Chart Of The Day: Analysis Shows Dramatic Social Security Cuts Under GOP Plan - TPMDC

[WillyT]

Chart Of The Day: Analysis Shows Dramatic Social Security Cuts Under GOP Plan
Brian Beutler | TPM
October 22, 2010, 2:41PM

<snip>

You hear an awful lot about how the leading Republican plan for Social Security would result in major benefit cuts and the eventual privatization of the program. But we've yet to see how severe those cuts would be for the majority of beneficiaries.

This week, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities issued a report showing exactly that. The analysis, by entitlement expert Paul Van de Water, calculates the combined effects of the two Social Security benefit cuts undergirding the Roadmap for America's Future -- a fiscal plan authored by the GOP's top budget guy Paul Ryan.

Among other changes it would make to Social Security, Ryan's plan would raise the retirement age to 70 and index initial benefits to 70 percent of beneficiaries to price growth, instead of wage growth. Since prices generally grow less rapidly than wages, that implies a benefit cut.

The combined effect is a dramatic cut in benefits for most beneficiaries. People with the most generous benefits would see their monthly payments drop from over $2000 to under $1000 over 60 years. Middle earners would see a nearly 50 percent drop over the same time period.

Here's how that looks in graph form:



<snip>

Link: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/chart-of-the-day-analysis-shows-dramatic-social-security-cuts-under-gop-plan.php

:kick:

[county worker]

1. What the hell good is it of you can't even buy cat food?

I guess if you are paying rent or a mortgage or buying a car you just tell the landlord or note holder that you will decrease your monthly payment amount to them in proportion to the social security cuts.

Coupled to the GOP plan to cut wages and pensions they should include a cyanide capsule with your check.

[WillyT]

2. "... they should include a cyanide capsule with your check."

That's next on the agenda, I'm sure. And ironically... they are the pro-life party.

:puke:

:shrug:

[county worker]

4. They are pro-life for fetuses. Once they are born they can join the

slave chain line and produce for the overlords or die.

[WillyT]

5. You Ain't Lyin... Remember These ???

Democrats have been buzzing about comments made by state Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R-Turnerville) at a recent eggs-and-issues breakfast in Hart County. We quote from the Hartwell Sun newspaper: "Commenting on illegal immigration, Schaefer said 50 million abortions have been performed in this country, causing a shortage of cheap American labor. 'We could have used those people,' she said."

Link: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/insider/stories/030606.html

*********************************************************************************************

From Colson's April 11 BreakPoint commentary:

But what's the root of the problem? Why do we have a shortage of workers? Aha, that's the unspeakable "A" word that the elite dread the most: abortion. The reason we must allow millions of illegal aliens in to fill these jobs is because we have murdered a generation that would otherwise be filling them: 40 million sacrificed since 1973 to the god of self-fulfillment. And Americans are barely maintaining a replacement-level birthrate of 2.1 children per woman.

Remember the compassionate stuff that the abortionists used to tell us: "We are just preventing these poor kids from growing up in deprived, impoverished circumstances"? Hah! False. What happens is that others come in from abroad to live in those deprived, difficult, and impoverished circumstances and at great public cost.

Link: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200604120014

:nuke:

[bluestateguy]

3. This is Obama's ticket to winning over senior citizens

Not this year (too late for that), but for 2012, much like Bill Clinton did in 1995-95 when the Gingrich Congress tried to cut $270 billion from Medicare.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Did Starbucks do the chart?

It is medium, high and maximum earners.

What about low earners? Is medium the smallest size?