Obama is wrong on Social Security.

[JDPriestly]

What Obama lost in terms of the trust of seniors when he stuck his third finger in the wind on this one he will never regain. This was a double-cross, a betrayal of huge proportions for people trying to get by on less than the average Social Security benefit. Obama's third finger raised high and mighty for every over-65er to see. Ah!

For millions of seniors, the chained CPI will mean having to fill out a myriad of forms and baring their entire financial and social inadequacy to the government just to pay rent and eat.

Sounds easy when you are 25, but even short of dementia, most seniors become confused over time. Time to fill out forms or talk to a social worker or someone at the seniors' center rolls around again, maybe a trip to the bank or a call from a bill collector and they panic: Will I be accused of lying or cheating? Have I got this right?

Even if the Republicans do not accept Obama's cheap kick in the you-know-what to seniors, most over 65s feel like crying right now or will when they realize what this may mean for their futures.

Chained CPI is not the last cut, not the final attack against Social Security that will be proposed. Wall Street wants this money, just like they wanted the money for our kids, for our schools. Seniors will become the whipping boys that teachers have been. Some 90-year-old who can't balance his checkbook any more and claims to have more or less money than he really does will make the headlines. I can see it now -- Shocking welfare fraud: 90-year-old grandfather sentenced to two years. $30 more in his account than he admitted. You think that is a joke, but to that 90-year-old senior who used to be an accountant and run his business and can't add any more, it's a matter of dignity. And it happens.

Obama should be ashamed of himself. Our parents and grandparents deserve better than this.

I'm active in politics. But I'm beginning to wonder whether the whole thing is a hoax.

How can Obama propose cuts to Social Security (no matter what he calls them) and claim to be a president in a democracy when it is so obvious that the one thing that a vast majority of people in our so-called democracy believe is that Social Security should not be cut in any way shape or form.

What kind of a "democrat" small "d" is Obama anyway that he would even propose cuts to Social Security upon a pretense of "compromise" with Republicans.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm voting no confidence in Obama.

(I posted this as an answer and a couple of people asked me to post it as an OP. I am obliging.)

[still_one]

1. Agree

[forestpath]

2. I would go beyond what kind of "democrat" is he...what kind of PERSON could do this?

Would anyone here support this if a Republican did it?

[tblue]

22. NO! That's what's so frustrating.

Oy! Going along with this makes no sense to me.

[awoke_in_2003]

114. Would anyone here support Bush's drone program?...

The disconnects lately astound me.

[840high]

118. Of course not.

[cantbeserious]

3. Agreed - Obama Is Betraying Millions With This Move - For Many This Is the Last Straw

eom

[duffyduff]

13. Peter J. Peterson and Robert Rubin own him lock, stock, and barrel. n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. I agree completely.

So what do we do now?

Has anyone said IMPEACH?

[CountAllVotes]

5. I'll say it

IMPEACH !

After seeing how it is all figured out in black and white on the social security website with no comments it is as if it is a done deal already.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions/cola.html

The info. on the above link was not constructed overnight, its been in the works far longer than any of us would have ever believed!

So, yeah impeach this lying fraud! That is fine with me. We'll have Pres. Biden; a far more reasonable man IMO!

I will never forget during this last election at one of BO's campaign events he discussed Social Security and he said and I quote, "No one will touch Social Security under my watch!". I noted this and also noted the fact that his eyes shifted from left to right as the grand signal of absolute assuredness of what he was saying to the audience. Uh huh.

Dummy me, I believed him and voted for him *again*.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

17. In 2008, I supported Obama over Biden, H Clinton, et al., because he was the "peace candidate"

while Senators Biden, Clinton, et al voted for the Iraq War Resolution and openly supported all of Bush's war funding Bills.

As soon as he wrapped up the nomination and supported giving immunity to the telecoms that spied upon all of us in violation of the 4th Amendment for the Bush Administration, I suspected that we had been had.

Biden is more reasonable? We know that he has taken the train to work. He's told us so. But how did he vote on the Iraq Was Resolution. How did he vote will the Bill came up to change the bankruptcy rules so that student loans could not be discharged in bankruptcy? Has there ever been a time when he has not voted in exactly the way that big money and the bankers want?

If so, it would be interesting to know about it.

[CountAllVotes]

25. Frankly, I didn't care for any of them very much

Major disappointment and really burned out after 8 year of *.

Anyone but * -- I remember those words only too well.

Too bad we never got the chance to see what Pres. Gore would have been able to do.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

111. I can't believe this fucking shit.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

113. Impeach? On what grounds?

Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Former vice-president Cheney has gone on television and openly admitted being a war criminal by approving of water torture. There's also proof that Cheney was involved with the outing of a CIA agent whose husband provided a report showing that there was an absence of shipments of yellow-cake uranium to Iraq. Outing a CIA agent is a crime. In addition, there is overwhelming proof that the Bush-Cheney Administration invaded a foreign country for its resources while using a pretext that the country had weapons of mass destruction. Invading a country for its resources is also a war crime.

Theoretically, Obama could be charged under 18 USC 3 for being an accessory after the fact.

But a President cannot be removed from office unless there is a conviction. No matter what he has done, there would never be a conviction.

[pa28]

6. What you are describing is the transition from earned entitlement to welfare program.

The public overwhelming supports protecting Social Security. At the same time they favor cutting safety net and welfare programs.

