HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Someone explain to me wha...

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:18 PM

Someone explain to me what the big problem is with the cuts to SS

Obama is making concessions to get a deal but the concessions in social security are very small, achieved by changing the way the cost of living adjustment is calculated... It is only something like $125 a year for the average senior....it only becomes significant in a few years and by that time a Democratic House and Senate can change things back...

And seniors are getting a reduction in the cost of medical care through Obamacare..which more than offsets that.

.Yes he said he would not tamper with the program..and repubs told their base they would not raise taxes..so both sides have to give a bit. If Obama does not give and they do and we still go over the cliff and into recession, he will no longer be able to put the blame entirely on the GOP...He has the public's support now and doesnt want to loose it by refusing to give.

So we give a little now in order to get a deal and later we go back when we control the House and get it all back..

Why all the hysterical rants about Obama the "liar" and the "lessor of two evils!!" and "selling us out?"


This sounds like the ranting over the health care bill..


Maybe I am wrong ..if so feel free to tell me what I am missing...

To me all we are doing is cutting our own throats..fighting among ourselves....once again!


69 replies, 4374 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 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Someone explain to me what the big problem is with the cuts to SS (Original post)
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 OP
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #1
Purveyor Dec 2012 #2
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #3
Enrique Dec 2012 #4
TheProgressive Dec 2012 #5
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #18
TheProgressive Dec 2012 #22
dflprincess Dec 2012 #26
teddy51 Dec 2012 #6
valerief Dec 2012 #8
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #7
valerief Dec 2012 #9
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #10
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #13
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #15
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #23
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #58
reteachinwi Dec 2012 #11
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #14
reteachinwi Dec 2012 #44
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #19
doc03 Dec 2012 #12
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #16
doc03 Dec 2012 #37
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #50
Cha Dec 2012 #38
Hoyt Dec 2012 #17
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #20
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #21
Hoyt Dec 2012 #25
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #30
dflprincess Dec 2012 #33
TheProgressive Dec 2012 #24
Hoyt Dec 2012 #28
TheProgressive Dec 2012 #31
Hoyt Dec 2012 #40
TheProgressive Dec 2012 #46
Hoyt Dec 2012 #48
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #34
Hoyt Dec 2012 #43
phleshdef Dec 2012 #27
dawg Dec 2012 #29
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #35
dawg Dec 2012 #42
Hoyt Dec 2012 #45
GitRDun Dec 2012 #32
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #36
Cha Dec 2012 #39
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #41
liberal N proud Dec 2012 #47
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #49
reteachinwi Dec 2012 #53
forestpath Dec 2012 #57
Iggo Dec 2012 #51
Warpy Dec 2012 #52
malthaussen Dec 2012 #54
wilsonbooks Dec 2012 #55
Scuba Dec 2012 #56
bahrbearian Dec 2012 #59
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #60
CTyankee Dec 2012 #61
Pisces Dec 2012 #62
Hell Hath No Fury Dec 2012 #63
treestar Dec 2012 #64
MFrohike Dec 2012 #65
Coyotl Dec 2012 #66
Kablooie Dec 2012 #67
UCmeNdc Dec 2012 #68
WeekendWarrior Dec 2012 #69

Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:20 PM

1. It's the principle of it, and the slippery slope, and it's grossly unfair to the neediest.

They've had no problem making the rich much much much much richer.

We don't want to give one inch.

And we shouldn't have to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:22 PM

2. There should be 'means testing' before anyone over 65 can enter the casino/bingo parlor floors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:22 PM

3. The main problem is you're keeping your powder dry and being reasonable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:24 PM

4. it's because Social Security has mighty enemies

and they will never quit. keeping the program in existence is an epic battle. Democrats have been staunch, attempts to cut it have crashed and burned, most recently Bush's failed attempt in 2005. For a Democratic president to chip away at it is a scandal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:26 PM

5. Social Security is self funded and contributes *zero* to the deficit.

So why on earth did you withhold payments to the very people who paid into it.

It is pure evil. It is our money. They want to withhold funds to harm people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:47 PM

18. Oh pleaseeee

The are only talking about a hundred dollars a year! and that can be changed when we gain control of the House..

And do you have to use such exaggeration calling it "pure evil" and accusing someone..I assume you mean Democrats of wanting to harm people?

I will give a bit here and there in battle to win the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:50 PM

22. Hey jack, it isn't your call to reduce money for *all* SS recipients.

Why would you insist talking less SS earned benefits when it has nothing to do with the deficit?

I got an idea - reduce the War Dept budget by $250B/year...How's that with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:00 PM

26. Ah - another one of those "fix it later" deals

Like cutting Social Security is going to help the Democrats win the House back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:26 PM

6. Part of it is putting more pain on those that can least afford it, while giving more to

 

ultra rich. We continue to let these rich, corporations, and wall street escape any responsibility for the shit that we are in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to teddy51 (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:28 PM

8. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:26 PM

7. Pretend it's President BUSH, not OBAMA, proposing these changes.

 

Then seen how blase you are about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:29 PM

9. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:30 PM

10. What is this "health care bill" of which you speak? Do you mean the health-insurance bill? The one

 

that benefited stockholders of health insurance companies. The one that was adopted instead of a single-payer plan? The one that was adopted in lieu of a health care bill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:35 PM

13. Yes, the one that

closes the doughnut hole for seniors, forces insurance companies to take people with pre existing conditions, prevents them from dropping sick people...Thats the one! The one that sets up competitive exchanges, that allows kids to stay on their parents insurance and that insures millions more have access to health insurance. THAT BILL..which is a hell of a lot better than nothing and is a step in the direction we would all like to go..

.But if we had listened to those that want it all or nothing..then we would have nothing.. Yes THAT BILL..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:42 PM

15. Why not just call it the health-insurance bill?

 

And if all of that is wonderful, in lieu of real health-care reform, why not compel homeless people to buy homes? Congress could use a little double-talk and call it the End Homelessness Bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:51 PM

23. So you would have voted against Obamacare?

and what would we now have in its place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:11 AM

58. I would have been honest and called it a health-insurance reform bill.

 

If reforming health insurance is good enough for your approval, why not call it what it is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:31 PM

11. Compounding

 

Albert Einstein was asked what is the greatest power in the universe. He replied "Compound interest." A cut of .3% a yer for 20 years is about a 9% decrease in inflation protection for seniors. If you are on SSI long term the decrease is security threatening. SSD takes an even bigger hit. Many of the most vulnerable in our society would pay to keep tax cut in place for the well to do. We would rather care for the least of our fellow citizens than make a few wealthy people wealthier.

My brother was a Vietnam Vet. He passed in 2002. Glad to meet you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reteachinwi (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:39 PM

14. nice to hear from you too, Reteach

You are right ,.,.a cut of .3 % a year for 20 years is a 9% decrease,..but as I said in my original post...who is to say we cant take the deal now and in a few years change things back?

And Obama is getting something in exchange for it..higher taxes on the rich..

Its not like we control both houses and the Repubs can do nothing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:20 PM

44. Changing things back

 

I hoped that President Clinton would undo the Reagan Revolution. He ended "welfare as we know it" and repealed Glass-Steagall. I understand your argument. I don't trust our representative government enough to let this happen without a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reteachinwi (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:47 PM

19. I think SSI would be exempt under the president's proposal

Not sure about SSD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:32 PM

12. Apparently you don't depend on SS or you wouldn't feel that way.

Besides that SS has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. I don't think Nancy Palosi will go for it anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:45 PM

16. Pelosi apparently will go for it

In her MSNBC interview, Pelosi also noted that the president's plan -- which is not his final offer -- includes protections for low-income individuals from the Social Security changes, which could soften the blow.

"The details of this are not all ironed out, but they all mitigate for helping the poorest and neediest in our society, whether they're Supplemental Security Income recipients, whether they're 80 and older or whether they're truly needy in-between," said Pelosi, adding it was "worth making a compromise" to avoid going over the fiscal cliff.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/nancy-pelosi-fiscal-cliff_n_2324042.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:12 PM

37. Just a few days ago she said no way no how on raising the Medicare

age or cutting SS. What does protections for low income individuals mean? What is low income? Does that mean if you perhaps worked your ass off for 40 years and a have few dollars in an IRA you get screwed while your co-worker that drank away his paycheck gets a break? This spread the wealth around bullshit even applies to people that played by the rules and planed for their retirement too I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:39 PM

50. She said that? Nancy let's-protect-Bush-by-taking-impeachment-off-the-table Pelosi?

 

Somehow, I don't trust her to do the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:12 PM

38. Tweets about Nancy's statement to Andrea Mitchell

Nerdy Wonka

@NerdyWonka .. listen to Leader Pelosi who has the inside scoop on fiscal cliff negotiations. She backs POTUS 100%.


Nerdy Wonka

@NerdyWonka Leader Pelosi tells Andrea Mitchell that she can deliver Democrats for Pres. Obama's fiscal cliff deal; whatever the final result


I am on Social Security and I rec this thread...

http://theobamadiary.com/2012/12/18/rise-and-shine-377/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:46 PM

17. I agree. ObamaCare helped close donut hole for meds, worth far more

than the chained-CPI 0.3% hit that MIGHT occur per year for those at higher end of SS benefit scale. And that doesn't even consider how a better economy will help fund other benefits that help poor. And there are other things in the leaked 'deal' that help people like unemployed, younger workers who've had it rough, etc.

I'd suggest folks look at big picture, rather than succumbing to fear of the big bad Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:50 PM

20. Its amazing isnt it..?

One minute they love Obama..next minute ...because they dont get all they want right away,,.,well he is now "evil" and wants to harm us!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:50 PM

21. Wouldn't chained CPI hit more at the lower end of the scale?

That's what I have been reading, that it would hit lower to middle class people the hardest (although the president is seeking a carve-out to protect the poorest seniors).

But otherwise I agree with you that this is not as bad as people seem to think, compared to what the GOP would have gotten in July of 2011 or what they would have gotten had Romney won.

Also, I am very happy that we seem to have won on the Medicare age, at least for now.

Can you explain the donut hole and how the ACA fixed it? I have heard of the donut hole but don't exactly understand how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:57 PM

25. The leaked deal clearly says those folks are protected. Admittedly,

at this point don't know how protected, or what threshold is. If it doesn't happen as I'm assuming, I'll scream too.

I'm taking my increased drug coverage and other benefits of "deal," and considering the slight "cut" I might get from chained-CPI the price I have to pay. It's a deal, especially compared to what rethugs would have extracted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:02 PM

30. It all depends on how its ( the chained CPI) structured

as someone else posted..there could be protections for the lower income people...and probably will..

Briefly in Medicare at $2800 in outlays you are then responsible for the full price of your medications until you reach $4500...


Here is a more better and detailed explination of the doughnut hole and what is being done to fix it..

http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2010/08/donuthole.html




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:08 PM

33. "Not as bad compared to what the GOP would have done"

Is that suppose to make us feel good about being knifed in the back?

Obama and Pelosi both said Social Security was off the table. Apparently they lied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:53 PM

24. SS has nothing to do with the deficit...

So, why do they want to take money away from those that earn it?

There is no other reason but their desire to harm seniors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:01 PM

28. Has something to do with economy and debt.

As far as annual deficit, it's just accounting that segregates funds into separate accounts.

It has an impact.

I prefer to shore up SS under Obama and Dems to alternative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:05 PM

31. No, it does not.

SS has a $2.7T trust fund that is invested in special US Treasuries. This is our money.

Period. They simply do not want to pay us back.

All that needs to happen is to remove the cap.

And to reduce the deficit - cut defense by $250B/year.

Finally, Obama is offering to *CUT* SS and is totally unacceptable. If anything - SS recipients need a raise...!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:14 PM

40. Those treasures are a debt. And that debt puts upper pressure on interest rates,

and impacts our borrowing power. Also, when the economy sucks, the SS fund is under additional pressure.

You have to look at big picture. If you think my and other seniors' future is not at more risk if we don't take some action, you need to study up on it.

I would prefer the Chained-CPI were not involved. But if rethugs won't feel good without screwing upper end SS beneficiaries, then it's a small price to pay for other positive aspects of leaked "deal."

I do agree on defense cuts, taxing rich, raising cap, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:24 PM

46. America has no problem with our borrowing power..

And, no the SS fund is NOT under additional pressure when the economy sucks. The pressure
is to raise employment and insure the government is properly funded.

And sir/madam Hoyt, SS is solid for at least 20 years. What investment has that kind of longevity?
You don't remove benefits - you raise them. And how to fix it - it is a one word bill that amends the
SS bill - "strike 'the cap is $106k?' and replace with 'there is no cap'".

Have you ever read the SS trustee report? I have...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:37 PM

48. Yeah, we haven't had a recession or anything.

Still appears a good deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:09 PM

34. That's how I feel

I wish they had done something about it when they had control of all 3. But better to do it now than let the GOP do it in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:20 PM

43. We appear in the minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:00 PM

27. I don't want chained CPI, but the middle class tax are a WAY larger value than 125$ yearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:01 PM

29. $125 a year my hairy little ass.

By the time my generation hits 75 the difference in benefits would be substantial. Social Security is already insufficient for most people to live on. Why make it worse?

And just how much of Bush's unaffordable tax cuts are we going to keep while we rob an entire generation of retirees?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:09 PM

35. Does your hairy little ass read??

One more time...that is the figure given by those that seem to have a handle on it and it is a first year figure..got that? More than offset by savings to seniors elsewhere..

Now I have already said..several times.. that this is just a temporary compromise and there is absolutely no reason it cannot be fixed....no reason it cannot be changed back to what we want at a later date.

How many times do I have to say that? we have plenty of time..

We compromise a bit now...and get more of what we want later...Its just like with healthcare..take some now and get more later..
Obama is not dictator and we do not control the House..and compromising doesnt make him evil, as some have said..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:16 PM

42. Mr. President, is that you.

Cause if it isn't, I don't give a tinker's damn how many times you tell me this is a "temporary" compromise that can be fixed later. To Hell with that!

We have a Dem President with veto power. We have a solid majority in the Senate. We have rich guy tax cuts that are expiring that they would loooove to have partially extended. It's not likely to get much better than that anytime soon.

The first year amount is a pittance. But after many years the impact of this cut becomes savage. It compounds on itself and is a major cut to the benefits of future retirees. And for what? What revenues are being added to the system? What kind of balanced plan would this be for Social Security? It sounds like all pain no gain to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:22 PM

45. Damn. Your title cracks me up. I can't quit laughing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:07 PM

32. I am with you

Let's play the long game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:11 PM

36. I say draw the line at Social Security. Go to fucking war with the bastards.

Dont touch SS until you pay for the damn wars. Raise taxes to pay for the unfunded wars that Congress approved. Raise everyones taxes and tell the American people, you wanted a fucking war, you are going to have to pay for it, not take it out of SS benefits.

We should not even be speaking about SS one way or the other.

Dont give me this shit about, "we must compromise to give them SS and we can get it back some day in the future."

Dont touch SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:14 PM

39. Thanks for your

rationality, Vietnameravet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:15 PM

41. Well i am going to have my warm milk and gram crackers

so enough from me for tonight...but seriously folks.. IMO you have got to learn to weave and dodge and give a little here and there to win the war...

I respect most everyone's opinion but I cannot respect some posters who have called Obama "evil" and a "liar"

Sorry but that is just not called for..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:26 PM

47. The thing is Obama doesn't need to cut a deal!

Taxes are going up on the wealthy. The only difference is can the pukes save tax cuts for some people or do they let them go up on everyone.

Obama could just it's my way or the highway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:38 PM

49. Obama gave a payroll tax cut just a year or so ago.

At that time, he assured us that decreasing the payroll taxes that fund Social Security would be no problem, and that Social Security would be able to pay benefits in full even if the revenues for Social Security were reduced. Did he lie about the impact of cutting those taxes, or is he lying now when he says that Social Security benefits should be reduced? He can't have it both ways. Either he should not have cut the taxes or he should not cut the benefits.

Originally, Social Security was paid for out of the payroll taxes as they came in. It was pay as you go. The current generation working and paying in supported the elderly generation receiving benefits.

The Baby Boomers posed a problem because they had fewer children than their parents. That meant that sooner or later there would be more seniors to provide benefits for than working people to pay for Social Security benefits.

The payroll taxes were lower until Reagan raised them in order to insure that Baby Boomers, a very large bulge of a generation, would not be too heavy a burden on their children. Social Security is paid for partly out of the Social Security Trust Fund and partly out of the payroll taxes as I understand it.

The extra money that the Baby Boomers and everyone who worked since approximately 1985 has paid in payroll taxes was put into a Social Security Trust Fund. It is from that fund that a portion of the money benefiting today's Social Security recipients are paid.

The Social Security Trust Fund is in the control of the Secretary of the Treasury who loans it to the government. You will hear the the US owes so much money to China. We do owe some money to China, but the US government owes a lot more to trust funds of Americans such as the Social Security Trust Fund.

George W. Bush fought two wars without raising taxes and on top of that gave tax cuts to everyone. Those tax cuts mostly benefited the rich. Those tax cuts were given out of the money owed to the Social Security Trust Fund to a great extent. They were basically stolen and handed to rich political donors.

And now, rather than tax the rich to repay the Social Security Trust Fund, the Republicans and Obama want to shortchange your mom and grandmother when they get into their 80s. Outside of the senseless war in Iraq, I have never heard of our government doing such an ugly, horrible thing. It is essentially theft -- theft from the most vulnerable helpless elderly. These are people who do not have the alternative of getting a job or making do.

The average Social Security recipient receives a little more than $1200 per month. That means that 1/2 of the recipients receive less than that.

Changing the CPI would mean that, a few years from now, people in their 80s would not have enough to survive. It is just the meanest thing that the American government could possibly do to working people in America.

Meanwhile, Congress and President Obama continue to station troops in countries like Germany and Turkey and Japan and the UK, countries that can take care of themselves without so much help from us. And just today, we announced that we will be giving enormous amounts of money to Pakistan to pay Pakistan to protect itself from intruders. What????

