Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,955 posts)
Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:06 PM Oct 2015

Both Republicans and Democrats (here, anyway) are fuming about the budget deal.

So maybe it isn't such a bad one.

In the real world, where the Rethugs control the House, the Senate, and SCOTUS.



http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/congress-budget-talks-hill/

Louisiana Republican Rep. John Fleming told reporters Boehner essentially "threw committee chairmen under the bus" and suggested this big deal was being dropped on members now because the committees failed to do their work.

SNIP

The product was the result of weeks of negotiations between Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The bill would raise spending caps by $80 billion -- $50 billion in the first year and $30 billion in the second year -- divided equally between defense and domestic programs.

Even though Ryan's fingerprints aren't on the deal -- a deliberate move by the presumptive speaker and Boehner -- the framework of the agreement is very similar to the two-year budget deal he crafted in 2013 when he chaired the budget panel with his Democratic counterpart, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington.

The new spending under the accord would be offset by sales from the strategic petroleum oil reserve, use of public airwaves for telecommunications companies and changes to the crop insurance program — among other measures.

Moreover, the deal would spread out increases in Medicare premiums over time so beneficiaries don't feel them acutely. It would extend the 2% cuts scheduled for Medicare to extend an additional year.

It would also overhaul the Social Security disability trust fund in an attempt to prevent a 20% reduction in cuts to benefits. The $5 billion in savings would come from redistributing payroll benefits, not cutting them, sources said.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Robbins

(5,066 posts)
1. sure
Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:08 PM
Oct 2015

as long as your not disabled on SSI and senior on medicare.

I don't see what republicans gave up that compares.

pnwmom

(108,955 posts)
2. How is this going to hurt people on SSI?
Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:12 PM
Oct 2015

From the link:

It would also overhaul the Social Security disability trust fund in an attempt to prevent a 20% reduction in cuts to benefits. The $5 billion in savings would come from redistributing payroll benefits, not cutting them, sources said.


The redistribution referred to is a budget practice that has been used for decades, that some Rethugs wanted to stop. This will help people on SSI, not hurt them.

newfie11

(8,159 posts)
7. If the government hadn't dipped into the trust fund it would be solvent today
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:52 AM
Oct 2015

Do I trust them to do the right thing and prevent this again, hell no!

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
10. Just to clear things up, the OP conflates 'SSI' which is means tested and comes from the general
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 09:38 AM
Oct 2015

budget and 'SSDI' which is Social Security and not means tested and which is paid from Social Security funds. SSI is Supplemental Security Income, SSDI is an earned insurance benefit.

So if the OP means SSI, trust fund is not involved at all. If the OP means SSDI, the OP needs to say so. The IRS and the IRT are not the same things either, just one letter changes the whole thing.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
3. Well, they would allow the normal operation of the government....
Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:12 PM
Oct 2015

my what a large concession.




Just in case

pnwmom

(108,955 posts)
4. Read the article. And then explain how you think people on SSI will be hurt
Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:14 PM
Oct 2015

by this agreement -- if you can.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
9. First you need to get a grasp on the basics. SSI is 'Supplemental Security Income' and it is a means
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 09:31 AM
Oct 2015

tested supplement for those without enough earnings to qualify for SSDI, Social Security Disability Insurance which is an entirely different program, not means tested and tied to the earnings of each individual.

So from reading this, it is about SSDI, and about the disability determination process which is already long and often unduly protracted to the detriment of the beneficiary.

SSI is not Social Security Disability Insurance. Not the same things at all.

newfie11

(8,159 posts)
8. This makes to much sense for politicians to comprehend
Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:56 AM
Oct 2015

Besides that would involve "them" paying more SS taxes. Can't have that u know cause:
1: it's a socialist program
2: they want it abolished

We need Bernie, not crooked politics as usual!
#FeelTheBern2016!

TexasTowelie

(111,949 posts)
6. Sell oil from the strategic petroleum reserve
Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:35 PM
Oct 2015

because buy high and sell low is always a sound financial policy.

At least they will have more room to stockpile oil when the prices go back up though. More .

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Both Republicans and Demo...