Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:12 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
Hmmmm.... Mar 1, 2013 CBO Report on Chained CPI
I would say chained-cpi is on the table. Below is the report. Looks like
Social Security gets hit hard. Consider this: The 'savings' from the C-CPI is about $12.72 Billion per year for 10 years. So, our government decides that American Retirees are just getting too much of their own money and they think that is wrong. Then compare this $12 billion/year to the military budget. Why can't they reduce their budget by $12 billion/year. It isn't like we are in global world war? One can deduce that our government Hates American retirees and so they use that money and 'give' it to rich military contractors... We get non-stop bombardments from Obama and Pelosi and every republican that cuts to 'entitlement' programs are mandatory to reduce spending. Funny thing, Social Security is *Self-funding* and contributes *Zero* to the budget. Not one dime from the General Fund goes to funding earned benefits. Fellow DUer, Jackpine Radical, posted this last night: "The time to scream is BEFORE it's a done deal". We have to stop our government from taking/reducing our earned benefits. CBO Link: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43965?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=812526&utm_campaign=0 ![]()
|
65 replies, 9454 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | OP |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #1 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #3 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #25 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #27 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #28 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #29 | |
onpatrol98 | Mar 2013 | #36 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #38 | |
Angry Dragon | Mar 2013 | #2 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #6 | |
Angry Dragon | Mar 2013 | #7 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #11 | |
Angry Dragon | Mar 2013 | #16 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #17 | |
Angry Dragon | Mar 2013 | #20 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #31 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #26 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #30 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #33 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #35 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #44 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #47 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #8 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #12 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #15 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #19 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #21 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #24 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #37 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #41 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #42 | |
jeff47 | Mar 2013 | #9 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #10 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #14 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #18 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #34 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #39 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #43 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #46 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #49 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #51 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #22 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #32 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #45 | |
Recursion | Mar 2013 | #48 | |
Cleita | Mar 2013 | #50 | |
HiPointDem | Mar 2013 | #4 | |
Wellstone ruled | Mar 2013 | #5 | |
woo me with science | Mar 2013 | #13 | |
kenny blankenship | Mar 2013 | #23 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Mar 2013 | #40 | |
Fuddnik | Mar 2013 | #55 | |
MannyGoldstein | Mar 2013 | #58 | |
JDPriestly | Mar 2013 | #52 | |
moreland01 | Mar 2013 | #53 | |
DallasNE | Mar 2013 | #54 | |
MineralMan | Mar 2013 | #56 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #61 | |
MineralMan | Mar 2013 | #62 | |
TheProgressive | Mar 2013 | #63 | |
MineralMan | Mar 2013 | #64 | |
blkmusclmachine | Mar 2013 | #57 | |
spedtr90 | Mar 2013 | #59 | |
dtom67 | Mar 2013 | #60 | |
woo me with science | Mar 2013 | #65 |
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:19 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
1. I send an email to the White House at least once a week about this and I'm sure
it ends up in the shredder. I never get an acknowledgement. THEY DON'T CARE what we the people want and need.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #1)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:24 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
3. What really bothers me is that JOBS will solve all our economic and fiscal issues.
I am sure everyone has noticed that jobs are never in the discussions...
|
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #3)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:58 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
25. In order to do that we would have to borrow money to put FDR and Eisenhower style
jobs programs in place and that would increase the debt. I'm all for it but apparently our corporate friendly government isn't because we would have to raise taxes to pay for it.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #25)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:02 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
27. Yes, we have to borrow money or raise taxes for jobs programs...
But that is the only way to fix our economic and fiscal problems.
And yes, our government does NOT want to do that. Seems like they want Americans to suffer. |
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #27)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:06 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
28. Seems to me that they are trying to make this country dysfunctional
and run like a banana republic so that the corporate pirates can plunder and pillage to their heart's desire.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #28)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:08 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
29. Exactly... and not only trying, but succeeding...nt
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #3)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:34 PM
onpatrol98 (1,989 posts)
36. I've noticed...but I can't figure out why jobs are seldom if ever discussed.
Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #36)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:37 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
38. Having more jobs, or higher pay for the same jobs, would solve a lot
For that matter I don't see why we should want such a high labor participation rate. Have fewer people working, for more money. That's the point of technology, right?
|
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:23 PM
Angry Dragon (36,693 posts)
2. SS has NOTHING to do with the budget, debt, nor deficit
So the money would not go to the military and if you spent zero on the military it would have no effect on SS
|
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #2)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:26 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
6. Well, actually that $2.7 T in the trust Fund is part of the National Debt.
But that is by law. My point is that if the gov wants to cut SS, I
say we take the money from the military budget. Why us and not them? |
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #6)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:33 PM
Angry Dragon (36,693 posts)
7. If you put SS and the military into the same sentence you are buying into the republican lie
If you stop all SS checks it will reduce the debt by ZERO
If you cut all military spending it will increase SS by ZERO Two very different things. SS should not even be mentioned in the same breath as the budget Republicans want you to think that SS adds to the debt when it does not. It is just republican LIES |
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:48 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
11. Whoa hold on... I know and wrote that SS has nothing to do with the budget or...
the annual surplus or deficit.
My point was that if the gov wanted to decrease payments to SS, I suggest they instead reduce the military budget... |
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #11)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:53 PM
Angry Dragon (36,693 posts)
16. And my point is that you are comparing apples and bombs
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:54 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
17. It would reduce the deficit to stop all SS checks
It would reduce the deficit by about 800 billion this year, in fact, and more in later years. It would just have no impact on the net debt.
|
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #20)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:27 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
31. Because that's $800 billion leaving the Treasury this year
If no payments were made to SS beneficiaries this year, the Treasury would have needed to borrow $800 less than it did. Actually if we did that this year, the deficit would go down but the net debt would go up; I was thinking about 20 years down the road.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #17)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:00 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
26. Wrong. Payment into the system pays all earned benefits...
Plus the interest from our Trust Fund.
There is a net increase in our Trust Fund for years goinf forward. |
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #26)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:25 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
30. The SS checks come from the treasury. If it were writing $800 billion less in checks...
... the deficit would be $800 billion less.
The accounting of the trust fund makes that deficit change not matter in terms of net debt (actually today doing this would make net debt increase by $800 billion, while decreasing the deficit, but I'm thinking more about 20-30 years down the road), but there's no getting around the fact that the deficit will decrease if payouts decrease. This is yet another reason that the deficit is the wrong thing to worry about. |
Response to Recursion (Reply #30)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:32 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
33. Sorry, but you are incorrect...
Ask yourself this - why does the SS Trust Fund continue to grow while at the same time paying earned benefits?
|
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #33)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:33 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
35. Because currently levies + interest payments exceed payouts
And, no, I'm 100% right here: if we paid no social security benefits this year, this year's deficit would be $800 billion less than it was, while the net National Debt would be unchanged. There's no way around that.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #35)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:44 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
44. No, thats incorrect as well.
I'll try one more time...
If the Social Security Administration 100% stopped paying earned benefits for 1 year, this would happen: In 2012, SS paid out $731 B. If they did not pay that, the Trust Fund would increase by $731 B...Why? because workers and employers are still paying FICA. Since zero dollars are paid from the General Fund to pay benefits, the deficit would not decrease by $731B. |
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #44)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:46 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
47. I think you're missing Greenspan's neat trick: bond purchases by the SSA are not "deficit"
Yes, it's stupid, but it's how the law works. If we had not payed out $731B (for some reason I have $812B stuck in my head) in SS benefits, the Trust Fund would still have been required to purchase bonds with that money, which would have required $731B less in general bonds to be raised, which would mean a deficit reduction of $731B, with no impact on the net debt.
|
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #6)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:36 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
8. It's not. The capital is invested in Treasury Bonds which makes it seem like that
to people who don't even know rudimentary bookkeeping. That could be easily fixed by selling the Treasury Bonds and investing it in Municipal or corporate bonds. Then it wouldn't be tied to the US Treasury at all.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #8)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:50 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
12. But, by law they have to be invested in the safest investments in the world... US Treasuries.
The SS Trust Fund cannot and should not trust Muni or corporate bonds.
|
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #12)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:53 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
15. AAA Munis are as safe as Treasury bonds IMHO.
The only thing not safe about them is that they are bearer bonds and if stolen can be cashed by anyone. However, doesn't the Treasury Department have vaults to store them in? I really think one of our progressive Senators needs to challenge that it can only be US Treasuries that SS is invested in.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #15)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:55 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
19. There is zero risk with US Treasuries and the only option in my opinion...
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #19)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:56 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
21. I used to think so, but apparently we can default on the debt and almost have
recently. It's very scary.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #21)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:58 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
24. Yes, thanks to republicans who want to destroy America...
Response to Cleita (Reply #21)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:35 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
37. EDIT: sorry for misreading you
I don't see why you're bringing that into it. We're discussing Congress setting the rate at which the SSA is authorized to increase Social Security benefits to a rate different than it is now -- something it is entirely and explicitly within Congress's power to do. Nobody's talking about refusing to honor the bonds in the trust fund.
EDIT: Sorry for misreading there; Republicans do seem to be willing to default on the debt in general, presumably because they are psychotic. |
Response to Recursion (Reply #37)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:39 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
41. Do you watch the news at all? We almost defaulted when the fiscal cliff crisis
was presented to us.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #41)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:40 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
42. My mistake; I misread you
I thought you were talking about switching to the chained CPI as a form of default (people here have). My apologies.
|
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #6)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:42 PM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
9. You have that backwards.
The trust fund bought $2.7T of government debt.
|
Response to jeff47 (Reply #9)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:45 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
10. Yes and the SS fund is owed that money from the Treasury, not the other way around. n/t
Response to Cleita (Reply #10)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:52 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
14. But Congress sets the rate at which the Trust Fund spends its money to beneficiaries
That's the step I feel like a lot of DU misses. This isn't the people's money; it's the government's, and Congress controls how quickly it's spent.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #14)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:55 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
18. According to our constitution, the government is the people.
That's why we are called a democracy. Our elected representatives in Congress are supposed to legislate for the people, not that they do anymore, but they are supposed to.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #18)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:32 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
34. No, according to the Constitution the people ordained and established the form of government
And, in fact, the Constitution is pretty specific that the People and the Government have very different rights and responsibilities.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #34)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:38 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
39. What part of "we the people" don't you get? n/t
Response to Cleita (Reply #39)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:42 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
43. It's the first sentence
We the people ... do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
And then later on in the document "the People" and "the Government" are treated distinctly. We are not the same thing. |
Response to Recursion (Reply #43)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:46 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
46. And what part of "of the people, by the people and for the people" don't you get? n/t
Response to Cleita (Reply #46)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:48 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
49. That's the Gettysburg Address (nt)
Response to Recursion (Reply #49)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:55 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
51. Oh, fer Chrissakes. Yes, it's a quote by Abraham Lincoln, who as President understood what
his government was about, a representative democracy or Republic, which was of the people, by the people and for the people.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #14)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:57 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
22. Wrong... SS money is the People's money.
You have looked at your paycheck deductions - right? It is called FICA.
|
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #22)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:31 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
32. I know what FICA is
But that doesn't go to some account set aside for me: I give it to the government, and the government uses that to pay current beneficiaries, and the surplus is socked away in the trust fund.
Also, Congress sets the rate at which the benefit formula increases and decreases changes in the cost of living. There's not some existential right to the current COLA formula. |
Response to Recursion (Reply #32)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:44 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
45. Well, neither does your life insurance.
Your premium goes to pay current beneficiaries. It's not socked into an account that is labeled yours. When you die then your beneficiaries get it, not before. Your SS works the same way and actually the SS office keeps track of every penny you paid into it. You can request the figures from them at any time. This is what they base your SS payments on when you retire. Really, stop reading all that right wing tripe from the Heritage Foundation.
|
Response to Cleita (Reply #45)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:48 PM
Recursion (56,527 posts)
48. And it might have made more sense for SS to be an insurance system, but it's not
It's not contractual, and Congress can (and has) change the terms if it wants to.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #48)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:52 PM
Cleita (75,480 posts)
50. It is an insurance, a retirement insurance. Don't you get it?
But now they want to take it away from you after you paid into it, just like your health insurance tries to find arbitrary reasons not to pay your medical bills like pre-existing conditions or not getting their permission on various medical procedures.
|
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:25 PM
HiPointDem (20,729 posts)
4. kr
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:26 PM
Wellstone ruled (34,661 posts)
5. Like wise,been sending E-mails to the White House,
never get a reply. The fix is in,but,going to keep on bitching as long as I can breath.
Said early,the PR has begun,and folks get your ears and eyes open. |
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:52 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
13. Well, the truth is pretty clear by now.
Reuters: Great Betrayal Is In Play; Obama Puts Medicare & Soc Sec "Compromises" On Table http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022457196 Ever get the feeling that virtually nobody with power gives a crap about your life? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022438850 We need a new Democratic Party http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022453600 |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:57 PM
kenny blankenship (15,689 posts)
23. Except to that faction who would praise Him for eating puppies on live TV
Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #23)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:38 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
40. And, tell us that the puppies should be grateful for the favor.
Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:47 PM
Fuddnik (8,846 posts)
55. "Nobody gives a crap about your life"
Shamelessly stolen from another DU post.
![]() |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:55 PM
MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)
58. And don't forget the best of all...
It is indefensible. Period.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2421225 |
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:12 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
52. I'm with you, The Progressive.
And making Social Security or Medicare in any way obviously means-tested would discourage people from saving and encourage them to give their money to their children before they run through it and then just go on the dole.
One of the hopes of middle-class parents is to be able to live independently in their senior years. Social Security benefits are so small and the likelihood of an expensive event in the life of a senior so great that cutting the CPI would mean that many, many more seniors would become dependent on their children. And our children are struggling themselves -- to educate their children, buy a house on ever reduced incomes and pay student loans. Please, Mr. President, give us the hope of being able to live independent lives. Cut the military budget. Don't cut Social Security or Medicare. We really don't need all those bases overseas. And we aren't wanted all around the world. Cut the military budget. |
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:24 PM
moreland01 (534 posts)
53. Wealth Inequality
This is the real problem:
When times get tough, the republicans rush around to protect the filthy rich at the expense of everyone else. We have got to beat it into their heads . . . if the rich getting richer creates jobs, where are the jobs. These people MUST be taxed more in order to, yes, I'm going to say it, Spread The Wealth around! |
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:42 PM
DallasNE (7,238 posts)
54. Close Loopholes On Salary
A lot of small companies avoid payroll taxes by only "paying" a nominal salary to the business owner(s). If they were forced to pay a normal salary that would raise a ton of payroll taxes. Indeed, many would be paying at the SS cap or higher. I'm not sure why the IRS doesn't crack down on this. Also, why not raise the SS cap to $400,000/$450,000. Stock options are really a form of salary and they should be subject to payroll taxes as well. The Medicare Tax rate is currently 1.45% so increasing that to 1.75% would go a long way, along with cost control measures, to shoring up Medicare (that would be $150 a year for someone making $50,000). These are modest measures that would most likely be all of the fix that would be necessary yet I haven't heard much beyond the SS cap that would be simple yet effective like these measures would be.
|
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:49 PM
MineralMan (144,945 posts)
56. Not everything sent to the Congressional Budget Office
for analysis is implemented. Their job is to provide information. Who sent this to them for review?
That they issued a report does not mean the subject of the report will become law. |
Response to MineralMan (Reply #56)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:38 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
61. The report did not state who requested it...
While not all CBO report requests result in law, it certainly
noteworthy that the report indeed was requested. |
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #61)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:23 PM
MineralMan (144,945 posts)
62. Well, Obama did not.
Perhaps it was the Republicans.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #62)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:37 PM
TheProgressive (1,656 posts)
63. Not that it is important, but how do you know it was not Obama?
Just asking...
|
Response to TheProgressive (Reply #63)
Tue Mar 5, 2013, 08:34 AM
MineralMan (144,945 posts)
64. If I'm not mistaken, all analysis requests to the
Congressional Budget Office come from Congress. Hence the name.
|
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:51 PM
blkmusclmachine (16,149 posts)
57. Theft
![]() |
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:02 PM
spedtr90 (718 posts)
59. In both campaigns Obama promised to raise the cap
So what happened to that?
"Barack Obama believes that the first place to look to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Obama believes that one strong option is increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security by lifting the payroll tax cap on only earnings above $250,000." At a town hall meeting in Annandale, Va., in April 2011, Obama said, "If we just made a little bit of an adjustment in terms of the cap on Social Security, that would do a significant amount to stabilize the system.” obama.3cdn.net/f6f6e3259bb8cf1554_6xlnmvr35.pdf (Barack Obama: Helping America's Seniors) |
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:15 PM
dtom67 (634 posts)
60. The bottom line here is...
We can have the Fed print billions of dollars to give to the banks in exchange for their toxic assets, yet we refuse take care of our own citizenry.
This, all by itself, breaks the Social Contract. that is how I see it.... Think I'll just hide in my cave 'till after the Federal Reserve Ponzi crashes... |
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:55 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)