CNN: How the proposal would shrink senior's SS checks:

[Faryn Balyncd]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/news/economy/chained-cpi-social-security/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Senior citizens would see their Social Security checks shrink under President Obama's latest budget proposal....






...Someone who started collecting the average Social Security benefit for a retired worker in 1999 would receive $12,972 in 2012. But let's say the Social Security Administration had already been using chained CPI -- that person would get only $12,336 this year, according to the National Academy of Social Insurance. That's nearly 5% less.

The difference gets bigger over time. According to the National Women's Law Center, a retiree who was collecting $17,520 last year would see 6.5% less, or $1,139, by age 85, if chained CPI were adopted now. A decade after, their payments would be 9.2% smaller, or $1,612...



http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/news/economy/chained-cpi-social-security/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[The Link]

1. Where are the fuckers that were laughing about this the other day?

Something about hissy fits?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

6. I don't know, but I'm jonesin' for another Crap Blog installment. (n/t)

[Dragonfli]

22. how about "For the Ideologue Left, Social Security Concern Trolling is a Racket", by the

World Renowned thinker "Spandan C".

He made a very serious post on a site for "commentary and rants".
that fix should chase away the jones.

Her Highness below that re-posted it here IS NOT AMUSED, so be forewarned of any and all royal actions to discipline those that oppose her majesty!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

23. I just recently became familiar with "Spandan Chakrabarti."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2638932

Hard to believe this hack holds so much sway over ANYONE, Her Majesty included.

Ooh, an update!

In a different country, kabuki wouldn't be necessary
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/

New one for the Crap Blog Glossary: "megaphone left." Such rapier wit...

[Dragonfli]

31. Thanks for the link, I missed that discussion, very enlightening. A small incestuous group

that appear to be involved in repetitive propaganda, either as paid agents of Third Way, or any number of Pete Peterson's groups or possibly just extremely zealous "believers" of a center right philosophy.

They really do like to say nasty things about anyone to the left of a Reagan "Democrats" or moderate republicans as they were once known.

Now I know where the anti liberal meme factories are that create such gems as poutrage.

They dare to say that we "slop up" "vomit" from progressive writers? Nice bit of projection that.


At the turn of the century they would have been members of this group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#American_Apologists

American Apologists
At the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century a group of conservative American economists and social scientists became known as the American Apologists. Their different theoretical orientations notwithstanding, they were apologists for the status quo and rose to defend the new industrial age and condemn unions and populist causes....

[senseandsensibility]

37. That thread was disgusting.

I wanted to post and say that in my many years here I have never seen a more childish display. But I didn't want to kick that poor excuse for a thread.

[DJ13]

2. One question I never see asked about this is

If SS adds nothing to the deficit because its a separate revenue stream from the Federal budget, where is the money supposedly being "saved" going to end up?

[myrna minx]

4. I'm sure there's some new war on the horizon.

There's oil subsidies to be handed out, future bank bailouts - my stars, the possibilities are endless - just as long as grannie doesn't get too cozy ion her hovel.

[byeya]

18. My take on your question is this: Since the double-headed $$$ party has "borrowed" the SS trust

fund money, and doesn't want to pay it back, this malign entity will devalue it a little at a time. All the while, Wall Streeters are looking to get their lunch hooks into future FICA insurance payments like they've grabbed on to large portions of 401(k) funds.

[forestpath]

3. Anybody who supports this is just plain evil.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

7. +1000

This is SO wrong-headed, unnecessary, dishonest, and fucking CRUEL.

[daa]

5. It is worse

Try adding up the cumulative cuts, it's like 25K for one and 50K for a couple.

[phleshdef]

8. I'm pretty sure the proposal exempts people from the chained CPI after a certain age though.

I'm not defending the chained CPI proposal. I'm against it for the purposes of Social Security benefit increases.

But lets be fair. Its continually mentioned that the oldest of the old and lower income seniors won't be subject to the resulting cut that would occur. I've yet to see any details on the specifics those exemptions and what the criteria is. Until we have that information, its impossible to determine how much money will actually be cut, person to person, check to check.

[dawg]

10. There is no exemption. There is a make-up adjustment that does not quite replace all of the losses.

And if you live too long after that, well, sucks to be you.

[phleshdef]

13. Still, the numbers coming from the OP article don't seem to reflect that.

I want to see the REAL numbers, not speculative numbers based on a faulty premise.

[dawg]

15. You would see the same numbers for younger ages, then ..

a much smaller loss at age 85 I think, maybe even breakeven for that year, and then the losses would continue to increase as time goes on and you get older.

[treestar]

9. Inflation

Is the only thing it is about. How they are raised due to inflation. There's no cut, there's an increase and the issue is the method of calulating the cost-of-living increase.

And

Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr. Obama’s budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said.

I have explained this before. The President's proposal would create a minimum baseline for Social Security benefits so that no one who works their whole life has to live in poverty in retirement. The minimum benefit would be above the poverty line, for the first time fulfilling the promise of Social Security to end elderly poverty and actually boosting benefits for the lowest wage workers, which the protectors of the Entitlement Status Quo are effectively against. The president's proposal would also boost benefits at age 85, making sure the people most at risk of running out of their savings are taken care of. Let me say that again: for those in the greatest need, the president's proposal would increase benefits.

When it comes to Medicare savings, the President is focusing on savings from providers and drug companies, as well as on having wealthy seniors pay a higher premium. There is nothing controversial about that - at least there shouldn't be any controversy about that on the Left. Not unless while I wasn't looking, the Left suddenly moved into the tent of lining the pockets big pharma and giving "relief" to the wealthy.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/04/for-ideologue-left-social-security.html

At least be honest.

[dawg]

16. It's a cut.

Nominal dollars are meaningless in economics. What matters is economic cost a.k.a. purchasing power. In real dollars, retirees will see cuts in their benefits as prices in reality go up quicker than their "chained" COLA's.

[treestar]

24. I remember complaints about it though

When there was no COLA increase, because there was no inflation that year.

I'm sure that was a "cut," too.

[dawg]

29. If there truly is no inflation, there shouldn't be a COLA.

If prices are stable, the lack of a COLA isn't a cut. It's only a cut when the COLA is designed to be smaller than the true rise in prices. A chained CPI does exactly that. Under it's rationale, if you are able to buy hamburger this year for the same price you bought steak the year before, there has been no inflation. The large increase in the price of steak is irrelevant.

[treestar]

40. I agree

What makes this particular outrage interesting is that middle class seniors are the most likely to complain. I know a lot of middle class seniors. These geezers came of age at a great time. They worked for one company their whole lives with tons of benefits, including retirement.

The year there was no COLA increase, they dared to complain about it!

The President's proposal spared the poor and the very old, so I have a hard time working up a lot of outrage over these middle class seniors getting a lower cost of living increase. They can buy steak regardless.

[dawg]

41. I disagree with what you just said.

These middle class seniors are typically very cash-strapped in their retirement years. Social Security is already a skimpy benefit. How well can anyone live on $1200 a month? And many receive less.

The poor who would be protected under this plan are only the very poor. People who were middle income for all their working years can still feel quite poor in retirement, while still not qualifying for help. I have seen it many times over.

The only reason middle class people are complaining more right now, is the fact that they are the ones who are typically more informed about current events.

[treestar]

42. No one on the board has ever looked into it at that extent.

Because we were only just becoming aware that there were protections for the poor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/18/the-morning-plum-should-progressives-accept-the-new-fiscal-cliff-deal/

Will have to look farther to see at what point it was.

[whopis01]

39. Why would that be a cut?

If there is no inflation, and you keep the same nominal dollars, you have the same purchasing power - so there is no cut there.

In fact, if there was deflation, you should lower the nominal dollar amount to maintain the same purchasing power.

It is only when there is inflation and you maintain the same nominal dollar amount that purchasing power is cut.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. If it's not a cut, why are they doing it to trim the deficit or strengthen SS or whatever they say?

And why do the "more vulnerable among us" need to be shielded from this non-cut?

[treestar]

25. I would say if the cut in increase for inflation that it represents

affects the middle class and rich only, and it won't affect the poor (and very old, 85) then why is it being presented as taking only from the poor? It is taking from the middle class and rich. Suddenly progressives are very against that.

I see this as weighed with the problem of dealing with Republicans refusing to pass any budget (and for all this kerfuffle, Boner won't take it) yet it is being taken out of that context in order to slam the President for trying to do something to keep the government going. Rather than slamming Boner and the Rs for not finding it enough.

[dawg]

30. It isn't taking only from the poor. But they are the ones who will suffer the most.

Even with some protections, there will be some pain.

But the so called "middle-class" - in other words the vast number of average Social Security recipients - aren't exactly thriving right now either. The average retired couple doesn't have much income above what Social Security pays. And for future generations, this will only be worse due to changes in corporate pension benefits. Those in the middle cannot afford these cuts. Many are scraping by already.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. It is a cut, Obama is morally absent and ethically vacant for proposing it

This does nothing to the rich, nor the middle class. Do you understand that people who get Social Security pay income taxes just like others? So when we speak of 'the rich and middle class' the COLA is eaten up in taxes anyway. The level of income that they call 'not poor' is very low, so I have to assume you are content to say that a person living on 15K a year is not poor and not entitled to any COLA protection, because that is exactly what you are saying.
You are lumping people with 15K in income into a group with 'the middle class and rich'. In my book, that is just pathetic.

[Dragonfli]

20. Wasn't there a post today by smartypants or dlcluv or some WELL know expert?

Ok I forget the names of the world renowned thinkers that know so much about Obama apologetics. That they know far more than idiots like Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders is a given.
I know that "Spandan C" is also a world renowned expert. I just wonder why you didn't go with your aces, anyone with smartypants in their name will carry far more weight than Elizabeth Warren.

Should have gone with a top gun is all I'm saying.

[Marr]

21. It. Is. A. Cut.

For fuck's sake, stop the bullshit.

This alternate CPI calculation assumes a reduced standard of living. That's a nice way of saying "cut".

Seriously, this misdirection and denial shit is actually sickening now. Just stop it.

[just1voice]

11. So benefits begin at age 80 huh? LOL, what crappy CNN propaganda spin this is.

Perhaps if I clicked on the propaganda link it says something different but I stopped wasting time on CNN propaganda years ago.

[Larrylarry]

19. Ya , what's with that ?

80 is past the average life span.

Why start there ?

What are the loses from 65 to 80 ?

[dawg]

12. That'll play well with the swing voters.

Especially the ones near retirement age.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

34. It won't play well with any voters, but for 20-something bloggers...

who think "emoprog" is clever. Perhaps they're trust funders, who knows.

[dawg]

35. I think they just really, really love President Obama.

They trust him.

They don't really understand economic issues all that well, and they assume President Obama and his advisors understand these issues much better than the critics of the "professional left".

What they don't realize, is that many of us are pretty heavily skilled in economic matters. Not only that, but we have enough real life experience to understand how these things affect real people.

And President Obama has surrounded himself with "experts" who don't have our best interests at heart.

[Rex]

14. Why is it that our government can be this exact in the money

we taxpayers get, BUT cannot fathom why we get mad when they let off the hook some monstrous corporation that stole billions of taxpayer dollars? Or when the Pentagon loses a trillion taxpayer dollars? Do they really think we are that stupid?

There should only be ONE THING that is 'too big to fail' and that is SOCIAL SECURITY.

[Brickbat]

26. Hey, c'mon, guys! I'm sure we can all agree that it's not a slash!

And that's what he kept promising, right? That he wouldn't slash it! So we're good! Mkay?

[daa]

38. $50,000 slash for a couple, what the hell do you call it? eom

[bowens43]

27. The Democratic Party the party that wants to end SS and medicare. Good going Obama

[aandegoons]

28. Holy smokes this upcoming election is going to be a blood bath.

This goes on for an entire year and we are going to lose big time.....

[donnasgirl]

32. I am

Done, finished, kaput, (I no longer) will vote with any one party, I and my family voted Democrat because we ( THOUGHT) they would be the fence between losing our Social Security or not losing it, and low and behold what happens the President sticks it in our wazoo.

[joeybee12]

33. Phooey on your numbers! I see three-dimensional chess pieces on that diagram! nt