2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSomeone explain to me what the big problem is with the cuts to SS
Obama is making concessions to get a deal but the concessions in social security are very small, achieved by changing the way the cost of living adjustment is calculated... It is only something like $125 a year for the average senior....it only becomes significant in a few years and by that time a Democratic House and Senate can change things back...
And seniors are getting a reduction in the cost of medical care through Obamacare..which more than offsets that.
.Yes he said he would not tamper with the program..and repubs told their base they would not raise taxes..so both sides have to give a bit. If Obama does not give and they do and we still go over the cliff and into recession, he will no longer be able to put the blame entirely on the GOP...He has the public's support now and doesnt want to loose it by refusing to give.
So we give a little now in order to get a deal and later we go back when we control the House and get it all back..
Why all the hysterical rants about Obama the "liar" and the "lessor of two evils!!" and "selling us out?"
This sounds like the ranting over the health care bill..
Maybe I am wrong ..if so feel free to tell me what I am missing...
To me all we are doing is cutting our own throats..fighting among ourselves....once again!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)They've had no problem making the rich much much much much richer.
We don't want to give one inch.
And we shouldn't have to.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)and they will never quit. keeping the program in existence is an epic battle. Democrats have been staunch, attempts to cut it have crashed and burned, most recently Bush's failed attempt in 2005. For a Democratic president to chip away at it is a scandal.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)So why on earth did you withhold payments to the very people who paid into it.
It is pure evil. It is our money. They want to withhold funds to harm people.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)The are only talking about a hundred dollars a year! and that can be changed when we gain control of the House..
And do you have to use such exaggeration calling it "pure evil" and accusing someone..I assume you mean Democrats of wanting to harm people?
I will give a bit here and there in battle to win the war.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Why would you insist talking less SS earned benefits when it has nothing to do with the deficit?
I got an idea - reduce the War Dept budget by $250B/year...How's that with you?
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)Like cutting Social Security is going to help the Democrats win the House back.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)ultra rich. We continue to let these rich, corporations, and wall street escape any responsibility for the shit that we are in.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Then seen how blase you are about them.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)that benefited stockholders of health insurance companies. The one that was adopted instead of a single-payer plan? The one that was adopted in lieu of a health care bill?
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)closes the doughnut hole for seniors, forces insurance companies to take people with pre existing conditions, prevents them from dropping sick people...Thats the one! The one that sets up competitive exchanges, that allows kids to stay on their parents insurance and that insures millions more have access to health insurance. THAT BILL..which is a hell of a lot better than nothing and is a step in the direction we would all like to go..
.But if we had listened to those that want it all or nothing..then we would have nothing.. Yes THAT BILL..
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)And if all of that is wonderful, in lieu of real health-care reform, why not compel homeless people to buy homes? Congress could use a little double-talk and call it the End Homelessness Bill.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)and what would we now have in its place?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If reforming health insurance is good enough for your approval, why not call it what it is?
reteachinwi
(579 posts)Albert Einstein was asked what is the greatest power in the universe. He replied "Compound interest." A cut of .3% a yer for 20 years is about a 9% decrease in inflation protection for seniors. If you are on SSI long term the decrease is security threatening. SSD takes an even bigger hit. Many of the most vulnerable in our society would pay to keep tax cut in place for the well to do. We would rather care for the least of our fellow citizens than make a few wealthy people wealthier.
My brother was a Vietnam Vet. He passed in 2002. Glad to meet you.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)You are right ,.,.a cut of .3 % a year for 20 years is a 9% decrease,..but as I said in my original post...who is to say we cant take the deal now and in a few years change things back?
And Obama is getting something in exchange for it..higher taxes on the rich..
Its not like we control both houses and the Repubs can do nothing...
reteachinwi
(579 posts)I hoped that President Clinton would undo the Reagan Revolution. He ended "welfare as we know it" and repealed Glass-Steagall. I understand your argument. I don't trust our representative government enough to let this happen without a fight.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Not sure about SSD
doc03
(35,348 posts)Besides that SS has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. I don't think Nancy Palosi will go for it anyway.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)"The details of this are not all ironed out, but they all mitigate for helping the poorest and neediest in our society, whether they're Supplemental Security Income recipients, whether they're 80 and older or whether they're truly needy in-between," said Pelosi, adding it was "worth making a compromise" to avoid going over the fiscal cliff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/nancy-pelosi-fiscal-cliff_n_2324042.html
doc03
(35,348 posts)age or cutting SS. What does protections for low income individuals mean? What is low income? Does that mean if you perhaps worked your ass off for 40 years and a have few dollars in an IRA you get screwed while your co-worker that drank away his paycheck gets a break? This spread the wealth around bullshit even applies to people that played by the rules and planed for their retirement too I guess.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Somehow, I don't trust her to do the right thing.
Cha
(297,323 posts)@NerdyWonka .. listen to Leader Pelosi who has the inside scoop on fiscal cliff negotiations. She backs POTUS 100%.
Nerdy Wonka
@NerdyWonka Leader Pelosi tells Andrea Mitchell that she can deliver Democrats for Pres. Obama's fiscal cliff deal; whatever the final result
I am on Social Security and I rec this thread...
http://theobamadiary.com/2012/12/18/rise-and-shine-377/
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)than the chained-CPI 0.3% hit that MIGHT occur per year for those at higher end of SS benefit scale. And that doesn't even consider how a better economy will help fund other benefits that help poor. And there are other things in the leaked 'deal' that help people like unemployed, younger workers who've had it rough, etc.
I'd suggest folks look at big picture, rather than succumbing to fear of the big bad Obama.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)One minute they love Obama..next minute ...because they dont get all they want right away,,.,well he is now "evil" and wants to harm us!!!
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)That's what I have been reading, that it would hit lower to middle class people the hardest (although the president is seeking a carve-out to protect the poorest seniors).
But otherwise I agree with you that this is not as bad as people seem to think, compared to what the GOP would have gotten in July of 2011 or what they would have gotten had Romney won.
Also, I am very happy that we seem to have won on the Medicare age, at least for now.
Can you explain the donut hole and how the ACA fixed it? I have heard of the donut hole but don't exactly understand how it works.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)at this point don't know how protected, or what threshold is. If it doesn't happen as I'm assuming, I'll scream too.
I'm taking my increased drug coverage and other benefits of "deal," and considering the slight "cut" I might get from chained-CPI the price I have to pay. It's a deal, especially compared to what rethugs would have extracted.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)as someone else posted..there could be protections for the lower income people...and probably will..
Briefly in Medicare at $2800 in outlays you are then responsible for the full price of your medications until you reach $4500...
Here is a more better and detailed explination of the doughnut hole and what is being done to fix it..
http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2010/08/donuthole.html
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)Is that suppose to make us feel good about being knifed in the back?
Obama and Pelosi both said Social Security was off the table. Apparently they lied.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)So, why do they want to take money away from those that earn it?
There is no other reason but their desire to harm seniors.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)As far as annual deficit, it's just accounting that segregates funds into separate accounts.
It has an impact.
I prefer to shore up SS under Obama and Dems to alternative.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)SS has a $2.7T trust fund that is invested in special US Treasuries. This is our money.
Period. They simply do not want to pay us back.
All that needs to happen is to remove the cap.
And to reduce the deficit - cut defense by $250B/year.
Finally, Obama is offering to *CUT* SS and is totally unacceptable. If anything - SS recipients need a raise...!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and impacts our borrowing power. Also, when the economy sucks, the SS fund is under additional pressure.
You have to look at big picture. If you think my and other seniors' future is not at more risk if we don't take some action, you need to study up on it.
I would prefer the Chained-CPI were not involved. But if rethugs won't feel good without screwing upper end SS beneficiaries, then it's a small price to pay for other positive aspects of leaked "deal."
I do agree on defense cuts, taxing rich, raising cap, etc.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)And, no the SS fund is NOT under additional pressure when the economy sucks. The pressure
is to raise employment and insure the government is properly funded.
And sir/madam Hoyt, SS is solid for at least 20 years. What investment has that kind of longevity?
You don't remove benefits - you raise them. And how to fix it - it is a one word bill that amends the
SS bill - "strike 'the cap is $106k?' and replace with 'there is no cap'".
Have you ever read the SS trustee report? I have...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Still appears a good deal.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I wish they had done something about it when they had control of all 3. But better to do it now than let the GOP do it in the future.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)
dawg
(10,624 posts)By the time my generation hits 75 the difference in benefits would be substantial. Social Security is already insufficient for most people to live on. Why make it worse?
And just how much of Bush's unaffordable tax cuts are we going to keep while we rob an entire generation of retirees?
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)One more time...that is the figure given by those that seem to have a handle on it and it is a first year figure..got that? More than offset by savings to seniors elsewhere..
Now I have already said..several times.. that this is just a temporary compromise and there is absolutely no reason it cannot be fixed....no reason it cannot be changed back to what we want at a later date.
How many times do I have to say that? we have plenty of time..
We compromise a bit now...and get more of what we want later...Its just like with healthcare..take some now and get more later..
Obama is not dictator and we do not control the House..and compromising doesnt make him evil, as some have said..
dawg
(10,624 posts)Cause if it isn't, I don't give a tinker's damn how many times you tell me this is a "temporary" compromise that can be fixed later. To Hell with that!
We have a Dem President with veto power. We have a solid majority in the Senate. We have rich guy tax cuts that are expiring that they would loooove to have partially extended. It's not likely to get much better than that anytime soon.
The first year amount is a pittance. But after many years the impact of this cut becomes savage. It compounds on itself and is a major cut to the benefits of future retirees. And for what? What revenues are being added to the system? What kind of balanced plan would this be for Social Security? It sounds like all pain no gain to me.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Let's play the long game.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Dont touch SS until you pay for the damn wars. Raise taxes to pay for the unfunded wars that Congress approved. Raise everyones taxes and tell the American people, you wanted a fucking war, you are going to have to pay for it, not take it out of SS benefits.
We should not even be speaking about SS one way or the other.
Dont give me this shit about, "we must compromise to give them SS and we can get it back some day in the future."
Dont touch SS.
Cha
(297,323 posts)rationality, Vietnameravet.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)so enough from me for tonight...but seriously folks.. IMO you have got to learn to weave and dodge and give a little here and there to win the war...
I respect most everyone's opinion but I cannot respect some posters who have called Obama "evil" and a "liar"
Sorry but that is just not called for..
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)Taxes are going up on the wealthy. The only difference is can the pukes save tax cuts for some people or do they let them go up on everyone.
Obama could just it's my way or the highway.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)At that time, he assured us that decreasing the payroll taxes that fund Social Security would be no problem, and that Social Security would be able to pay benefits in full even if the revenues for Social Security were reduced. Did he lie about the impact of cutting those taxes, or is he lying now when he says that Social Security benefits should be reduced? He can't have it both ways. Either he should not have cut the taxes or he should not cut the benefits.
Originally, Social Security was paid for out of the payroll taxes as they came in. It was pay as you go. The current generation working and paying in supported the elderly generation receiving benefits.
The Baby Boomers posed a problem because they had fewer children than their parents. That meant that sooner or later there would be more seniors to provide benefits for than working people to pay for Social Security benefits.
The payroll taxes were lower until Reagan raised them in order to insure that Baby Boomers, a very large bulge of a generation, would not be too heavy a burden on their children. Social Security is paid for partly out of the Social Security Trust Fund and partly out of the payroll taxes as I understand it.
The extra money that the Baby Boomers and everyone who worked since approximately 1985 has paid in payroll taxes was put into a Social Security Trust Fund. It is from that fund that a portion of the money benefiting today's Social Security recipients are paid.
The Social Security Trust Fund is in the control of the Secretary of the Treasury who loans it to the government. You will hear the the US owes so much money to China. We do owe some money to China, but the US government owes a lot more to trust funds of Americans such as the Social Security Trust Fund.
George W. Bush fought two wars without raising taxes and on top of that gave tax cuts to everyone. Those tax cuts mostly benefited the rich. Those tax cuts were given out of the money owed to the Social Security Trust Fund to a great extent. They were basically stolen and handed to rich political donors.
And now, rather than tax the rich to repay the Social Security Trust Fund, the Republicans and Obama want to shortchange your mom and grandmother when they get into their 80s. Outside of the senseless war in Iraq, I have never heard of our government doing such an ugly, horrible thing. It is essentially theft -- theft from the most vulnerable helpless elderly. These are people who do not have the alternative of getting a job or making do.
The average Social Security recipient receives a little more than $1200 per month. That means that 1/2 of the recipients receive less than that.
Changing the CPI would mean that, a few years from now, people in their 80s would not have enough to survive. It is just the meanest thing that the American government could possibly do to working people in America.
Meanwhile, Congress and President Obama continue to station troops in countries like Germany and Turkey and Japan and the UK, countries that can take care of themselves without so much help from us. And just today, we announced that we will be giving enormous amounts of money to Pakistan to pay Pakistan to protect itself from intruders. What????
Yet our government wants to take money from American seniors when they are in their 80s. Estimates I have read said it would amount to taking about $1000 per year from a senior.
We should cut our troops overseas, impose taxes on imports in order to provide incentives for producing goods here, increase employment through those taxes and stop talking about cutting Social Security. Unless you are rich, cutting the increases in the Social Security measure for inflation will hurt you when you are elderly and can no longer get a job or work.
If Obama agrees to start cutting Social Security benefits or the measure for inflation for figuring Social Security benefits I cannot support him in the future.
This issue is about who we are and what we value as a country. I value protecting and helping the vulnerable. If we no longer value protecting the weakest amongst us, we are supporting the kinds of values that led to the shooting in Connecticut. The killer did not care about taking care of those children, about protecting them. We agree that is heartless. But so is cutting the lifeline of helpless seniors. Cutting Social Security benefits will lead to the deaths of seniors who are already living on the edge.
reteachinwi
(579 posts)I thought I was the only one paying attention.
Iggo
(47,558 posts)You're welcome.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)so that they can maintain low taxes on the rich. This is what they've done since the 80s, when Reagan jacked payroll taxes up six times and Congress started replacing the overpayments with IOUs everybody knew the country would never pay back.
It's robbing present and future seniors who paid into the system all their lives in order to keep men like Sheldon Adelson billionaires who don't have to worry about paying their fair share of taxes and can continue to buy the government.
In addition, social security is all many seniors have to live on. Either we give them adequate cost of living increases or we see the states having to make up the shortfall by welfare payouts, food stamps, and other programs so the streets aren't full of starving elderly people having to spend their last years as beggars. When states have to make up the shortfall, everybody's taxes go up and they're regressive ones, hitting the poorest the hardest.
In addition, social security was designed to be self supporting, the ridiculously low cap on earnings to be raised when the payouts increased as inflation ate up what seniors had to live on. It has never contributed one lousy dime to the deficit and never will.
Robbing seniors to fatten rich men is obscene. That is what the Republicans are trying to force through.
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)Suppose we can make a nice deal with the GOP that the budget will be passed, and all that is required is for Mr Obama to place Vietnameravet on death row, execution to be enacted after the midterm elections. Of course, if the House is retaken, then we can vote you a pardon.
You up for it?
-- Mal
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)When clinton passed nafta I think that they said it could be changed later, but they never got around to it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)What if the SS offer, when it does come, means tests the measure so that it affects only those in the top 2%?
Pisces
(5,599 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)
Once done, I can guarantee you there will be NO willingness to "unring that bell". Tell me, how is Obama doing "fixing" those bad trade agreements he spoke of?
Get back to me when it actually happens...
treestar
(82,383 posts)And to talk some sense!
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Feel free to name one example of Obama or the modern Democratic party going back and "fixing" a giveaway. You won't mind if I don't hold my breath.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)$125 is a month of food on SS!
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)
UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)Chained CPI Will Reduce Your Social Security Benefits
Every year social security is adjusted to keep up with inflation. As we noted in our CPI overview, chained CPI cuts benefits by reducing the cost of living adjustments, known as COLA, to social security benefits. COLA is designed to keep up with inflation, yet chained CPI assumes, wrongly, one can substitute some goods for others as prices increase. We confirmed that the current proposal is to simply swap out CPI-W for chained CPI and use the same formulas to calculate the annual COLA adjustment to account for rising prices. We overviewed the formula to calculate cost of living adjustments earlier. Below is a graph of the current COLA adjustments
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/chained-cpi-will-reduce-your-social-security-benefits
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)It amounts to about three bucks a month, IF that. It's a very small cut that could ultimately add up over a number of years, but really, it's much ado about nothing.