Social Security, if Obama realizes his policy goal, will make a subtle turn into a welfare program.

[JDPriestly]

8. Exactly! That is what I am saying. Thanks.

I'm also looking at it from the point of view of my very brilliant, practical, competent, self-sufficient mother who panics at the very thought of maybe being late for a payment or underpaying or not being able to balance her checkbook. Nothing wrong with her mind, but she is very elderly. It's scary to be elderly.

Obama and his buddies are thinking math.

But people are not just numbers on a page.

Cutting the CPI, touching Social Security is a huge threat to millions and millions of seniors who cannot understand this stuff and feel only terror in their hearts.

Obama needs to retract this threat and do it as soon as possible. It's ugly.

Negotiate with drug companies, etc. but don't cut the CPI or do anything that will cut Social Security benefits. Raise them. Fine. But don't cut them and don't chain the CPI.

[tblue]

24. Instilling fear in people is a crime in itself.

I really, really find that unforgivable.

[shireen]

31. +1

absolutely right ... i've reacted that way in the past when he appeared to give in to Republicans, whether or not it actually came to pass. But just scaring us, that IS unforgivable.

[CountAllVotes]

33. It is a poor shot at best

Unforgivable in my book to use fear mongering to get what you want at the expense of those that could be hurt the most by it. It is a careless move without any thought behind it. What sort of a man is this exactly? He seems to care about himself and his future and his legacy which is now shot to hell and he did it to himself all by himself. He is no damn Abraham Lincoln, that much I know.

Shameful at best indeed!!

[tblue]

51. I was thinking about his 'legacy' too

Does he have any idea that it ain't gonna be what he thinks it should be? Maybe not, if he's in a bubble. I was thinking we should tell him his legacy is on the line here. It is not guaranteed AT ALL.

[Samantha]

41. I think we need to think of ways to be more proactive in our protest

I don't know that any of my ideas could be put into effect, but perhaps if we start talking about it, we can think of ways of passive resistance to show our opposition to implementation of legislation we adamantly abhor. For instance, we know a lot of wealthy people are throwing money behind the effort to cut entitlements, for instance Pete Peterson and the Fix the Debt cast of characters. Perhaps we could research everyone actively advocating for these cuts, as well as the austerity program, and absolutely boycott everything we can en masse to hobble their profits. I know some of these people have intangible assets but others market tangible goods that we could absolutely target. Question: if a CEO of an entity publicly states he thinks Social Security should be abolished, why do the American people still shop at his stores for clothes? Those stores should be empty as far as I am concerned.

I think it would send a very strong signal if also en masse a number of people changed their voter registration to Independent. Those Dems planning running in 2014, as well as those thinking of running for President in 2016, know they need Obama's base. If the base starts slip, sliding away in a very public way, they will get the message. The Huffington Post reported last year that campaign contributions are being collected to support politicians who vote for the Grand Bargain, knowing there will be some public retribution at the polls this group intends to counter that financially. So what are we going to do?

Perhaps we could establish a massive day of protest where participants do not go to work and do not spend a dime on anything. If they are going to hurt us, we must start hurting back NOW while some of us are still able to participate.

Remember the Draft Gore campaign? Perhaps like-minded people who do not like the way our Democracy is slipping away (perhaps I should say slipped away) could rise up and immediately start organization a Draft So and So campaign. That person would have to be suggested, but my ideal would be Bernie Sanders. Some large effort has to be expended to send a signal to Washington that if people who are supposed to be representing our interests but are in fact representing the corporations and the super-rich, we taxpayers are not willing to foot the bill for their salaries.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share. Perhaps others can come up with better ideas. But I strongly believe we must start reacting NOW en masse before these become done deals.

Sam

[JDPriestly]

48. Great ideas.

Maybe you should post them in the Activism section.

[delrem]

53. The US needs an opposition party to challenge the R'nD's. nt

[M_A]

65. There are other options

but the lesser of two evils religion always ends up convincing people to fear challenging the powerful two party behemoths. By being good little soldiers and voting party line (and denouncing any challenge to that system) we have created the great corporate uni-party. I hope more people will start to wake from the hypnotism soon.

Concentrating on a leftish and/or independant majority in both houses will accomplish much more than who sits in the big house. screw the presidency, too much focus is on winning that seat when the others are much more important. Because of this American Idol mentality we work at putting up "electable" candidates, instead of candidates that are actually good leaders.

I joined DU several years ago but don't post much, I can not join the love-fest of Democratic politicians just because they have a D behind their name. Guess I'm old fashioned that way. I washed my hands of the Democratic party, they have proven to be gutless and compliant to the R's for too long. Let the flames begin...

[Autumn]

64. This is something we have to do. I'm all for everything you suggested.

It would be nice to be able to get something going starting with the ideas you have in your post and be able to keep up with it and grow it.

I think that your idea of changing voter registration would get their attention, if enough people did it the same day. And collecting campaign contributions for those who oppose this, like Bernie would be a great idea,

[Samantha]

66. That is exactly what I think - pick a day and have everyone do it the same day

Let them see their base slip/sliding away, knowing if there are enough people who are doing this, they are not going to have the same level of support at election time. I think the day should be significant, like this Wednesday when the President formally announces his budget, but that is too soon to garner support for massive voter registration changes.

I am kind of not a leader in this type of thing. But I do know there are people who have organized these kinds of passive resistance movements, and we need to find them. Some of the people who worked on Draft Gore used to be on this website, but I am not sure if they still are here. I was a participant but not a leader in that movement. If we made the moves to defect and singled out a person that we would attempt to draft, that would definitely get the Democratic party's attention. Doing the hard work of getting that candidate on the ballot for 2016 in all the states would require dedicated workers. We could also set up some type of fund asking for donations as Draft Gore did to promote our intentions.

One of the things Draft Gore did was to take out a full page newspaper ad asking him publicly to run. The signatures of those sponsoring the ad were listed. We could also do something like this although we would have to take some time to get financially prepared. We would also have to agree upon the person we would want to draft. My personal favorite is Bernie Sanders, but I am sure others would have their personal favorites as well.

So the task at hand is to continue to talk about this and figure out how to proceed. Additionally, we would need to agree upon a method of communication which would allow more privacy than to plan on an open website.

So if you are out there, and you have ideas as to how to proceed, speak up!

Sam

[Autumn]

68. Good ideas, all of them. And I would be uncomfortable doing that here on DU.

I don't think that would be right.

[h2ebits]

95. Change your voter registration

Thanks for this post. I have always been an independent but changed to the Dem party affiliation so that I could vote in the primary. It just sickens me to see what is happening in our country today.

Last week when I heard that Obama was offering up MY SOCIAL SECURITY, which is not even part of the deficit, to the Republicans, I immediately changed my party affiliation back to independent.

Obama has overplayed his hand and sold the the citizens of this country down the river--he was terribly wrong on the sequester and he is now repeating himself. His actions are having tragic consequences on people's LIVES--we are NOT his political football and the crap has got to stop.

[on point]

112. I support all these proposals! Plus a 'My 2 cents' campaign just occurred to me

Write a check for 2 cents and send it to the dem party with your protest in the memo spot. I don't know if they have to cash them legally, but they will get the message people want a change of direction back to being a real dem party and no more fake DLC, Third way, corporate shills!

That's my two cents!

[limpyhobbler]

7. well said. nt

[99Forever]

9. K&R

[Yo_Mama]

10. It's not just seniors. It affects all lower income households

Those same indexes will be used to adjust income tax brackets, and financial thresholds for various type of social programs.

So every year, you will have to get a little bit poorer in a real sense to qualify for food stamps, for Medicaid, for rent assistance. That's what C-CPI-U is designed to capture. That's the "benefit".

And the lower income tax brackets will slowly creep, so that poorer people will pay higher income tax rates without any change ever being voted on by Congress.

This is an interesting piece of subtle sadism, and I am not amused at it being pushed by a Democrat.

[CountAllVotes]

14. You are correct

No mention at all about what it does to those that are totally disabled. Nope, can't talk about this other almost invisible 5% that receives SS benefits can we? What this would do to this particular group is beyond the pale -- might as well toss the lot of them/us into the ocean for the sharks. Yes, that is indeed how bad this is for everyone, and is an even worse hit to the disabled among us. Sad damn situation at best if you check out the link I posted above.

Not "Democratic", at least in my book!

[eridani]

55. For the disabled, chained CPI amounts to slow mass murder, period. n/t

[duffyduff]

11. He's wrong on a LOT of issues

This is what happens when you had a presidential candidate who was NEVER vetted by the media get a presidential nomination.

All of the signs were there he was a neoliberal, not a real Democrat, but few bothered to take note.

[JDPriestly]

15. I noted it, but the alternatives were Kucinich and Edwards.

I liked Kucinich but he was unelectable. I backed Edwards but he let his supporters down.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. Edwards voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution (as did Biden and Clinton). Obama was the "peace

candidate" that was held out as being electable. I voted for him.

[JDPriestly]

106. Edwards openly apologized for that vote.

[quakerboy]

119. Media vetting wouldnt have changed a thing

Media did plenty of "vetting" of Obama. But the media isn't on our side. Being a neoliberal ain't a bad thing in the books of pretty much any major media outlet.

[midnight]

12. K&R We need to end this austerity train...

[darkangel218]

16. kick! nt

[FunkyLeprechaun]

18. It's something else

it has to be. I've remembered being so disappointed in him one minute and then elated the next... it has to be something that's coming next.. and I've worked with politicians before 2006 and they often did that very switcheroo, social security is a huge one for sure, it gets people to wake up.

[femmocrat]

75. If he is using this for some other purpose, he is frightening a lot of people.

That is just cruel, IMO. I do not believe he is a cruel man, but is receiving the wrong advice. We need to contact the WH and liberals like Bernie and Sherrod to build support for a block in the Senate.

[jaysunb]

20. I'm over 65, drawing SS

and more or less understand what the "chained CPI" is and what it means, but for some reason I'm not feeling the outrage others here seem to be feeling.

[JDPriestly]

38. Is Social Security your primary or sole income?

Because that might explain it.

As long as my husband and I are both alive, we can make it. But if one of us died, the other would really have a serious problem just buying the basics.

[jaysunb]

46. If it were not for my wife I'd probably starve.

[fasttense]

61. Would it outrage you if your SS gets cut and Pete Peterson gets a tax cut instead of your COLA

going up because of inflation? Or maybe if your SS gets cut and Wall Street gets a big chunk of it instead of you? How about if GE, that pays no taxes now, gets a bigger subsidy? Well it does outrage the rest of us that have paid (double for the past 30 years) into a system that promised us we would be GUARANTEED not to have to live in poverty like our grandparents did at the end of the last depression.

[Recursion]

76. I don't know that "slower increase" sells well as "cut"

I mean, people will see the actual checks still getting bigger every year. Saying "but it would be even bigger under the old CPI" isn't very effective. For that matter, you could say we're "cutting" it currently by not using the CPI-E.

[JDPriestly]

86. It's a cut.

[Recursion]

96. Debatably, since it's a change in the definition of what a "cut" is

Anyways, the political problem remains the same: checks will keep getting bigger; that's hard to sell as a "cut" even if there's some economics behind that.

[JDPriestly]

101. Checks will not keep getting bigger, not compared to the bills

the checks are supposed to pay.

Utilities keep going up. Gas keeps going up. Transportation overall keeps going up. Remember, very few over-70s can ride bikes safely.

Pharmaceutical costs and Medicare co-pays keep going up.

Prices keep going up, and Social Security checks will no longer go up to help cover the rising prices.

One of the bad effects of this is that seniors will feel that they can't beat inflation by cutting back.

I can't tell you how long it has been since we last ate beef. Maybe when one of our kids was visiting from another city.

Seniors automatically buy cheap. The 99 cents stores and dollar stores are full of seniors buying cheap. So, if you chain the CPI increases to the cheapest prices and the cheapest goods, you will hurt seniors where it hurts the most -- in their ability to live frugally and save on what they buy.

It is a dastardly plan.

A horrible plan. Don't cut Social Security. Don't start chained CPI. If it were good idea, it would not be proposed. Forget it. Just leave things as they are and institute a job program along with severe penalties for corporations that pay no taxes here and park their profits in tax havens. That will solve the whole problem.

Put a few bankers in jail. That will also help get our fiscal house and our economy back in shape.

Obama lacks courage.

[marew]

99. You are right! It certainly IS a cut! N/T

[newfie11]

21. You are so right

This 66 year old feels betrayed and have NO confidence Obama is looking out for anyone except the rich.

I cry for my children as before his term is over the keystone pipeline & TPP will be a done deal. The SS they get, if any by then, will be a scrap allowed by the oligarchs.
SS could simply just have the cap raised.

I voted for him twice, gave him the benefit of doubt on the above.

However he is the one that keeps bringing SS to the table. If he has some master trick to play on repugs he needs to leave SS out of it and stop selling our country out to big corporations.

[decayincl]

40. 66 also

My wife and I will be able to weather this cut. We've been very lucky to work full time thru the years. We saved and invested a little and we're okay.

But, I am concerned for those not as lucky as we've been and also for younger folks who will see ever diminished buying power with their meager SS benefit. We need their support of the program for it to survive. When we reach the tipping point where the young think SS will be worthless to them, they will demand that payroll taxes cease.

I've told my kids that we'll be moving in with them if SS and Medicare ever end.

[kentuck]

23. I cannot understand why they would want to cut Social Security?

Of course, they don't want to cut what's coming in - they only want to cut what's going out.

So, if they can still "steal" the SS fund for their wars and special projects, that means they will not have to borrow it someplace else or raise taxes to pay for their pet projects. They get their cake and eat it too, I suppose?

Their problem is with the COLA formula. They like to make money off inflation but they don't want the poorest SS recipients to maintain equilibrium with inflation. Over time, that would amount to many billions of dollars.

[NorthCarolina]

42. Conservatives have wanted to destroy Social Security since its inception.

They now, after many long decades, have finally secured both political parties in the conservative column and are going for the gold. I do not think Obama's offering of these changes to the programs are "political strategy", or "multi-dimensional chess that we are all too dumb to understand", I think he quite simply wants these changes enacted. Chained CPI was his starting offer. Assuming "bargaining" from that starting point, where are negotiations likely to lead from there? Something better than Chained CPI? Not hardly.

[DirkGently]

26. True. (nt).

[Doctor_J]

27. He has no shame left

after Heritage Care, Bush tax cut extensions, Gitmo, and so on (KeystoneXL is next), he's nothing but a bad joke. The only two moves he has left are to either change parties or resign in disgrace.

[Cleita]

28. I have to agree with all you said about this.

It will backfire on him. Frankly it will backfire on all the Washington elected freeloaders. Even Tea Party seniors said they didn't want the government messing with their Medicare and Social Security. I know we all laughed at the absurdity back then, but those people, whether or not they know it comes from the government, do know they don't want it messed with by anybody.

[Marr]

32. Oh, it won't backfire on him or any of his fellow Third Way stooges.

He's got a bright future ahead of him, filled with high-priced speaking engagements and cushy advisory posts. His appointees will enjoy a series of illustrious, lucrative, revolving door posts on Wall Street where they'll do nothing but collect money.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. Agreed.

Why others don't readily see this is puzzling.

[pscot]

115. Fundraising for disaster "relief"

It's been a big winner for Clinton. And you get to hang with the players.

[Marr]

30. Politically naive-- all of you.

Don't you SEE that offering to cut Social Security was a brilliant political move?? Now he's boxed the Republicans in! They can only do one of two things:

1. Say "yes" and finally get their wish of slowly strangling Social Security or

2. Say "no" and cast the Democratic Party as "the party that tried to cut Social Security"!

It's brilliant!

[Eveofdestruction]

34. I am sad I voted for him but the options sucked

Tough times coming. I know several small business owners who are closing up = less revenues for SS.

[azurnoir]

36. welcome to DU

who would you rather voted for?

[dixiegrrrrl]

43. Welcome to DU, Eve..

[airplaneman]

35. You should read this post also.

It appears that there are really some good issues in Obama's proposal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022624420#post138

-Airplane

[JDPriestly]

39. That does not look very positive to me.

That looks like Obama is proposing to means-test Social Security and use that as an excuse to cut the benefits of people who may have saved more, may have done without to save more.

That would be a disincentive to save during your working years.

Americans don't save enough as it is. These proposed changes to Social Security would have some very bad effects.

[eilen]

122. saving is losing money with .25% interest rates

The swine wants us to risk all our savings in the stock market.

[AndyA]

37. Friends on Facebook are even upset about this.

Some of them hardly ever post political stuff, but several in their late forties and early fifties are complaining about the possibility of SS being cut. Obama is losing support over this, and it may be more than he's prepared for.

Obama was so concerned about seniors paying more taxes under Rmoney's plan, yet he's prepared to take money away from them, instead of increasing their taxes. The end result is the same: less money to pay bills, buy food with, and survive on.

[tularetom]

44. I'm having Clinton deja vu as far as Obama is concerned

When Clinton was first elected I was elated at the prospect of undoing all the damage to our society done by Reagan and poppy Bush. By the end of his first term disillusion had set in and in 1996 I voted for him as the lesser of two evils. When he left office in 2001 I was disappointed that he had pissed away so many opportunities to correct things and I just wanted him to go away.

When Obama was elected in 2008 I was overjoyed based on the campaign he ran. I really believed he would take action to undo all the damage done to the country and the economy done by the Cheney administration. Last fall, I voted for him without any real enthusiasm but just because he wasn't Romney. To say I'm disappointed in him at this point would be an understatement.

Will he be able to reverse the trend by 2017 and make me sorry he is leaving office? I can't say although recent events make me doubtful.

[Alkene]

60. Clinton deja vu. Exactly.

I kinda expected the type of administration Obama has led from the experience of the Clinton years- the direction taken by the Democratic party back then- but I held out hope for so much better.

[DonCoquixote]

102. If I wanted Clinton

I would have voted for her in 2008. Obama was supposed to move past the clintons, not be them.

And here we are ready to crown her queen in 2016, which means that Bill will be back smoking cigars and making deals in back rooms.

[tomg]

63. Pretty much the same for me.

Clinton deja vu. Even the same 1992 elation followed by the 1996 lesser of two evils, followed by "glad he is gone." So far it is the same pattern with President Obama. I doubt that by 2017 I will miss him.

Actually, the original op had a line that sort of sums it up: "I'm beginning to wonder whether the whole thing is a hoax." Pretty much.

[Babel_17]

45. Yeah, the kludge of checking income would not resound to our credit. (nt)

[WorseBeforeBetter]

47. About as popular as paying a penalty for not having health insurance. (n/t)

[jsr]

49. It's undeniable whom he was hired to help

HINT:
Not the poor. Not the elderly. Not the disabled. Not the average working family.

[libdude]

50. Chain CPI

What the chain or superlative CPI will do not just for seniors? Read the article by the group Budget and Policy Priorities of 2/22/2012.
The chain CPI would index various Federal benefit programs and tax code.
The policy " clearly amounts to a reduction in future Social Security benefits ". Not just S.S. but Federal and military retirements ( those receiving death and disability benefits ), other programs that currently use the current CPI w and e calculations.
SSI would also be negatively affected by the use of the chain CPI, additionally it would also increase taxes on about 3/4 of the households due to " bracket creep ". Those making yearly incomes of $ 30-40,000 would realize a cut in after tax income.
It was recommended that SSI be given an occassional " bump " to soften or mitigate the impact on beneficiaries.
I have not found any valid reason for connecting Social Security or Medicare into the budget negotiations as they are self funded and do not add to the deficit. Does anyone have such information? I read the White House Press release on strengthening Social Security, no explanation was given.

[femmocrat]

84. This is the first post I have read that notes further repercussion beyond seniors! EVERYONE

please read libdude's post!

This really furthers the impact into the benefits of other recipients.

Welcome to DU, libdude! and thanks for your contribution.

[JDPriestly]

108. Yes. Read libdude's post. Very important.

[JDPriestly]

87. Chained CPI is dishonest and would penalize people for trying

to live frugally and save. It's simply wrong.

[napi21]

52. zi still think he did this knowing the Pubs would refuse any proposal.

As Boner did before the budget was even released! I makes the Pubs look even more foolish, and demonstrates to anyone who hears about it that they will not even vorte on ANYTHING Obama proposes!

[mimi85]

54. I think so also.

He knows this will go nowhere. It was done to make a point about the GOP. And sure enough, Boner & friends are bitching that it's not enough.

[markpkessinger]

56. And it hands Republicans a 2014 campaign issue n/t

[JDPriestly]

88. It doens't make the Pubs look foolish.

It makes Obama look sneaky and dishonest.

[HiPointDem]

57. kr

[daleanime]

58. They were right....

This deserves an OP.

[blkmusclmachine]

59. .

Hope for Change

[ucrdem]

62. One point to keep in mind is that his job is to run the govt.

That's the role of the chief executive. Technically he doesn't make laws, but he does execute them, and he can't do that if Congress won't release funds. In other words he can't do his job until they cut a deal.

Another way to look at it is, what other alternatives does have?

[MrMickeysMom]

79. WHAT?!

How about cut the military, prosecute the Wall Street fraudsters, including the ones he's brought into his administration, and GET OUR MONEY BACK!

How's THAT for "what other alternatives does he have?" WANT MORE?

Stop the individual and corporate tax doggers who don't pay any or close to their fair share of taxes through overseas tax havens.

I pay more federal income tax then General Electric or 100 other corporations and 1% individuals.

How does THAT frost your cake, ucrdem?

[ucrdem]

81. How is he going to do any of that without Congress passing his budget?

If he doesn't get a budget passed, he's the one that takes the heat, not Congress. Basically he's failing to do the job he was elected to perform if he can't find a way to get a budget through. If he doesn't he'll go the way of Grey Davis who never finished his first term. Can you see the problem?

[JDPriestly]

90. You are contradicting yourself. Sorry to say that but it is true.

Think about it:

"How is he going to do that WITHOUT CONGRESS PASSING HIS BUDGET?"

There you said Congress passes the budget.

Then you said, "If he doesn't get a budget passed."

You just put your finger on the problem.

The Constitution provides that the money bills, the budget most specifically, are supposed to originate in the House.

House does not mean White House.

Obama should let the Republicans in the House propose their budget, put it out there for all to see, tear it to shreds, let the people get angry at their representatives for what is not funded in the budget and then, when the anger is palpable, ask the House to write another budget.

That is what Obama should do. It's called brinkmanship. And sometimes it is the best policy.

When a civil attorney sues someone in a civil court on your behalf, your attorney (if you have a good one) does not lose his/her nerve. He/she does not enter into settlement talks right away.

In fact, he/she has to have a very accurate intuitive sense of when the other side is ready to make a good settlement, ready to falter, ready to tell the party your are suing that it is time for that party to cave and pay out.

Obama does not have a sense of patience and timing in this respect. It is unfortunate because he is wonderful with people, but oh, boy, I'm glad he is not representing me in a lawsuit.

[ucrdem]

93. If you're looking for brinksmanship we're in the thick of it.

So far he's gotten us good deals in tough negotiations so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until we see what he actually signs.

[JDPriestly]

127. He did a lousy job negotiating the health care deal.

He is a horrible negotiator. Let's be honest.

[MrMickeysMom]

117. No, I not see that this is the problem.

He's got nothing to loose at this point by NOT joining the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

[JDPriestly]

89. He has the alternative of sticking up for seniors, of being the hero

that we elected him to be.

Obama has a wonderful, loving character, a sonorous voice and good taste in language.

But he does not have courage. It's a shame, but he doesn't like a fight. And a president has to fight for what is morally right sometimes.

That's what FDR did for all of his faults. That's what Teddy Roosevelt did for all his faults.

Even LBJ, one of the most faulty of our presidents, fought for civil rights, for Medicare and for the War on Poverty.

Shame on Obama. He needs to fight for seniors this time.

[ucrdem]

94. Totally understand. But I disagree.

I'd say he doesn't like a fight he can't win, and he doesn't like to showboat on legislation, and he doesn't like to show his cards. But I think he's got plenty of courage. He'll get the best deal he can get, I have no doubt of that, even if it means a concession on SS.

Do I like it, no I hate it, but how many countries have lost their pension systems altogether in the last five years? Britain is constantly fiddling with its safety net, France lately too, and Spain and Greece went from socialist prosperity to austerity hell in a matter of months. Why should we be any different? We've got as much debt as any of them, more, and a sluggish economy. If Obama manages to keep SS intact at all it will be to his credit. That's just the way things are at the moment and its not a situation he created.

[John2]

107. I disagree with you,

because I think the best Deal right now is no Deal. Nobody elected him to get a Deal on cutting Social Security or Medicare period! Nobody on our side is asking him for a Deal. The perception there is some middle out there, is phony. The reason the Republicans saved themselves in congress was because of Gerrymandering. The majority of this country did not vote for them. Remind me of the Republican that ran for office on cutting Social Security or Medicare? They simply lied period about who cut what.

people act like Gerrymandering is the end all of everything because the media pundits have conditioned people to believe they are powerless. You just got to have a little faith and actually knock on doors and talk to people face to face. They need to be educated. The seniors that don't want CPI are confused about who is for what. They went back to their Districts and lied to their constituents. Take John McCain for example when one of his Constituents confronted him about one of his lies. No matter how long it takes, people just have to organize at the grassroots and confront these lying politicians in their Districts period. Just talking on forums want cut it. I discuss it everyday with anyone I come into contact that will listen. Quit putting the focus on Obama, place it where it really belongs. Obama will do well if he just did nothing until the next Election. Let the country make the decision again. We need to Deal with the corporate media also. Banks are not the only monopolies harming this country.

[ucrdem]

116. No deal is a good deal in the short term, sure.

And here we are. Everyone thought Obama wouldn't dare, but he did, and now we've got the sequester, which includes budget cuts neither side could bring themselves to vote for including military cuts. So far so good.

The problem is that small-time creditors get burned and eventually the big ones get impatient and demand a real budget and then one has to get passed. Typically the pas-de-deux lasts until about August. It happened to Clinton at least once, and it happened to Calif governors regularly until we finally got Dem majorities in the state house and senate.

[JDPriestly]

126. Sitting on his hands and letting the defense contractors suffer.

That's what I favor. Always have.

Let GE pay its taxes. Same for Exxon.

And then we'll talk.

Get rid of the tax loopholes and breaks for corporations and tax capital gains and bonuses.

[xtraxritical]

69. k&r

[Cromwell]

70. The basic assumptions here are wrong.

First thing that needs to be considered is how our system of government works. The President - no matter who it is - makes a budget proposal. Then Congress can ignore it completely (as the current GOP majority House has done repeatedly in the past few years), incorporate some of what was proposed, or agree with it completely, and formulate a Budget. This is the responsibility of the House, under the Constitution.

Now, reading the current budget proposal, it's quite clear that the 'Chained-CPI' indexing of Social Security benefits is linked to tax increases. This proposal has been up on the White House website since at least February. Obama has made clear that he will not accept one without the other. The reason that this proposal came forward in the first place is because the GOP House (where Budgets actually come from) has been demanding 'Cuts to Entitlement Programs' for several years now as being the only way to 'balance the budget' as well as cutting taxes. Never mind all the political chicanery that somehow links an 'off budget' program like Social Security to our deficit - the fact of the matter is, the GOP has stood rigid, uncompromising while the President attempts to negotiate. That's why we haven't had a real Budget for so long - just 'Continuing Resolutions' to limp through.

For several years now it's been stated outright by the GOP that they do not intend to work with this President. You're focusing your attack on the wrong bunch. The Ryan crowd is who we need to get out of office; demand budget realism - the Bush tax cuts were wrong in the first place, especially in the face of fighting two wars (that Bush conveniently held 'off budget') - never mind the rationale behind the wars being flawed.

Again, what Obama has proposed are just that - proposals - which in the current political environment with the 'circling the drain' GOP - will never pass, because it's linked to tax increases. BUT - Obama can say clearly 'I tried' - even going so far as to incorporate something the GOP has demanded.

Now, let's turn around and focus - the GOP is the problem here.

[treestar]

71. Welcome to DU!

Good post with good points.

There is a flock of DUers who believe there must be no changes to social security whatsoever, and that whatever fiscal cliff we must go over must be gone over rather than even think about making any "cut" (which includes all potential non-increases, no matter to who). But certainly prepared, when we do go over these cliffs, to complain about the consequences of that, too.

And they never complain about the Republicans. Fascinating, isn't it?

[Cromwell]

82. The only alarm I have...

...is how some of the folks I've encountered are so willing to dive off into the 'deep end' and get wrapped emotionally - without a single shred of evidence, reality doesn't impinge. It's a PROPOSAL for a 3% cut in GROWTH over TEN YEARS - about $650; that's $54 a month...now, over ten years you can't plan for that? There's this perception that "I paid into it, I should get out what I paid in" - well, sure - you do realize that would be an extreme cut? Let alone that the clear statement has also been made that those who rely completely on Social Security will not be cut.

Hysterics, over something that will in all likelihood, never happen.

[femmocrat]

85. Sorry, but that is a lot of money to some people,

You made many excellent points, but did you take into account increases in the cost-of-living over 10 years?

Also... the example that I keep hearing is that if beef is too expensive, "let them eat chicken." What happens when chicken is also too expensive? Live on catfood?

[eilen]

124. Yes, chicken and the so-called "cheaper" cuts of meat are very expensive. nt

[JDPriestly]

92. That cut will really hurt seniors. We live on a shoestring.

$54 per month is $648 per year. That is pretty close to 1/2 of a month's worth of Social Security benefits. That is 1/24th of the overall average Social Security benefit for a year.

That is a lot of money when you are talking about between $1200 and $1300 per month. And many seniors get less than that average. In fact about half of seniors get less than that.

[treestar]

97. Not all seniors

The proposal was not going to affect poor people.

There are plenty of rich seniors. They often vote Republicans. They got theirs and they don't care about anyone else. Being old in itself is not enough to gain pity. In fact they are often quite lucky. They lived in times where they could keep the same job with the same company for years, before outsourcing, they have pensions and other retirement plans other than SS.

[JDPriestly]

104. You think that when you don't know them.

There are rich seniors. They pay extra taxes that pretty much require them to pay all their Social Security benefits back to the U.S. Treasury general fund.

But a lot of the seniors that you think of as rich or middle class are living on pensions, not on Social Security, or are living on both pensions and Social Security.

They deserve to have their pensions. Many of them belonged to unions that fought for those pensions. And a lot of people have lost their pensions or had their pension benefits reduced. That is true of the public retirement system for teachers in Ohio for example.

I visited my very elderly mother earlier this year. She lives in senior citizen housing. The other tenants in her building are almost all very worried because their savings and income sources are running out as they grow older.

There are rich seniors. If they earn over $40,000 per year, they pay extra taxes.

The truly rich, the 1% get very little Social Security if any. That is because all of most of their income was not taxed for Social Security. Earned income at all is only a small part of their income, and at this time, it is not subject to payroll taxes.

So, the "rich" seniors are not going to be affected much by changes to Social Security. Neither are people on public pensions in states like California in which they receive either a public pension or Social Security in most cases.

Changes to Social Security penalize the middle class and possibly the poor. There is supposed to be a provision that transfers money from the middle class recipients to poor recipients. In my opinion, it mostly moves obligations for things like rent subsidies and food stamps from the general fund to Social Security. A neat but reprehensibly sneaky accounting trick. And that trick is being pulled at the expense of middle-class seniors receiving all of approximately $11,900 to the limit of Social Security benefits (I have never been able to figure out what the maximum benefit is).

Remember, income is not subject to the payroll tax if it exceeds $106,000 or $110,000 per year. That means that Social Security taxes are collected only on the incomes of middle class people and incomes slightly higher than middle class.

[femmocrat]

125. Thank you, JDP.

Excellent reply!

[JDPriestly]

91. Social Security has a separate tax and funding base.

It has nothing to do with the general fund or the fiscal cliff.

We are complaining about the Republicans. We do not want changes to Social Security.

The baby boomers will really, really suffer if Social Security is changed in the way that Obama is suggesting.

And the news, what the public is hearing and seeing, is that Obama has proposed these cuts. Seems its true. Obama did propose these cuts.

Obama is not a saint. He lacks backbone. We have been saying that for years. We like him, but he lacks courage. It's just a fact. There is no way to ignore that fact.

[JDPriestly]

109. treesstar,

There is a flock of DUers who believe that whatever Obama does is crowned with a halo of virtue and wisdom.

Fact is, Obama has made a lot of mistakes.

I won't list them all. But I don't care who it is, when they make mistakes that hurt me and my country, I will call them on it.

Don't shoot the messengers.

Don't blame those who see through the falsehoods, the deception, the lies.

And, yes, we complain about the Republicans. But we are Democrats. We are not responsible for the mistakes of the Republicans. We are responsible for what Democrats like Obama do. And right now, I disagree with Obama's proposal for Social Security.

What precisely is Obama's proposal to increase taxes on corporations on the rich? If you are an Obama supporter, why don't you post on that instead of criticizing those of us who are busily defending our livelihoods.

If someone were cutting minimum wage, everyone would scream. Cutting Social Security and other government benefits by adopting the chained CPI is the equivalent of cutting the minimum wage for millions of Americans.

[MotherPetrie]

72. KR&. He showed a certain portion of his anatomy that will remain forever exposed.

He should be ashamed, but I don't think he, in his bright and shining arrogance -- any more than his lughead predecessor -- is capable of feeling shame. If HE thinks it's necessary, a good thing, or whatever, that's all the justification he needs. The rest of us be damned.

[femmocrat]

73. K & R + 1000

This is the most cogent, well-articulated piece I have read on DU re: CCPI. Thank you, JDP. I will refer to it often replying to those who just don't "get it". We are not a bunch of alarmists. This plan is a real hardship for many, many seniors. Obama needs to listen to us, not to his advisers who just want a bipartisan deal.

[librechik]

74. now when I see Obama

I'm just reminded how fucked we the people are.

There was a time when I thought he could FDR us out of this mess. For whatever reason, that is impossible for Obama. It really just makes me cry.

[MrMickeysMom]

77. You know what I'll add, JD?

Social security does not add to the deficit or debt. It is paid for by our payroll taxes. Any "cuts" or changes to a chained CPI inflation index is a 3rd attempt to privatize and destroy social security.

The 1st attempt was in 2005 when Bush attempted to privatize social security, which failed miserably.

The 2nd attempt was 4 yrs ago when Obama put in place the tax "cut" of 2% That tax cut was to the payroll tax that was set to feed into the social security trust fund for its longevity.

The 3rd we're seeing right now is with this change to a chained CPI.

Pete Peterson and other corporate shills should be taken to the public square and FLOGGED publicly. Then, they should be prosecuted for treason right along with the other traitors.

That's exactly what the FUCK in going on here!

[JDPriestly]

105. Thanks.

[Smilo]

78. I have defended our President time and again

but with this move, I no longer have confidence either.

I always knew he wasn't a real progressive, but to see just how far right he is and will go is disheartening and I for one feel betrayed.

[marew]

100. I feel exactly the same!

We have been so betrayed! For a while now when I get requests for donations for the President, I've replied he supports chained CPI and I'm going to need every penny I can get.

[femmocrat]

110. Same here. nt

[Octafish]

80. Spot On.

The people at Social Security, who IIRC deliver their service for less than 1-percent of the budget, do the complicated task of paperwork and red tape. Almost no one ever misses a check.

Fast forward to the future if these "reforms" go through: most people don't bother to redeem gift cards and mail-in rebates. The idea is to make SS impossible to use, so people judt give up and die.

How NAZI.

[LiberalLovinLug]

98. I don't get it

Democrats in the DLC no doubt think they will gain votes with the moderates who tilt right.

But they seem to be oblivious to the fact that they will lose even more votes from their increasingly ostracized progressive base.
Sometimes it seems like they don't really care if they win or lose. Proving the good-cop bad-cop theory where the ruling elite requires a back and forth dichotomy as the best way to push through their agenda.

[PufPuf23]

103. More than wrong, the word is evil. nt

[Luminous Animal]

120. Kick.

[closeupready]

121. Obama is a millionaire many times over. Why

why should he worry? He's set.

[closeupready]

123. According to various figures, he's worth between $6 and 11 Million.

Currently. He'll be able to earn much much more later on, so he won't be relying upon social security to meet his retirement living expenses.

He. Just. Doesn't. Care.

[colorado_ufo]

128. PBO's beloved grandmother must be rolling in her grave.

[pam4water]

129. K&R

[idwiyo]

130. K&R