Obama making historic mistake on Social Security

[Althea]

Like hell we do. SS is not part of the problem. It's sustainable for quite a way into the future and would have been even more so had not politicians raided it over the years. Instead of undermining SS Obama should be insisting that those misappropriated funds be returned to the SS trust fund. He only has to raise the payroll tax cap and SS is solvent far, far into the future.

There is much I'm willing to compromise on. This is not one of them.

Please explain how SS has been raided? It would help to start with mandatory policies that have been in effect since inception of the program.

Bullshit. It's stupid politically. Repubs are going to go out in the midterm election and pound sand up peoples ass that Dems and President Obama want to cut the SS benefits Grandma and Grandpa earned and paid their whole lives for.

You don't think that won't be an effective political attack?

No, it won't work, because raiding SSI is the republican platform. Obama has the ability now to say that he was open to working out a true deficit reduction plan, but republicans continued to obstruct all attempts to right the ship.

 

[Howey]

In Obama’s ideal world old people would see their Social Security benefits cut.

This won't cut benefits. It'll slow COLA increases each year by tying them to the CPI.

Obama didn’t put chained-CPI in for Republicans, regardless what he may claim. While Republicans like to talk a big game on entitlements they have shown no real interest in cutting benefits for current retirees, who are the most important part of their base. They even expanded entitlements under Bush and they purposely set their Medicare plan to not affect anyone over age 55. Republicans didn’t even include chained-CPI in their House budget.

I understand progressives are upset over this, but let's clear some things up. The chained CPI is in the budget for republicans instead of raising the retirement age. Doing that would be far more painful for seniors.

Please explain how SS has been raided?

Every president since Nixon has raided the fund to offset deficits elsewhere. Sometimes it was paid back, but most often not. Bush raided the social security trust fund to finance two unnecessary wars and Medicare Part D. It was never paid back.

 

[Althea]

Every president since Nixon has raided the fund to offset deficits elsewhere. Sometimes it was paid back, but most often not. Bush raided the social security trust fund to finance two unnecessary wars and Medicare Part D. It was never paid back.

By law, all SSI surpluses are used to purchase US treasuries which earn interest. It's the law.

 

[Howey]

By law, all SSI surpluses are used to purchase US treasuries which earn interest. It's the law.

True, and the surpluses haven't been touched. But what was borrowed against is the interest paid, which has caused the problem.

 

[blackascoal]

This won't cut benefits. It'll slow COLA increases each year by tying them to the CPI.

I understand progressives are upset over this, but let's clear some things up. The chained CPI is in the budget for republicans instead of raising the retirement age. Doing that would be far more painful for seniors.

The single biggest driving force behind trying to cut your Social Security in Washington is President Obama.

I think you missed that part.

OBAMA created a crisis that allows to him do what wants, blame it on mean ol' republicans, and his supporters are scrambling to justify it.

There are a myriad of ways to address SS without chained CPI.

The invention of Barack Obama was pure genius.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yeah and have my own retirement plan. Listen, anyone in my generation who's planning for retirement doesn't think ss is gonna be there. Its a wash, wasted money we'll never get back.

I've heard of those Detroit retirement plans of a .38 to the head.

Look, I said the same thing when I was your age. Now that I"m 20 years away from retirement I have a different perspective and SS is still solvent. Guess I was wrong.

I have my own retirement plan too but the SS contribution will be a significant percentage of my monthly retirement icome, as it will be yours when your time comes.

Living in Detroit I can see where you might not be so optimistic that time will come.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Please explain how SS has been raided? It would help to start with mandatory policies that have been in effect since inception of the program.

No, it won't work, because raiding SSI is the republican platform. Obama has the ability now to say that he was open to working out a true deficit reduction plan, but republicans continued to obstruct all attempts to right the ship.

I think you have your thinking mixed up. Republicans haven't made raiding SS part of their platform and as BAC pointed out, they've not made cutting entitlements for anyone over 55 as part of their policies. What Republicans want to do is privatise SS.

What Obama is doing is chaining SS to lower cost of living increases so he can rob Peter to pay Paul. He wants to invest the revenue that would go into cost of living increases for seniors on SS into other social service programs and infrastructure investment. This I oppose. It's also stupid politically and if you don't believe me, wait till the midterm elections, I bet I'm proven right.

 

[signalmankenneth]

New poll: Seniors of both parties revile chained CPI

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/new_poll_shows_many_hate_chained_cpi/

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This won't cut benefits. It'll slow COLA increases each year by tying them to the CPI.



I understand progressives are upset over this, but let's clear some things up. The chained CPI is in the budget for republicans instead of raising the retirement age. Doing that would be far more painful for seniors.

Every president since Nixon has raided the fund to offset deficits elsewhere. Sometimes it was paid back, but most often not. Bush raided the social security trust fund to finance two unnecessary wars and Medicare Part D. It was never paid back.

Raising retirement age would definately be more painful then linking COLA to Chained CPI. So would privatizing SS. I oppose dicking around with SS for a number if reasons.

#1. I've paid for 35 years into the SS system as it is and I've earned those benefits, as they currently are.
#2. The SS systems is the most succesful social safety net program in our nations history. It works!
#3. SS is an independent program that does not contribute to the government deficit.
#4. We have a social contract to preserve the SS system and protect the dignity of seniors.
#5. It's just plain folly to fix what isn't broke.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I've heard of those Detroit retirement plans of a .38 to the head.

Look, I said the same thing when I was your age. Now that I"m 20 years away from retirement I have a different perspective and SS is still solvent. Guess I was wrong.

I have my own retirement plan too but the SS contribution will be a significant percentage of my monthly retirement icome, as it will be yours when your time comes.

Living in Detroit I can see where you might not be so optimistic that time will come.

Well, I'd make a wager with you on it, but by the time I'll be eligible for benefits it'll be around 2070, and you'll be dead, and if you're not, your SS payments wouldn't be worth taking.

 

[Howey]

#1. I've paid for 35 years into the SS system as it is and I've earned those benefits, as they currently are.
#2. The SS systems is the most succesful social safety net program in our nations history. It works!
#3. SS is an independent program that does not contribute to the government deficit.
#4. We have a social contract to preserve the SS system and protect the dignity of seniors.
#5. It's just plain folly to fix what isn't broke.

Spot on with all points, Mott, with the exception of #4. Conservatives are intent on cancelling that social contract and throwing our poor, seniors, children and veterans to the curb.

They don't give a shit because their party is telling them a smoke and mirrors story about how the entitlements they fought for our country for are now destroying it thanks to their own shitty mismanagement.

Well, I'd make a wager with you on it, but by the time I'll be eligible for benefits it'll be around 2070, and you'll be dead, and if you're not, your SS payments wouldn't be worth taking.

How old are you, Billy? 18?

(That was a joke) What isn't a joke is the fact that if republicans are in charge the retirement age in 2070 will be 130 and/or you'll be dead because both Social Security and Medicare will be gone, replaced by President Ryan's "Make The Old Farts Pay Their Own Way" plans.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well, I'd make a wager with you on it, but by the time I'll be eligible for benefits it'll be around 2070, and you'll be dead, and if you're not, your SS payments wouldn't be worth taking.

Well I see no fault in planning your retirement when your young on the worst case assumption regarding SS. However, if your assumption is wrong when you approach retirement age and you find that SS is still solvent and going strong, you'll change both your views and your investment strategy.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Well I see no fault in planning your retirement when your young on the worst case assumption regarding SS. However, if your assumption is wrong when you approach retirement age and you find that SS is still solvent and going strong, you'll change both your views and your investment strategy.

Yeah, and if Jesus comes back I'll use my SS to finance Satan.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Spot on with all points, Mott, with the exception of #4. Conservatives are intent on cancelling that social contract and throwing our poor, seniors, children and veterans to the curb.

They don't give a shit because their party is telling them a smoke and mirrors story about how the entitlements they fought for our country for are now destroying it thanks to their own shitty mismanagement.



How old are you, Billy? 18?

(That was a joke) What isn't a joke is the fact that if republicans are in charge the retirement age in 2070 will be 130 and/or you'll be dead because both Social Security and Medicare will be gone, replaced by President Ryan's "Make The Old Farts Pay Their Own Way" plans.

That's not really true Howey. It's a difference really in philosophy. The current SS program is a fee simple program that has low overhead cost and doesn't have fund managers with seven figure incomes or excessive fund management fee structures. Republicans believe that the market system can produce better results then the current program.

Republicans believe that the market can perform better and provide better returns on investment. Democrats believe that the market is to unstable and volatile and to costly to provide the expected pay outs that the current system can deliver. I fall in line with the Democrats thinkg cause I don't view SS as a retirement plan in which I expect a high ROI but rather I view it as a financial supplement to my retirement income. I'm willing to take significant risk in my retirement planing cause I expect a high ROI. I'm not willing to take that same risk with SS cause I conservatively see it as a basic supplement to my retirement income.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yeah, and if Jesus comes back I'll use my SS to finance Satan.

I wouldn't worry about it. The Evengelicals will take care of Christ.

 

[Howey]

He

I wouldn't worry about it. The Evengelicals will take care of Christ.

He'll come back, take one look at the teabaggers, racists, bigots and homophobes and their ilk, and exclaim:

"Oy! What hath God wrought!", shake his head in shame and go back to wherever he was before for another couple of millenium.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

This won't cut benefits. It'll slow COLA increases each year by tying them to the CPI.



I understand progressives are upset over this, but let's clear some things up. The chained CPI is in the budget for republicans instead of raising the retirement age. Doing that would be far more painful for seniors.

Raising retirement age would definately be more painful then linking COLA to Chained CPI. So would privatizing SS. I oppose dicking around with SS for a number if reasons.

#1. I've paid for 35 years into the SS system as it is and I've earned those benefits, as they currently are.
#2. The SS systems is the most succesful social safety net program in our nations history. It works!
#3. SS is an independent program that does not contribute to the government deficit.
#4. We have a social contract to preserve the SS system and protect the dignity of seniors.
#5. It's just plain folly to fix what isn't broke.

You are deluded on all counts. The Supreme Court has ruled many times the gobblement doesn't owe you shit when it comes to SS. You have been screwed and you are handcuffing your children and grand children.

 

[Althea]

I think you have your thinking mixed up. Republicans haven't made raiding SS part of their platform and as BAC pointed out, they've not made cutting entitlements for anyone over 55 as part of their policies. What Republicans want to do is privatise SS.

Correct. They want to raid SS. They want to do away with FICA deductions, and allow people to invest the money themselves. So, you immediately lose half of your contribution, as your employer won't contribute ANYTHING. Sound familiar? Repubs will give corporations a 6.2% tax break, at your expense. Couple that with the management fees you've already mentioned, and raiding SS in order to put more money into a corrupt market sounds like a terrible idea.
They won't raise the retirement age? What difference does that make, if you have nothing in your SS coffers?

What Obama is doing is chaining SS to lower cost of living increases so he can rob Peter to pay Paul. He wants to invest the revenue that would go into cost of living increases for seniors on SS into other social service programs and infrastructure investment. This I oppose. It's also stupid politically and if you don't believe me, wait till the midterm elections, I bet I'm proven right.

Do you have documentation for that claim? The CPI equation works on the principle that when beef goes up in price, people can buy chicken. Most claim that it's a much more accurate way to calculate actual cost of living. The reason this is problematic for seniors, is due to the fact that far and away, seniors spend most of their income on healthcare. You can't shop for other types of care. But, if ACA actually reduces care costs, or in the future we've finally changed our healthcare model, it won't be an issue. And none of this matters, because this proposal is already dead.

 

[blackascoal]

Jesus .. Is there anything some of you won't let Obama get away with?

I doubt it.

The "Social Security Chain-CPI Massacre": Underhanded, Unnecessary, Unfair, Un-American

Do you hear a noise like power saws cutting away at your Social Security benefits? That's the sound of the politicians working on the "Chain Gang."

They're promoting the "chained CPI," Washington's latest gimmick for tricking voters and cutting their hard-earned benefits to protect the wealthy. That may sound like inflammatory rhetoric, but the numbers don't allow for any other conclusion. People retiring today could lose more than $18,000 in benefits over their lifetimes - and people who are already retired will feel the pain too.

What's wrong with this idea?

1) It's an underhanded way to cut Social Security benefits (its true intent).
2) It's unnecessary.
3) It's unfair to women, the poor, minorities, and the very elderly.
4) It reflects a un-American political culture of pessimism and lost faith in the future.

Any politician who signs onto a "chained CPI" approach to Social Security will feel the wrath of the voters - and deserves to.

No math required.

Although they're using hocus-pocus to make the idea sound complicated, it isn't. The government calculates the cost of living in order to do things like determine next year's Social Security benefits. The "chained CPI" approach would alter that calculation by including changes in the way people spend their money when prices go up.

As a government agency explains, "Pork and beef are two separate CPI item categories. If the price of pork increases while the price of beef does not, consumers might shift away from pork to beef." So if people can no longer afford pork, they're spending less. Under a chained-CPI approach cost of living adjustments (COLAs) would then go down.

See where this is going? If not, stick around.

---

Unnecessary

It bears repeating, since so many politicians want you to forget it: Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit. It can't, by law. It's completely self-funded through the payroll tax (which is what makes the choice of the payroll tax for a tax 'holiday' so insidious).

What's more, the dollars involved are trivial when it comes to the budget debate. Politicians say they're looking for $4 trillion in cuts over ten years. Even if benefits did contribute to the deficit the chained CPI would only save $122 billion, a mere 2.8% of the target.

That's peanuts for them. But it's not peanuts for the average woman on Social Security. She only receives $890 per month. By the time she turns 80 this program will be taking $45 dollars out of each month's check - nearly $500 a year. Why would Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) agree to use her spending money to balance the budget? They'd help an old lady across the street -- then pick her pocket. Why?

Because that's how you show you're fiscally "serious" in today's bizarre Beltway culture. This warped "bipartisan" value system was spawned in large part with money spread around town by people like billionaire Pete Peterson. They see cuts in Social Security and other spending as a way to shrink government and keep taxes low for folks like ... well, like billionaire Pete Peterson.

Remember the expression about "robbing Peter to pay Paul"? Cutting Social Security is a way of "robbing Pa to pay Peterson."

---

Voters in both parties and across all demographic lines oppose Social Security cuts. They'll see this for what it is - a sucker punch to the middle class and the most vulnerable among us. If our leaders sign onto it they'll be making a tragic mistake that we - and they - will come to regret.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-social-security-chain_b_888380.html

Obama has just made the republicans the good guys fighting for seniors.

Bring on the midterms

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

BAC someone said to me last night they thought Obama was doing this knowing Dems will be slaughtered on it in the midterms, and that then he will have the Republican Senate he needs to cut SS. I wonder if that is true. I find Obama very difficult to understand. I agree with you fully on this though.