HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Carter implemented COLA, ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:43 PM

Carter implemented COLA, Reagan taxed benefits, Clinton increased tax

President Obama agreed to consider a shitty Republican proposal, and then pulled the.

Hey, he still has time to disappoint, but for now, chained CPI is off the table.

President Obama still hasn't touched Social Security. Let's hope it stays that way.



32 replies, 1916 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 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Carter implemented COLA, Reagan taxed benefits, Clinton increased tax (Original post)
ProSense Dec 2012 OP
R. Daneel Olivaw Dec 2012 #1
ProSense Dec 2012 #2
R. Daneel Olivaw Dec 2012 #3
ProSense Dec 2012 #5
R. Daneel Olivaw Dec 2012 #6
ProSense Dec 2012 #8
R. Daneel Olivaw Dec 2012 #9
ProSense Dec 2012 #11
R. Daneel Olivaw Dec 2012 #20
ProSense Dec 2012 #21
R. Daneel Olivaw Dec 2012 #25
ProSense Dec 2012 #26
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2013 #29
ProSense Jan 2013 #30
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #14
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #18
On the Road Oct 2013 #31
bhikkhu Oct 2013 #32
whistler162 Dec 2012 #17
MjolnirTime Dec 2012 #4
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #7
ProSense Dec 2012 #10
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #22
ProSense Dec 2012 #23
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #28
Matariki Dec 2012 #12
bama_blue_dot Dec 2012 #13
Matariki Dec 2012 #15
ProSense Dec 2012 #16
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #19
Cha Dec 2012 #24
indepat Dec 2012 #27

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:49 PM

1. Okay, let's begin.

"President Obama agreed to consider a shitty Republican proposal..."

It seems like the Democratic Leadership was behind it or at the very least accepting of it.

Nancy Pelosi Says Social Security Cut Proposed By Obama Would 'Strengthen' Program
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/nancy-pelosi-social-security_n_2333285.html

"Hey, he still has time to disappoint, but for now, chained CPI is off the table."

How do we know that is true?

"President Obama still hasn't touched Social Security. Let's hope it stays that way. "

I want more than hope. Don't you?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:53 PM

2. Ah,

"Thereís no use even discussing that because we donít even know if we have plan," she continued....

<...>

She also noted that Obamaís plan protects low-income individuals from the Social Security changes, which should quell some of the concerns among Democrats.

<...>

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a longtime defender of Social Security, said Wednesday his support depends on how the proposal is packaged. "A chained CPI that's attached to Social Security, for example, that does not protect lower income, those that are just barely above the minimum in terms of what they're making in Social Security would not be something that I could support," Harkin said. He continued that such a measure should not be part of the current fiscal cliff discussion.

...still hasn't touched it, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:00 PM

3. You missed this.

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats, led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), signaled greater willingness on Wednesday to cut Social Security benefits, with the party now considering a change to the way inflation is calculated for recipients.

and this...

Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill that a cut proposed by President Barack Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations would in fact "strengthen" the program, echoing the claims often made by Republicans about entitlement programs they want to slash.

and this...

The cuts would start small, but wind up costing beneficiaries thousands of dollars over time, which is why Democrats have traditionally fought the idea.

But Pelosi wrapped both her arms around it Wednesday, insisting she does not regard it as a "cut."

"No, I donít," she told reporters. "I consider it a strengthening of Social Security, but thatís neither here nor there."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:03 PM

5. If you're trying

to refute the OP point, which is that thus far President Obama has not touched Social Security, quoting Nancy Pelosi about a past offer doesn't do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:09 PM

6. Sure it does. The GOP could have taken the offer. Then what?


CPI should never have been on the table in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:16 PM

8. They didn't. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:19 PM

9. I know this may be hard for some to admit,

but if you put something on the table then it could have been accepted.

It doesn't matter that the deal fell through.

It doesn't matter that its off the table for now.


Never gamble with something that you don't want to lose...especially when it can hurt others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:23 PM

11. I think

"I know this may be hard for some to admit, but if you put something on the table then it could have been accepted."

...what you're having trouble accepting is the difference between something that has happened and something that was simply proposed.

COLA and the taxes on Social Security happened. Chained CPI has not been implemented by President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:51 PM

20. What you're having trouble accepting is the difference between something that was offered


and thankfully rejected.

It should have never been offered.


We're lucky. This time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:55 PM

21. "something that was offered and thankfully rejected."

That's something that wasn't accepted, agree?

I have no "trouble accepting" that. Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:25 PM

25. You have a good night now, ProSense.


I'm sure you have a busy schedule, and I don't want to keep you from your rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:28 PM

26. LOL!

"I'm sure you have a busy schedule, and I don't want to keep you from your rounds."

I smell a losing argument.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:08 AM

29. Hey, happy new year.

Perhaps the new deal will fall through, but perhaps not.

Remember. Never gamble with something that you don't want to lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:12 AM

30. Happy New Year!

"Perhaps the new deal will fall through, but perhaps not. "

Did you kick the thread for a reason?

I mean, you know the OP is still a fact, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:33 PM

14. BINGO. We now know that OurPOTUS is willing to unnecessarily screw SS recipients,

 

rather than protect them/us, whenever the opportunity presents itself, and undoubtedly it will again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:47 PM

18. It was only on the table with provisions that would have neutralized it effects

for the majority of people - those who rely on SS for their primary income in retirement. It was essentially a reduction in benefit increases combined with a more progressive tax policy, so that people who needed it most would end up with more money-in-pocket.

