Obama never seriously offered chained

CPI because it is so awful, it was just a way to put egg on Boehner's face, or to be exacting, more egg on his face.
So perhaps this is not the time to defend taking so much as a dime from beneficiaries. Of course the change will not be large, the average COLA increase this year was $21. So there is not much to work with there, $3 is what percentage of 21? It is a 15% cut from an already tiny pie. Hard for me to see that as a good thing.
But the Republicans said no, so now the DC ruling class can climb on planes and go on vacation! Those who just saved $3, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:59 AM

10. I've tried to bring up the "offset" for poorer elderly people

As well as the total exemption for those on SS disability. Why have I known this? Because the president keeps repeating it. But I guess no one is listening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:39 AM

33. Please, please show a quote from the President saying the things you claim he 'keeps repeating'.

It is odd that you do not offer one while complaining that his message is unheard. Would it not be more supportive to actually provide these quotes you claim you keep hearing rather than snarking and making an exit?
Do you have such a quote? I've been looking and can not find a thing. Can't wait for the quotes you have!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:19 PM

48. I did not snark and did not "make an exit"

I was at a business meeting all morning: okay? And it wasn't snark. I've been listening to the arguments since the president's "new" (now defunct) counteroffer to Boehner was made, and I have heard these statements that the poorest seniors as well as SSI recipients were going to be exempted. I believe the President made a passing mention about protections built into the other day at his press conference, though I don't really have the time right now to research everything (sorry, I'm trying to meet a deadline before the holidays).

But here are two statements by others in recent days, Jay Carney and Nancy Pelosi, who both asserted that the proposal the President made contained protections:

Carney WH Press Conference, three days ago:

I would note that this is a technical change -- would be if instated -- to the way that economists calculate inflation, and it would affect every program that has -- that uses the CPI in its calculations. And so itís not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the Presidentís proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/18/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-12182012




From Pelosi:

She also noted that Obamaís plan protects low-income individuals from the Social Security changes, which should quell some of the concerns among Democrats.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/nancy-pelosi-social-security_n_2333285.html


Administration comments quoted in article on offer:

The administration insisted that there would be "protections for most-vulnerable populations" perhaps by indexing the changes so that they don't affect those with low-income.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/obama-fiscal-cliff-offer_n_2319075.html


Sorry, that's all I have time to find right now. My point was not snark. My point was that I knew this was part of the administration's proposal with regard to the CPI issue. I'd heard it (and read it) in a number of contexts. If that's "snark," I'm not sure whether I should ever post anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:00 AM

11. Greenstein used to do events at Third Way with Pete Peterson fyi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:00 AM

12. The last sentence is VERY deceptive, bordering on dishonest.

While it may be true that chained CPI would reduce benefits by 0.3% in the first year it was implemented, it is highly misleading to not explain how this compounds over time and leads to a 10% reduction in overall benefits down the road.

In my world, a half-truth = a full lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:15 AM

19. So is it also a lie that the new formula has been shown to be a more accurate real calculator


of inflation.

And for the record they are not saying that the CPI wouldn't have an impact over time, but that the impact would be almost entirely offset by an income adjustment, as discussed in length in the video.

But if you actually took time to watch the video you would have learned that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:22 AM

25. Yes.

It is a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:27 AM

28. There is no actual proof of this offset the pundit is going on about.

Watch the video and learn what this one man's opinion is, that's all there is to it. Speculation which you desire to call fact.
Some details and some cites from elected officials would help a lot. Repeating that some 'expert' said it on the teevee does not help. No matter how many times an opinion is offered up, it remains an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:29 AM

29. The problem is that

while the CBPP floated support of it, even its proposal was complicated. There is no way this can be decide in a few days. So the entire notion that this could be resolved and voted on is bogus. Greenstein sounds like he's pulling support of it in these negotiations.

The claim that it requires looking at every single program to see who needs to be exempt and protected is fairly silly considering that even across the board it's unnecessary and doesn't really have a big impact in terms of savings.

Cuts are not acceptable. Raise the cap and consider other progressive proposal to increase benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:21 AM

47. There is another problem

You are advocating that we keep an 80 year old CPI formula because it derives a better outcome for seniors in the long run.

The Chained CPI wasn't designed to rip off seniors, it was a completely neutral academic/government study that was made to improve the CPI index and (it appears) reflects a general consensus among economists at the peer review level.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/super_paris.pdf

So there are two questions:

Should we force the government to use the most academically sound formulas or should we cherry pick the formulas that are best suited for our constituencies.

If we don't like it when it comes to climate change or other areas I find it very uncomfortable to pick a CPI formula not based on what is the most accurate but what favors our side. It is preferable to let the statistical formulas stand or die on their accuracy and not their bias.

So IF it in fact is considered the most accurate measure and IF there is an income offset it would seem that in a game where everyone is going to have to give something to get something passed then this would be the smallest pawn possible. LO is suggesting that the cost would be less than 1% to the pockets of seniors on SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:35 AM

31. Horsehocky! THe chained CPI is nothing short of compounding of underpayment

Its stabbing the elderly in the back for something that has nothing what so ever to do with the creation of the debt. In fact it is the Social Security system that, to a large extent, is financing nation's debt when you look at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:10 AM

45. And why is it that with all the various CPIs out there, they always go for the lowest one??? Hmmm???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:21 PM

49. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:32 PM

50. Bottom line, the only people Obama wants to deprive of income are people making over

 

$400,000 a year - and people living on Social Security. And spare me the excuses about how the poorest of the poor will be spared.

It is monstrous to hurt SS recipients. And just as monstrous to defend it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:25 PM

51. Here is the Problem

Why is SS even on the table? Why? It is popular, it is solvent.

If this change is so insignificant why is it even being offered in the context of a deficit "crisis"? As a compromise with the Republicans?

When a Democratic President brings Social Security to the table, unfortunately the "facts" don't matter as much as the political message that this specific action sends.

You tell me to trust it because Nancy Pelosi said it was ok and Howard Dean trusts her. Why if it's ok do the Republicans want it so badly? Is my trust in Howard Dean's trust in Nancy Pelosi supposed to somehow counteract my mistrust of Paul Ryan?

For me it is as simple as a "slippery slope" analogy. No. I don't care if CPI amounts to a cent less over a years time. I still say no.

A quick google search on Social Security polling will show you that it is very popular...with Republicans.

So we have a program that does not add to the deficit, that has broad support among the ENTIRE electorate that is solvent without doing a single thing for 30 years and we have to cut benefits because...why again?

Because Serious People in the M$M think so? Sorry. Nope, you can go on that trip but I respectfully decline. I do appreciate you posting the information though Grantcart. Thank you for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread