Sabrinanumber is confused

[formerlurker]

Star Member sabrina 1 (31,868 posts)

View profile
The offer of the Chained CPI is a 'Brilliant Strategy'! Could someone explain this please?
Republicans turned down the President's latest offer to reduce the Deficit, an offer that included what has been described as a 'stealth way to cut SS benefits'.

All over the country the inclusion of these cuts to SS in the offer has mobilized a huge Coalition of Democratic/Progressive Organizations, the Unions, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Bernie Sanders, AARP, SS advocacy groups, Senior Advocacy Groups, Disabled Organizations and millions of ordinary Americans to call their Senators to demand that they refuse to accept this offer and to go further, to demand it be removed from the Deficit Discussions where it clearly does not belong.

Republicans are also being bombarded with calls.

There are daily action alerts to remove the Chained CPI from any further offers.

Nancy Pelosi has unbelievably said she will 'support the President on the Chained CPI' because, she incredibly stated, 'it will strengthen SS'. See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022042171

In the face of the fact that all of these huge organizations and some of the Democratic Leadership actually believe that the President was serious about this offer, we are being told that 'he is just playing games with Republicans' that 'he doesn't mean it' ]and that this is a 'brilliant strategy'.

I have tried to figure out how putting SS on the Deficit Discussion table can do anything other than create the impression that it belongs there, furthering the Republican lie that SS ever had anything to do with the Deficit. This is a dangerous game to play with SS.

Republicans, thankfully, turned down this offer. But they did not turn it down because of the cuts to SS, they turned it down because of the Tax Increases to the Wealthy.

So here is where I am having a problem with the claim that putting SS cuts on the Deficit Table is so brilliant.

Republicans would have turned down any offer that had tax increases for the wealthy. If the 'game' is to make them look like obstructionists, then all that was needed was to focus on those tax increases on the wealthy, a very popular policy with the American people.

There was no need to include cuts to SS in order to force Republicans to do exactly as expected.

I would love someone to explain to me why, when making the offer to Republicans, Democrats did not take the popular position of stating something like this:

Republicans do not want the wealthiest Americans to have to pay their share. Unfortunately, after 12 years of tax cuts the wealthy must now start contributing to reducing the deficit which was created by wars and tax cuts and now we must face the consequences of those policies.

They want us to include cuts to SS and Medicare in these discussions. We have refused to do so since SS had nothing to do with the Deficit.

We have made a fair offer and we are hoping Republicans will accept it so that we can get on with the job we are all here to do, work for the benefit if the American people.


Republicans would not have accepted it. The President would have come out of it looking like a defender of the American People. He would have been able to show that Republicans are the ones who want to cut SS and that they will fight FOR the Wealthy while taking from Retirees, the Didable, Veterans and Dependent children. THAT to me would have been a 'brilliant strategy'.

Instead, Republicans are actually now getting credit for stopping cuts to SS however inadvertently while millions of Americans are angry at Democrats for risking SS cuts when they did not need to.

So how on earth does including the Chained CPI become some kind of brilliant strategy? So far I have no explanation of these claims.


Some clear statements from real Democrats in Congress on the inclusion of the Chained CPI in any offers related to the Deficit:

'Unacceptable': Democrats Sound Off on 'Chained' CPI Proposal

Democrats in the House are speaking out against a proposed Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) cut known as the “chained” CPI, which would severely harm the elderly and people with disabilities.

Here are some highlights and videos of written and public statements:

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.):

Social Security has nothing to do with the debt problems that we're facing now. The seniors and disabled should not be held hostage by the Republicans. Their only priority in this debate is to protect America's wealthiest citizens. Under former President Bush, our nation financed two wars on the credit card and senior citizens should not be collateral damage. We lost trillions of dollars through irresponsible tax cuts and let's be clear, tax cuts are the same as spending when it comes to the deficit. And now the Republican Party's proposed solution is to make up the difference from taking money from seniors. That is unacceptable.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.):

In order to shield the wealthiest Americans from paying Clinton-era tax rates, Republicans are demanding cuts to programs that benefit the poorest Americans. Inequality in the United States is the worst it has been since the Gilded Age, and their cuts would make it worse, not better.

One proposal is to reduce Social Security’s annual cost-of-living adjustment through the use of the so-called chained CPI. It’s a benefit cut—pure and simple— an average earner retiring in 2011 at age 65 would lose $6,000 in benefits over 15 years. It’s particularly devastating for women—who live longer, rely more on Social Security and receive lower benefits.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.):

Everyone has a grandparent, a friend or a neighbor who relies on the Social Security benefits they earned to pay for medical care, food and housing. A move toward chained CPI would be a long-term benefit cut for every single person who receives a Social Security check.

The current average earned benefit for a 65-year-old on Social Security is $17,134. Using chained CPI will result in a $6,000 loss for retirees in the first 15 years of retirement and adds up to a $16,000 loss over 25 years. This change would be devastating to beneficiaries, especially widowed women, more than a third of whom rely on the program for 90% of their income and use every single dollar of the Social Security checks they've earned. This would require the most vulnerable Americans to dig further into their savings to fill the hole left by unnecessary and irresponsible cuts to Social Security.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.):

The less money our Social Security recipients—including 9 million veterans—are able to spend, the less money goes to the businesses that create jobs. "Chained" CPI makes life harder for millions of retirees, weakens Social Security and doesn’t reduce the deficit by a penny. It’s a Beltway fig leaf that I will never support, and I call on my colleagues to make their feelings known as soon as possible before this becomes yet another piece of conventional wisdom that makes things worse.

Lifting the cap on high earners paying into Social Security is a real fix that would make the program solvent indefinitely. If we want to talk about solutions, let’s talk about that, not inventing reasons to take money from American retirees.


Are these Democrats too blind to see the 'brilliance' of including SS cuts in any offer to Republicans?

If so, someone needs to explain why. Otherwise, I am with them and with all the others who are currently working to make sure it is removed from further discussions of the Deficit.

Star Member sabrina 1 (31,868 posts)
14. So then Nancy Pelosi was wrong to say she will support Obama's inclusion of the

View profile
Chained CPI in the offer because 'it will strengthen SS'? Has she misread the President's willingness to include those cuts? I never thought of her as being a stupid woman, so why would she give her support to something you say 'will never happen'? Doesn't that make her, and Steny Hoyer, look pretty foolish?

And I still do not see why SS is part of any discussion of the Fed Budget since SS is solvent right now and does not take anything from the Fed Budget other than what all other creditors take.

And if both sides get to put things on the table, and presumably take things off, why don't Dems make it clear that SS is off the table especially since we control the Senate and the WH meaning what Republicans want is irrelevant?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022074948



None of the misfits can help this poor dear understand.   

[Duke Nukum]

Of course, if the Federal Government didn't cripple the people's ability to save for their own retirement, this need not be an issue.

[I_B_Perky]

Of course, if the Federal Government didn't cripple the people's ability to save for their own retirement, this need not be an issue.

Self reliance to a liberal dummie is like sunlight to a vampire.

[Karin]

Oh my God!  Too freaking long!!  This chick never, ever shuts up.  Can you imagine her IRL? 

[Skul]

Typical lib. When baffled and confused, ramble on-and-on.
They're under the impression it makes them appear "thoughtful".
For someone that constantly licks gNads toes, I'm surprised that the all knowing one hasn't popped in to school the unwashed.

[DefiantSix]

Oh my God!  Too freaking long!!  This chick never, ever shuts up.  Can you imagine her IRL? 

 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Oh my God!  Too freaking long!!  This chick never, ever shuts up.  Can you imagine her IRL? 

I shudder to think.

CPI already understates the IRL household inflation by as much as 10% or more according to some estimates, aside from just doing away with inflation adjustment at all, it's hard to see how the government could screw the people on SS or federal military and civilian pay and pensions any more on that than they already are.

[formerlurker]

Star Member sabrina 1 (31,868 posts)
...And I still do not see why SS is part of any discussion of the Fed Budget since SS is solvent right now and does not take anything from the Fed Budget other than what all other creditors take.

Social Security ran a deficit for the second year in a row. According to the 2012 trustees report, Social Security spent $45 billion more in benefits in 2011 than it took in from its payroll tax. This deficit is in addition to a $49 billion gap in 2010 and an expected average annual gap of about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018. Social Security’s deficits will balloon yet further. After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $95 billion in 2020 and $318.7 billion in 2030 before the trust fund runs out in 2033 and a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut occurs.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/27/morning-bell-10-facts-on-the-fiscal-cliff-debt-and-spending/

[jukin]

When you are retired your consumption consists almost entirely of food, energy, and other services. All of those are not counted in the standard CPI. If they were we would be looking at 10-12% inflation/yr over the last three years. Seniors don't care that a big screen 60 inch has gone from $3K to $1200. Including the newest electronics and other items with the ability to mass scale volume price drops is pure BS. I guess starving and pet food eating seniors are only a concern when a republican is president.

Obama has done very well with his war on older white women. CD rates are at zero.
A total of 4.5% raise in the SS payments in four years.
Brought Social Security from estimated in the red by 9 years (2020 to 2011).
Cut $750 billion from Medicare.
Insurance premiums have gone up 40-100%.
Eliminated deductions for Plan B Medicare.
Average rents are up 20-30%.
Property values are down 25-60%.
Gas has doubled.
Bacon has almost doubled.
Corn has doubled plus.
Electric rates have gone up 35%.
Heating oil has doubled.
The saved dollars of seniors have gone done over 20%.

That ladies and gentleman is what a real war on a certain portion of our society looks like not asking women to pay for their own birth control.

[Karin]

Exactly right, Jukin.  And still, my little old lady tenant neighbor voted for him.  Still sticks in my craw.  The very idea of a Marine's widow voting for a Communist is outrageous. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

The wealthiest Americans already pay more than their "fair share" in taxes, DUmbasses.

[thundley4]

The wealthiest Americans already pay more than their "fair share" in taxes, DUmbasses.

Fair is relative to the DUmmies.

[DefiantSix]

Fair is relative to the DUmmies.

This is why you'll NEVER see a DUmbshit - or one of the wannabe Kommissar politicians - give a specific figure when you ask them just what, exactly, is a "fair share".

[Rebel]

This is why you'll NEVER see a DUmbshit - or one of the wannabe Kommissar politicians - give a specific figure when you ask them just what, exactly, is a "fair share".

Kinda like that "living wage" bullshit. They're too damn stupid to understand that if everyone makes 25K minimum, prices will shift to reflect that increase and they'll be back bitching about it needing to be raised to 30K. They're not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[DefiantSix]

Kinda like that "living wage" bullshit. They're too damn stupid to understand that if everyone makes 25K minimum, prices will shift to reflect that increase and they'll be back bitching about it needing to be raised to 30K. They're not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.

  I've seen sharper 2x4's.

[jukin]

The wealthiest Americans already pay more than their "fair share" in taxes, DUmbasses.

Fair is what the DUmbasses think it should be at that moment of time. Fair is whatever the rate needs to be so they can kick back, not work, and live better than the people that are working. You know because they are so gifted, talented, and smart.

[Rebel]

Fair is what the DUmbasses think it should be at that moment of time. Fair is whatever the rate needs to be so they can kick back, not work, and live better than the people that are working. You know because they are so gifted, talented, and smart.

Fair is whatever number the liberal elite rulers come up with to rouse the DUmbasses towards a different direction of blame for the state of affairs they caused. They **** up the economy? They divert blame to the minority of people that couldn't pay off the damn debt if you seized ALL of their earnings. DUmbasses aren't DUmbasses for nothing. They don't understand basic economics. They think there are millions of Bill Gates around doing nothing but swimming in pools of gold bullion. Tyrants ALWAYS blame the minority when they're trying to coerce the majority for power. See Hitler and the Jews.

[Rebel]

Oh, and yes I di'id invoke Godwin's Law. I don't see any other way around it. While Socialism/Communism is the destination, Fascism is the vehicle taking us there.

[Carl]

Last I knew the SS trust fund (talk about an oxymoron) was little more then Treasury IOUs that to keep the program "solvent" would have to be paid back.
Where do you think that money is coming from SabrinaDUmbass?