General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Don't See Anything About Cuts To Social Security in Obama's 2014 Budget
Section on Social Security: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/socsec.pdf
Full budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview
I only just checked the part on Social Security, this just went online. Will continue looking it over.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)strengthen SS
That could mean cuts or raise the cap. The right won't agree to raise the cap.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)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)I'll see if I can find it.
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)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)$230 Billion in savings through 2023.
Woo fucking hoo.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)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 Americas 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 Budgets 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
"Its 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 Peoples Budget focuses on cuts in defense. It also doesnt 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/
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,158 posts)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 consumers
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
CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)Thanks for posting this.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)"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)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)Toodles.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Here's mine:
And here's yours:
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Rex
(65,616 posts)two or more people must be insulting each other! This time with pictures!
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)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)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)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!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)MFrohike
(1,980 posts)That's a very nice compliment, even if you don't know me.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)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)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.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)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)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)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)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)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)Why would a change so pervasive be listed under just one of the programs it will change?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)the obvious location.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)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.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
JHB
(37,133 posts)In the subsection (starting on p. 209) "other initiatives":
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)..intellectually insulting?
You think you are dealing Teabagger level mentality?
You think this kind of horsecrap benefits the Democratic Party?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)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.