Yet our government wants to take money from American seniors when they are in their 80s. Estimates I have read said it would amount to taking about $1000 per year from a senior.

We should cut our troops overseas, impose taxes on imports in order to provide incentives for producing goods here, increase employment through those taxes and stop talking about cutting Social Security. Unless you are rich, cutting the increases in the Social Security measure for inflation will hurt you when you are elderly and can no longer get a job or work.

If Obama agrees to start cutting Social Security benefits or the measure for inflation for figuring Social Security benefits I cannot support him in the future.

This issue is about who we are and what we value as a country. I value protecting and helping the vulnerable. If we no longer value protecting the weakest amongst us, we are supporting the kinds of values that led to the shooting in Connecticut. The killer did not care about taking care of those children, about protecting them. We agree that is heartless. But so is cutting the lifeline of helpless seniors. Cutting Social Security benefits will lead to the deaths of seniors who are already living on the edge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:06 AM

53. Beautiful summary

 

I thought I was the only one paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:58 AM

57. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:53 PM

51. See, they're going to make CUTS...to SOCIAL SECURITY.

You're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:04 AM

52. The problem is robbing social security

so that they can maintain low taxes on the rich. This is what they've done since the 80s, when Reagan jacked payroll taxes up six times and Congress started replacing the overpayments with IOUs everybody knew the country would never pay back.

It's robbing present and future seniors who paid into the system all their lives in order to keep men like Sheldon Adelson billionaires who don't have to worry about paying their fair share of taxes and can continue to buy the government.

In addition, social security is all many seniors have to live on. Either we give them adequate cost of living increases or we see the states having to make up the shortfall by welfare payouts, food stamps, and other programs so the streets aren't full of starving elderly people having to spend their last years as beggars. When states have to make up the shortfall, everybody's taxes go up and they're regressive ones, hitting the poorest the hardest.

In addition, social security was designed to be self supporting, the ridiculously low cap on earnings to be raised when the payouts increased as inflation ate up what seniors had to live on. It has never contributed one lousy dime to the deficit and never will.

Robbing seniors to fatten rich men is obscene. That is what the Republicans are trying to force through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:03 AM

54. Let me put it this way...

Suppose we can make a nice deal with the GOP that the budget will be passed, and all that is required is for Mr Obama to place Vietnameravet on death row, execution to be enacted after the midterm elections. Of course, if the House is retaken, then we can vote you a pardon.

You up for it?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:16 AM

55. That seems like a reasonable compromise.

When clinton passed nafta I think that they said it could be changed later, but they never got around to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:13 AM

56. I miss the unrec button.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:41 AM

59. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:08 AM

60. I do also. I wish there was a separate unrec count. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:19 AM

61. right now we don't know if that is really part of the deal or not. It has been floated.

What if the SS offer, when it does come, means tests the measure so that it affects only those in the top 2%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:31 AM

62. People posting some of those threads have ulterior motives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:32 PM

63. "...change things back..."



Once done, I can guarantee you there will be NO willingness to "unring that bell". Tell me, how is Obama doing "fixing" those bad trade agreements he spoke of?

Get back to me when it actually happens...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:18 PM

64. It's always nice not to have one's hair on fire

And to talk some sense!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:39 PM

65. A challenge

Feel free to name one example of Obama or the modern Democratic party going back and "fixing" a giveaway. You won't mind if I don't hold my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:42 AM

66. You try giving up groceries for one month and let me know if its a big deal or not.

$125 is a month of food on SS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:49 AM

67. Change it back like they did with the Bush tax cuts? Don't count on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:37 AM

68. Here is CPI-W vs Chained CPI explained

Chained CPI Will Reduce Your Social Security Benefits


Every year social security is adjusted to keep up with inflation. As we noted in our CPI overview, chained CPI cuts benefits by reducing the cost of living adjustments, known as COLA, to social security benefits. COLA is designed to keep up with inflation, yet chained CPI assumes, wrongly, one can substitute some goods for others as prices increase. We confirmed that the current proposal is to simply swap out CPI-W for chained CPI and use the same formulas to calculate the annual COLA adjustment to account for rising prices. We overviewed the formula to calculate cost of living adjustments earlier. Below is a graph of the current COLA adjustments




http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/chained-cpi-will-reduce-your-social-security-benefits

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vietnameravet (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:47 AM

69. It's less than $125 a year

It amounts to about three bucks a month, IF that. It's a very small cut that could ultimately add up over a number of years, but really, it's much ado about nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread