Here's what 12 years of chained-CPI would have done to a typical SS benefit. (Graph included.)

[reformist2]

It would have resulted in a $50-per-month cut. Or about $600 per year. That's bad enough, but as you can see from the graph, it's something that starts off slowly and gets worse over time. And worse. Much worse. By 2032, the gap would have been over $200 per month, or $2,500 per year. That's a *lot* of money. And this is why the 1%-ers want to ram it through so badly. Let's nix this LIE they are calling "chained-CPI" before it takes hold.

[MotherPetrie]

1. How do "we" nix it if that's what Obama proposes it, Dems back him up, and the Repugs jump on it?

[reformist2]

4. Can't we get 40 Dem senators (+ Bernie) to filibuster this???

[Mr.Bill]

6. Our main hope

is that they never get it through the Senate.

[kelliekat44]

43. By 2032 the economy will look a lot different and we don't really know how.

It's a deal that will resolve some major issues right now and can be changed under a new administration with a new Congress. It's not a great deal but one that can be lived with.

[RomneyLies]

2. Too late to nix it. Obama put it on the table. It will not be taken back now.

And since Boner is letting us go over the cliff with nothing but his Plan B, it becomes the STARTING POINT in new negotiations, which means Chained CPI is the ABSOLUTE BEST CASE SCENARIO now.

[quaker bill]

11. Not really

It is tied to all sorts of stuff the republicans probably won't vote for.

[cui bono]

14. Well, it's not a given. Obama can say, nope, new congress, new negotiation.

That was a one time offer to avoid going off the cliff but now we've gone off the cliff.

I'm not saying he will do that, but it is possible.

[drynberg]

42. Yes, I believe that is correct!

[nineteen50]

21. There you go

the real death panel

[aquart]

3. But that ain't no benefit cut, no sir!

Bastards.

[progressoid]

9. That's right.

Apparently it's not a cut if this is applied to benefits haven't received yet. Or something.

[Mr.Bill]

5. For some people that's the difference between

Breaking your pills in half instead of taking the proper dose

Being cold or warm in the winter months

New tires for the car or taking your chances with the old ones

Having fire insurance on your mobile home or not


You get the idea. We can never expect millionaires in Congress to grasp a situation they will never be exposed to. Have another drink and light up a cigarette, Mr. Boehner.

[reformist2]

13. Yep. This is scary stuff. Imagine a senior trying to live on $800 a month today.

I guess most seniors can forget about leading independent lives. They'll have to move in with their kids, if they have any. (And if the kids will let them.) I guess these are Repug family values... forcing families together through poverty and strife!

[Mr.Bill]

16. My wife is a retired RN who has been at times a Home Health nurse and a Hospice nurse.

HIPAA laws prevented her from telling me what she saw some days, but she didn't have to. I could see it in her eyes some days when she came home from work.

A pox on those bastards in our government who want these people to take a hit so the wealthy can have their tax cuts.

[humbled_opinion]

20. You are exactly right

in fact I think you are being too generous because inflation is going to rise quite rapidly due to the debt, more like telling a senior to live on $ 600 per month in today's economy

[pscot]

17. I'm already breaking my pills in half

and the tires should have been replaced 6 months ago; issues the Obamas and Pelosis of the world will never have to face. Someone tell me again why my vote matters.

[Mr.Bill]

19. You would soon have no pills to break in half

if Romney had been elected.

[Stonepounder]

39. Or the difference between chicken and cat food. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

7. eliminate congressional pensions

[truedelphi]

25. Thank you. It was a meme for a while on Facebook -

If Congress wants to slash back "entitlements" well, they should stop the practice of giving every single sorry assed moron who managed to be elected and serve a mere two years any pension monies. Period. Pension for life for serving for two to five years is absurd.

And then there are the paid holidays and vacations - let them take a three percent reduction in those.

And let's have them pay $ 22,000 before they see a penny paid out from whomever it is that supplies their health insurance (That is the situation my household is in - we would be paying $ 1,150 a month, plus two separate five thousand dollar deductibles, per the California exchange, before a penny gets spent on us!)

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Question ...

If you work a job for 20 years. The first 15 years, as promised, like clock-work, you get a pay raise of 5%; but in the last 5 years. you receive a 3% pay raise ... Have you experienced a pay cut?

[aandegoons]

12. first off they are not raises.

It's an allowance that is tied to the cost of living so no one is getting more. They are getting the same adjusted for inflation. If you figure inflation differently. That amount is no longer adjusted to inflation.


So yes it is a cut.

[jtuck004]

37. You got a pay cut the day you your boss said all the dollars YOU earn belong to him or her.

Now it's just how much they can take.

You got another when the government made a promise, let you work 20 years, and then spent your money on pointless wars and giving to rich people who spend 24x7 trying to figure out ways to screw you more.

It wasn't just your pay they cut. It was your spirit, the day they convinced you it was their money that you had to ask to get back.

[cui bono]

15. Sorry, but all that's left to say is what a bunch of assholes.

And Obama is King Asshole for being a Dem president who put this in HIS proposal.

[Melinda]

18. Kickety kick and kickin' agin'.

[lib2DaBone]

22. I'm getting that same sick feeling.....

That same sick feeling as when Obama... (even though he had overwhelming support of the voters...) caved in on single payer health.

[nineteen50]

23. Politicians always do the same thing

sell out those who have the least to fight back.

[truedelphi]

24. Anyone who says that they support the President for doing this, because the President is a

Democrat, and so are they, does not have the slightest inkling of what it used to mean to be a Democrat.

And somewhere in a gravesite in the state of New York, the ghost of FDR is spinning so fast that entire galaxies could be fueled by that spin.

[RC]

26. "Democrat" doesn't mean what it used to mean.

It used to mean for the working person. Now it means a little to the Left of the Far Right.

[Kip Humphrey]

27. Progressive Poverty: the longer you live, the poorer you become.

[Harmony Blue]

32. That is so wrong...

[Curmudgeoness]

28. And the CPI that they use now

is not the best way to judge the cost of living increases for retired people. The CPI is flawed in that it does not show the "real" increase in the cost of necessities. Too many things are already not accounted for in it, and these are the things that most affect retired people. The costs of new televisions or furniture are rated too high in the index when you look at the needs of older Americans, and medicines and food are rated too low. So making that adjustment worse will just hurt people faster.

[NorthCarolina]

29. Of course for members of Congress......

Thanks to a 1989 law, members of Congress are subject to automatic annual pay increases. That means members can avoid taking awkward floor votes to raise their own pay.

How convenient.

[WillyT]

30. K & R !!!

[jsr]

31. Good illustration

[gollygee]

33. What I hate about the chained-CPI thing

is that it makes assumptions. People overall might simply switch to a cheaper alternative when money is tight, but a great number of people are struggling in a huge way and are already getting the cheapest alternative available and have been for a long time, and are still not really making ends meet. They can't assume that because some people would be able to simply switch to a cheaper option that others aren't way way past that.

[reformist2]

35. The whole idea is bogus - it's supposed to be a consumer price index, not a survivor price index.

As I understand it, the CPI already includes a large basket of items. I would think that whatever cheaper items you switch to, ought to already be in the basket. By reducing the importance of items that go up in price, they are implicitly reducing the standard of living of the consumer. So what that you can't buy steak anymore... we see you can still afford hamburger! See, your expenses didn't go up at all!

So instead of being a constant measure of the prices of the things a consumer wants to buy, it ends up being a measure of the price a typical consumer pays just to get by. Subsistence is the word.

[gollygee]

36. And we're talking about people who haven't been having steak

They're already on the cheapest hamburger. There's no place cheaper to go. It's a faulty premise.

[tsuki]

34. Where is the Medicare chart? And how about those

of us that don't get $1000.00 a month?

[jtuck004]

38. We are already being screwed. The inflation factor they are talking about doesn't include food or

gas which add a lot to expenses. The CPI for Seniors would account for that.

Instead we talk about cpi, and forget TPTB start out stiffing us by ignoring that.

Kinda like they hide unemployment figures to make them look lower. People get used to less, they don't feel like they are missing so much. Later, when they take more, it doesn't feel like such a big cut.

Mr. Charlie is a slick one...

[glinda]

41. When my parents retired they could manage. They made

small house payments (which to them seemed large) and as they aged, their income fell well below the poverty level. But they had their house paid off. Then when the big "stroke" came and swiped away their total savings as well as forced my dad to sell the house in order to survive....well...
So taking away even more of his income will suck away slowly even the little that he gets to live in Assisted Living.
NICE ONE YOU ASS#@!*&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jtuck004]

46. This is ridiculous - tens of millions of people working every day, and everyone going forward

for perhaps the next 20-30 years is going to be at greater risk.assuming we don't burn the place up first.

And still we are insuring billions of dollars in income and payments for the rich. Until people quit helping those that are screwing them it will continue, but that won't happen until they get mad at their real opponents, the ones with the money, I think. Right now I think everyone is just mad at each other, which is how the opponents want it.

[glinda]

48. This is sadly how it works for the majority of Americans after they retire.

Everyone working should pay attention to the reality of actually getting poorer and poorer due to inflation on food, utilities, etc.... and what may seem a secure retirement for most is not all secure. It diminishes even without the talks of cuts to SS.

[benld74]

40. Chain Chain Chain

[madokie]

44. One thing about is if the 1% want it it is not good for the other 99%

[bucolic_frolic]

45. Everything is so complicated

Congress could do anything it agrees on. But it's Congress, no one
ever agrees.

They could do several things besides change the CPI

They already tax Social Security, means test, they could tax it more
if one earns more than a certain amount. Means test it more for well
off seniors.

They could give COLA's only to beneficiaries receiving less than
a certain level, such as $2000 a month.

They could, instead of the privatization route, try a pilot
program to put a small amount of the trust fund under private
management, instead of under control of Congress and the budget
where it gets lost, and see if that can be grown fast enough to help
the deficit.

Every time there is some lobbyist or some change, they make the whole
tax code more complicated. What was wrong with the highly progressive
tax code of 1980?

The more complicated they make it, the more accountants we use, the
more deductions we have to process the taxes! If the code were simple,
they could eliminate accountants, and that money could go to the
government to help pay taxes.

Make it progressive with many brackets. Eliminate all deductions, gradually,
over 5 or more years. Lower the tax rates. They would collect more
revenue this way.

And leave our CPI alone! It's the only thing that helps those seniors who are less
fortunate.

[woo me with science]

47. K&R