Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I Don't See Anything About Cuts To Social Security in Obama's 2014 Budget (Original Post) JaneyVee Apr 2013 OP
It says he will work with bipartisan group to upaloopa Apr 2013 #1
remember how he 'cut medicare'... Whisp Apr 2013 #38
Hmmm, I saw it mentioned in that sneak peek someone posted, this morning. Frustratedlady Apr 2013 #2
This is what I saw... Frustratedlady Apr 2013 #4
Programattic effects of moving to the chained CPI. The Link Apr 2013 #3
That budget is corporatist crap. The Progressive Caucus budget is the one that works: grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #5
I wish it were passable. nt el_bryanto Apr 2013 #7
It is. It takes a campaign level push. It is what the majority wants. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #16
Page 46: muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #6
You nailed it CountAllVotes Apr 2013 #10
Thanks, saved me some time. I knew it must be in there b/c Obama kinda mentioned it this morning JaneyVee Apr 2013 #11
Thanks for that. The Hair-On-Fire Brigade tend to leave out this part: Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #15
Oh, for god's sake-- give me a break. Marr Apr 2013 #18
I could actually give a shit "what you now expect". Your agenda's been clear from the outset. Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #19
Actually, I'd represent our disparate agendas this way: Marr Apr 2013 #21
Thanks! I think you're cute too. You Better Believe It! Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #24
Awesome... SidDithers Apr 2013 #35
Hey if it is good enough to alert on Rex Apr 2013 #37
Pure comedy MFrohike Apr 2013 #20
I know you guys think trashing Obama on an internet forum is "activism", but I've got news. You're Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #25
Not so much MFrohike Apr 2013 #30
Yeah, I agree. What's in "your shorts" probably ain't a laughing matter. Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #33
Thanks MFrohike Apr 2013 #39
Thanks for this post. This President is trying his damndest and if he has to fight both kelliekat44 Apr 2013 #22
There's very little that separates the MM's from the teabaggers. Same tactics, faux outrage over... Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #23
Thanks for putting that out there, Tarheel! Number23 Apr 2013 #27
Sadly, if you want to hear reasonable debate, with all sides involved, NPR is the only source. Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #28
Oh I can top that one, my dear Number23 Apr 2013 #29
I haven't seen the o.p. in question, and it's just as well. Thanks for the BOG link. If you get... Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #32
Really great post Number23 Apr 2013 #34
Liberals wonder why they aren't a bigger presence in Congress, and in national politics, but one.... Tarheel_Dem Apr 2013 #36
Are you under the impression that CPI only affects Social Security? Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #8
No I was genuinely looking for it. I posted the links as soon as it was released and went for JaneyVee Apr 2013 #12
I read another thread that said CPI also would affect and cut other programs like Food stamps quinnox Apr 2013 #9
yes, and not only for the poor. it affects *everything* with colas. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #13
Many seniors will not only lose the raise, but see increased taxes Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #14
Analytical perspectives, page 210 JHB Apr 2013 #17
Does anyone else find this disingenuous claptrap... 99Forever Apr 2013 #26
Apparently they do. I don't think it was the Tea Party that Cleita Apr 2013 #31

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
1. It says he will work with bipartisan group to
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:40 PM
Apr 2013

strengthen SS
That could mean cuts or raise the cap. The right won't agree to raise the cap.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
38. remember how he 'cut medicare'...
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:48 PM
Apr 2013

this story is most likely like that pile of bullshit.

no matter how many times it was pointed out that he cut Medicare from The Providers side, people here were still screaming at him that he is killing the poor.

some asshole guest on one of MSNBCs shows this week said that very same thing, still to this day, leaving it to mean he cut it from recipients, and the vapid ignorant asshole host, or whatever she is called, did not call him out on it, she just let the big lie ride.

Frustratedlady

(16,254 posts)
4. This is what I saw...
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:45 PM
Apr 2013

Cutting the Deficit in a Balanced Way

The President is committed to continuing to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. He is determined to do this in a way that replaces the economically damaging across-the-board cuts of sequestration with smart, targeted efforts to cut wasteful spending, strengthen entitlements, and eliminate loopholes for the wealthiest through tax reform.

The President stands by the compromise offer he made to Speaker Boehner during “fiscal cliff” negotiations in December 2012. The Budget includes all of the proposals in that offer, which would achieve $1.8 trillion in additional deficit reduction over the next 10 years, bringing total deficit reduction to $4.3 trillion. This represents more than enough deficit reduction to replace the cuts required by the Joint Committee sequestration. By including this compromise proposal in the Budget, the President is demonstrating his willingness to make tough choices to find common ground to further reduce the deficit. This offer includes some difficult cuts that the President would not propose on their own, such as an adjustment to inflation indexing requested by Republicans. But there can be no sacred cows for either party. The key elements of the offer include:

•$580 billion in additional revenue relative to the end-of-year tax deal, from tax reform that closes tax loopholes and reduces tax benefits for those who need them least;

•$400 billion in health savings that build on the health reform law and strengthen Medicare;

•$200 billion in savings from other mandatory programs, such as reductions to farm subsidies and reforms to federal retirement benefits;

•$200 billion in additional discretionary savings, with equal amounts from defense and nondefense programs;

•$230 billion in savings from using a chained measure of inflation for cost-of-living adjustments throughout the Budget, with protections for the most vulnerable;

•$210 billion in savings from reduced interest payments on the debt; and

•$50 billion for immediate infrastructure investments, as noted earlier, to repair our roads and transit systems, create jobs, and build a foundation for economic growth.

 

The Link

(757 posts)
3. Programattic effects of moving to the chained CPI.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:43 PM
Apr 2013

$230 Billion in savings through 2023.

Woo fucking hoo.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
5. That budget is corporatist crap. The Progressive Caucus budget is the one that works:
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:45 PM
Apr 2013
"The People’s Budget eliminates the deficit in 10 years, puts Americans back to work and restores our economic competitiveness. The People’s Budget recognizes that in order to compete, our nation needs every American to be productive, and in order to be productive we need to raise our skills to meet modern needs.

Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit and Raises a $31 Billion Surplus In Ten Years
Our budget protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and responsibly eliminates the deficit by targeting its main drivers: the Bush Tax Cuts, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession.

Our Budget Puts America Back to Work & Restores America’s Competitiveness
• Trains teachers and restores schools; rebuilds roads and bridges and ensures that users help pay for them
• Invests in job creation, clean energy and broadband infrastructure, housing and R&D programs

Our Budget Creates a Fairer Tax System
• Ends the recently passed upper-income tax cuts and lets Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of 2012
• Extends tax credits for the middle class, families, and students
• Creates new tax brackets that range from 45% starting at $1 million to 49% for $1 billion or more
• Implements a progressive estate tax
• Eliminates corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies; closes loopholes for multinational corporations
• Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange

Our Budget Protects Health
• Enacts a health care public option and negotiates prescription payments with pharmaceutical companies
• Prevents any cuts to Medicare physician payments for a decade

Our Budget Safeguards Social Security for the Next 75 Years
• Eliminates the individual Social Security payroll cap to make sure upper income earners pay their fair share
• Increases benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side

Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home
• Responsibly ends our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to leave America more secure both home and abroad
• Cuts defense spending by reducing conventional forces, procurement, and costly R&D programs

Our Budget’s Bottom Line
• Deficit reduction of $5.6 trillion
• Spending cuts of $1.7 trillion
• Revenue increase of $3.9 trillion
• Public investment $1.7 trillion



Support for the People's Budget

President Bill Clinton

"The most comprehensive alternative to the budgets passed by the House Republicans and recommended by the Simpson-Bowles Commission"

"Does two things far better than the antigovernment budget passed by the House: it takes care of older Americans and others who need help; and much more than the House plan, or the Simpson-Bowles plan, it invests a lot our tax money to get America back in the future business"

Paul Krugman

“genuinely courageous”

“achieves this without dismantling the legacy of the New Deal”

Dean Baker

"if you want a serious effort to balance the budget, here it is."

Jeffrey Sachs

“A bolt of hope…humane, responsible, and most of all sensible”

Robert Reich

"modest and reasonable"

The Economist

“Courageous”

“Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people.”

The New Republic

“...something that's gotten far too little attention in this debate. The most fiscally responsible plan seems to be neither the Republicans' nor the president's. It's the Congressional Progressive Caucus plan…”

The Washington Post

"It’s much more courageous to propose taxes on the rich and powerful than spending cuts on the poor and disabled."

Rachel Maddow

“Balances the budget 20 years earlier than Paul Ryan even tries to”

The Guardian

“the most fiscally responsible in town… would balance the books by 2021“

The Nation

"the strongest rebuke...to the unconscionable 'Ryan Budget' for FY 2012."

Center for American Progress

"once again put[s] requiring more sacrifice from the luckiest among us back on the table"

Economic Policy Institute

"National budget policy should adequately fund up-front job creation, invest in long-term economic growth, reform the tax code, and put the debt on a sustainable path while protecting the economic security of low-income Americans and growing the middle class. The proposal by the Congressional Progressive caucus achieves all of these goals."

The Washington Post

“The Congressional Progressive Caucus plan wins the fiscal responsibility derby thus far."

Rolling Stone

"This is more than a fantasy document. It's sound policy."

Forbes

"instead of gutting programs for the poor like Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, and the new healthcare law, the People’s Budget focuses on cuts in defense. It also doesn’t scrap new financial regulations designed to at least partly stave off another massive financial collapse like the one that put us in this mess in the first place.""

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/

muriel_volestrangler

(101,158 posts)
6. Page 46:
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:47 PM
Apr 2013
In the interest of achieving a bipartisan deficit
reduction agreement, beginning in 2015 the Budget
would change the measure of inflation used
by the Federal Government for most programs
and for the Internal Revenue Code from the standard
Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the alternative,
more accurate chained CPI, which grows
slightly more slowly. Unlike the standard CPI,
the chained CPI fully accounts for a consumer’s
ability to substitute between goods in response
to changes in relative prices and also adjusts for
small sample bias. Most economists agree that
the chained CPI provides a more accurate measure
of the average change in the cost of living
than the standard CPI.

Switching to the chained CPI, which will reduce
deficits and improve Social Security solvency, has
been proposed in almost every major bipartisan
deficit reduction plan put forward over the past
several years, including the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal
Commission plan, the Bipartisan “Gang of
Six” plan, and the Domenici-Rivlin Bipartisan
Policy Center plan.
The President has made clear that any such
change in approach should protect the most vulnerable.
For that reason, the Budget includes
protections for the very elderly and others who
rely on Social Security for long periods of time,
and only applies the change to non-means tested
benefit programs. The switch to chained CPI will
reduce deficits by at least $230 billion over the
next 10 years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/budget.pdf

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
15. Thanks for that. The Hair-On-Fire Brigade tend to leave out this part:
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 01:44 PM
Apr 2013
"For that reason, the Budget includes
protections for the very elderly and others who
rely on Social Security for long periods of time,

and only applies the change to non-means tested
benefit programs."


There was very interesting discussion on The Diahn Rehm show this a.m., and a very astute caller phoned in to say that she was one of those lucky ones who was fortunate enough to actually save for her retirement. She's not beholden to SS for her survival, and there are many more seniors just like her, who'd be willing to take less so that those less fortunate can receive more. None of this is really relevant, because John Boehner can't make any deal with this President, so it's all moot.
 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
18. Oh, for god's sake-- give me a break.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:23 PM
Apr 2013

That is a completely ambiguous, undefined fig leaf and you know it.

This man is proposing Social Security cuts (something you once insisted he would never, ever do, btw). Just how much stock do you now expect people to put in a caveat that essentially amounts to "trust me"?

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
19. I could actually give a shit "what you now expect". Your agenda's been clear from the outset.
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:03 PM
Apr 2013

Toodles.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
37. Hey if it is good enough to alert on
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:47 PM
Apr 2013

two or more people must be insulting each other! This time with pictures!

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
20. Pure comedy
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:05 PM
Apr 2013

While it's thrilling that the president continually reaffirms his upper-middle/upper class noblesse oblige to protect the "most vulnerable," I have to wonder about all the other people he's busy shafting with this atrocious offer. What about the middle class, which is shrinking by the day? While he's sitting on 10 million from his book sales and is eyeing a $100 million payday ala Bill Clinton, what about the rest of us who haven't traded on our elected offices to become fantastically wealthy? Why should we take it in the shorts for his legacy? Riddle me that if you can.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
25. I know you guys think trashing Obama on an internet forum is "activism", but I've got news. You're
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:27 PM
Apr 2013

as ridiculous on the internet, as I suspect you are in person. What do President(s) Obama & Clinton's wealth have to do with this debate? You just threw up an entire Occupy rally in one silly post. You're not an activist, you're a sham artist, much like the rest of Occupy. Now, I'll leave you to troll someone else's posts. See ya.

Oh, and what happens in "your shorts" is of absolutely no consequence to me.

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
30. Not so much
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:39 PM
Apr 2013

I'm asking an uncomfortable question. Obama and Clinton are wealthy far beyond the dreams of the vast majority of Americans. They both made this money by trading on the offices they held. These facts are relevant because Obama, a wealthy man, sees value in shafting the vast majority of Americans in order to cement his legacy. It's no different from his buddy Pete Peterson or the Wall Street folks who gave him more money than any other candidate in history. Why should I believe a rich man when he tells me that me getting less will magically make everything better?

As for your wit, a wise man once told me that when you try to be funny on the internet, you usually fail. Thanks for providing a rich example!

 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
22. Thanks for this post. This President is trying his damndest and if he has to fight both
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 12:13 AM
Apr 2013

Dems and GOPers he has the stomach for it. I will support him on this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they should be dealing with the facts. You have to remember, there are a lot of people on the left who damn the President with faint praise but continually look for anything to criticize him for...and this includes MM. I just wish the left could be as informed as they are strident about what they really don't know or understand.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
23. There's very little that separates the MM's from the teabaggers. Same tactics, faux outrage over...
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:16 PM
Apr 2013

anything this presidents says or does. You expect it from the right, but a portion of the left has become so deranged that they have actually gone round the bend & locked hands with the people they formerly ridiculed. Someone has to break through all the hyperpartisan bullshit & be the adult on Capitol Hill, and that's this President.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
28. Sadly, if you want to hear reasonable debate, with all sides involved, NPR is the only source.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:59 PM
Apr 2013

DU has crossed the rubicon. It's not a place for debate/discussion anymore, but I don't have to tell you that. I mean, I'm sitting here looking at a banner ad entitled "MURDERED?!" DID OBAMA ABANDON AMERICANS TO DIE IN BENGHAZI?" That says all you need to know about the new DU.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
29. Oh I can top that one, my dear
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:07 PM
Apr 2013

Just saw a hilariously stupid OP with a pic of the president and his grandmother entitled "Obama, you wouldn't steal from your own grandmother. Why would you steal from mine?" or something to that effect.

And people wonder why so many are actively beginning to mock those who are so overheated over this. Not mocking the concerns of seniors worried about SS, the mocking appears to be solely directed at the despair trolls. And good Lord there are many.

Have you seen this post in the BOG? http://www.democraticunderground.com/11028797 A liberal economist says that Obama's proposal is the largest expansion of support to the poor in a generation.

DU has crossed the rubicon. It's not a place for debate/discussion anymore, but I don't have to tell you that.

Sadly, no you don't. I'm actually struggling to remember a time that this place was NOT a joke.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
32. I haven't seen the o.p. in question, and it's just as well. Thanks for the BOG link. If you get...
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:34 PM
Apr 2013

a chance (and it may be posted here), but Lawrence O'Donnell has talked about this topic, two nights in a row, in his "REWRITE" segment. It puts to rest the fairytale that Obama is the only Democrat to tinker with SS. Both Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton did as well, and both with support of the Democrats in Congress. The "New Left" has created this romanticized revisionism of past Dem Presidents, and Obama isn't doing anything that wasn't done before him. As LO mentioned, any revisions to SS have been demonized as cuts, until folks calm down and realize that the changes were needed to sustain the solvency and extend the life of the program.

You can't debate with treebaggers, you just have to let 'em wind down on their own. They eventually move on to the next shiny object. When we had finally had momentum entering the gun debate, they got sidetracked by "drones", which the adminstration had already confirmed they were using, so that took the much needed steam out of a very serious debate. When our undocumented brothers & sisters are on the precipice of finally moving out of the shadows, and possibly getting a pathway to citizenship, they feign outrage over Chained CPI, which actually has protections for the more disadvantaged. They never fail to be on a different page, and I think it's by design.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
34. Really great post
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:47 PM
Apr 2013

I'd been hearing that the "momentum" on gun control had been diminished. And the media has been blaming the president. We got the Repubs doing everything to stall gun control and the "liberals" are too busy ranting about God only knows and making themselves look more ridiculous than usual to be of any use or assistance to anyone.

Such an important issue deserves the full respect and attention of all Americans. It's a shame it's not getting that.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
36. Liberals wonder why they aren't a bigger presence in Congress, and in national politics, but one....
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:45 PM
Apr 2013

only has to look to Occupy to see that liberals will never be the force they'd hoped to be. No one is going to back a hardcore liberal, just as Rand Paul is about to find out that the American people aren't gonna elect a teabagger to national office. I'm not a huge Hillary booster, but I'd vote for her in a NY minute over a Kucinichian candidate, and I suspect most would. They aren't taken seriously because they sometimes seem completely divorced from reality.

One needs no further proof than the pitiful showing by Jill Stein (The Liberal White Hope of 2012), to see that they need more than just rhetoric to even be competitive. If they were capable of being embarrassed, 0.37% of the national vote would be seen as big red flag, and a chance for reflection, but you know the rest..... .

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
8. Are you under the impression that CPI only affects Social Security?
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:49 PM
Apr 2013

Why would a change so pervasive be listed under just one of the programs it will change?

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
12. No I was genuinely looking for it. I posted the links as soon as it was released and went for
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:56 PM
Apr 2013

the obvious location.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
9. I read another thread that said CPI also would affect and cut other programs like Food stamps
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:51 PM
Apr 2013

So not only does it cut social security, it also affects other programs for poor people as well. It is really horrible that a (so-called) Democratic president is pushing this.

JHB

(37,133 posts)
17. Analytical perspectives, page 210
Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:18 PM
Apr 2013

In the subsection (starting on p. 209) "other initiatives":

Replace the CPI with the chained CPI for purposes
of indexing tax provisions for inflation.—Under current
law, a number of parameters of the Internal Revenue
Code are indexed for inflation to protect taxpayers from
the effects of rising prices. Such parameters include the
dollar value of the personal exemption and the standard
deduction, the income thresholds for the individual income
tax rate brackets, and the income thresholds and
phaseout ranges for a number of tax credits. These parameters
are currently indexed to the CPI, which overstates
increases in the cost of living because it does not
fully account for the fact that consumers generally adjust
their spending patterns as some prices change relative to
other prices. The Administration proposes to index tax
provisions to the chained CPI, which more accurately reflects
how consumers react to changes in relative prices,
effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2014.

"Receipts" section PDF:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/receipts.pdf

full analytical perspectives PDF:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/spec.pdf

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
26. Does anyone else find this disingenuous claptrap...
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:33 PM
Apr 2013

..intellectually insulting?


You think you are dealing Teabagger level mentality?

You think this kind of horsecrap benefits the Democratic Party?

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
31. Apparently they do. I don't think it was the Tea Party that
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 08:42 PM
Apr 2013

got BO and the other Democrats elected. I'm really very disappointed that they think so little of and have so little respect for those of us who put them where they are.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I Don't See Anything Abou...