General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor those who believe the President supports chained CPI
Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/chained-cpi-protectionsThe Budget contains the President’s compromise offer to Speaker Boehner from December. As part of that offer, the President was willing to accept Republican proposals to switch to the chained CPI. But, the Budget makes clear that the openness to chained CPI depends on two conditions. The President is open to switching to the chained CPI only if:
•The change is part of a balanced deficit reduction package that includes substantial revenue raised through tax reform.
•It is coupled with measures to protect the vulnerable and avoid increasing poverty and hardship.
The Budget contains two types of protections:
Benefit Enhancement for the Very Elderly and Others Who Rely on Social Security for Long Periods of Time
•The benefit enhancement would be equal to 5% of the average retiree benefit, or about $800 per year if the proposal were in effect today.
•It would phase in over 10 years, beginning at age 76, or (for other beneficiaries, such as those receiving Disability Insurance) in the 15th year of benefit receipt.
•The benefit enhancement would begin in 2020, phasing in over 10 years for those 76 or older (or in their 15th year of eligibility or beyond) in that year.
•Beneficiaries who continued to be on the program for an additional 10 years would be eligible for a second benefit enhancement, starting at age 95 in the case of a retired beneficiary.
Because of the benefit enhancement for the very elderly, the Budget proposal would not increase the poverty rate for Social Security beneficiaries, and would slightly reduce poverty among the very elderly according to SSA estimates.
Policy is Not Applied to Means-Tested Benefit Programs
Means-tested benefit programs are not included in the switch to the chained CPI. Programs that would not be included are:
•The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, meaning that the lowest-income seniors and people with disabilities generally would not be affected.
•Means-tested veterans’ pensions as well as the Montgomery GI Bill-active duty or the post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
•The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and child nutrition programs.
•Pell Grants.
•Poverty guidelines.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The OP appears to be offered to make me think Obama does not support it, and makes that point by stating that he does support it.
still_one
(96,779 posts)
AndyA
(16,993 posts)If they really want to protect SS, they will raise the cap and quit raiding it to pay for other things. They could also enact legislation that billionaires don't receive SS benefits because they don't need them, and wouldn't notice a difference if they didn't get them.
Others, however, depend greatly on SS benefits and any reduction will have a significantly bigger impact on their lives.
There are many other ways to "fix" SS that need to be addressed first.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,937 posts)That could be the whole thing summed in three words. Whenever someone starts yammering about the issue, simply state "raise the cap'.
In fact, I 'm contacting my elected officials with exactly that phrase. Want to put the SS issue to bed? "RAISE THE CAP"
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)You'd never support a budget that included chained CPI regardless of what else it contained?
cali
(114,904 posts)and likely never. And no, it's not obtuse. I do NOT support cutting Social Security benefits. That is a no brainer.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Your OP claims he does not support that which he himself proposed. That is either you being obtuse or mendacious, which do you like better?
And why does your verbiage fail to mention life expectancy in the US when pushing a thing which starts at 76 and 'phases in' over 10 years? Does the expectancy average of 78 years make your policy seem somehow creepy and the mountain of language somewhat dubious in intent?
'Most folks die before much of this phase phases in, but that's the beauty of it'. That's what you are trying not to say.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Good job.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)propose a budget or a member of Congress who would vote for a budget that contained the chained CPI or any measure that would cut Social Security benefits.
Fact is that if you get Social Security benefits and have an income of over $80,000 per year, you probably don't keep much if anything of your Social Security benefits. You probably pay taxes of that amount to the federal government. (And maybe even more in taxes than that.)
If you make more than $40,000 per year and receive Social Security, you also pay more in taxes than your rate would normally be on Social Security.
Everyone else on Social Security is receiving an average or below-average income and thus should not have a benefit cut.
Cutting Social Security is the equivalent of giving an employee a permanent pay cut -- that cannot be changed. A lower pay that can never be raised.
I totally and unequivocally will not support any budget or anyone who proposes a budget with cuts to Social Security.
Don't make people prove they are poor.
Some seniors did not pay enough into the Social Security system to qualify for benefits that exceed the poverty level. At this time, those seniors qualify for things like food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid which are PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND and which raise them above the poverty line in most cases.
It sounds wonderful, absolutely benevolent, to propose that the lowest Social Security benefits be raised. Great idea. But that is not the idea. The idea is to TRANSFER the cost of paying for the extra and very essential benefits to these very poor seniors TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND and then cutting the earned benefits of those who paid into the fund and receive slightly higher benefits.
Are "some people" getting rich from Social Security? Are they living "high off the trough?"
Here is a fact:
What is the maximum monthly Social Security retirement benefit?
The maximum benefit depends on the age a worker chooses to retire. For example, for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2012, the amount is $2,513. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit
That is $30,156 per year.
Granted 2080 hours at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per year totals only $15,080 per year. But to get $30,156 per year you would have to have earned pretty much the maximum salary of wage subject to Social Security taxes for a number of years. But the average Social Security recipient received $14,760 per year -- slightly less than minimum wage. At least $100 of that $14,760 probably went to pay for Medicare for that senior. Some seniors pay much more. I know someone who is retired, on Medicare and has to pay $300 per month for her Medicare based on the health insurance company that her former employer chose to go with.
There is really a lot of misinformation about Social Security out there.
I am posting this on my DU diary or blog so that I and others can refer to it in the future.
For minimum wage link:
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm
Email this page
Share
What is the average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker?
The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/~/average-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker
bowens43
(16,064 posts)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)If he did as he said in his campaign (I know campaign promises are never meant to be kept) he would never even mention CPI as any sort of offer unless it was included in a sentence that had the words off the table in it. The fact that he included it at all in his proposal puts him directly against the well being of a large part of his constituent who voted for him based on a belief that he actually meant what he said this time... not like last time....
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Unless he doesn't call CCPI a cut. Much like how Pelosi doesn't call it a cut.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
pscot
(21,037 posts)If they enhance my benefits much more, I'm going to end up owing the government money.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)The name does not change what it is and what the results will be, it is a cut no matter what you want to call it.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)tell the rest of us we are wrong? You can give them facts and refute everything they say, yet they still pretend to be oblivious to what you post or say.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)No Matter how many times you show evidence that he is just a guy they like and is not an immortal never aging man child that can fly, they just keep insisting it's true! "His name is Pete yaknow so I know he is, he is he is." "just because you say he used the elevator and have pitchers doesn't mean he didn't fly to the third floor - howdya splain how he got up there when Joey drew pitchers of him flyin, Jeoy knows evryfin about fllyin - poopyhead!" "when he toll evryun he wunt Peter Pan, he was just foolin the pirates sillyface he dint mean what he said". "he wunt smokin sumpin and yelling at us fer walkin in on im, we was talking to tinkerbell an only yeld so the pirates cunent yell at us, he stopped the pirates from yelun he dint yell you meanie 
"
Marr
(20,317 posts)Car salesmen call used cars "pre-owned". Del Taco calls the brown substance in their tacos "meat".
It's called advertising.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,013 posts)It seems to me that these decade delayed "benefit enhancements" are about as much of an "enhancement" to someone's life as it is an "enhancement" when money that is stolen from you tomorrow gets handed back to you ten years later - right before the thieves return again to start stealing anew.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And that says all one needs to say about this 'protection'. Those promoting this crap always fail to leave that part out, even as they ramble on about this doling out of pennies from 76-86.
DavidDvorkin
(19,917 posts)78.2 is the average life expectancy at birth.
See this table: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)No sale.
GeorgeGist
(25,439 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)However, that does look exactly how the Bankers/Elite would design the new cuts, try to make it look good, when in reality it is the same a it ever was... more for the elite, less for everyone else.
Thanks for the info 
Marr
(20,317 posts)--> Create the Excuse without help.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Raise the fucking cap damn it all. Make everyone pay the same %.
...and WTF ..you post this with a link to another Democraticunderground post with Chuck Toad shit???
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Nobody has to "believe" that the president supports chained cpi. It's not a matter of faith or opinion.
HE put it in HIS budget proposal. HE PUT IT ON THE TABLE.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)
elleng
(136,616 posts) michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Lacking a lot right now.
elleng
(136,616 posts)life (and Sunday!) is too short.
Rex
(65,616 posts)but keep pretending it is everyone else that has it wrong. Funny to watch 5 people guess and make up scenarios to convince the other 100 people telling them they are wrong. Please continue.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)He owns it.
/debate.
LeftInTX
(30,346 posts)(From the thread referenced in the OP)
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Fixed it - was the link I had intended!
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I have no animosity toward the president for proposing this.
It threatens to take money from the wealthy (in the form of increased taxes) as long as the government can pay the Fox News viewing crowd a little bit less.
Beyond the fact that he is attacking two of the republican base demographics in one proposal, we need to stop giving money to people that need food. People who need food should be given food; just as people who need clothing should be given clothing and people who need shelter should be given shelter.
There have been (and still are) programs in place to take care of people who have these needs. Those programs should be expanded to take care of the less fortunate.
If grandma needs food, then drag your lazy ass over to her house and give her some food. We need to take care of each other and provide people with what they need - unless what they need is more money.
It's just like health care. If you are sick, you should have access to a doctor - not access to an emergency room. A clinic visit for a minor ailment is much more appropriate. The solution is to build more clinics, not build more hospitals.
There is a difference between solving a problem and spending more money on a problem.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)In keeping with the overall tone, why not just tell Grandma to get her own damn food?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)The idea that you're fighting for grandma because your trying to prevent a small adjustment to her social security compensation is what's ridiculous.
Grandma is probably sitting over at her house watching Fox News and voting republican. If she needs representation she can call her congressperson and tell them to get off their asses just as well as any of us - maybe better.
There are way too many man hours invested into this. Way too much 'outrage'.
There are a lot of serious issues not being discussed because everyone is trying to 'one up' the outrage.
It's time to get past it; time to move on.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)are sitting at home watching Faux News nor did we all vote Republic. You really need to get a look at the demographics of those of us who post here. I'm really getting fed up with people making a whole lot of assumptions about those of us over 65.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)So imagine my surprise at all of the democrat bashing.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)You are one of those folks that try to provoke a negative response from people.
Pardon me for mistaking you for someone trying to engage in an intelligent discussion.
Have a nice day.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)I prefer to move forward, not backwards.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)People will still be hungry. Giving money doesn't solve a hunger problem. We need to redesign our entire food distribution infrastructure, giving a few more bucks a month to the less fortunate does nothing to solve that problem.
It's very poor troubleshooting to suggest that as a solution. Give the poor more money; those in control will just raise the prices. We need programs where locally grown food can be purchased with food stamps.
This 'chained CPI' discussion is a distraction from more important issues. If seniors can't make ends meet on their social security we can expand food stamps to cover them. Even if it became a reality it is a small adjustment and can be compensated for in other programs.
There has been way too much wailing and gnashing of teeth over such a small 'cut'. How many years before its completely phased in? The entire discussion is a complete waste of time.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)And we are not talking just about the poor, we are talking about everyone's entitlements.
Cutting our checks may be a waste of time for you, but it is of high importance to most who value their investments.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Food is the most important among them IMHO.
I'm saying that the only way to make certain that people have food is to give them food.
If your grocery budget is $100/week and when they ring it up at the store; it is $120, you don't have enough money. We need a program that guarantees that people have as much food as they need, money doesn't get us there.
Making petty digs about my priorities may seem clever, but the fact is the system isn't working. We know that because what we keep hearing is that a couple of bucks a month can make the difference between someone eating and someone starving - that sounds like a broken system to me.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)which provides money so a person can get access to the things they need to survive, like food.
giving them less, will obviously mean less for food, too.
the fact is that the social security system is one of the things that has been working well for decades, and continues to.
these aren't petty digs for me, those are hard won truths that the elite has been trying to discredit since day one.
i'll be damend if i will be silent, when i know more of the story than what the main stream media programs.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)With a cut of just a couple bucks a month, that isn't what I would describe as a successful program.
I'm not advocating for cutting social security (I will want to collect myself in not too many years).
I'm saying that if the problem is that seniors won't have enough money for food, there should be a food program (or a group of food programs). Keeping people from starving should be our highest priority as long as we have enough food to go around.
Giving more money does not always translate into giving more food. People have other needs that they may put first, if there is a program where people have access to food, their other needs can be evaluated separately.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)You are certainly doing your part to ensure that "the entire discussion is a complete waste of time"
Keep trying, I'm sure you'll get full credit for each OP you start, where you explain how everyone here is wrong, and how so many more important issues need to obscure any discussion on this subject.
madokie
(51,076 posts)It gets in their way of a good self righteous chicken little the sky is falling RANT