It was on the table as something the repugs had on their shopping list, but at a price they were never going to pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 2, 2013, 06:18 PM

31. Is That Right?

It was only on the table with provisions that would have neutralized it effects for the majority of people - those who rely on SS for their primary income in retirement.

That is NOT how Chained CPI was portrayed here. You can't trust anything you hear on DU any longer. Might as well be Free Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to On the Road (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 2, 2013, 08:33 PM

32. Chained CPI was portrayed acurately

but the president's proposal was not. As in many other things (such as the proposal to lower corporate tax rates to 28%) you have to look at the whole thing. A good question would be - why would a president who has focused so much on a primary objective of reducing income equality suggest such a thing?

In the first case, because the details of the proposal and how it would be implemented would do just that - reduce income inequality. It was designed to protect or increase the incomes of those most in need, and raise the contributions or reduce the incomes of those who have plenty of other income. Thereby reducing inequality.

In the second case - same thing. The reduction in corporate income taxes was tied to provisions that would close loopholes and lead to corporations actually paying those rates. Which would reduce inequality considerably, if you look into how much taxes the biggest corporations really pay.

This is all old news about stuff that was dead in the water months ago, but the reason both measures were not even considered by other side is most understandable if you look at what they were intended to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:45 PM

17. I want more than hope that the sun won't go supernova on Monday!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:01 PM

4. This will do no good. Those convinced that Obama is evil, will always claim he is about to cut SS.

 

They've been doing it for years.
And no matter how many times they are wrong, they cannot let their delusion die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:11 PM

7. I'm going to say this again...

The "shitty Republican proposal" was endorsed by both the Center for American Progress and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Repeating misinformation doesn't make it true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:20 PM

10. Wait

"The "shitty Republican proposal" was endorsed by both the Center for American Progress and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Repeating misinformation doesn't make it true."

...how the hell is the fact that it was endorsed by the CPBB (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022048462) make the reality that it was a Republican demand "misinformation"?

MR. CARNEY: Well, letís be clear about one thing: The President didnít put it on the table. This is something that Republicans want. And it is --


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022094994

The President included it in a previous offer, which Boehner rejected.

It is no longer in the current proposal, and now Republicans were still demanding it as of today.

Lindsay Graham: I Will Destroy Americaís Solvency Unless The Social Security Retirement Age Is Raise
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022097831

GOP Drops Social Security Cut Demand In Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Just hours after GOP efforts to include a Social Security benefit cut in a last minute deal to avoid the fiscal cliff ground negotiations to a halt, Republicans backtracked.

After a Republican conference meeting in the Capitol on Sunday evening, numerous senators emerged to announce that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would retract his request to include the so-called "chained CPI" measure in any short-term budget deal.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/gop-drops-social-security-cut-demand-in-fiscal


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:56 PM

22. Playing stupid doesn't become you...

Chained CPI as a policy has been endorsed by organizations and economists with sterling progressive credentials, and it's been around for decades. Acting as though it was a Republican proposal because they "proposed" it during the last thirty days is playing word games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:00 PM

23. I'm not the one "playing stupid"

"Chained CPI as a policy has been endorsed by organizations and economists with sterling progressive credentials, and it's been around for decades."

What the hell does that have to do with the details of the negotiations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:43 PM

28. Yeah...

Forgot it. You know what you know, and there's no sense talking to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:28 PM

12. I've always been curious about something

what does the 'pro' part of your screen name mean? I'm curious because you very often seem to come off as someone who is paid to post 'pro' talking points. No matter what.

You can argue all you want that it somehow doesn't 'count' because the Republicans didn't accept the chained CPI, but they could have. And that would have seriously fucked real, live human beings. Perhaps even your own parents or grandparents. Just because the President or any other elected official is a Democrat, it doesn't make them above criticism. Just because someone on DU is critical of a particular decision Obama makes doesn't mean they are 'anti-Obama'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:32 PM

13. You can argue that same point

about many others on here that always argue "against" the President, no matter what the reality is..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:35 PM

15. No doubt

I have no doubt that there are people who are paid to post negative things here. Just like there appears to be paid cheerleaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:39 PM

16. It means

"I've always been curious about something what does the 'pro' part of your screen name mean? I'm curious because you very often seem to come off as someone who is paid to post 'pro' talking points. No matter what."

...understanding the difference between "they did accept it" and this:

"You can argue all you want that it somehow doesn't 'count' because the Republicans didn't accept the chained CPI, but they could have."

Oh, and next time come up with something original like...."blue linky"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:51 PM

19. You would have to look at the actual offer - why do you think the repugs declined?

...because it was only offered with a price they were unwilling to pay - a more progressive tax policy that shifted the burden onto those with higher incomes, to balance the preservation of the equivalent of full benefits for those most in need. Which is about 66% of SS beneficiaries, who don't have other pensions and investment incomes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:00 PM

24. No, she does NOT come off the way you try to Insult her. The "Pro"

before Sense is self explanatory.

Big Fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 07:38 PM

27. 'pukes refuse to increase taxes on the most affluent but probably don't realize that

when junior reduced the highest marginal rates on the wealthy, he left the higher Clinton-based higher taxation of social security that hits poor schmucks like me. Surely that was just an oversight, for 'pukes would have surely corrected this obvious inequity. Yeah, 'pukes would not tolerate such inequity to continue if only they realized this inequity has continued for 12 years. Yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread