No, the Budget Deal Did NOT Cut Your Social Security Benefits

[Triana]

From the Ntl Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (@NCPSSM on twitter) - I posted concern about the article NCPSSM references on DU yesterday. However, NCPSSM (whom I have trusted for the past couple years on these issues) says the deal closes a 'double-dipping' loophole which mostly upper income beneficiaries use....

America’s seniors, people with disabilities and their families who depend on Social Security have legitimate reason to be scared whenever Congress starts cutting backdoor deals because they know from experience that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been used as piggy banks or political hostages by GOP leaders always looking for ways to cut benefits.

The good news is, contrary to claims by largely financial writers, Social Security benefits were not cut in this week’s Congressional Budget deal.

We take on one of the seriously flawed stories in NCPSSM’s “Equal Time”:

. . .

The Economic Policy Institute also provides this description of the file and suspend change:

“Eliminating “aggressive Social Security-claiming strategies, which allow upper-income beneficiaries to manipulate the timing of collection of Social Security benefits in order to maximize delayed retirement credits” was something the president included in his fiscal-year 2015 budget, not something the administration reluctantly agreed to. And most advocates, including the Social Security Works coalition, to which EPI belongs, think it’s a loophole that needs to be closed, since the purpose of the delayed retirement credit is to equalize lifetime benefits, not to give savvier beneficiaries who can afford to delay take-up a little something extra. The dissidents counter that a benefit cut by any other name is still a benefit cut, and say it’s a strategy that can help divorced women, who can be particularly vulnerable in retirement.

The dissidents make a strong case with feminist appeal. But it’s still double dipping even if a few people who take advantage actually need a larger benefit. In the end, it all seems a distraction from the benefits of the agreement, which include averting large benefit cuts to disabled beneficiaries.”

THE REST:

http://www.ncpssm.org/EntitledtoKnow/entryid/2164/no-the-budget-deal-did-not-cut-your-social-security-benefits

[thelordofhell]

1. It fixes the crisis that the Pubes put SSDI in

The Pubes stopped the decades old balancing of SSDI using the SS general fund........That 20% reduction that was heading for SSDI was all due to Pube mismanagement.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. so we get blackmailed into cutting SSDI for new beneficiaries.

I have a husband and a son on SSDI. My husband is legally blind. My son is autistic. What happens if my daughter needs to claim SSDI sometime in her lifetime? What happens if one of my grandchildren need to claim SSDI sometime in their lifetime? They would get reduced benefits, that is what. No, I will not support this bill. Democrats need to stop caving into Republicans' blackmail. Raise the cap, don't cut future benefits.

[thelordofhell]

5. The agreement stops the coming SSDI cuts

So your daughter and grandchildren, as well as your husband and son, will not get a 20% reduction in benefits like the Pubes planned to do.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. neither scenario is acceptable to me. Cutting SSDI to pay for military spending is disgusting.

Let the bastards shut down the government and have to explain why they are taking money away from the disabled to pay for war. Let them explain that shit to the people. I will never support under any scenario taking money away from the disabled to pay for war. They have gone too far. It is time to take this shit to the American people. It is time to go to war(figuratively speaking of course). It is time for a Revolution. It is time for civil disobedience. It is time to do what we did in the '60s. I will never, never, never, never support taking money away from the disabled to pay for war. It just will never happen.

[Scuba]

8. "Cutting SSDI to pay for military spending is disgusting." + Eighty Gazillion

[thelordofhell]

12. They are NOT CUTTING SSDI benefits......Where are you seeing that they are??

The Republicans tried to, but this agreement STOPS THE CUTS DEAD!! Why are you deliberately ignoring this??

[liberal_at_heart]

16. new recipients will receive a "flat benefit". That is the cut. Not to mention they will use the

additional medical reviews to refuse SSDI claims.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/new-budget-deal-cuts-social-security-how-5860

[bettyellen]

21. stopped reading after "MSNBC, CNN, HLN and Fox News have all been reporting non-stop about the

Spring Valley school officer caught on video slamming a South Carolina student to the ground during an arrest — but very few details are being reported by the media about the new budget deal"


It's a conspiracy theory that attacks concerns about police brutality as a mere distraction. Lovely.
And people wonder why they can't sell this shit to POC.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. Where are future benefits cut? n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

17. It's called a "flat benefit."

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/new-budget-deal-cuts-social-security-how-5860

[Bluenorthwest]

22. That's not in the bill. Also, just fyi, the big change to the 'file and suspend' provision is not

only mostly used by upper income people, it is also a provision that has only existed for 15 years. LA Times on what is actually in the bill that passed:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-social-security-medicare-20151027-column.html

[liberal_at_heart]

3. Raise the cap, don't cut. There is an alternative. Will we fight for SS or will we continue to cave?

I'm already not a Democrat anymore, but I have to ask. If Democrats can't fight to not only protect SS but also to expand it what is left of the Democratic Party?

[suston96]

4. Bad news........

A cut is a cut is a cut.......

Trying to sweeten it by saying there was no cut in Social Security benefits themselves doesn't help at all.

Dems and sensible Repubs - if there are any - better get together and kill this or fix it.

And by the way - ya know what will fix Social Security and Medicare?

NEW JOBS _ JOBS _ JOBS! Millions of them!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. I don't agree that a cut is cut

A cut in SS spending that doesn't result in a cut in benefits is not an issue as far as I'm concerned.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. That is exactly how they get away with cutting it without actually cutting it. It's like

freezing COLA. I guarantee those who have to chose between buying medication and buying food or paying a heating bill know that the cost of living is too high and they know that a freeze in COLA is a cut to their SS.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a cut then

If SS pays me $1000/month today and it's still paying me $1000/month a year from now, I'm not of the opinion that my benefits have been cut.

[tkmorris]

18. Unless inflation is 0% for the year, your benefit got cut

It's fairly basic math really.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. You're welcome to your opinion

and I'm welcome to mine. We'll just agree to disagree.

The benefit is what you're paid, not what you can buy with it. If the benefit remains the same, even if I can buy less with it, I don't consider that a cut.

[Skittles]

23. it is a cut

it's just not an OBVIOUS cut but it a cut....under your definition, it only counts if you can see the cut immediately

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. Like I said, agree to disagree n/t

[Skittles]

25. LOL

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

*ALRIGHTY THEN*

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2015/10/28/the-house-budgets-devastating-social-security-benefit-cuts/

[liberal_at_heart]

19. Everyone is different. I know my father certainly feels that freezing COLA is a cut.

[jwirr]

7. When someone says delayed collection what I think of is

the idea that instead of applying at the youngest age (used to he 62) one would wait and apply a couple years later (used to be 74). Is this what they are talking about? It was well known that if you waited you got more money.

[PoliticAverse]

14. How long will the deal subtract from the regular Social Security trust fund solvency? n/t

[suston96]

15. Here is a writing on the "new deal".....?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehopkins/2015/10/29/new-budget-deal-is-cutting-your-social-security-benefits-and-its-a-good-thing/

Oct 29, 2015 @ 04:00 AM 14,189 views
New Budget Deal Is Cutting Your Social Security Benefits And It's A Good Thing

Jamie Hopkins ,

Contributor

I cover retirement income planning, retirement, and other legal issues

Follow on Forbes (48)

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Approved by the House of Representatives on October 28th, 2015, the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015,” contains language that will reduce potential Social Security benefits for millions of Americans. In fact, it will effectuate the single largest change to Social Security since the Citizens Freedom to Work Act of 2000, which first enabled most of the file and suspend strategies being removed by the current budget agreement. While many are writing about the devastating impact of reduced benefits, these changes will likely be beneficial to the Social Security system and to the American people. Nonetheless, reduced benefits are still reduced benefits and will have a negative impact on many people relying upon these Social Security payments.

The budget bill, as proposed by the House of Representatives, will effectively eliminate most of the “file-and-suspend” claiming strategies that exist today. File and suspend is a strategy used by married couples to simultaneously generate a paycheck from Social Security while deferring at least one of the couple’s retirement benefits into the future. Such practice allows married couples to take advantage of the deferral credits that increase Social Security retirement benefits by 8 percent per year after full retirement age and still get a Social Security benefit check each month. Not a lot of time should be spent trying to understand these strategies as they will soon no longer be available.

[Skittles]

26. right there

"....while this change will cost many Americans tens of thousands of dollars in Social Security benefits, the news is not all bad."

so it IS a cut - how "beneficial" it is is debatable.....certainly it sucks for stay at home spouses or the ones who made far less then their spouse

it IS A CUT indeed

those folk saying it is not a cut are just plain wrong

[Skittles]

27. uh huh

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2015/10/28/the-house-budgets-devastating-social-security-benefit-cuts/