HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hmmmm.... Mar 1, 2013 CBO...

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:12 PM

 

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

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 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hmmmm.... Mar 1, 2013 CBO Report on Chained CPI (Original 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

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:24 PM

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:58 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:02 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:06 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:08 PM

29. Exactly... and not only trying, but succeeding...nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:34 PM

36. I've noticed...but I can't figure out why jobs are seldom if ever discussed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:37 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:23 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:26 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:33 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:48 PM

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:53 PM

16. And my point is that you are comparing apples and bombs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:54 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:56 PM

20. How??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:27 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:00 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:25 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:32 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:33 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:44 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:46 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:36 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:50 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:53 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:55 PM

19. There is zero risk with US Treasuries and the only option in my opinion...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:56 PM

21. I used to think so, but apparently we can default on the debt and almost have

recently. It's very scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:58 PM

24. Yes, thanks to republicans who want to destroy America...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:35 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #37)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:39 PM

41. Do you watch the news at all? We almost defaulted when the fiscal cliff crisis

was presented to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:40 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:42 PM

9. You have that backwards.

The trust fund bought $2.7T of government debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:45 PM

10. Yes and the SS fund is owed that money from the Treasury, not the other way around. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #18)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:32 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:38 PM

39. What part of "we the people" don't you get? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:42 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:46 PM

46. And what part of "of the people, by the people and for the people" don't you get? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #46)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:48 PM

49. That's the Gettysburg Address (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #49)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:55 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:57 PM

22. Wrong... SS money is the People's money.

 

You have looked at your paycheck deductions - right? It is called FICA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:31 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:44 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #48)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:25 PM

4. kr

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:26 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:52 PM

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 02:57 PM

23. Except to that faction who would praise Him for eating puppies on live TV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 03:38 PM

40. And, tell us that the puppies should be grateful for the favor.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:47 PM

55. "Nobody gives a crap about your life"

Shamelessly stolen from another DU post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:55 PM

58. And don't forget the best of all...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:12 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:24 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:42 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:49 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:38 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #61)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:23 PM

62. Well, Obama did not.

Perhaps it was the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #62)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:37 PM

63. Not that it is important, but how do you know it was not Obama?

 

Just asking...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #63)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 08:34 AM

64. If I'm not mistaken, all analysis requests to the

Congressional Budget Office come from Congress. Hence the name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 04:51 PM

57. Theft

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:02 PM

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)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:15 PM

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread