General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Obama’s Stealth Social Security Cut Is Bigger Than It Seems - TPMDC
Why Obamas Stealth Social Security Cut Is Bigger Than It SeemsBrian Beutler - TPMDC
April 24, 2013, 10:41 AM
<snip>
The implicit finding: Chained CPI which President Obama included as a compromise measure in his budget will typically harm seniors more than the rest of the population.
Supporters of Chained CPI argue that, unlike the two main existing indexes the government uses, it incorporates the assumption that consumers will substitute cheaper goods for costlier ones when prices rise, counteracting the economic impact of inflation. Thus, they argue, Chained CPI provides a more accurate calculation of inflation, and the ones the government currently uses to index benefits and tax brackets are too generous.
The most common criticism of Chained CPI dismisses the technical accuracy of Chained CPI as an inflation index and points out that benefit cuts and regressive tax increases are undesirable policies, whether theyre effectuated directly or via a technical change to tax and benefit calculations.
But theres another. In last weeks report, CBO examined an experimental inflation measure called CPI-E, which weights health care and other goods and services more heavily than existing measures of inflation because seniors consume them disproportionately.
What they found is that over the last 30 years, inflation as measured by existing consumer price indices has typically been lower than inflation as measured by CPI-E.
In other words, prices rise faster for seniors than for the population at large which means slowing the growth of cost of living increases will particularly disadvantage seniors, who are already seeing their living costs outstrip their benefits.
<snip>
More: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/why-obamas-stealth-social-security-cut-is-bigger-than-it-seems.php
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)sorry, but that makes no sense. You can accuse the very rich in politics of this - the family names that get them seats that a schmuck could never get - but accusing Obama is paling around with the uber rich is just plain ridiculous. He got where he is because he worked for it and because he has the temperament and the skeletonless closet that very few do. This massive accusation that Obama is the biggest liar Washington ever saw is tired and stupid.
but you know that, and most of us here do too.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)When did that happen, I've been away so I could have missed it.
How exactly is he screwing seniors and what bracket are they in? If some better and well off seniors have to take a cut, I'm okay with that as long as the low income don't get affected negatively.
This very much reminds me of when Obama 'cut Medicare' - that was spewn here for ages and no matter how many times it was pointed out that those cuts were done to the Providers and not the recipients, people still wanted to believe the worst and did for a long time. Paul Ryan was good for something - he tried that too and finally it is now accepted that that was and is b.s.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)numerous posts on this board that explain it expertly, and have been explaining it, for weeks now. I am not going to do your homework for you and find them. You can also Google it. If you are truly interested in how Obama is screwing seniors it's very easy to educate yourself.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)In case you haven't heard, a group of liberal congresspeople requested a meeting with Obama on Chained CPI. He invites Repugs to the WH - liberals have to ask for a meeting!
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=464983)
Whisp
(24,096 posts)The President has been working hard to make improvements for the middle class and those in poverty. You can schpeel all you like about how he's robbing them all to give to the rich but when the facts come to town, that is just downright bullshit.
I know how much you enjoy this but this too, like all the other 'traitorous' things the President has done, will pass. And the crickets will replace the smell of hair burning.
It's just a matter of time.
I will wait out this newest one like I waited out all the other phoney ones.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Ooooooooohhhhhhh scary words!
Do I really need to point out that Obama has NOT cut SS or any other social program.. Again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again...
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)"Were it not for him we would not be able to fund education, or infrastructure, etc." Will be the standard BS used by the third way Republicans registered as Democrats to defend him.
They will claim earned benefits are in competition with all other spending.
The think tank approved lie is as follows, "Since the 1960s, LBJs Great Society and JFKs New Frontier have competed for federal dollars. And as the cost of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security has skyrocketed, weve spent less and less of our budget educating kids, building roads, and curing disease." Notice how they just lie and claim earned benefits that are self funded and running a very large surplus are somehow part of the budget that funds other things we need?
Typical dishonest fake Democratic Wall Street funded third way lies, the same people that have been pimping the chained CPI pretending it is a better reflection of inflation faced by seniors when it demonstrably is not. The same liars that Obama mimics every freaking chance he gets.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)and are trying to redirect the truth by make false accusations of claims that were not even made.
Redirection and misdirection, typical third way dishonest tactics.
What does this sentence mean Stewie? "The implicit finding: Chained CPI which President Obama included as a compromise measure in his budget"
I take it to mean it was a compromise measure included in HIS BUDGET, not sure why
How in the hell can you make a straight faced claim that the statement meant he got it passed already?
starzdust22
(11 posts)...you should add the word YET, as in not yet... We'll need to wait and see if a deal is actually makes into law.
I worked and paid into my benefit for over 40 years until I became disabled and unable to work. I didn't make a whole lot as a teacher and was only able to save a few $k, now gone. I depend on my SS and a small pension. I am at that border of poverty now. I run out of money near the middle of each month which results in me just skipping meals. A good deal goes for medicines each month. People at the top just has no idea what folks like myself go through, nor do they care as far as I can tell.
StarzDust
tridim
(45,358 posts)Or will it fizzle like every other hyperbolic hair-on-fire prediction I've read on DU since 2008?
We ALL pay into SS. Nobody wants benefits cut, EXCEPT REPUBLICANS.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The established and unchangeable fact is that Obama put this cut in his proposed budget. That the head of the NRCC has already blasted Obama for attacking Social Security shows that, regardless of the eventual legislative outcome, the mere offering of the proposal by a Democratic President will be used to bash Democrats in 2014.
You ask, "Or will it fizzle like every other hyperbolic hair-on-fire prediction I've read on DU since 2008?" You're apparently including those predictions that Obama would sell out the public option and force everyone to pay money to private health-insurance companies. That prediction didn't turn out to be hyperbolic.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Just a typical hyperbolic reaction by smart people who know better to an obvious chess move by the administration. A chess move that will never come to pass under Obama or any other Democratic Administration.
REPUBLICANS wan't to gut SS, not Democrats. Period.
Obama didn't kill the private option. Congress did. You already know that.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Some DUers agree with your "chess move" analysis. Others think that Obama should be more forthright in putting forward what he wants.
On the chained CPI, you write, "REPUBLICANS want to gut SS, not Democrats. Period." I agree. The point I made was as to a related statement: "All the voters know that REPUBLICANS want to gut SS, not Democrats. Period." With that statement I would disagree. I agree with those DUers who conclude that, even though the chained CPI will probably not be enacted, the mere offering of this budget will be harmful to Democratic candidates in the midterms. If, as you and I both think likely, the C-CPI is never enacted, it's still pretty much a given that some Republican candidates next year will attack Democrats for wanting to cut Social Security. Some voters will fall for that. I would rather have seen him propose lifting the cap and let the Republicans propose C-CPI.
On the ACA, you're certainly right that there was no solid Congressional majority for a public option. The tactical question is whether Obama, if he had pressed harder for it, could have brought around enough waverers to get it enacted. As with the C-CPI dispute, there's the further question whether advocating the more progressive policy, even if ultimately unsuccessful, would have been politically advantageous.
We saw the same thing early in his term, on ARRA. Obama presented a proposed stimulus package that included a major tax-cut component. In terms of the stimulative effect per dollar added to the deficit, a package with more in spending and less in tax cuts would have been better, but Obama was reportedly hoping to cater to the Republicans. I think I read that, at Obama's initial meeting with Congressional leaders to present the package, the Republicans were pleasantly surprised by the inclusion of huge tax cuts. They expressed their appreciation. Then almost all of them voted No anyway. As with the public option, we can't know for sure what would have happened if Obama had proposed a package that was more in line with what Krugman and other economists were recommending, but IMO he should have taken a stronger stance.
To be fair, I would cut Obama some slack on the ARRA just because it was at the start of his term. You could make at least a colorable argument that he should seize the chance to set the tone, promote bi-partisanship or post-partisanship or whatever, and get things done. In light of the failure of that initial attempt, though, it's harder to justify his subsequent repetition of the same tactic.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Now if only Obama was not securely in his second term, where he can continue to promote policies for his friends the wealthy.
And of course, Congress is pretty much on the same page as Obama. Almost al Congress people are millionaires, at the very least.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Oh. Never mind.
rurallib
(62,346 posts)senseandsensibility
(16,713 posts)It was their main headline today.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)But, he didn't seem interested up until this post. I hope he keeps it up.