HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If no cuts to Social Secu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:18 PM

If no cuts to Social Security, why must the president include "protections for the vulnerable?"

At the White House website on February 21 there was posted the president's final offer to Boehner on deficit reduction.

A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit

In the middle of all the cuts that are listed is this sentence:

Spending savings from Superlative CPI with protections for vulnerable


From what I have read Superlative CPI is either the president's version of Chained CPI or they are the very same. I have read both.

I have to wonder why the vulnerable need protecting? From what? If there are no cuts intended why is there a need for protection?

Jay Carney told us in December that President Obama included it in the negotiations to find common ground with the Republicans. I find myself resenting that very much.

From the White House transcript:

Why Chained CPI was included by Obama

MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s be clear about one thing: The President didn’t put it on the table. This is something that Republicans want. And it is --

Q But the Republicans --

MR. CARNEY: -- part of his -- if I could please answer Sam’s question, I’d appreciate it. And the President did include it in his counterproposal, his counteroffer, as part of this process, as part of the negotiation process. 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 it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

But let’s be clear, this is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the President has agreed to put this in his proposal -- agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.


Thom Hartmann had sharp words for the use of this CPI.

The pure cruelty of the chained cpi

If Obama goes along with a “chained CPI,” he will be the first Democratic President in the history of the Party to have actually cut Social Security. Even though it doesn’t do a thing – nothing! – to reduce the budget deficit. And, as we saw with Bill Clinton “reforming” welfare, once the Republicans can corner a Democratic president into shooting a Democratic Santa Claus, the Republicans can finish the job through the death of a thousand paper cuts over the next decade and in the states, and everybody just remembers that it was a Democratic President who started it.


Bernie Sanders had equally strong words.

Chained CPI: An economic, moral disaster

The so-called “chained CPI” is Washington shorthand for one of the most-talked-about cuts favored by Republicans and some Democrats.

Unfortunately, few outside the Beltway understand its consequences. It is a devious and underhanded way to wage class warfare against working families.


Wall Street billionaires and other supporters claim that changing the consumer price index is a “minor tweak.” Tell that to the millions of senior citizens trying to survive on just $14,000 a year whose Social Security benefits would be cut overall by $112 billion during the next decade.

Average 65-year-olds would get $650 a year less in benefits when they turn 75 and see a $1,000 a year cut when they turn 85.


It really upsets me that Democrats are putting this on the table. It also upsets me to see so many excusing it for various reasons. They have pounded this austerity, fiscal cliff stuff into our heads until it is part of the language.

I add to that the frustration and anger I personally feel over the casual way people are accepting the privatization of public education, the way so many are in denial that it is happening.

Being the first Democratic president to cut Social Security, being a Democratic president who is finalizing the Bush family plans for education reform.....that is a legacy that needs to be rethought very soon.






159 replies, 8114 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 159 replies Author Time Post
Reply If no cuts to Social Security, why must the president include "protections for the vulnerable?" (Original post)
madfloridian Feb 2013 OP
graham4anything Feb 2013 #1
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #3
madfloridian Feb 2013 #11
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #40
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #45
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #47
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #51
madfloridian Feb 2013 #57
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #58
madfloridian Feb 2013 #64
michigandem58 Feb 2013 #97
blackspade Feb 2013 #137
madfloridian Feb 2013 #138
michigandem58 Feb 2013 #146
treestar Feb 2013 #79
madfloridian Feb 2013 #81
bvar22 Feb 2013 #92
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #95
treestar Feb 2013 #127
madfloridian Feb 2013 #131
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #132
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #48
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #122
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #140
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #156
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #157
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #158
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #159
madfloridian Feb 2013 #53
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #55
tpsbmam Feb 2013 #147
Marr Feb 2013 #54
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #56
Marr Feb 2013 #71
stupidicus Feb 2013 #128
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #133
stupidicus Feb 2013 #151
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #121
madfloridian Feb 2013 #5
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #39
madfloridian Feb 2013 #73
CrispyQ Feb 2013 #101
Zorra Feb 2013 #20
Dragonfli Feb 2013 #26
woo me with science Feb 2013 #22
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #38
madfloridian Feb 2013 #43
FogerRox Feb 2013 #61
madfloridian Feb 2013 #65
FogerRox Feb 2013 #67
madfloridian Feb 2013 #70
FogerRox Feb 2013 #74
FogerRox Feb 2013 #75
madfloridian Feb 2013 #85
tpsbmam Feb 2013 #148
Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #107
sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #155
DJ13 Feb 2013 #2
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #4
DJ13 Feb 2013 #6
Marr Feb 2013 #9
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #49
woo me with science Feb 2013 #91
tpsbmam Feb 2013 #149
leftstreet Feb 2013 #153
joshcryer Feb 2013 #7
Marr Feb 2013 #8
woo me with science Feb 2013 #18
madfloridian Feb 2013 #10
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #12
madfloridian Feb 2013 #13
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #14
KoKo Feb 2013 #99
Nite Owl Feb 2013 #103
MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #112
joshcryer Feb 2013 #15
MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #16
forestpath Feb 2013 #17
840high Feb 2013 #21
woo me with science Feb 2013 #24
hay rick Feb 2013 #28
a2liberal Feb 2013 #19
madfloridian Feb 2013 #23
JEB Feb 2013 #25
FogerRox Feb 2013 #66
Fuddnik Feb 2013 #27
Dragonfli Feb 2013 #30
Fuddnik Feb 2013 #104
woo me with science Feb 2013 #29
madfloridian Feb 2013 #41
woo me with science Feb 2013 #134
progressoid Feb 2013 #31
AzDar Feb 2013 #32
JayhawkSD Feb 2013 #33
ProSense Feb 2013 #42
madfloridian Feb 2013 #46
fadedrose Feb 2013 #34
PufPuf23 Feb 2013 #35
ProSense Feb 2013 #36
hay rick Feb 2013 #37
ProSense Feb 2013 #44
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #50
Dragonfli Feb 2013 #52
Babel_17 Feb 2013 #123
Jasana Feb 2013 #59
LWolf Feb 2013 #60
madfloridian Feb 2013 #62
FogerRox Feb 2013 #63
CrispyQ Feb 2013 #113
99Forever Feb 2013 #68
madfloridian Feb 2013 #69
Progressive dog Feb 2013 #98
Autumn Feb 2013 #72
Recursion Feb 2013 #76
Dragonfli Feb 2013 #86
Recursion Feb 2013 #87
Dragonfli Feb 2013 #88
Recursion Feb 2013 #89
Dragonfli Feb 2013 #90
John2 Feb 2013 #115
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #77
woo me with science Feb 2013 #82
madfloridian Feb 2013 #84
treestar Feb 2013 #78
madfloridian Feb 2013 #83
MessiahRp Feb 2013 #106
Babel_17 Feb 2013 #116
historylovr Feb 2013 #80
bvar22 Feb 2013 #93
riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #94
madfloridian Feb 2013 #96
KoKo Feb 2013 #100
Babel_17 Feb 2013 #124
woo me with science Feb 2013 #141
Nite Owl Feb 2013 #102
Fuddnik Feb 2013 #105
Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #108
woo me with science Feb 2013 #142
Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #154
awoke_in_2003 Feb 2013 #109
dgibby Feb 2013 #152
theaocp Feb 2013 #110
bread_and_roses Feb 2013 #111
CrispyQ Feb 2013 #114
madfloridian Feb 2013 #125
Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #117
madfloridian Feb 2013 #143
Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #144
Babel_17 Feb 2013 #118
newfie11 Feb 2013 #119
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #120
stupidicus Feb 2013 #126
dawg Feb 2013 #129
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #130
forestpath Feb 2013 #136
ProSense Feb 2013 #145
blackspade Feb 2013 #135
WCGreen Feb 2013 #139
tpsbmam Feb 2013 #150

Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:21 PM

1. -1000 to the OP.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:29 PM

3. Thanks,graham!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:59 PM

11. Do you agree we need the cuts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:21 AM

40. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:50 AM

45. What I do not agree to in this OP is

the renewed witch hunt of....Obama is going to cave! That it is on the table, that it is a done deal. This keeps on keeps on keeping on here! Day after day. Do I want cuts, of course not.

The naysayers have been proven wrong before...when all is said and done. Then the cycle starts again.

Just saying.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:59 AM

47. That's fine, but madfloridian does not participate

in witch hunts. She most certainly can be wrong, but she has always written about serious issues with measured fact-filled essays and is deserving of more than than flippant knee-jerk substance-less first comments. Many people have legitimate concerns about the sequestration offers from the White House, and while you are correct that naysayers have been proven wrong, they've also been proven right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #47)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:27 AM

51. I truly think we should be far more concerned

about what the GOP is trying to jam down America's throat, than what the White House might do. With no disrespect for madfloridian, I think this fight needs to be fought where it belongs. The GOP owns this! Let's fight them and not each other.

Peace to you, Hissyspit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #51)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:09 AM

57. No, the GOP owns neither the SS cuts or the education reform.

They simply do not. Our party owns both now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #57)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:18 AM

58. You can not be serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #58)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:11 AM

64. Very serious. If they made them their policies, they now own them.

And there is no doubt they made them their policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #64)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 05:51 PM

97. Then teachers own salary and benefit concessions

 

after all, they agreed to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Reply #97)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:43 PM

137. That analogy doesn't work.

Your analogy implies differences in power between Republicans and Democrats.
In the terms of your analogy, that would place Democrats in the roll of teachers, forced into concessions by management.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #137)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:08 AM

138. Think about it...

Most of these policies I am discussing are traditionally Republican policies such as cutting Medicare, Social Security, privatizing education.

They owned those policies, they stood for them.

However the last few years Democrats have begun to agree on cutting those programs, and it is the stated policy of this administration to have more and more charter schools. They are pushing ideas about closing public schools or turning them around into charters.

Thus they now own the policies. They are standing up for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #138)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:17 AM

146. I'll agree with you on charter schools

 

The administration supports them and other education reforms, without question. Like many Democrats, I'm not opposed to them, it just seems we're getting mixed results right now.

But on cuts to Medicare, SS, etc., I think that's more a case of being driven in that direction in order to compromise and using rhetoric to make it sound like they're more inclined toward it than they really are. Given a free hand, my feeling is PBO wouldn't cut much at all from those programs, particularly for the poorer recipients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #47)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:43 AM

79. Then let them do it without personal propping.

We are to agree because a certain poster proclaims it? Reverse ad hominem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #79)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:20 PM

81. That's funny, that's strange, but it is rather hateful to say.

You really believe because I say it you must agree? That's pretty pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #81)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:07 PM

92. OMG!!! a "Reverse Ad Hominem" !!!

Quick. To the Fainting Couch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #79)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 04:01 PM

95. Then let those who disagree with OP do it without substance-less first-post knee-jerk disapproval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #95)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:49 PM

127. Well it was rather

off putting to me to have one poster say to one to disagreed, "the OP is known here and blah blah blah," that seemed to me rather unfair to the person above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #127)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:31 PM

131. It bothered you because someone gave me a compliment?

Okay...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #127)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:32 PM

132. Thank you treestar...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:15 AM

48. Obama's plan includes chained CPI which = CUTS. It may be that this is some kind of 3-dimensional

 

chess but the stated plan is CUTS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:07 PM

122. Except that's not the counterproposal in entirety, is it? Honestly, now....is it?

No. It is chained cpi "with protections for the vulnerable." Meaning, obviously, that the poor will be protected.

Additionally...the Republicans, like the Democrats, would NEVER accept a counter proposal with a provision like that, which would allow all sorts of provisions to be added later.

A lot of fuss over nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #122)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:43 AM

140. 2/3 of SS recipients rely on it for 50% or more of their income, and the top 1/3 gets taxed on

 

85% of it.

'protections for the vulnerable' = BULLSHIT.

OBAMA IS PROPOSING TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY.

You can't rationalize it away, that's the FACT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #140)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:28 PM

156. Protections for the vulnerable. That's the fact. Plus, the Repubs will NEVER accept that proposal.

They will not accept a proposal that contains a provision to allow for un-named "protections" to be added later.

Not sure if you understand how these negotiations work.

Obama can now say he offered this in a counter proposal, and the Repubs didn't accept it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #156)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:29 PM

157. 'protections for the vulnerable' = meaningless blow job in this context

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #157)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:47 PM

158. You can believe what you want. Free country. But it's a meaningless proposal.

It won't be accepted with an open-ended provision like that.

Which is the point, methinks.

That's how these negotiations work.

But I totally believe that Dem Congress would have "protections for the vulnerable" put in. But...the proposal will not be accepted, so like I said, people are getting all hot under the collar about nothing.

I'm getting close to ss age...I take this subject seriously. This is nothing to worry about. Worry when there are particular provisions pertaining to ss cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #158)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:53 PM

159. and there's no harm in raising a stink when any politician makes such a proposal. to let them

 

know we're paying attention.

so not sure why you're getting hot under the collar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:34 AM

53. Sometimes it is about far more than Obama.

There is no witch hunt. This is about the people who will hurt because of these games they are playing with a program that is sacrosanct.

When the GOP went along with the Bush war, refusing to question, they ended up with the tea party.

I am not on a witch hunt, and the deal IS on the table put there by our president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #53)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:49 AM

55. No disrespect to you at all madforidian,

I have as much at stake here as you do. I have a father in a nursing home. A mom that is 86 years old. I am approaching retirement age myself. The joke on me, I will never be able to retire, even without SS being cut.

All I am saying is, just because it is on the table does not mean it will happen. We are not privileged to know what is going on first hand. We are not there.

I am a wait and see kinda gal, and honestly, you may call me naive however I trust this President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #55)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:37 AM

147. By waiting and seeing, deals get implemented without input or protest from the affected

populace. Obama needs to hear from us NOW -- we need to keep the pressure on. Letting up only leads to bad deals being implemented by all involved.....Obama, Congress & Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:40 AM

54. The naysayers have *not* been proven wrong-- the pollyanna, "trust him" gang has been

proven wrong.

The initial claim was that Obama would never, ever, offer to cut Social Security. When reports were first coming out that he had done so, behind closed doors, defenders insisted it was paranoia based on nothing, and anyone who believed it was a fool.

Well, here it is on the WH website, all dressed up with a shiny new PR name. Who is the fool? Who has been proven wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #54)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:06 AM

56. Pollyanna, no.

As for the naysayers....remember the fiscal cliff hoopla here. Who was wrong?

I am proud to trust my President. Trust is far better than trashing him every step of the way.

As for the "trust him" gang when were we proven wrong? I have never expected this President to right every wrong in America. No one man can! You, Marr, do not really expect him to do this all alone, do you?

Peace,
she

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #56)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:00 AM

71. You were proven wrong when he proposed SS cuts.

As I said, the argument from Obama's defenders initially was that he would never do such a thing. Well, he is.

Will it actually happen? Who knows? I rather doubt it, personally, since the GOP has already repeatedly proven itself too recalcitrant and stupid to take "yes" for an answer-- but that is neither here nor there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #54)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:58 PM

128. exactly

some of us have been battling them for months and months now, although the latest revelations have appeared to shut the worst of them up.

Before the election we were labeled "trolls", charged with wanting to undermine his election chances, etc, etc, etc.

it was a censorship campaign worthy of the heads of freeperland, minus the bannings which they no doubt would have approved of, given the treasonous nature of daring to raise concerns over such issues.

and I have yet to see a single apology outta any of the freaks/purists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #128)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:37 PM

133. Exactly who are you calling a freak/purist? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #133)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:39 PM

151. obviously

those who would go to such lengths as described to malign and silence those who'd dare to speak out on the issue the top post raised.

It ain't rocket surgery or brain science...

AM I supposed to name names or something? They know who they are, and I suspect I could identify some if I cared to do some research and ax-grinding, as others here could as well I'm sure. It's been quite satisfying/gratifying enough however, to see them silenced as and for the reasons the poster I responded to here cited.

And besides all that, we both know the rules around here prevent one from giving them "the bizness" they truly deserve, and I suspect that most if not all that have me on "ignore" already got a larger dose of it than their delicate little selves could handle.

Why do you ask? While my responses to it may differ from that of others, what I responded to I'd bet is fairly common knowledge to those who've participated in this ongoing little debate regarding BHO putting SS on the chopping block. The poster I responded to seemed to be a fellow traveler at least aware of and perhaps negatively impacted by, the "sit down and shut up" crowd.

You're perfectly free to contend that it was all a figment of our imaginations. That however, would be about as compelling and convincing as the rhetoric choices/descriptive terms they used that they are now eating like so much crow now that his "putting it on the table" is no longer in dispute, and our concerns realized.

have a good day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:04 PM

121. Sounds like the poor on Social Security won't be affected by chained CPI, anyway.

IF the Republicans accept the counter proposal, which it doesn't look like they're going to.

"Protections for the vulnerable" is vague enough that the Dems could throw anything in there to "protect the vulnerable." Such a proposal would understandably be totally unacceptable by the Republicans. Neither side is going to accept vague language like that that could open the door to all sorts of provisions.

Much ado about nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:48 PM

5. Wow

That's a whole lot of minus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:20 AM

39. In more ways then one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:29 AM

73. heh heh

Good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:58 PM

101. At first I read it as +1000 & I thought,

"Wow, that's the first time I've ever agreed with that fool." Then I read the second response & realized I'd misread it.

"Collusion with Austerity Will Sink Obama"

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/26-5

As the deadline of the so-called "budget sequestration" nears, progressives are warning President Obama that his obsession with giving credence to the "cut the deficit" antics of Republicans is a trap and that if Democrats don't jettison the failed "economics of austerity" immediately, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

~more at link


The dem party has shifted so far to the right it's like the repub party of the 50s. I trust President Obama to do what's best for the banksters & the elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:53 PM

20. She's questioning authority. Bringing important facts and truths to our attention.

Why is this an apparent problem for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:24 AM

26. I imagine his next post: are you now or have you ever been a Naderite Republican?

Are you part of this conspiracy that brainwashes people into thinking that any of you has the right to question the Presidency, the POTUS, or any of his appointments or policies?

How dare you!
You may not petition our lord with prayer!

Anywho...


This poster knows a great deal more than I do about the continuing Naderite grand conspiracy, from him I have learned that anyone to the LEFT of Will Marshall is a Koch loving libertarian Republican or something, I regret to admit that I haven't been taking notes during his many lectures on the subject.

I must defer to him in such matters due to his superior knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:57 PM

22. I take it you didn't like that question. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:19 AM

38. Yeah, typical.

Madfloridian is a brilliant DUer of long-standing who puts a lot of insight and work into her posts.

You? Pfff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:24 AM

43. Means a lot coming from you.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:07 AM

61. I'll second that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #61)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:13 AM

65. FogerRox! Haven't seen you around in ages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #65)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:24 AM

67. Sup

I spend more time @dk than du these days. Havin a SS blogarhon March 25-29 care to join? And I'm looking to start a du group, Social Security Defenders. We have SSD group @dk too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #67)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:33 AM

70. I'm at Kos also. Since 2004 I think.

I am floridagal. Pop me a message there if you can.
http://www.dailykos.com/user/floridagal/

I am also at Twitter as madfloridian.
https://twitter.com/madfloridian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:08 AM

74. ask for an invite to Social Security Defenders group

Would you like to write a DK dairy for the SSD blogathon? March 25th - 29th?

If I can get the DU group Social Security Defenders started in time, we'll cross feed it all DK, DU, FB & Twitter.

My latest

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/20/1188520/--HandsOffmySS-its-going-to-be-just-fine-thru-2090

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to FogerRox (Reply #75)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:45 PM

85. Done.

Messages have had some problems getting through at DK. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:41 AM

148. Couldn't agree more. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:23 PM

107. What a stupid post.

No point. No comment. No thought. Just knee-jerk reaction.

No wonder you can get over 5000 posts. Just click and snark. If you actually had to think or try to defend your positions, you would be too busy.

Minus fifty million to you. I guess that settles it then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:25 PM

155. Does this mean you support Republicans putting SS cuts on the table, claiming

falsely that SS had anything to do with the deficit and a Democratic President giving legitimacy to this decades-long attempt to privatize and gamble further with money that belongs to the American people?

You weren't clear about your objection to the OP which is very detailed so an explanation of your position on cuts to SS would be appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:22 PM

2. + 1001

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:46 PM

4. And remember, the $1000 reduction over 15 years becomes the new baseline

 

So the person just reaching retirement 15 years from now starts there, at that new low point, and continues to fall further and further behind every year. Within twenty-five years the program will be gone.

The folks in Washington believe they can sell this to current seniors by pointing out that their benefits will hardly be cut at all -- the major impact will, as always, be on future retirees. They believe (with good reason) that current seniors will gladly sell out their kids and grandkids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:53 PM

6. Yep, its like compounding interest

The longer its in effect the worse it becomes for all SS retirees.

Its insidious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:57 PM

9. Well, in their defense, there isn't a hell of a lot they can do about it.

After all, the cut is being actively advanced by the uh... *ahem*... "labor party".

It was hard to even type that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:16 AM

49. +1. It's a recipe for immiseration and the destruction of the program.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:57 PM

91. +10000 Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:51 AM

149. ^^^^^Excellent point! Thanks, Demo_Chris^^^^^^ nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:47 PM

153. +1

Nicely stated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:55 PM

7. Nearly 10% of seniors are already below the poverty line.

This would be what would be considered a stop gap for those who would be close to or near the poverty line. It would also bring those nearly 10% of seniors below the poverty line out of poverty.

This is why this will never pass. Republicans will never vote for something that raises 10% of seniors (and many more disabled and those receiving supplemental) out of the poverty line. Hopefully the Dems stick to their guns on that unlike the public option which they caved on far too easily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:55 PM

8. And if he isn't actually selling it, why dress it up?

I've been hearing that same old silly line about "it's a trap for the GOP" here and there on DU. Ok, well if that were true, you wouldn't give a new, happier name and a reassuring tag line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:47 PM

18. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:02 PM

12. This President has a fetish for cutting Social Security

Appointing Tony Soprano to guard the cash register Simpson and Bowles to fix Social Security... speaks for itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:08 PM

13. Choosing Simpson and Bowles sent a message to seniors, I think.

That there is a lack of respect for them. Simpson has said such horrible things about seniors that I was simply stunned when he was chosen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:10 PM

14. As Clinton's Chief of Staff, Bowles brokered a deal between Clinton and Gingrich

to cut Social Security. The one thing they agreed on!

Congress said "no".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:26 PM

99. Yep...and just end of last week Simpson & Bowles were over the

Airwaves for Part II! They had to have some support from SOMEWHERE to comback and start their rants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:10 PM

103. Hoping that they

don't have the votes now.
Didn't Obama try again during the Biden/Reid/McConnell negotiations over the so called fiscal cliff and Harry threw it in the fireplace in disgust?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nite Owl (Reply #103)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:49 PM

112. Yep. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:13 PM

15. Campaign promise kept!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:29 PM

16. Great big ol' K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:46 PM

17. It is obscene of Obama to pretend it is "balanced" to hurt seniors who

 

can barely survive as it is while the rich will just keep getting richer. I keep remembering Michelle saying that being president reveals who you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:56 PM

21. Very sad state

of affairs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:14 AM

24. +100000 It's unconscionable.

It's crazy that an assault like this is even being *debated,* given the state of this country and how virtually all our wealth has been blatantly siphoned to the rich over the past 30 years.

It is a sign of how thoroughly and despicably propagandized our media is in this country, down to political discussion boards on the internet, that these "arguments" for cutting SS persist in masquerading as legitimate political discourse in a democratic society, rather than the outrageous calls for theft from the unwilling many by a tyrannical few that they really are.

We have been LOOTED, millions into poverty. And they are still coming for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:29 AM

28. Unconscionable and incomprehensible.

The people pushing this already have more wealth than they can possibly use. More money is literally useless to them. My belief is that, beyond a certain point, wealth is only an abstraction and the dollars they seek are just points in a game which, to the participants, are negligibly different from goals scored in a polo match.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:52 PM

19. K&R and a +1000 to counteract the first reply :-D (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a2liberal (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:10 AM

23. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:17 AM

25. SS should be strengthened

by raising the cap. Simple obvious and morally correct. Cutting benefits not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:16 AM

66. Job creation and raising the min wage means more FICA

There isnt anything wrong with SS that economic growth wont fix. #HandsOffMySS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:28 AM

27. Must protect poor little, vulnerable banksters, as always.

And Wall Street. And Hedge Funds.

The poor and the elderly don't have that much to lose. Now poor vulnerable banksters and Wall Street, that's a lot of money to lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:33 AM

30. Actually, that REALLY IS one of the rationalizations used here, for reallzies:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:13 PM

104. From that source, I'm not the least surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:32 AM

29. Huge, huge K&R,

and not surprised that you have received no attempts at answering the question you pose.

This is an important OP, and it needs to stay on top.

Thank you, madfloridian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:22 AM

41. Thank you for that.

You know what? I don't take it personally that after being back at DU only about 3 months 17 people have blocked me here. Not a biggie for me, but something does bother me.

It bothers me that I am at a Democratic forum, posting about things Democrats should stand for...and there are apparently that many who just don't even want to read any criticism.

Hubby and I worked for Dean, then Kerry, then supported Obama completely in 2008. We voted for him in 2012 as well.

I think it is our job in this country to hold our leaders accountable and speak out when we think they are doing something harmful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:48 PM

134. You're so right.

It's absolutely our job.

About the ignores...

I think we're all in different stages of waking up to this horrible truth about what's been done to our nation and the American dream and the government that we were always told would have our best interests at heart. And here at DU, to the truth that our own party is now aggressively complicit in the betrayal. As a result, some are going to ignore for now, because hearing it and acknowledging the enormity of what has happened is just too much to bear.

I was watching Bill Moyers interview Richard Wolff on his show the other day (fantastic show - if you haven't seen it yet, here is the link: http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-fighting-for-economic-justice-and-fair-wages/),

...and Moyers asked him why Americans seem so silent and passive about everything that's being done to us.

Wolff compared Americans to deer in the headlights. and he suggested that some are defensively clinging even harder, initially, to belief in what they are beginning to realize has been ripped away. But he also said that that stunned denial is a temporary thing....that it gives way to boiling anger at having been deceived, and then to action that will force change.

That's my hope, too.

For what it's worth, I think a hell of a lot more people are listening than it feels like. Whenever I start to get discouraged at DU, someone posts a marvelous thread that lays it all out and gets hundreds of recommendations. The message IS getting through. Like most media now, this board is heavily propagandized and provides a lot of nasty blowback for speaking the truth, and I think that dissuades a lot of people from speaking out. But people are reading, and we vastly outnumber the propagandists.

Out in the community I have honestly been stunned over the past year at how many people get it....How often I am drawn by total strangers into conversations at a local restaurant or grocery store, with people hungry out of the blue to tell me what they have discovered about the truth of what's happened to our government and our country. And when you start to talk back and they realize that you see it, too, there is this tremendous sense of kinship and shared outrage and determination that something needs to be done.

I think people really are waking up. I hope desperately that we are.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:34 AM

31. It's eleventeen dimensional chess donchaknow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:41 AM

32. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:47 AM

33. First Democratic president to cut Social Security? Not quite.

In 1993 Bill Clinton increased the portion of Social Security subject to income tax from 50% to 85%. Not technically "cutting Social Security," but...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayhawkSD (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:24 AM

42. Yes, and the impact

was a lot less money in seniors' pockets.

Social Security: Calculation and History of Taxing Benefits
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss24.pdf

It's easy to push the talking point, "first Democratic president to cut Social Security," by ignoring the facts: Carter implemented COLA, Reagan taxed benefits, Clinton increased the tax

Reagan's legacy of tax increases is based solely on taxing Social Security.

<...>

Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html


<...>

TAX TREATMENT

Taxation of Social Security and Railroad Retirement Tier 1 Benefits

Beginning in 1984, includes in taxable income up to one-half of Social Security (and railroad retirement tier 1) benefits received by taxpayers whose incomes exceed certain base amounts. The base amounts are $25,000 for a single taxpayer, $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and zero for married taxpayers filing separately. Income for purposes of figuring these base amounts includes adjusted gross income under prior law, plus nontaxable interest income, and one-half of Social Security and railroad retirement tier 1 benefits. The amount of benefits that could be included in taxable income will be the lesser of one-half of benefits or one-half of the excess of the taxpayers' combined income (AGI + one-half of benefits) over the base amount. The provision for including nontaxable interest income is intended to provide similar tax treatment of benefits received by individuals whose total incomes consist of different mixes of taxable and nontaxable income and to limit opportunities for manipulation of tax liability on benefits.

Includes in the definition of Social Security benefits for tax purposes workmen's compensation benefits to the extent they cause a reduction in Social Security and railroad retirement tier 1 disability benefits. This provision is intended to assure that these social insurance benefits, which are paid in lieu of Social Security payments, are treated similarly for purposes of taxation.

The provision applies to nonresident aliens as well as U.S. citizens. Under the Internal Revenue Code, nonresident aliens who have income from sources other than a U.S. trade or business are taxed at a flat rate of 30 percent, unless a tax treaty provides otherwise, and the taxes must be withheld at the source of payment. Thus, 30 percent of 1/2 of the Social Security benefit (15 percent of the total benefit) will be withheld from nonresident alien beneficiaries.

Provides special rules for dealing with overpayments and lump-sum retroactive benefit payments. Benefits paid to an individual in any taxable year will be reduced by any overpayments repaid during the year. Taxpayers who receive a lump-sum payment of retroactive benefits may treat the benefits as wholly payable for the year in which they receive them or may elect to attribute the benefits to the tax years in which they would have fallen had they been paid timely. No benefits for months before December 1983 would be taxable, regardless of when they are paid.

Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Railroad Retirement Board to file annual returns with the Secretary of the Treasury setting forth the amounts of benefits paid to each individual in each calendar year, together with the name and address of the individual. Also requires furnishing of similar information to each beneficiary.

Requires that amounts equivalent to estimated quarterly proceeds from the taxation of benefits be automatically deposited in the Social Security trust funds and the railroad retirement account, as appropriate, at the beginning of each calendar quarter, subject to final adjustments based on estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury. Requires an annual report by the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the transfers under this provision.

The provision is estimated to affect about 10 percent of Social Security beneficiaries in 1984. Amounts equal to the estimated tax revenues under this provision will be automatically deposited to the OASDI trust funds. The provision increases trust fund revenues by $26.7 billion for 1983-1989 and by .62 percent of taxable payroll in the long range.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend2.html


The effect of Reagan's tax cuts were at least partially offset by phased in Social Security payroll tax increases that had been enacted by President Jimmy Carter and the 95th Congress in 1977

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Tax_revenue

A Democratic President enacted the COLA. Everything objectionable, from linking Social Security to the general fund, was part of that proposal.

President Jimmy Carter

<...>

While campaigning for President, I stressed my commitment to restore the financial integrity of the Social Security system. I pledged I would do my best to avoid increases above those already scheduled in tax rates, which fall most heavily on moderate and lower-income workers. I also promised to correct the technical flaw in the system which exaggerates the adjustment for inflation, and to do so without reducing the relative value of retirement benefits as compared with pre-retirement earnings.

I am announcing today a set of proposals which meet those commitments and which solve both the short-term and long-term problems in the Social Security system through the end of the twentieth century. These proposals are designed to:

--Prevent the default of the trust funds now predicted to occur.

--Bring income and expenses into balance in 1978 and keep them that way through the end of the century.

--Create sufficient reserves to protect the system against sudden declines in revenue caused by unemployment or other economic uncertainties.

--Protect the system's integrity beyond the turn of the century to the extent we can predict what will happen in the next 75 years.

--Provide for an orderly review and examination of the system's basic structure.

My proposals are the result of a number of hard choices. I am convinced that action is needed now, and that these steps will restore the financial integrity of the Social Security system.

I will ask the Congress to take the following specific actions:

1. Compensate the Social Security trust funds from general revenues for a share of revenues lost during severe recessions. General revenues would be used in a counter-cyclical fashion to replace the payroll tax receipts lost as a result of that portion of unemployment in excess of six percent. General revenues would be used only in these carefully limited situations. Because this is an innovative measure, the legislation we submit will provide this feature only through 1982. The next Social Security Advisory Council will be asked to review this counter-cyclical mechanism to determine whether it should be made permanent.

2. Remove the wage-base ceiling for employers. Under present law employers and employees pay a tax only on the first $16,500 in wages. Under this proposal the employer ceiling would be raised over a three-year period, so that by 1981 the ceiling would be removed. This action will provide a significant source of revenue without increasing long-term benefit liabilities.

3. Increase the wage base subject to the employee tax by $600 in 1979, 1981, 1983, and 1985, beyond the automatic increases in current law. This will provide a progressive source of financing.

4. Shift revenues from the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Trust Funds. In part, this shift will be made possible because of substantial savings to the Medicare system from the hospital cost containment legislation that I have proposed.

5. Increase the tax rate on the self-employed from 7 percent to 7.5 percent. This will restore the historical relationship between the OASI and the DI rates paid by the self-employed to one and one-half times that paid by employees.

6. Correct certain technical provisions of the Social Security Act which differentiate on the basis of sex. This will include a new eligibility test for dependent benefits. Recent Supreme Court decisions would result in un-financed increases in the cost of the system and some inequities without this change.

These six steps, along with measures already contained in existing law, will eliminate the short-term financing problem and improve the overall equity of the Social Security system.

In order to guarantee the financial integrity of the system into the next century, two additional steps must be taken. I will be asking the Congress to:

1. Modify the Social Security benefit formula to eliminate the inflation over-adjustment now in law. This modification, known as "decoupling," should be done in a way that maintains the current ratio of retirement benefits to pre-retirement wages.

2. Adjust the timing of a tax rate increase already contained in current law. The one percent tax rate increase presently scheduled for the year 2011 would be moved forward so that .25 percent would occur in 1985 and the remainder in 1990.

Taken together, the actions I am recommending today will eliminate the Social Security deficit for the remainder of this century. They mill reduce the estimated 75-year deficit from the Trustee Report forecast of 8.2 percent of payroll to a manageable 1.9 percent.

Prompt enactment of the measure I have recommended will provide the Social Security system with financial stability. This is an overriding immediate objective.

In addition, I am instructing the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to appoint the independent Social Security Advisory Council required by law to meet each four years. I will ask the Council to conduct a thorough reexamination of the structure of the system, the adequacy of its benefits, the effectiveness and equity of disability definitions, and the efficiency and responsiveness of its administration. Their report, which will be issued within the next two years, will provide the basis for further improvements.

I call upon the Congress to act favorably on these major reform initiatives.

Jimmy Carter

The White House,

May 9, 1977.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/carterstmts.html#system


Fact, the current COLA is inadequate:

Even Social Security’s current cost-of-living adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on elderly recipients, who spend far more on health care than anyone else – including annual increases in Medicare premiums.

http://robertreich.org/post/38349329185

Inadequate and taxed, but "first Democratic president to cut Social Security," sounds so evil. This is going to play out soon. If Repubicans accept the President's proposal, it will likely come to a vote, and the structure of his plan will be known.

I doubt Republicans are going to come around.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:58 AM

46. That was then. This is now. I have criticized Clinton for things like that.

Now I am saying that I think it is wrong to do this to seniors while giving away the store to the billionaires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:47 AM

34. Are we getting disillusioned yet? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:51 AM

35. POTUS Obama has usually put neoliberal ideas on the table.

POTUS Obama makes neoliberal political appointments that are supported by the dwindling number of right wing intellectuals, the neocons.

I am not rare in that my preferred policies are to the left of the DNC and WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:58 AM

36. Why would President Obama want to "protections for the vulnerable?"

I mean, isn't he trying to starve Grandma?

<...>

US Senator Elizabeth Warren, the last to speak, said the country faces a choice.

“We can be a country that says, ‘I got mine, the rest of you are on your own.’ We can be that kind of country, or we can be a country that says, ‘We believe in opportunity, we believe in our children and our grandchildren.’”

Warren said the cuts sought could be achieved without going after the various programs that she and her colleagues say are essential to families.

“We need to make cuts to wasteful programs like agriculture subsidies,” she said. “We’re ending two wars, we can make cuts to our military budget, we can close corporate loopholes. There are ways to bring our financial house in order. The president has put a strong proposal on the table,” she said.

All the members of the state’s congressional delegation are Democrats. Democrats are trying to go directly to the public to pressure Republicans back to the negotiating table. President Obama has pushed a proposal that includes a mix of spending and tax increases, while Republicans have balked at raising taxes.

- more -

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/02/25/senator-warren-joins-bay-state-congressmen-blast-sequestration-offer-alternative-cuts/EzjZXtPR4jjE3GxlOc5rrN/story.html

Not only do Republicans have to accept this deal, but it also has to pass the Senate. Other than the line on the chart, the structure of the President's proposal is unknown.

US Senator Elizabeth Warren: Sequester cuts are ‘just plain dumb’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022425872

President Obama's policies: big savings and smart spending
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022424843

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:13 AM

37. Because "superlative CPI" is a BENEFIT CUT. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:28 AM

44. If this is the benefits cuts Republicans want, why aren't they jumping on it? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:19 AM

50. cause they're playing 3-dimensional chess too....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:30 AM

52. Now that I think about it, you're right, Obama put it on the table,

not the Republicans, I guess this is a bit that
HE wants, not Republicans.

He must agree with the "fresh Thinking" third way ideas that parrot Pete Peterson's talking points regarding entitlement cuts.

Thanks for pointing that out, I had just assumed that was something they wanted as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #44)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:07 PM

123. Obama is an individual

and the Republicans are a party and a brand.

Obama will be out of office in a few years while the Republican party would forever be the party that fought for painful cuts to SS benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:25 AM

59. I'm very much afraid that if Dems are linked to SS cuts...

we are going to have a horrible time getting our voters out in 2014. Am I just being paranoid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jasana (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:03 AM

60. No.

Democrats risk losing betrayed voters to 3rd parties.

Who DOES the Democratic Party represent? Can the neoliberals be any more transparent than they already are? How long will voters stand for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jasana (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:08 AM

62. No, you are not being paranoid.

It would be like a damper on voter turn out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jasana (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:10 AM

63. Not at all. It would make 2014 a potential Waterloo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jasana (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:57 PM

113. And we will be told to vote for the lesser of two evils again,

as we slip further & further to the right. And when the dems lose even more seats, it will be the left's fault.

I'm sick of the whole fucking mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:24 AM

68. Fuck with OUR Social Security and reap the whirlwind, Democrats.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:28 AM

69. New poll out from The Hill. 62% of Republicans oppose cuts. 82% of Democrats.

http://boldprogressives.org/poll-majority-of-americans-want-to-protect-social-security-from-cuts-want-pentagon-cut-instead/#.USzFJzcw-So

"With the budget sequester looming, some lawmakers are compiling alternative to the across-the-board cuts, and some conservatives want to slash Social Security and Medicare benefits as part of a deal.

A new poll out today (Feb. 21) from The Hill finds that this would put them out of step with the American public and even with self-identified Republicans.

In the poll, 62 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Democrats opposed cutting Social Security and Medicare, while 49 percent of overall respondents said they favored cutting back on defense spending. Even among Republicans, 56 percent said they would oppose defense cuts while a larger 62 percent said they would oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Click here to pledge to hold any Democrat who agrees to a deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits accountable."

More from The Hill:

http://thehill.com/polls/284579-the-hill-poll-voters-pentagon-should-bear-the-brunt-of-deficit-cuts#ixzz2LuuMfiYa

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #69)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:20 PM

98. Count me in the 82%

Thanks for your post. There are some things that are just wrong and offering to cut social security is one of those things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:03 AM

72. If it includes "protections for the vulnerable"

it's a fucking cut. No matter how it's branded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:17 AM

76. Sigh. Yes, the chained CPI would reduce the budget deficit

I don't see how difficult this is to understand.

If less money is spent redeeming bonds in the trust fund, less money will be borrowed for the general fund. The deficit would be reduced. There's no point in pretending that is otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:07 PM

86. Not paying ones bills does "appear" to leave more money in the bank,

The debt you want to renege on is not caused by your creditors, but by what you spent the money on.

Reneging on payments does not make the money yours to spend AND keep at the same time, it is rather a form of theft.

If you want to spend money borrowed, and then spend it again by using the payment meant for the bill you are not being clever, just a thief.

by your logic, all our debt to China and other countries can be spent again by keeping it, and not honoring the dept to those nations, that would be trillions we would not have to borrow! We should start with them before stealing from our national workers pension fund.

It is disgusting the rationalizations the modern corporatists will use to justify a culture of misleading accounting and embezzlement, please spare me the Arthur Anderson accounting tricks being used to steal from our pension fund. Like I said, do it to China first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #86)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:09 PM

87. Well, yes, defaulting on all foreign-held bonds would decrease the deficit also

I don't see why people seem to have so much trouble admitting this is true.

The big difference here is we'd be changing the rate at which the trust fund is allowed to redeem the bonds in the first place, which is something we can't tell the Chinese and Saudis to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:30 PM

88. Honestly? because theft is not an option, it isn't really true it's accounting fraud

fraud may make the books all pretty and black, but the money artificially counted a second time on your ledger belongs to the creditor it was stolen from.

If we are to embezzle our dept payments and fake the books to make debt appear to be revenue, why is that OK at all, and if fraud is OK, could we not steal from our elders but rather a creditor that is at least able to defend itself like the Chinese and Saudis?


Do you believe that embezzling debt owed is OK if done against the elderly because they are weak and unable to defend themselves? I know confidence men have believed that for a long time and prey on them as well.

You appear to have the morals of a garden slug, my guess, former Enron accountant or equivalent grifter that hangs around retirement homes with worthless paper to sell.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #88)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:32 PM

89. We "owe" SS retirees precisely what we legally obligate ourselves to pay them

And that has changed over time. I don't see lowering benefits as "theft" or raising them as a "gift"; it's just what we decide a retirement income should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #89)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:47 PM

90. keep telling yourself that, I am sure someday you will believe it

Our obligation to seniors is not to use the retirement fund to pay for tax breaks and then decide we don't have an obligation to them on a whim and tell them to go pound salt.

There are other ways to reduce the debt other than using accounting to redirect the pension fund and launder it into the general fraud.

There are honest ways to do it within the budget itself, cutting military spending and taxing investor income as any other income for instance, bringing SS into it is dishonest, disingenuous and predatory.

Accountants and their paper tricks, fraud as a way of life.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #89)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:52 PM

115. What do you mean, "And that has changed over time?"

 

Who says so? President Obama is an elected official. He answers to the electorate. If he wanted to cut Social Security or even Medicare, then he should have said so. He was not elected to office to do so, or he wouldn't be President just like Romney.

He has two sides pulling at him. I think he needs to respect those that put him in office. Right now he has my trust. If the spending cuts we are talking about concerns Providers, then I do see a way to do it. As far as Social Security and the Chained CPI, what are we referring too? Is this what they call the Consumer Price Index? I need to understand this more. Does this have anything to do with inflation? I'm not an economist.

If the Democratic members in Congress do not agree, and their constituents do not agree, the President can do nothing. What I disagree with the OP with, is just focusing a panic button on Obama. Right now this Party is solidly behind the President and we need to stay that way. There is a time for everything.

What you are legally obligated to pay SS retirees was written in Law years ago. The Congress and President were not the only signatories to the Deal. When one Party wants to not live up to the written agreement, then I call that default.

Furthermore, especially if one side expected the other Party to live up to the Deal and paid wages into it. So if you really want to look at it in legal terms, that Party should be paid for lost time of wages ever since they paid into the system according to current market rates.

Also, the Party that don't want to pay up, bases their decision on future expectations. They spent money for other purposes, such as giving tax credits and waging Wars, they couldn't afford. Now it is time for the people that paid into the system to receive the benefits, the other Party wants to change the Rules of the agreement. I think Congress better ante up and raise revenues. I see no difference in Wall Street and Congress, or Mitt Romney and Bain's way of doing business. They are all trying to screw the American people. The people that profited need to pay taxes. Another way they can do it is stop hoarding money and create jobs. If they think GDP Growth will do it for them, then they better get busy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:34 AM

77. The same reason lipstick is applied to pigs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #77)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:33 PM

82. Finally an answer to the question!

And the correct one, to boot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #77)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:12 PM

84. Just about the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:41 AM

78. The question is not whether it is a "cut"

The question is does it harm the vulnerable?

Why suddenly a concern for the rich?

We need details. Cut to what that will affect whom?

It's not that you can just say it's a cut and then condemn it as evil. It might affect only the rich. Or upper middle class. You those, those people with great big retirement packages?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #78)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:36 PM

83. Here are a bunch of links from a google search of "social security cuts 2013"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #83)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:21 PM

106. They won't.

That poster is a total apologist. It's very likely they know everything you posted links to but are purposely trying to muddy your argument and create doubt that does not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #78)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:56 PM

116. Then I'd prefer honesty

and just raising taxes on the wealthiest and leaving one of the greatest programs in our nations history alone.

It would be/is a terrible precedent to toss SS into the mix every time the party of the rich doesn't want the rich to pay their share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:11 PM

80. K & R

This is all so infuriating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:12 PM

93. Vague and Arbitrary "Protections for The Vulnerable"?

No Thanks!

I'll keep my Social Security,
and YOU can keep your Hands OFF!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:14 PM

94. That's the big question at the heart of that statement isn't it? Pretty damn sad. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 05:47 PM

96. From Dean Baker at Truth Out.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13889-the-3-percent-cut-to-social-security-a-k-a-the-chained-cpi

The 3 Percent Cut to Social Security, a.k.a. the Chained CPI

"According to inside-Washington gossip, Congress and the president are going to do exactly what voters elected them to do: they are going to cut Social Security by 3 percent. You don't remember anyone running on that platform? Yeah, well, they probably forgot to mention it.

Of course, some people may have heard Vice President Joe Biden when he told an audience in Virginia that there would be no cuts to Social Security if President Obama got re-elected. Biden said: "I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security. I flat guarantee you."

But that's the way things work in Washington. You can't expect the politicians who run for office to share their policy agenda with voters. After all, we might not like it. That's why they say things like they will fight for the middle class and make the rich pay their fair share. These ideas have lots of appeal among voters. Cutting Social Security doesn't."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #96)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:29 PM

100. A Definite Read...thanks for putting this in the thread...

a small snip from MF's post....

"But that's the way things work in Washington. You can't expect the politicians who run for office to share their policy agenda with voters. After all, we might not like it. That's why they say things like they will fight for the middle class and make the rich pay their fair share. These ideas have lots of appeal among voters. Cutting Social Security doesn't.'"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #96)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:15 PM

124. That Biden quote

might be my new signature if the Chained CPI gets much closer to becoming a reality.

Great link, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #96)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:52 AM

141. K&R for this POST. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:07 PM

102. Where is everyone?

There is barely a mention on the news. (Ed Shultz did talk about it a little) No one, no group seems to be making ads. I don't think very many people know what 'superlative CPI' really mean and that's the way they want it. It's like they want it to be too late do anything!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:15 PM

105. Kick and Rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:26 PM

108. We have to face it.

We elected a reagan democrat. That might be better than a reagan republican, but it's still a far cry from a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jakes Progress (Reply #108)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:56 AM

142. We were only offered corporatists.

Our REAL problem is that the system is thoroughly purchased and has been systematically rigged to ensure that nobody BUT a corporatist can compete.

Until we are serious about demanding reform of lobbying and campaigns/financing, we will continue to have no real representation, no matter how faithfully we participate and vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #142)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:17 PM

154. Even the very best

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)

of elected officials benefit from the system we have now. I don't think I am being cynical when I suggest that none of these will vote to change the system that rewards them. It is easy to see the point of those who say that voting and being involved in politics (as I have done vigorously for over forty years) is pointless.

Our government is a system of the rich rewarding the very rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:36 PM

109. Wall Street wants that money...

mark my word, one day a democrat will give it to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #109)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:31 PM

152. George Carlin was right.

To paraphrase: they're coming for your ss and they'll get it, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:43 PM

110. kickety

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:44 PM

111. K&R (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:02 PM

114. K&R

It's so easy to go after the little people's money cuz we don't have a voice. The media drowns out anyone but the corporate elite viewpoint.


Just wanted to say that you should wear those 17 ignores as a badge of honor!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #114)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:16 PM

125. I seldom watch any political stuff on TV anymore.

Maybe occasionally on MSNBC, like Ed, Rachel, or O'Donnell

I think I may wear the 17 as a badge of honor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:57 PM

117. Where's the AARP on this? Or have they lost all relevance?

They USED to be a political force consisting of Dem AND Repub members.

Is there no one speaking for senior's issues any more?

And more importantly, what is the Tea Party position on this? Or are they totally clueless as to the consequences of this, seeing that most of their members are retired angry people?

Never mind. Don't answer that last question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #117)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:46 AM

143. Actually the AARP has been strongly against chained cpi. Link

http://blog.aarp.org/2013/02/11/5-reasons-chained-cpi-is-bad-for-social-security/

"1. Chained CPI compounds over time.
As a result of a chained CPI, there will be a 0.3% annual cut in Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLAs). Since this compounds over time, it would end up cutting the equivalent of one full month of benefits each year from a 92-year-old beneficiary. And it’s not a small cut overall – Social Security loses $112 billion over the next 10 years.

2. The greatest impact will be on the most vulnerable older Americans.
As retirees age, they have less income, fewer financial assets, and are more dependent on Social Security. Specifically, women tend to live longer than men and tend to have lower incomes, so women and poorer households are more at risk of falling into poverty with any cuts to Social Security.

3. Benefits for disabled and retired veterans would be cut.
3.2 million disabled veterans and another 2 million military retirees would see their benefits cut if chained CPI is adopted. Permanently disabled veterans who started receiving disability benefits at age 30 would see their benefits cut by more than $1,400 a year at age 45, $2,300 a year at age 55 and $3,200 a year at age 65.

4. Chained CPI is a less accurate measure of inflation
Since retirees spend much more on medical care than working-age Americans, the current CPI calculations already underreport the rapidly increasing health care costs experienced by seniors. Moving to a chained CPI would exacerbate the gap between formula and actual costs.

5. Social Security does not drive deficits, and should not be cut as part of a budget deal.
- See more at: http://blog.aarp.org/2013/02/11/5-reasons-chained-cpi-is-bad-for-social-security/#sthash.4dLhuONB.dpuf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #143)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:30 AM

144. Thanks!

Funny how they're not being quoted or asked to be on any panel discussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:57 PM

118. I stand with Senator Sanders (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:59 PM

119. This is not what I voted for

If this goes through I give up. I am very disgusted with both parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:01 PM

120. "the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change"

Sounds like the elderly poor on Social Security won't be affected by the chained CPI. IF the Republicans accept the proposal, which it looks like they won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:47 PM

126. the threat it represents to his legacy

imo is one of the few impediments to his signing it into law. I've long doubted it alone will be enough though, given how long he appears to have been dedicated to the cause.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:14 PM

129. A chained CPI would be an institutionalized lie.

The true cost of living is rising faster than even the current CPI. We all feel it. Despite the official inflation numbers being very tame, my dollars buy less and less each year.

For seniors, who spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on health care services and prescription medicines, the current CPI falls even more short of accurately measuring their increased needs.

To take this already insufficient CPI figure, and then to arbitrarily reduce it by factoring in "substitution-effects", is to add intentional deception to an indicator relied upon for hundreds of purposes, both within and without the government.

It is also a cruel joke on seniors and taxpayers, as benefits are allowed to fall behind the true cost of living and high tax brackets are allowed to creep down to the middle class, providing the government with a stealth tax hike each and every year.

This isn't just a bad idea. It is dishonest and morally wrong.

Even with protections for the "vulnerable".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:24 PM

130. For those who don't understand, this is how you flush away overwhelming advantage

 

One of the reasons we got creamed in 2010 was the betrayal of Obamacare. I know, many here have now decided that insurance mandates are "liberal" but there it is. Midterms already lean towards the party out of power, the GOP is fantastic at stacking them with social con issues to bring their base to the polls.. and Obama had just finished fucking over everyone who voted for him with Obamacare.

And now it seems he is bound and determined to do it again.

When we go knocking on doors trying to get out the vote, what the hell are we supposed to tell them? Forget that, what are we supposed to tell ourselves? Because I, for one, am tired of playing "It would be worse" games when it comes to the other party. What could Romney actually DO that Obama isn't doing anyway?

Is Romney gonna launch more drones at Americans? Is he gonna appoint more corporate insiders to critical government positions? Is he gonna pass MORE tax cuts for the wealthy? Obviously it would no doubt be worse, but on the other hand if it was Romney doing this BS there would actually be someone speaking out against it -- and how fucking twisted is that to have to say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #130)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:19 PM

136. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #130)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:43 AM

145. What utter BS

"One of the reasons we got creamed in 2010 was the betrayal of Obamacare...and Obama had just finished fucking over everyone who voted for him with Obamacare...Is Romney gonna launch more drones at Americans? Is he gonna appoint more corporate insiders to critical government positions? Is he gonna pass MORE tax cuts for the wealthy? Obviously it would no doubt be worse, but on the other hand if it was Romney doing this BS there would actually be someone speaking out against it -- and how fucking twisted is that to have to say?"

The health care law had nothing to do with 2010. I suppose that a bunch of asshole Republicans winning and destroying the country even more is a great "I told you so," but it's bullshit. I mean, look at your argument: If Romney had won, "there would actually be someone speaking out against it."

What utter drivel. If Romney had won "it would no doubt be worse," but you'd be happier because people would be complaining? What exactly is stopping you from complaining? Ludicrous.

"Obama had just finished fucking over everyone who voted for him with Obamacare"

Pure idiocy.

The health care law was the biggest expansion of the safety net since the inception of Medicare. It is going to bury Republicans in 2014.

And then there were eight (Christie will expand the state's Medicaid program)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022431724

The biggest argument against the sequester is that cutting the deficit doesn't mean destroying social programs. In fact, smart cuts and spending is key to reducing the deficit and debt.

First, these are relevant:

CHART: Remember When Poor People Saw Their Incomes Grow Faster Than Rich People?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417514

Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407211

President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html


The biggest progressive gripe about the legislation is that Mr. Obama extracted less revenue from the affluent than expected — about $600 billion versus $800 billion over the next decade. In perspective, however, this isn’t that big a deal. Put it this way: A reasonable estimate is that gross domestic product over the next 10 years will be around $200 trillion. So if the revenue take had matched expectations, it would still have amounted to only 0.4 percent of G.D.P.; as it turned out, this was reduced to 0.3 percent. Either way, it wouldn’t make much difference in the fights over revenue versus spending still to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html

That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account.

Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304

Obama's Deal From a poor Person's Perspective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022111266

The deal was a coup because it extended benefits and aid to low-income and unemployed Americans with no spending cuts, and it neutered Republicans.

Not With A Bang But With A Whimper
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022215606

Still, remember that while Republicans are whining, the President has already cut $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

The Mostly Solved Deficit Problem

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a graph:



The vertical axis measures the projected ratio of federal debt to GDP. The blue line at the top represents the projected path of that ratio as of early 2011 — that is, before recent agreements on spending cuts and tax increases. This projection showed a rising path for debt as far as the eye could see.

And just about all budget discussion in Washington and the news media is laid out as if that were still the case. But a lot has happened since then. The orange line shows the effects of those spending cuts and tax hikes: As long as the economy recovers, which is an assumption built into all these projections, the debt ratio will more or less stabilize soon.

CBPP goes on to advocate another $1.4 trillion in revenue and/or spending cuts, which would bring the debt ratio at the end of the decade back down to around its current level. But the larger message here is surely that for the next decade, the debt outlook actually doesn’t look all that bad.

<...>

So you heard it here first: while you weren’t looking, and the deficit scolds were doing their scolding, the deficit problem (such as it was) was being mostly solved. Can we now start talking about unemployment?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/the-mostly-solved-deficit-problem/


<...>

For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/22/17056939-a-well-kept-fiscal-secret


Then there are the health care savings.

Medicare’s Projected Spending Has Dropped $500 Billion Without Lawmakers Cutting A Dime

By Jeff Spross

Medicare will spend $511 billion less between now and 2020 than was predicted two and a half years ago, according to the latest number crunching by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. More importantly, this drop occurred completely separate from any changes in government policy — rather, it resulted from an overall slowdown in the growth of health care costs.

The last time the Congress and the President actually altered Medicare policy in order to bring down the program’s spending was when they passed health reform in March of 2010. By comparing the Congressional Budget Office’s projections from August of that year with their projections from earlier this month, and by leaving out the the SGR cuts and the Medicare cuts in sequestration, the CBPP was able to isolate how much Medicare’s spending is anticipated to drop due purely to changes in the health care markets. And the drop is considerably larger than the proactive cuts in Medicare spending the Simpson-Bowles plan was calling for back in December of 2010:



According to the CBO itself, its projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between now and 2022 dropped 3.5 percent since its previous projection in August of 2012.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1623151/medicare-spending-drops/

This helps:

Medicare Fraud: HHS announces record-breaking $4.2 Billion recovered in FY 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022354924

The President's policies also prove that savings do not have to come at the expense of appropriate spending and benefits. The health care law not only expanded benefits for seniors, it's reversing the damage done by Bush, and it strengthened Medicare.

Long before this Supreme Court decision, through the Affordable Care Act, seniors began to see positive changes in their prescription drug costs, access to preventive health care, and more. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision the following provisions will continue to be provided to seniors:

Medicare Improvements

The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.

1) Closing the donut hole

a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.

b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.

c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services

a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.

b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.

c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.

d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

- more -

http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf


MEDICARE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION

Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).

The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf

The law gets better as it nears full implementation in 2014.

New Federal Rule Requires Insurers to Offer Mental Health Coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407451

Here’s one way Obamacare changed today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922

Rules finalized for the good stuff in Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415967

Kathleen Sebelius: Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for High Premium Increases
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417762

The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:11 PM

135. Strange....Ya know?

Your question is excellent.
Unfortunately, we will just have to see where the chips fall this time around.
The 99% have a bit of ground to cover before their influence is felt by those in power.
But it is coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:11 AM

139. Food Stamps, Welfare, School lunches....

All that stuff and more will be cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:54 AM

150. Excellent question & post, madfloridian

I just sent the question to the White House via twitter. Doubt anyone will actually try to answer it, but it'd be interesting to watch them try to weasel out of it. Doesn't matter -- it'll be a non-response to the lefty little people, as has been the case for most of the past 4+ years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread