General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsChained CPI: An economic, moral disaster
Chained CPI: An economic, moral disaster By Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) - 02/11/13 07:16 PM ET
How many candidates for Congress last year won on the following platform?
1. That Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are too generous. Social Security should be cut over the next two decades by more than $1,000 a year for 85-year-old widows living on $1,200 a month.
2. That benefits earned by disabled veterans as a result of losing their arms, legs or eyesight in Iraq and Afghanistan are too generous. Disabled veterans’ benefits should be cut over the next 15 years by more than $1,400 a year.
3.
That working families and the middle class don’t pay enough in taxes. We need to enact an across-the-board tax increase that disproportionately hurts workers making between $30,000 and $40,000 a year.
Answer: None.
And yet all of these things will happen if Congress changes the way inflation is calculated by switching to a consumer price index (CPI) designed to lower cost-of-living adjustments. The so-called “chained CPI” is Washington shorthand for one of the most-talked-about cuts favored by Republicans and so me Democrats.
http://thehill.com/special-reports/state-of-the-union-february-2013/282395-chained-cpi-an-economic-moral-disaster#ixzz2N5ExEX1u
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)[font size=6]Sanders is an unpatriotic Socialist![/font]
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)the new 1%ers (Maria Antoinette) meme was let them eat horse its too good for dogs.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Stewland
(163 posts)Sadly he was the lesser of the two evils running for POTUS. It's time for a coming together of all the people who are getting shafted by these traitorous Democrats and Republicans.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)sequester so they could blame the other party for doing the cutting, when both were just following corporate orders.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Few politicians in both political parties care about the rest of us.
It's quite obvious what is going on.
They are in for a very rude awakening if they pull shit on SS, Medicare, and the like.
on point
(2,506 posts)Social security is self funded and is part of the budget in the same T-bills are part of the budget. Why aren't they talking about paying back only 90 cents on the dollar for T-bills???
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)money for those beyond military utility.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)No Democrat who votes for it will ever get my vote.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)
Skittles
(153,156 posts)yet we have DUers who defend Obama bring it up because "nothing has happened yet". IDIOTS!!!
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)If they don't block this we are parting ways.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #15)
xtraxritical This message was self-deleted by its author.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Chained Catfood Price Index
Cleita
(75,480 posts)This is more like chained can price index. By can I mean the garbage cans seniors are going to have to raid to eat.
Folks it is high time to take a long hard look at our so called allies in congress,and i don't like it when the President talk's about it.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I really feel betrayed on this one issue especially.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)About the tax hike we recieved in january after being assured there would be no tax increase.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... but I don't think he goes far enough. I think this whole fucking country is an economic & moral disaster. Thing is, Bernie is so important...he stands up regularly, like almost daily, and protests on the floor of the Senate. If there is a God up there somewhere (which I highly have doubts about at this point in time,) He's smiling down on Bernie and anyone else who stands up and protests the injustices that are being perpetrated by the 1% and their henchmen against the People in this country. Thanks JRLeft for this OP...
Does anyone know when the the evil-doers are going to try this massive gutting?
We can change this in 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)$1,000 a year in the case of the widow, $1,400 a year in the case of the disabled veteran. Of course, these are based on the perceived distance between regular CPI and chained CPI, and that distance increases with the rate of inflation. Hence, a 10% annual inflation rate would produce ten times as much of a distance than a 1% annual inflation rate would. Also, the difference gets wider over time, the greater the number of years that chained CPI is applied, the greater the number of dollars difference per year as time goes by.
I'd like to know the assumptions involved in Sen. Sanders' calculations about what that inflation rate will be, and why he expects (to my mind) such a high rate of inflation. While I would hope that the disabled vet has a long and happy life, and such a long life would accentuate the difference between the two calculations, I wonder how many years he's predicted for the widow. If you have a 25 or even 20 year retirement with Social Security benefits, then you've definitely beaten the odds with that system, receiving far more than you could have paid in.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I bet Bernie knows that. Did you?
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I know two personally. In any case, your answer still doesn't tell me what rate of inflation Sen. Sanders expects, and how much less he expects that chained CPA will cause the COLA's to be.
With math, you can't simply say "Here's the answer" without showing your work (as they used to say in school) as to how you got there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Here's the right way to look at it. SS benefits should be increased, the money is there and if it isn't then it was stolen and needs to be retrieved.
Inflation is underestimated for the most vulnerable for some reason. A person on SS still has to drive eg. Gas prices and heating oil prices, not to mention other energy costs, continue to rise. Many of our elderly cannot afford heat or gas. Yet, the money is there, they put it there, to make sure they are not faced with making a decision between eating or staying warm.
Raising benefits would stimulate the economy without dipping into the Fed Budget eg.
Poor people spend their money, the rich hoard it. Giving breaks to the rich does nothing for the economy as the ten years of Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy prove.
But most of all, any decent society DOES take care of their most vunlerable, especially when those workers provided for themselves.
Here in this country the people's fund was used to pay for illegal wars and to further enrich the already obscenely wealthin.
Not one dime should be taken from those on SS. Not through claims about inflation or anything else and no Democrat worth the title would even consider it.
We need to start pushing for an increase in benefits and stop the nonsense that is going on, it is not even worthy of discussion frankly. Other than maybe there are some people in office who badly need to go, replaced by elected officials who actually work for the people who elect them.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I'm seeing a lot of cognitive dissonance among the Democrats who still cannot believe that key 'members' of our Party are allowing the corporate megalomaniacs to continue their assault on the rest of us. The poor, the elderly, the unemployed don't matter to the CMs -- they make most of their money WITH their massive wealth, and very likely have a Marie Antoinette attitude about most of us. As long as they have enough sycophants to insure their essential services are provided (chefs, chauffeurs, pilots, etc) the rest of us cannot die off quickly enough.
JEB
(4,748 posts)There are no legitimate reasons for stealing from SS. Democrats had better stand up for the citizens or all the hard won benefits of the New Deal will get sucked into the corporate maelstrom of greed. Those that don't fight should not be called Democrats.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)As ol' Ben said, we must all hang together or we will all most assuredly hang separately.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)You know that Social Security benefits are NEVER going to be increased beyond some form of COLA, all we're arguing about is what formula should be used to calculate that COLA.
When someone hits me up with a number that says, "If we do X, then it's going to cost somebody $Y", then they just made math a part of their argument. If I can show that by making different assumptions using historical data that the cost is only going to be one-tenth of $Y, then the impact of that original statement is lessened. If the Repukes told you that chained CPI would result in only one or two hundred less for an eighty-five year old widow twenty years from now, would you believe them? No, you'd question where they got those figures. I'm doing the same thing, and it doesn't make me any less progressive because I'm doing that with a Democratic Senator's assertion instead of a Rethug Senator's statement.
Your example of gasoline is interesting, in that eventually, Keystone pipeline or not, we're going to see oil prices plummeting from the extra energy in tar sands, oil shale, and fracking. No, it might not happen in the US, but you can damned well bet the developing world will seize on it. Right now, it's safer (from a defensive point of view) for oil companies to extract energy from the US and Canada, they don't have to guard their workers from terrorists. But, if we succeed in making it too hard for them to do it here, then they will go elsewhere, buying mercenaries eventually becomes cheaper than buying politicians. Not that I've seen that happen in my lifetime, however.
In any case, it will drive down the world price of energy. Remember Jimmy Carter? He did all kinds of good things to make the US less dependent on energy, I even put up a solar hot water heater with help from a tax credit he managed to get enacted, then at the end of his administration, he did something that undermined all of his work. He brokered the Camp David Accords, which meant that we could fix a price of five billion dollars a year for Egypt and Israel never to go to war with each other. It held, and the price of oil sank like a stone, even after we saw some recovery in the late Eighties. Solar and wind technology got shelved, because they weren't economical without tax credits that Reagan didn't want to continue.
As it is, we're facing having to deal with redemption of the Trust Fund securities, and I don't see how there is a shred of political will to increase Social Security benefits. Lawmakers are just happy as hell that interest and inflation rates have been so low, if they ever get back to the historical averages we've seen during good economic times. They'll be looking to cut COLA's even further at that point.
In the end, the math always wins.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)what did Hillary say about this in her campaign?
Stewland
(163 posts)Funny that so many fail to realize the facts about Hillary. She was a corporate lawyer for Walmart and in order to raise the hundreds of millions needed to run for POTUS she would indeed sell her soul to the highest bidder. Bill Clinton has done just as much damage to American working class as anyone Named Bush. If the electorate thinks Hillary would be progressive they have not been paying attention.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Did candidate Hillary in 2008 say anyuthing about whether SS " reforms " were on or off the table? I remember her main supporter, Lynn Evelyn de rothschiold, saying Hillary believed in "reforms" in Huffpo
bubbayugga
(222 posts)or so I'm told.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)As long as the U.S. propagandists can pull it off, it'll be called all kinds of other things as well.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)I've never heard an estimate that high. We also need to remember chained CPI proposals generally protect people in these brackets. At least the President's do.
AnnieK401
(541 posts)Yes there are people who only have the poverty or near poverty income that SS or SS disability provides. I thought I heard that these people would be spared. The plan on the White House website does say "with protections for the vulnerable." Maybe I am wrong, but waiting until all is said and done before I make final judgements. And to be perfectly honest, this is the part that will probably get me in trouble here, I know there are other retirees (including people I know personally) who have other resources (significant savings, a pension, job they still are able to do and enjoy, etc.) The people in the 2nd category would be perfectly fine even with the changes. Don't get me wrong, it would stink like a 3 day old fish. And if Bernie is against it, I can't support it. Still, hoping these changes (if they are made) will be made in a way that will not hurt the most vulnerable. Just for the record, I truly understand that people (including myself) pay into SS their entire working life. And to be told you might or would get reduced benefits because you weren't dead broke and had nothing else makes me very uncomfortable, and I know would anger many people.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This is not 'near poverty' it is $30,156 a year. So many people with only that income will take a loss from chained CPI. Do you think that is such a high income that such people must be cut? I don't.
AnnieK401
(541 posts)Even though I have no sympathy for the 1%, I have lived off a good deal less than 30K most of my life. I won't go into personal details, although I will admit at some point I came into some other (relatively modest) resources. However, when you are living on 1/2 that, along with savings that will eventually give out sometime in the foreseeable future, sorry I at least understand what the POTUS is saying. 30K is certainly more than many working people are making now. I understand some people might have trouble maintaining a lifestyle they enjoyed when they were working, but I am not sure that will be able to be a guarantee in the future.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)now going on five years. Everything the corrupt politicians du jour inflict on us has dire consequences for hundreds of thousands of us!
If I don't have a job by the end of March (or if Wishadoo doesn't result in a significant amount of contributions), I will be homeless. While the likelihood of homelessness has more immediacy for me, I STILL feel that this "chained CPI" is a slippery slope down which the CMs intend to push the most vulnerable among us. We can ill afford to "hope" that the "vulnerable" will be safeguarded.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)It is not enough to live on now, yet we cannot cut oil company subsidies? That is all you need to know about this countries priorities. COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!! We need our REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT back! Our government represents the monied interests, plain and simple. We allow for legalized bribery of our politicians. The poor should not get cut anymore!
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Nowhere close to the maximum 30k.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....made some major blunders during his/her working career.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)In 1983 Raygun doubled my, and every baby boomer's, Social Security taxes so that I could NOT ONLY PAY for my parent's Social Security but then also pay for my own Social Security. One half of all the Social Security I paid is going into the Social Security Trust Fund. That's the money I'm suppose to get when I retire. Obama has no more a right to bargain away what I have paid for than my neighbor has a right to bargain away my land. It is mine, I paid for it twice and I deserve it.
I paid for my parent's Social Security without a peep. And I've left my children responsible ONLY for their own Social Security.
It is my right to have my money back when I need it. It is not up to Obama, it's not up to congress, it's the deal I made when I accepted the increase in my taxes (while lowering the tax on the 1%). I have paid and paid dearly for that little bit of retirement money.
Just because Obama wants Pete Peterson to give money to the Democratic party is NO reason I should have a bait and switch game played on me by my government.
To meekly accept this betrayal by our government just because some people have other resources or that those who are starving wont suffer as much is pure hogwash. It is a betrayal by our government. It is conniving, disrespectful, insult to every baby boomer out there. Passively accepting a cheat and a con is how our country turned into the glorified corporate run hell hole it is.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)AnnieK401
(541 posts)The increase came a couple of years into my working career. And by the time there was a holiday I was trying to earn a small income from a vending route (couldn't afford to pay into SS) and then became disabled. There are no good or easy answers. The irony is that the people who will be hurt the most by this are the biggest supporters of the party that keeps screaming about cutting "entitlements."
Marr
(20,317 posts)Leave Social Security the fuck alone. It's not a contributor to the deficit, and reducing benefits is literally theft. Increase the cap if you're worried about the long-term.
I bought that up to a tea-party type once and he said that then the wealthy would be subsidizing SS (because they would end up paying for benefits they weren't getting) which he thought was wrong. That's ultimately is what this is all about. The haves vs the have nots. Unfortunately, unless we are willing to get really radical, the haves will win, even though there are more of us.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)pay back what they have stolen.
George II
(67,782 posts)What does Pete Peterson have to do with it and what precisely is the "bait and switch". Please explain, thanks.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Reagonomics was to borrow the SS insurance trust fund to make America the greatest country on earth creating new jobs and growing the economy by Trickle-Down Economics. Instead, the money went up to the 1% while the rest of the economy went down (except during the next Democratic President-Clinton.) This period is sometimes referred to Trickle-Up. Trickle-Up is the state of the economy now. And the wealthy having used the SS trust money, do not want to pay it back.
Summary in my opinion: Bait was the Trickle Down lie by the supper wealthy. Switch was the Trickle Up using the SS borrowed money and the rest of the growth of the economy for the past 30+ years.
We do not need to fix the debt before we fix the economy. They need to pay the taxes and pay back SS for providing their extravagant living.
George II
(67,782 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)the insurance trust fund. Now the wealthy do not want to pay back their IOUs to the trust fund.
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)accepted. So it's not currently on the table.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)SS is popular across party lines. Even though the republicans would like nothing better than completely gutting SS, they're going to use the fact that Dems were the ones who cut SS in future elections. Ed Schultz did a segment on this a couple weeks ago.
Elijah Cummings was just on MSNBC and he said it always worries him when Republicans come out of a meeting with the President looking happy.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)And, if I dare say, a bit mavericky, too! 
midnight
(26,624 posts)"• The productivity/wage gap has grown. The gap between productivity growth and workers wages, especially those of middle- and low-wage workers, is at a historically high level.
• Wage growth has been unequal. Wage growth in the 2000s followed a highly unequal pattern, and higher-wage workers gained the most ground.
• Despite low unemployment, workers’ bargaining power has diminished. Though the unemployment rate has been low in historical terms, it does not capture the erosion of employment relative to the population caused by weak growth in (or withdrawal from) the labor force over the past few years. The bottom line is that many workers still lack the bargaining power to claim their fair share of the productivity growth they themselves are helping to create. This is partly due to weak job creation over the course of this recovery.
• More downward pressure on wage growth is likely. The recent slowing of productivity growth and rising unemployment are likely to place further pressure on most workers’ real wages in the near to medium terms."
http://www.epi.org/publication/bp195/
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, JRLeft.