We Have Four Weeks to Stop Obama from Cutting Social Security

[jtown1123]

From R.J. Eskow:

Too many commentators have suggested that Obama's "cave-in" on Social Security is inevitable. It's not. He delivers the State of the Union message on January 26. That gives the public more than four weeks to stop him from doing something that's both destructive and self-destructive.

A President On the Verge of a Political Breakdown

Any move to embrace the radical recommendations of his Deficit Commission's co-chairs would be disastrous for the President, his party, and his Presidency. (Have I said that enough yet?) For those of you who are asking if he would really do something like that, the answer is yes. He's on the verge of it right now.

The President's "fence-mending" meetings with the Left are very nice, I suppose - but his problem isn't with "the left" and it can't be fixed with meetings. Remember, Republicans and independents don't want these Social Security and Medicare cuts either. He needs to build a fence - around Social Security and Medicare.

Beyond Faith and Cynicism - and Into Action

The President told voters that he wouldn't cut Social Security<1> and that it makes more sense to lift the payroll tax cap instead. Then he fixed the nation's attention on austerity by appointing the Deficit Commission (where's my Jobs Commission?), and appointed two Social Security haters to run it. Now he's being evasive about their recommendations. Voters need to tell him they don't want ambiguity, they want an answer: Is the Administration going to protect our retirement security or not?

We'll be accused of rhetorical excess for saying that the New Deal itself is at stake. But the Republican hostage takers are relentless. The threats and demands won't end with cuts to Social Security. Social Security and Medicare are immensely popular, but so are all the other elements of the New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Voters across the political spectrum embrace a variety of positions that are stereotyped as "progressive" on topics that include tax policy, student loans, and fighting poverty. Social Security cuts would be the first step down a road that ends in political suicide and an end to 75 years of government achievements.

The haters have given up on on Barack Obama, while the believers and enablers think he's doing the best that anybody could do. Both are wrong. He's no saint, but he's persuadable. It's up to us to save Social Security by pressuring the President - not by attacking him, and not by trusting him, but by pressuring him. That's the political game. There's no need to cut Social Security, and if he does he'll pave the way for future cuts in Medicare and other needed government programs.

It's irresponsible to have blind faith in the President, and it's misguided to give up on him altogether. The only smart course of action is to take matters into our own hands. There's no time to waste analyzing Barack Obama when action is so urgently needed. I want him to have a successful Presidency because I want what's best for the country. And what's best for the country right now is to save Social Security. That can only happen if the White House is pressured into backing down on these reckless and unjust plans, whatever motivations may lie behind them.

We can argue about the rest afterwards.


An Excerpt from R.J. Eskow HuffPo Piece Today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/obamas-enablers-obamas-ad_b_799433.html)

[dkf]

1. Is raising the age of retirement 50 years from now really a huge deal breaker?

Maybe by then medical science will enable working and living longer.

[jtown1123]

4. A thriving economy should not force the elderly to work until death.

There are not enough jobs in this country. It is absolutely absurd to force people to stay in the work force longer who would rather retire and open up some jobs for the young and more productive in society.

[dkf]

5. A productive economy enables people to retire on their own retirement savings.

If people can't retire, there are more problems than social security.

[jtown1123]

7. Many people already can't retire. Real wages have not grown in 30 years.

The rich get richer and the poor and middle class get squeezed. No wonder people can't save for retirement. They have barely enough to pay for day to day living expenses.

[daleanime]

15. Agreed...

too bad we don't have a productive economy, a good first step toward one would be lowering the retirement age for social security and using that money to benefit workers who have payed in to it for their entire lives.


But I guess it's more important that the top 2% continue to receive their bonuses.

[dkf]

33. We need to end all those Bush tax cut breaks.

We can't affod it.

[jtown1123]

36. Exactly. It's these deficit causing tax breaks that open the door for cuts to social programs

[TBF]

38. Finally a sensible statement. nt

[daleanime]

39. Agreed...

but I don't think our 'owners' will let us.:banghead:

[mmonk]

97. .

:thumbsup:

[Hannah Bell]

92. and that golden age when most people could retire on their savings was....?

if most people could retire on their savings, there wouldn't be any rich people.

[rfranklin]

10. You are incredibly naive...caving in to the right wingers will...

lead to an avalanche of concessions. They have an agenda. He already allowed them to implement the first step with the payroll tax holiday--which was one of the attacks on SS that the Heritage Foundation enumerated years ago. Like clockwork, the Republicans were back to touted the horrors of the deficit the next day and Mitch McConnell was claiming that SS was an "unfunded entitlement." The response to this bald-faced lie from the White House? Nothing!

The writing is on the wall.

[dkf]

45. If you look at the future Demographics you can't help but realize something

Will be changed. The naive view is to think it will never be changed

[rfranklin]

57. There is no need to change it now because it is in surplus...

and will be fine until 2037. Unless, of course, you agree with the Republicans that they don't have to repay the money collected from us and used to reduce the taxes of the wealthy. Social Security has never contributed to the deficit so there is no reason to cut it.

[rfranklin]

61. Here, take the pledge...you'll feel better if you do!

Promise to defend Social Security
I pledge to myself:

Social Security belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to it. Social Security is a promise that must not be broken. If you pay in, then you earn the right to benefits for yourself, your spouse and your dependent children when you retire, experience a severe disability, or die.

We need to strengthen Social Security, not cut it. I oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including increasing the retirement age. I also oppose any effort to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part. The signature deadline has been reached for this petition. Thanks for your interest!
When Democrats come out in favor of "compromises," it becomes tempting for grassroots progressives to go along with those compromises. However, we simply cannot go along with the Democrats calling for "compromise" on Social Security.


The establishment elite has long wanted to cut Social Security. The only reason they have not done so to date is out of fear of a backlash from the American public, who is overwhelmingly opposed to any cuts. If we crack and decide it’s time to "compromise," then we will give the elites the grassroots cover they need in order to finally slash the program.


We can’t let that happen. To inoculate yourself from any future Democratic calls for "compromise," and to sign up to take future action to defend Social Security, sign this pled


http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=15

[jtown1123]

67. Let's send this to Obama!

[dkf]

70. So you also support increasing FiCA taxes every year for the years you refuse to support

Raising the retirement years?

"Under the Increased Payroll Tax scenario, payroll-tax rates are assumed to be increased as needed beginning in the year of trust-fund exhaustion so that present-law scheduled benefits would always be payable in each year. The payroll-tax rate would begin to increase from the present law amount of 12.4 percent beginning in 2042. The payroll-tax rate increases to 17.01 percent in 2043 and continues to increase year-by-year until reaching 18.32 percent in 2078. It is expected that, under this scenario, further increases in the payroll tax rate would be needed after 2078 due to continuing increases in life expectancy."

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/ran5/an2004-5.html

[jtown1123]

72. Raising the limit on FICA taxes is not a cut, so yes, I definitely support it

Raising the retirement age is a benefit cut, since, many people will be forced into early retirement therefore forced to accept reduced benefits.

Here is an explanation why that is the case:

1. http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/raising_retirement_age/

2. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_raisingretirement_raisingretirement/

I am against any cuts to Social Security. It is paid for by the people, not the gov't (except for 2011 unfortunately. Any issues with future solvency can be cured by some revenue raisers i.e. increase FICA tax. Also something to be mindful of is once the baby boomer bulge is over, Social Security goes back to being completely solvent.

[dkf]

76. What is the difference between means testing and not paying out what top earners have put in making

It a defacto tax?

If you raise the cap but pay out 15% at the top bend point this turns into a pure tax.

If it is a tax anyway, how is that not means testing the higher end out of a benefit?

[jtown1123]

80. Raising the FICA Cap is not means testing. An explanation:

As it is now, people only pay Social Security taxes up to $106,800 of their income. So, someone making $30,000 pays the FICA tax on 100% of their income, whereas a millionaire, only pays FICA on about 9 percent of income. Means testing means you have a certain income, say $250,000, and you start getting less. It has nothing to do with what figure you actually contribute.

Social Security is different. They payout is based on what you contributed, a formula. I.e. you don't get less of a benefit just because you make more.

Raising the CAP providies more revenue for the system to pay out current benefits.

[Hannah Bell]

93. raising the cap past the original 90% of wages = ammo for the killers.

as the top 10% of earners would be paying for a majority of the program without commensurate benefit.

[jtown1123]

94. They would get more, because they paid in more.

[Hannah Bell]

96. giving them "more" in line with the additional payments they'd be making

would hike the costs of the program to give $ to people who don't need it = no benefit.

[dkf]

66. Raising the retirement age is a proposal for years past 2037.

That is the cut that is being proposed. For nearer time periods they are only looking at the COLA from what I have seen.

[jtown1123]

69. Here is a complete list of the Bowles Simpson proposals:

http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/Analysis_of_Commission_Co_Chairs_Proposal/

I am the generation which will be affected by any raise in the retirement age. I do not think it is fair. If you look at any of these life expectancy studies, you will see that wealthy, white males gained 5 years of life expectancy while the poor, minorities and women only gained one. This year, life expectancy dropped for the first time: http://www.mcknights.com/us-life-expectancy-drops-death-rates-rise-for-alzheimers-flu-study-finds/article/192585/

My generation is growing up in a time of huge economic uncertainty and stress. I find it hard to believe we will have huge gains in life expectancy, those who do, have better access to health care (i.e. are wealthy).

And even if people will be living longer, that's not to say they can work longer. Most jobs being created now are service sector jobs, (waitressing is a good example), which require people to be on their feet all day. I really don't think it is fair to ask seniors to work until they are 70 years old. Living longer doesn't mean living healthy.

[jtuck004]

17. Or maybe we will figure out a way to make tents and soup kitchens available to more people. n/t

[MadHound]

24. You speak like one who hasn't worked physical labor all of your life,

I have spent the greater part of my career doing physical jobs. Being 6'5" I even did a number of very physical tasks in jobs that were not typically physical. When you're in your twenties, even thirties, it doesn't bother you. When you are in your forties, it does start bothering you, and your body breaks down fairly rapidly from there on out. If you are a physical laborer, you're broke down and tossed out by the time you're sixty, at the max. Medical science may have made the advance you speak of, but they will only be available to the rich and well off, not to the working class guy who does the tough work for a pittance.

[TBF]

35. And maybe Martians will take over and the world will change as we know it -

Maybe, maybe, maybe...

Protect your stash and hide good would be my advice.

[SugarShack]

77. Why is it this is where we are forced to put our energies? You'd think Bush or Nixon was still prez

And where will the jobs come from for this new older age group that will now be expected to be a part of the workforce?

[LWolf]

88. Honoring decades of work by allowing people to retire without poverty

is the sign of an enlightened society. Retiring people younger also opens up jobs for those moving into the work force.

All we need to do is get the government to replace the funds they've raided, and abstain from raids in the future.

[jtown1123]

89. Great comment, thanks for jumping in.

[Hannah Bell]

91. maybe pigs will fly, too. the increase is stepped, it doesn't kick in all at once 50 years from now.

[OHdem10]

2. Mr. President, do you really want your Legacy to be the Democrat

who destroyed FDRs NEW DEAL?????

The Republicans can never do this. They must have
Democratic votes or it would never stand as law.

This lies in the Democratratic Party's hands.

A law this signicant must have bipartisan support.
Democrats are a must.

There are Democrats who would do this in a NY minute,
I hope Obama is not one of them.

[dkf]

6. Now the meme is going to be that Obama killed and destroyed Social Security?

Who is using the crazy rhetoric now? Have we all become Sarah Palin?

[jtown1123]

8. President Obama has not come out strong against the fiscal commission

Social Security recommendations (all are cuts). We need to put pressure on him now to keep his promise to protect the program. I fail to see how any of our concerns liken us to Sarah Palin.

[dkf]

19. Cut does not mean kill nor does it mean destroy.

The rhetoric is starting to become a little bit much.

[jtown1123]

34. I am sorry but you clearly do not understand Social Security.

Any cut will start the unravelling of a popular program. As it is now, SS is universal. Any cuts will weaken the program's funding and public support. Food stamps get cut all the time, why? Because it is a form of welfare. Means testing, price indexing, and other suggested changes will turn Social Security into welfare, therefore easier for Republicans to cut. There is no reason to cut Social Security. It works, it is solvent ( will need some tweaking i.e. raising the FICA Cap before 2037) but no drastic changes are necessary. 75% of the American public does not want Social Security cuts. I guess you think we should keep giving the top 2% massive tax cuts?

[dkf]

Frankly I say raise them all now.

But I don't blame Obama for his compromise.

[dkf]

41. Frankly I say raise them all now.

But I don't blame Obama for his compromise.

[TBF]

37. Nope, no one is buying your right wing crap would be more accurate. nt

[AlabamaLibrul]

40. A deep enough cut, if not taken care of, will cause one to bleed to death

end of transmission

[jtown1123]

42. Pure poetry

[OHdem10]

46. He permitted the Republicans to set him up. There was no

reason to pub Social Security in the Catfood Commission.

The Congress could have treated SS as a stand alone
item and made adjustments for this program alone.

The President carries the credit. To this day Bill
Clinton is credited with that awful Welfare Reform.

That is the way things work. When a President signs
a bill he gives the Democratic Party Imprimatur
and gets the credit for the bill--good or ill.

[jtown1123]

49. Exactly.

[hlthe2b]

3. "It's irresponsible to have blind faith in the President and...

it's misguided to give up on him altogether."


Amen.

[jtown1123]

9. Best sentence in this article.

[closeupready]

11. He doesn't care if embracing the findings of his deficit commission would be disastrous.

He's going to do so, and social security will officially be under attack.

The media will play up the phone financial crisis of social security, and Wall Street operatives will be the confederates who pipe up - 'don't worry; trust us; give us the money and we'll make sure it grows forever and ever and ever! Promise!'

[jtown1123]

12. It's a long shot but if he gets the message he will lose the presidency if he cuts Social Security

maybe he can be pressured into doing the right thing. It's worth a shot. I don't want to go down without a fight on this (considering 75% of Americans are against SS cuts)

[closeupready]

13. I absolutely agree that it's worth fighting for.

Tooth and nail.

[stevenleser]

14. UnRec - Misguided piece and premise. Basic US Civics lesson, where do spending bills originate? nt

[jtown1123]

18. Perhaps you are unaware that the President has considerable negotiating power as the head of the

Democratic party? i.e. the recent tax deal? He controls the direction of the party? Maybe it is you who needs the civics lesson my friend.

[jtown1123]

20. Please read this article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46430.html

The White House loves these backroom deals with the GOP. President Obama suggested the payroll tax holiday, which undermines Social Security.

[Starry Messenger]

16. k&r

[Recursion]

21. POTUS now has the power to eliminate mandatory spending?

I swear, you look away from the Constitution for one second and an amendment gets snuck in...

[jtown1123]

23. No, he will embrace the Bowles Simpson plan along with Key Senate Dems in the debt ceiling debate

From Politico:

"The second part, now being teed up by the White House and key Senate Democrats, is a scheme for the president to embrace much of the Bowles-Simpson plan — including cuts in Social Security. This is to be unveiled, according to well-placed sources, in the president’s State of the Union address.

The idea is to pre-empt an even more draconian set of budget cuts likely to be proposed by the incoming House Budget Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), as a condition of extending the debt ceiling. This is expected to hit in April.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46430.html#ixzz18lFkQeZw

[Still a Democrat]

22. I hate to break it to you,

but there's going to be negotiations, we won't get everything we want, and we'll see the same Chicken Little act we saw after the tax package.

[alarimer]

25. Don't you get it? Obama is bent on betraying Democratic principles.

He did this with the tax cut package. He will do this with SS. Anyone who still thinks he is a good guy is blind. He is a DINO, that much is clear to me. We are about to be betrayed yet again.

[Mortos]

27. Thank you for this comment

You are ignored.

[sellitman]

30. Me too

Please put me on ignore.

I see every indication he will"compromise" again.

[daleanime]

32. ????

It's often those we want to hear the least, that we should most listen to.

If you disagree tell them why, but isn't cutting off all conversation because of differing views a small part of whats wrong in this country?

[Still a Democrat]

62. Some things you may consider

Extend health insurance coverage to 30 million Americans, prohibit insurers from dropping cancer patients and others with serious illnesses, and prevent children with pre-existing conditions from being turned down by insurance companies.

Provide billions for early learning programs, elementary and secondary education, and $30 billion to make college more affordable for youth who otherwise wouldn't be able to attend.

Reform Wall Street, rescue the auto industry and, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, produce 3 million jobs that helped stop the U.S. economy from falling off the cliff.

Assist millions of Americans in avoiding foreclosures, and produce billions to fight homelessness and hunger.

They know that a McCain-Palin administration would not have added funding for food stamps; food banks; and nutrition programs for women, children and infants. Obama did, and they know it.

Would a McCain-Palin administration have appointed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court? Obama did. Would the United States be on its way out of lraq under a McCain presidency? Or pursuing a strategy to disengage from Afghanistan, even while thrashing al-Qaida and rounding up home-grown terrorists?

....

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Disgruntled-l...

[jtown1123]

71. Instead of viewing this debate as an "attack on Obama," who you clearly support

why not see this as an opportunity to educate our president about the public's commitment to protecting Social Security? He clearly does not have advisors in his close circle that value the program, and we need to put immense pressure on him that Social Security cuts are never negotiable.

[Still a Democrat]

86. I was responding to #25

I think you'll understand why I replied the way I did.

[jtown1123]

87. Ahh ok

[Mortos]

26. I really like you and your responses

[Still a Democrat]

60. Thank you!

:hi:

[jtown1123]

28. So you're saying we should lay back and accept Social Security cuts for nothing in return?

[Recursion]

29. No, we'll get a lifting of the FICA cap in return

Or something similar.

[jtown1123]

31. Lifting a FICA cap in exchange for what? Lifting the debt ceiling?

I would love that scenario because there are no cuts involved but I have a hard time imagining any Republican going along with an increase in FICA on incomes more than $106,800.

[Recursion]

43. No, we're going to have to take some form of benefit reduction

Whether it's in the form of a raising of the retirement age some time in the late 21st century like Simpson and Bowles pitched, or means testing, or transfer of some FICA payments to some form of individual account. SS was never meant to be the primary funding of most Americans' retirements. Assuming Obama does another closed arm-twisting session with the Republicans, exactly what he wrings out of them we don't know, but the experience of the tax cut extension deal makes me optimistic (I don't know anybody who thought he would get an estate tax back, for instance).

I think Andrew Sullivan is right that Obama is going to have to use the SOTU to talk about our long-term debt. My guess (and this is just a guess) is that he's going to sell something like Gore's "lockbox" idea, just in real-time: keep the payroll tax down and redeem trust fund bonds from general revenue paid for by spending cuts somewhere else (eg, the Medicare rate reductions from HCR); this will simultaneously fund SS and reduce the national debt.

[jtown1123]

47. Social Security does not have to be cut. It does not add to our deficit. Except for this year's

payroll tax holiday, which is a god awful idea. Just because SS is not "supposed to be" the main form of retirement doesn't mean it isn't important. It represents at least a third of retirement income. For millions of seniors, it's all they have. It lifts millions of seniors, children and the disabled out of poverty.

I will not accept cuts to a successful program, because they aren't necessary. What have the rich given up? The very people who are gung ho on these proposals are the same ones who don't need it, have generous pensions and don't want to pay financial transaction taxes or regulate Wall St. excesses.

[Recursion]

51. It certainly will add to the deficit in coming years

Or to our taxes, one or the other: the money to redeem those bonds won't come from nowhere.*

Now, borrowing to redeem those bonds won't add to the debt, no. But they will add to each year's deficit, and that borrowing will be more expensive than the trust fund bonds were.

Anyways, you're acting as if the fact that you're right about social security is enough. It's not. Politics can suck that way.

* On edit: actually, it could come from nowhere if the Fed decided to quantitatively ease the trust fund, which seems unlikely to me.

[jtown1123]

54. Yes, but those extra funds were paid in, regardless of the fact that they spent them

or will need to borrow elsewhere to pay up what they owe to the Trust Fund. This whole argument basically boils down to the fact that they don't want to pay up what is owed to the Trust Fund. I guess it's OK to run up huge deficits to give tax breaks to millionaires but it's not OK to pay back what people paid into with good faith? That's not my philosophy and I think most people who paid into Social Security, baby boomers in particular, would agree with me.

[Still a Democrat]

64. Even if all funds are paid back to SS from the general

there will still eventually be an exhaustion of the trust and a shortfall in SS itself.

I prefer that be covered by lifting the cap on SS taxes, but there is a SS shortfall in the future.

[jtown1123]

74. Yes. In 2037, SS can only pay 78% of benefits. I think raising the limit on FICA

taxes is the best option for solvency without causing undue hardship on the lower and middle classes.

[jtown1123]

50. Have you seen Jan Schakowsky's plan for deficit reduction? No SS or Medicare cuts at all

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/16/921062/-Rep.-Jan-Schakowsky-releases-deficit-reduction-plan

[Still a Democrat]

52. If she gets elected President with large congressional majorities

That would be great. Right now it's a wish list.

[jtown1123]

58. I just don't understand why Obama didn't acknowledge her idea or a more

progressive deficit reduction plan while we had big majorities...

[Recursion]

65. Because our big majority was not progressive

Convince southern exurban voters to elect progressive candidates and we'll get a progressive deficit reduction plan.

[Recursion]

53. I liked a lot of it and had issues with others

Simply asserting that passing a robust public option will save 10 billion per year isn't a good idea.

[jtown1123]

55. Here is another good deficit reduction plan from EPI, Demos, & The Century Foundation

http://epi.3cdn.net/b3c2500a206a5ea13a_n7m6vzdpr.pdf

That reduces the deficit without cuts that would harm the middle class. I just don't see why the President doesn't consider these ideas if he wants to reduce the deficit, but also not punish those who didn't cause this economic disaster we are in.

CBO said a public option would save $53 billion by 2019...not too shabby (http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/News/2010/7/Pages/CBO-Public-Option-Could-Save-53-Billion.aspx)

[EFerrari]

99. It's not a chicken little "act" if the sky is really falling.

If the poorest workers' taxes are raised, if the tax giveaway precluded job creation, if 2/3s of the unemployed do not benefit.

And if those negotiations are never responsive to the people they most affect.

[Rex]

44. I don't think Obama is stupid enough to eradicate SS.

They all talk big, but not even Repukes are going to destroy SS. We are going to see a line they won't cross for Wall Street imo. I've said Obama is a corporate suit, but I don't think he is THAT much of one!

[jtown1123]

48. Let's hope you're right on that one. But he did put Bowles and Simpson has heads of the deficit

commission and they hate Social Security.

[pipi_k]

78. OK, they "hate Social Security", but the question is...

are they reasonable enough to see that doing away with it would not be the brightest thing anyone ever did...

I sometimes wonder if people are judging them based on their own inclinations to want things they hate to be destroyed...religion...Republicans...etc.

I may be wrong, but I don't think it's a good idea to do away with (some) things just because we personally think they're "bad"

And maybe the so-called "catfood commission" knows that it can't...or shouldn't...destroy something that will virtually ruin the country in the long run.


JMO

:shrug:

[jtown1123]

82. I think Alan Simpson is pretty stoked about this...see his quote:

“I can’t wait for the bloodbath in April,” Simpson said, relishing the prospect of political turmoil. “When debt limit time comes, they’re going to look around and say, ‘What in the hell do we do now? We’ve got guys who will not approve the debt limit extension unless we give ‘em a piece of meat, real meat” in the form of spending cuts.

“And boy, the bloodbath will be extraordinary,” he said.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45422.html#ixzz18lf6rvJs

[jtown1123]

84. And one more thing. Pple like Simpson and Bowles are ideologically opposed to the idea

of Social Security. They don't really care that it lifts millions of Americans out of poverty or provides seniors with some economic comfort and a sense of dignity. They think that people should invest in the stock market or save on their own for retirement. They think Social Security is for baby milk cows trying to suck the guvmint "teat." They really can't be reasoned with on the subject.

[lovuian]

56. Political Suicide for Democrats....lets see if he does it

if he does then he is a fool and a traitor to the Democrats

The people will not like to see their retirement age bumped up to 70 next 80 next 90

this is pretty sad ...America will be the land of the old and destitute

and we will see massive brain drain

[pipi_k]

81. Political suicide...exactly...

and here we sit, making like "they" are too damned stupid or pigheaded to figure that one out.

[jwirr]

59. Why 4 weeks. He is still going to be president and he will have a

bunch of repugs to help in the next two years.

[jtown1123]

75. Because that's when his state of the union will be. Let's set the tone right for 2011.

Economist Robert Kuttner spoke with WH officials who said the President would be discussing Social Security "sacrifices" in his state of the union.

[jwirr]

83. Okay, thanks for the heads up.

[jtown1123]

85. Anytime!

[Faryn Balyncd]

63. "Chained CPI" - - - Here's how it works:

Suppose, over the coarse of a few years, prices rise 100%.

And suppose you start out buying rib-eyes at $5/lb, and they rise to $10/lb.

As a means of coping with inflation, you quit buying rib-eyes and buy hot dogs, which have risen from $2/lb to $4/lb.

In this scenario, you might be tempted to think that "inflation" has been 100%, since prices of all items rose 100%.



But you would be wrong.

Government statisticians, using "chained CPI", billed as a "more accurate" measure of inflation by both Republican & Democratic co-chairmen of the Deficit Commission, because of it's ability to "capture" the "changes that people make in the composition of goods that they purchase over time, often in response to price changes", will interpret this quite differently: Because you, and other consumers have switched to hot dogs, "hot dogs are now the new rib-eye". Therefore, according to official U. S. government statistics, "inflation" will not be 100%, but, since consumers have substituted $4/lb hot dogs for the rib eyes they used to purchase at $5/lb, consumers have, in the government's eyes, seen a DEFLATION of 20% ! The fact that the prices on all items have risen 100% will become irrelevant to the calculation of Social Security COLA's.



So get ready for the future, seniors:

When hyper-inflation comes, your government intends to be armed with statistics that prove you are not only experiencing no inflation, but deflation.

Expect that COLA you got in 2008 to be your LAST.



The attack on your Social Security benefits will not have to involve anything labeled a "cut" in order to totally destroy the benefits you have funded with 40 years of payroll tax contributions.

There is a bi-partisan move afloat to let inflation destroy those benefits, and to destroy your COLA's by use of a fraudulent measure of inflation, "chained CPI".










:kick:

[Recursion]

73. Can't win for trying

If SSA didn't use CCPIU, you'd blame them for using an outdated composition of the index.

Do you really want inflation statistics not to reflect changes in what people buy?

[Faryn Balyncd]

79. Inflation statistics should be grounded to reality...By de-coupling inflation statistics so that

...they do not compare apples to apples, but can compare rib-eyes to hot dogs, a tool has been created that will allow any measure of destruction to be done to standard of living.

The fact is, the CPI calculations have already been rigged to underestimate inflation by the Boskin Commission in the 1990's.

Do you really believe that we have had no inflation in the last 2 years?

For those who want to really slash SS without the politically charged "cuts", using a tool such as "chained CPI" which decouples inflation indexes from actual concrete items, and which can be easily "stretched" simply by changing the requirements for when consumers have, in fact, substituted one item for another, is a tool of infinite possibilities.

[TheKentuckian]

100. Thing is that folks at the bottom of the shit pile spend almost everything on subsistence

which climbs and climbs.

Rent: Too damn high.

Power: Rising in cost seemingly exponentially.

Food: A half pint of blackberries is like $5

Fuel: Is a mofo

Health Insurance: C'mon man!

Medications: blood money

Combine that with the real freeze in incomes and in too many cases actual reductions and broke people have shit and those with a little have those depending on them.

People are spreading an ever shrinking pat of butter over an always growing slice of bread.

[pinto]

98. It's my (albeit limited) understanding that CPI excludes food / energy costs due to their volatility

Not sure how this would figure into the chained CPI formula, but would assume food/fuel would remain excluded from the calculation. ? ~ pinto

*************************
Core CPI

The core CPI index excludes goods with high price volatility, such as food and energy. This measure of core inflation systematically excludes food and energy prices because, historically, they have been highly volatile and non-systemic. More specifically, food and energy prices are widely thought to be subject to large changes that often fail to persist and do not represent relative price changes. In many instances, large movements in food and energy prices arise because of supply disruptions such as drought or OPEC-led cutbacks in production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Consumer_Price_Index

[Poboy]

68. recommended

[VeryConfused]

90. Has the President said he would cut Social Security?

[jtown1123]

95. Read these Two articles:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46430.html#ixzz18l0dOPG9


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/cuts_or_investments_at_the_sta.html

[indepat]

101. Since any move to embrace the radical recommendations of his Deficit Commission's

Co-chairs would be disastrous to the President, his Party, and his Presidency, such action would be undertaken with the full knowledge of these obvious facts and therefore done with full intent to achieve those aims imo. :shrug: