Am I wrong that Obama's chained CPI proposal exempts the bottom 20% of seniors?

[Recursion]

I did read that right, yes? The poorest seniors don't get the chained CPI applied to them under Obama's proposal? Are the middle and higher quintiles of seniors really doing that badly that this much angst gets worked up over them?

[HERVEPA]

1. Clueless comment

[timdog44]

36. Absolutely clueless.

And gets even more clueless throughout the posting. Lack of heart, compassion and fairness pervades this thread. Seems to be coming from some RW space. To suggest that people above the 20% group are not in poverty is simply false. It may be technically in some governmental bureaucratic graph, but to think that people on SS can comfortably survive on even $20000 a year is mindlessly ridiculous. It is a sin in this wealthy country to even expect that to happen. "Come on and suck it up" sounds like something out Paul Ryan's book. It is shameful.

SS was not designed to be sole moneys for people, but the fact is, that it is for a lot of them. If not solely, at least a majority of their moneys. So if this elderly couple have SS income of $20000 and another $10000 for a total of $30000, that still makes life very difficult for them and any reduction in SS, which would happen for them, is a heavy burden.

The real solution is to increase SS, lower the age, and impose tax above the cap to no cap, and include all income and not just earned income. The real solution is not to blame to people on SS, but to fix the problem.

[randome]

39. So...a one-word Presidential budget proposal, then? Something like 'Utopia'.

Everything you listed should be done. None of it will be done while Republicans control the House.

And to be fair about the 'suck it up' comment, it was in response to another poster's suggestion that the OP is 'worshiping' Obama. We don't need either comments like that.

[timdog44]

75. And why should not a budget plan "proposal"

be something closer to Utopia than to what I perceive as not even an endpoint. I appreciate you agreeing with the things that should be done.

I see the OP as going down the line and saying only the lower 20% will suffer and I saw the "suck it up" comment as a response to those who are above the 20% threshold. Reread #9. And again in #7 the poster says " If you're starving RIGHT NOW you aren't above the 20th percentile of retirees". What does that mean? People above the 20% level are not starving. I would almost bet that is not the case. Can't site any info, but fully believe that the poster is wrong.

I'd like to think everyone on this site is on the side of being against this chained CPI. We are a country full of poor people who have $$$ more than the poverty level. That is the sin I talk about.

[randome]

78. It's possible that Chained CPI, combined with the 'donut hole' of prescription coverage...

...will result in a net GAIN for many, if not most.

Until actual facts and formulas are decided upon, we are all just speculating.

And I truly doubt anything like Chained CPI will get through the House, the Senate and then the House/Senate reconciliation committees.

It was probably a mistake to even include this in the proposal because of the outrage it appears to have generated. But it has almost no chance of going anywhere, IMO.

[Cal Carpenter]

86. It was probably a mistake because of the "outrage" it caused?

And not because of the potential results of the actual policy if it were to make it into the final budget?

Uh huh. The lines being drawn are getting clearer and clearer.

[randome]

92. It would also be a mistake if it reduces anyone's payments.

But, again, we have no figures or formulas to know that it will. So I say let them know they better not reduce anyone's benefits and move on to the next issue.

[timdog44]

121. This chained CPI will not make it out of congress.

As you said. I just fear that it will be used against us in 2014. Back to chess?

[Recursion]

133. By itself it could

But Obama has tied this to increased taxes and discretionary spending, which is probably a poison pill.

[Recursion]

85. Read the AARP report on food insecurity among older Americans

Food insecurity drops off greatly starting in people's 60's -- because of Social Security; the main food insecurity problem for older Americans is among people ages 50-59

http://www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/our-work/hunger/info-2012/hunger-research-2011.html

(and it's nowhere near as bad as food insecurity among children.)

You're right that "suck it up" was obnoxious; I edited that. That said, yes, people in the middle and higher quintiles will have their benefits increased less over time than the poor will, under this proposal. I think of that as something we deal with a lot in the US.

[timdog44]

120. Agreed that food insecurity

for children is a disgrace. That is a jobs issue that also is not getting the correct attention. And by jobs, I mean more than $20/hr jobs. All those that we have lost over the last couple decades. I blame globalization and free trade. But that's just my opinion.

Like I said above, I think we all agree on the problems, and basically on the solutions. This is such a hot button issue that, at least I, get a little over the edge sometimes, and I am sorry. Glad to see you took the "suck it up" out.

[sabrina 1]

135. What we don't need are Democrats selling out on SS. SS had zero to do with the deficit

That fund belongs to the people and no politician has any right, where do they get the gall, to touch it, let alone offer it up as a bargaining chip to the enemies of SS because 'that is what they asked for' according to his spokesperson.

There is not excuse for this at all, none, SS did not belong in this discussion, period.

So people can run around all day coming up with different attempts to try to excuse it but it cannot be excused. Not even if he offered people over 90 a check for $10,000. He doesn't have the right to that anymore than he has the right to take away money from them. It is not the Fed Gov's fund to play with, good or bad.

Bottom line is this was one of the most disastrous proposals, especially considering people were worried he might do it and were told he will not, any Democrat could make.

What he should have proposed was a raise in benefits explaining that the fund has the money to do this, being it is one of the most successful fiscal programs ever, and pointing that this would help stimulate the economy without affecting the Fed Budget at all and would probably help reduce the deficit.

Hands off SS! He was told this by the people who elected him, millions of them who signed petitions, called, wrote and emailed. So what does he do? He ignores them and his spokesperson explains why he did this 'Republicans asked him to'. So, the devil made him do it and now they have betrayed him, claiming that they will 'never vote to reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors'. Worst proposal ever made by a Democrat.

[pnwmom]

146. At what income level would the chained CPI kick in? Do we know that?

[timdog44]

149. That is part of the problem.

When does it kick in? Never, I hope. It is just a proposal and not sure if it is totally spelled out. Sorry not to be more informed.

[pnwmom]

150. No need for apologies! None of us has enough information on this

but I can understand why people are worried.

[treestar]

2. Right.

And people 85 and over.

So all of this blast is on behalf on middle class and rich people. None of whom have ever fed any cat food to anyone but cats.

There is a retirement "minimum wage" in the proposal.

[n2doc]

5. Because of course if you aren't starving RIGHT NOW you deserve to!

Keep on worshipping your Icon. I hope for your sake you have put away a lot for retirement. Because by the time they are finished you will really need it to pay for your own medical and retirement expenses.

[Recursion]

7. If you're starving RIGHT NOW you aren't above the 20th percentile of retirees

So you don't get a cut. Get it?

[n2doc]

8. What about the Right Now part don't you understand?

So if I'm in the 25% percentile RIGHT NOW, that makes me middle class and I can 'afford' a cut, so that we can keep taxes low on the rich and banksters? I get you. Go back you your icon worshipping ways, I'm a professional leftist and clearly unreasonable and responsible for everything bad in this country.

[Recursion]

9. Yes, if you're in the 25th percentile you're not starving RIGHT NOW

Your checks will go up by somewhat less than those of people poorer than you. It's a progressive system.

so that we can keep taxes low on the rich and banksters?

"Bankster" still isn't a word; stop trying to make it happen.

And, no, in fact, this is being pushed as part of a deal that undoes the lion's share of the remaining Bush tax cuts. So, basically, you have it completely backwards.

[peace13]

33. How do we know if someone in the 25th percentile is starving or not.

Do they factor in medical expenses and medicine of the individual and family members?

It seems weird that we are trying to cut benefits that are marginal now for any reason. I guess I don't understand the hostility in this response.

[Hoyt]

41. Let's factor that in. Under Obama the Medicare drug donut hole is being eliminated, he has expanded

"free" preventive care; he's taken steps to improve quality of Medicare; etc. All of that is worth far more than any small COLA reduction in the budget. Yet folks still gripe.

[madokie]

49. Spot on.

The picture for me at 65 yo is better today than it was 4 years ago, yes thats true but the gripers aren't listening. Haters are going to hate, its as simple as that

[myrna minx]

52. So, chained CPI is a good thing? A plan that's supported by the Club for Growth?

I thought chained CPI was an elaborate bluff?

[madokie]

55. Chained cpi is not going to happen

By putting this in his budget he ensures that this will never be with this congress. the republicons are not going to do anything that Obama proposes. He knows that what he did isn't going to happen. I know that and many others know that. We have a bunch of chicken littles running around crying the sky is falling. Don't believe them, it only encourages more of the same.
The overall picture for a retiree today is better even if the ccpi was to happen due to obamacare and changes to medicare that it was before Obama took office.

[Whisp]

70. +1 ty. so hard sometimes... to be here. n/t

[PADemD]

112. Bankster IS a word

According to the Oxford Dictionary, it originated in the late 19th century.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bankster

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bankster

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bankster

[treestar]

10. People who are starving right now will see no change in their benefits

And so they are not starving. And they can apply for food stamps.

Your post is a work of performance art. Or irrational.

[n2doc]

12. So you are saying there is no problem with Elderly folks going hungry in this country?

You sure live in a nice country. Wonder which one it is. It isn't this one.

[Recursion]

15. Per AARP, the main problem is adults age 50-59

http://www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/our-work/hunger/info-2012/hunger-research-2011.html

That is, people who aren't yet on Social Security.

Now, if you want to talk about lowering the Social Security age to 55, I'm with you 100%. If, on the other hand, you want to claim that slowing the rate at which richer retirees' checks increase is a food security issue, I'm not with you.

[TheKentuckian]

165. Rich is now being above the absurdly low poverty line?

Why is it that you believe that most folks benefits are too generous?

That is the argument that you are making, that most beneficiaries have some fat to trim and are getting too much.

You are also arguing that anything above the absurdly low poverty line is fine.

Shit, you are even arguing that the poverty line is a good measure.

You also are stating against logic that anything above the very bottom is "middle" and that the middle is doing swell.

Look at the percentage of income and wealth held by percentage, once you get to the bottom 60% you find the majority battling over nothing and most of that held by those at 41-60% and that the next 20% doesn't even have much, the bottom two have shit.

Yeah, the folks above the bottom 20% do have it that bad.

[Oilwellian]

26. Do you ever hear yourself speak?

People who are starving right now will see no change in their benefits

And so they are not starving

Typical, circular, nonsensical logic coming from the Third Way.

[Skittles]

155. I could not even bother commenting on that riduclous statement

it's pathetic and sad

[progressoid]

53. "People who are starving right now...so they are not starving."

Uhhhh, whatdafuck?

[myrna minx]

54. So starving is our new baseline?

[Recursion]

65. Ask n2doc; that's who brought it up upthread

People who are starving have SNAP, and we need to expand that.

[Recursion]

6. Hell hath no fury like a middle-class retiree...

I didn't know about the age exemption, too: that's good.

[randome]

3. I didn't think it was that specific but I could be wrong.

And IF anything like this got off the ground -which it likely won't- I would bet there would be something like you just described as part of it.

However, the current COLA adjustments don't take into account health care costs as much as they should. It's possible, I suppose, that using chained CPI might INCREASE many SS payments.

[Recursion]

4. If many seniors move most of their expenses into health care, conceivably

Though one also hopes ACA's price control strategies for Medicare will have done a lot by then.

[treestar]

11. Right, it is merely a different method of calculating COLAs

Supposedly more accurate. It appears to be assumed it will cause a "cut" but it might in theory cause an increase. The real argument would be is it more accurate, in which case, it is perfectly just.

Remember the year when their was no COLA because there was no inflation? There was an outrage on DU of similar proportions. So those using this to stir up an outrage are not sincere. They don't want benefits raised only for inflation. They want a raise every year. If they want the benefits bigger, they need to tackle that issue, not hide behind this. And accept the fact that when they let Republicans win enough elections, no President can get it anyway and that includes their precious untested candidates.

[randome]

16. Well stated.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. It is not more accurate and sure as hell isn't for Seniors

Medical (and I think the second key one is housing) inflation costs are under represented in the Chained CPI, but they eat up a disproportional high percentage of retiree (and that of less well off people in general) incomes. Seniors are falling behind under the current system of measuring inflation - the Chained CPI accelerates that. It is the whole fucking point of changing the system - to give less money to those on Social Security - not to be "more accurate".

[Recursion]

34. How does a chained CPI understate medical expenses?

Please, do tell...

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Inflation is measured by weighing a mixed "market basket" of typical expenditures

The formulas measure price movements in a broad range of categories. Stuff like food, heating , transportation, housing, education, clothing, medical expenses, durable goods etc. etc. though those categories are often broken down further. There is no one magic objective measure of inflation because the variables all keep shifting, and not always in the same direction and not always at the same rate. So even though economists might "agree" using one formula for example, that inflation increased by 2.1% one year, for some individuals it might actually have fallen by .1% and for others it could have gone up by 4%.

On an individual basis the percentage of our incomes that we each spend on gas for our cars can vary wildly. The actual amount that we spend on gas doesn't vary all that much for a working class individual or someone who is wealthy. A working class guy might commute to work while a wealthy guy might work from home for example. So if gas prices spike and that variable is going up faster than the composite average of inflation measures, for someone who spends a relatively high percentage of their income on gas, for them most likely inflation that year on a personal level will be higher than it is for someone who does not.

The same is true of health costs. If the health cost aspect of the market basket inflation rate is consistently at the high inflationary end of the range of variables that are crunched to come up with the overall inflation rate, those who have a disproportionately high percentage of their income being spent on health care costs actually confront actual personal inflation that is higher than average. The Chained CPI, it is has consistently been reported, jiggers that inflation "market basket" in a way that some say is more accurate for a generic person (others say not), but the reshuffle of weighed impacts used to arrive at inflation projections is more poorly matched to reflect the types of expenditures most seniors have to make. It does not accurately reflect for the fact that seniors spend a statistically much higher percentage of their income on health costs than does an "average American".

[Recursion]

58. Right, but the point of a chained CPI is to *actually measure* what people spend

Rather than have economists argue about what they spend.

The Chained CPI, it is has consistently been reported, jiggers that inflation "market basket" in a way that some say is more accurate for a generic person

Close. It actually tracks what a sample of people spend. How is that going to understate medical expenses?

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. Any general CPI understates the inflation that the elderly see

because the elderly spend more on medical expenses, which increase in price faster than items that the elderly buy less of, such as electronics.

Now, at the moment you can at least say "seniors may be getting a bit screwed by us using an inaccurate inflation index for them, but at least we use an unchained one, so they get something back with that". Switch to a chained one, and you will be 'accurately' applying an unsuitable index to social security, that underestimates the inflation the recipients see.

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. It understates the inflationary impact of rising health care costs for seniors.

This "discussion" is about the impact of inflation on various demographic groups based on the percentage of their incomes that get spend on different categorizes. You realize of course that there are very few "average" Americans, kind of like it is difficult to find a family with 2.2 children? An "average" person might spend 20% of their income on housing. A poor person is lucky if they only have to spend 40% of their income on housing. When housing costs go up it hits the poor harder than the middle class. When medical costs go up it hits the elderly harder than the middle aged. Fortunately, since all of us hope to be elderly some day, FDR and Democrats after him built in safeguards to buffer that impact for Seniors - programs like Social Security and Medicare, the benefits for which are annually adjusted upwards to compensate for inflation. If a Senior has her medical expenses rise by 10%, that aspect of inflation is eating up her income faster than it does for an average American. Even under the current measure used to calculate overall inflation rates, Seniors are losing ground. Their bills are going up faster than the Cost of Living increases in their benefits currently compensate for. Under the Chained CPI formula, they will fall behind even faster.

IT IS EXACTLY THESE TYPE OF DETAILS THAT EXPLAIN HOW THE GOVERNMENT "SAVES" MONEY ON SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS BY SHIFTING TO THE CHAINED CPI.

[magical thyme]

31. if the inflation index accurately portrayed real price inflation

that would make sense.

As I recall, the things looked at in the inflation index do not necessarily reflect reality. So if you're going to make the argument that the inflation index is an accurate reflection of the rising costs of basic necessities, such as heating fuel, basic food costs, and health care then please provide the data. Forget eating out or eating fancy. I'm talking about the cost of rice and beans, which never go on sale, and which have gone up here and have led to food riots in other countries.

The problem I have with the proposal is that it sets a precedent. Today they are protecting the bottom 20%, but once they've cut benefits for some they've opened the door to cutting benefits for all.

[PA Democrat]

13. SS provides majority of income for 2/3 of retirees

For nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of elderly beneficiaries, Social Security provides the majority of their cash income. For more than one-third (36 percent), it provides more than 90 percent of their income. For one-quarter (24 percent) of elderly beneficiaries, Social Security is the sole source of retirement income.[21] (See figure below.)

Without Social Security benefits, more than 40 percent of Americans aged 65 and older would have incomes below the federal poverty line, all else being equal. With Social Security benefits, less than one-tenth of the elderly do. (See figure below.) The program lifts 14 million elderly Americans out of poverty.[18]

Almost 90 percent of people aged 65 or older receive some income from Social Security.[19] Those not receiving Social Security mostly comprise recent immigrants, state and local government retirees (and federal retirees hired before 1984) who are covered by separate retirement systems, people under age 66 with significant earnings, and people who are so seriously disabled that they never worked and also have never married.[20]


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3261

[PA Democrat]

17. More data before you pooh-pooh the impact:

Social Security benefits are much more modest than many people realize. In June 2012, the average Social Security retirement benefit was $1,234 a month, or about $14,800 a year.[13] (The average disabled worker and aged widow received slightly less.) For someone who worked all of his or her adult life at average earnings and retires at 65 in 2012, Social Security benefits replace about 41 percent of past earnings.[14] This “replacement rate” will slip to about 36 percent for a medium earner retiring at 65 in the future, chiefly because the full retirement age, which has already risen to 66, will climb to 67 over the 2017-2022 period.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3261

I guess seniors are the new"lucky ducks" with their extravagant benefits averaging $14,800 a year!

Is this Democratic Underground or the Club for Growth?

[randome]

21. I think benefits should be increased. But SS was never intended to be a pension.

The original intent was to supplement other pensions and savings. That's not how it's been used for a long time, though.

[Recursion]

23. Only about 20% of retirees use it as their *sole* income

The change from supplement to primary is something it wasn't designed for (and is another argument for raising benefits), but 20% keeps popping up -- that's pretty much the same people who are going to see their COLAs increased rather than decreased here.

[randome]

25. Interesting observation.

[enlightenment]

114. Interesting load of codswollop, really.

That "20%" refers to the highest earners - not "most" recipients.


2008 data


2010 data

?w=500
2012 data

[kiva]

125. Thank you for posting this info,

Thank you for posting this info, I'll be interested to see if the 20%ers will be coming back to acknowledge their error.

[Recursion]

129. 20% was the *lowest*, not highest, earners

It's "the 20% of people who receive the least in Social Security benefits" that we're talking about.

[enlightenment]

154. Nice try, but that's not what you said.

And I quote:

Only about 20% of retirees use it as their *sole* income

The change from supplement to primary is something it wasn't designed for (and is another argument for raising benefits), but 20% keeps popping up -- that's pretty much the same people who are going to see their COLAs increased rather than decreased here.

At issue here is your statement - not what you want to read into it. You continue to insist that this is not going to hurt the majority of SS recipients, because somehow - magically, I guess - the protection that the budget suggests will go to the "most vulnerable" will be extended to the majority of individuals for whom SS amounts to more than half of their income.

If you know something the rest of us don't, please share. Obviously, if you are in a position to unequivocally state that a senior who is drawing that average SS income of $14800 is NOT going to be impacted by CCPI, you should tell everyone whom you believe is over-reacting.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. I remember hearing about pensions.

They were all the rage back in the 50's, weren't they? Thank goodness wages have been going up over the last few decades so we could afford to stash away all of those savings

[randome]

32. I think you can still find mention of them in history books.

We need to recognize the reality that too many depend on SS for sole income. Raise the FICA cap. To do that, we need, at a minimum, a Democratically controlled House.

[PA Democrat]

44. At a time of elimination of defined benefits pensions, and stagnant wages

do we really think Social Security benefits should be offered in budget negotiations?

[randome]

50. No. I doubt anyone on DU thinks it's a good idea.

But it's not likely to go anywhere in the Senate or the House so I'm not worked up about it.

We need to raise the cap and increase payouts. But that has as much chance of actually occurring as Chained CPI. We need to get the House Republicans out!

[whatchamacallit]

68. All over the map of course

"It's not a big deal... Ok, it is a bad idea, but it's not gonna happen..." On and on it goes.

[myrna minx]

77. Read this very thread. The narrative is now changing. Now chained CPI is evolving into a good thing.

It didn't take long for it to evolve from a bluff to rope-a-dope the Republicans into into a good thing. It's wild.

[Recursion]

80. I've seen one person say it's good

I think it's a kind of petty way to nickel-and-dime middle class retirees and taxpayers. That's certainly not "good".

[randome]

82. It COULD be a good thing when combined with the 'donut hole' of prescription coverage.

We are all just speculating without actual figures or formulas to look at. So I don't think it's time to say 'The sky is falling' but it's probably time to let our Reps know there better not be a reduction to anyone!

[PA Democrat]

90. Yeah, pretty sickening, isn't it?

[neverforget]

94. Denial and then finally acceptance. Less is the new more.

[HERVEPA]

61. The original intent is irrelevant.

And companies used to provide pension and people worked for the same company for a long time.
You cannot possibly be liberal or compassionate or anything valued on this board with these heartless and disingenuous posts.

[Recursion]

22. Yes, SS is difficult to retire on by itself, and wasn't designed to be a sole income

It's the majority of income for 2/3, but the sole income for about 1/5 -- not coincidentally, pretty much the same group that is seeing their SS benefit increases grown rather than reduced in Obama's proposal.

[PA Democrat]

109. And people did not plan on stagnant wages, skyrocketing health care costs,

outsourced jobs, long term unemployment, etc. Great that the bottom 20% are protected but that is little consolation to people at say 25% is it? Considering that the average benefit is $14,800 we are not talking about people with extravagant lifestyles to begin with.

I'd suggest you review the numbers before appearing so nonchalant about people's concerns.



http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3261

[myrna minx]

113. We've had 30 + years of stagnent wages, our "investments" in the failed

401K experiment collapsed and many are now raising children and caring for elderly parents while contending with astronomical healthcare costs. Where are the unemployed to find money to squirrel away for retirement?

[Life Long Dem]

119. The budget would pump money into job creation

"Obama’s Progressive Budget"

"It is a budget that, if enacted, would pump money now into job creation, would stabilize the long-term deficit problem, would help alleviate the growing inequality in the country, would make some important investments in our future (including a universal pre-K program), would pocket some savings from the Pentagon (not yet enough, as Fred Kaplan rightly complains on Slate) and, finally, would face up to the crisis in entitlements before it becomes truly alarming."

http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/obamas-progressive-budget/?partner=rss&emc=rss

[myrna minx]

122. I agree there's some great ideas in his budget, but you

don't offer up the major plank of the party and the safety net of most of our seniors and most vulnerable to "hope" to create jobs. Where is the crisis in entitlements? SS is not in "crisis". It's solvent for decades to come. The only SS crisis is that the trust fund was raided for the Bush tax cuts and two wars and the 1% doesn't want to pay it back.

[Life Long Dem]

153. The crisis will be coming within 30 years!!!

Not like there is a big rush, but if Obama doesn't do it then someone needs to do it. Since the Republicans don't want to pay it, I wouldn't trust they would get this done if in office.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. You are correct.

[Life Long Dem]

18. The poorest

I hear, if they are below the poverty line, they will be lifted to above the poverty line. Doesn't sound third way to me. Sounds like Obama is helping out the poorest of poor. It's a bunch of shit some on the left are feeding people. The same ones who threw Obama under the bus when he didn't solve the worlds problems 15 minutes into his first term.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. You keep typing that all over DU without any supporting facts and without details.

The poorest will continue to get the COLA everyone gets now. The one that leaves them in poverty. There is NO increase to their COLA, it will remain as it is currently calculated and spare them the cuts others will face.
You make lots of assertions always with built in snide commentary toward those who do not support the cuts you support, but never, ever with a citation of any actual figures, facts, links from SSA, you just declare it and expect that others will believe it. Others have Google.
If the current COLA leaves the poorest in great need, how will retaining that same COLA lift them out of poverty? It won't. You just say it will. Without a shred of proof.

[myrna minx]

46. Then if it's such a great proposal, one that's supported by the Club for Growth, then why

are his most ardent supporters on DU claiming it's a bluff? Why isn't the President having a press conference about it if it's so helpful to seniors? Why did the President's spokesperson state the only reason it was included in the budget was at the behest of the Republicans with the hope for a grand bargain?

[randome]

51. I don't think it's a bluff. I DO think it was a mistake.

Norquist calls Chained CPI a 'tax increase'.

[PA Democrat]

83. Because it IS a tax increase that is skewed to impact the middle class

at a much greater rate than the wealthiest. The chained CPI will be used to adjust marginal income tax rates and it will make the income tax LESS progressive.



http://www.thenation.com/blog/173786/top-5-myths-about-chained-cpi-debunked#

[randome]

96. There are protections mentioned in the budget, too.

For various income levels.

And the 'donut hole' for prescription coverage may offset some or all of any possible reductions.

But I agree that NO ONE on SS should have their benefits reduced. And I see Chained CPI as going nowhere in any of the budget committees so I think we should let our dissatisfaction be known to our Reps and move on to the next issue.

[Life Long Dem]

63. I think this bill is about 4 months away

I'm not sure though. But there's time for Obama to talk about it. I don't think it's Obama's most ardent supporters that are calling it a bluff. I think it's the same group who threw Obama under the bus 15 minutes into his first term. There are some supporters who got caught up in this talk from this group because they came on really fast over this, but I think they will come back around once all the details are out there.

Fight the greedy and feed the needy.

[myrna minx]

71. You're *for* chained CPI? This is a good proposal?

So the President's more ardent supporters are *for* this proposal? I've been reading all week that this proposal is just a bluff to make the Republicans look bad. It's interesting to see the narrative evolve.

So is this a serious proposal from the President?

[Life Long Dem]

88. I'd like more from COLA

But...if not... well... then you need to look at the bigger picture this budget proposal has in it. I hear there are a lot of good things in this budget.

There were 2 recent years where there wasn't even a COLA adjustment. And this year was - 1.7 percent or something like that? Yeah, I'd like to see more from COLA.

[myrna minx]

103. Wow. I just don't know what to say. I can't believe some Dems are just willing

to shrug their shoulders at the erosion of a major plank of our party. The big picture is that SS adds nothing to the deficit. It should never be used as such.

[Rex]

108. Desperate people will grasp at straws

and claim them as gold bars as they fall off the cliff. We are there myrna minx. You are witnessing normal people accepting these unacceptable conditions, because we are that far into a depression as the working class that a crusty piece of cheese looks like cheesecake.

We are that far gone.

[Life Long Dem]

110. Jimmy Carter did the same thing in 1977

"Carter" made an adjustment to the CPI in "1977". House, Senate, and Presidency, were all controlled by Democrats.

Lawrence O'Donnell explained it all last last, and said we have been there and done that already. Reagan, Clinton. and Nixon as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. That is pretty misleading. No one will be lifted above the poverty line by Chained CPI

No one. The only argument is whether more people will be dropped below it because of the changes. The best that anyone can hope for under this proposed change is that they are already so poor that they will get to keep the same meager level of Social Security payments that they are getting now. The Chained CPI is about reducing payments - period. No one gets helped by it.

[sabrina 1]

137. What did SS have to do with the deficit? Why would a Democrat perpetuate the

Republican lie that SS in some way created the deficit?

All the rest is noise, this is the most egregious aspect of this proposal and we Democrats will be dealing with it long after this president is no longer in office.

I would love to hear an answer to that, the only question that matters. SS did not belong in these discussions. Pete Petersen and Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles and Wall St wanted in the discussion because they are liars and right wingers, but why would a Democratic President even listen to those disgusting, greedy right wingers who have no interest in the poor whatsoever?

[timdog44]

141. This is the problem I have with the so called

and arbitrary poverty line. If it is $14000, and this new proposal with the chained CPI makes provisions to raise these people above the poverty line, are we talking that $15000 is not in reality still poverty even though above the defined poverty line? I think the poverty line is at a far to low level. In fact to say poverty in America, and I know I am back in my dreamland again, is just wrong. There is so much money in this country that no one should even be considered at poverty. But there is a big grey area from poverty line to fairly comfortable that the people in that grey area get forgotten.

[eridani]

161. The "poverty line" is just a bunch of irrelevant horseshit

It is calculated by pricing a bare minimum food basket and multiplying that number by three. Rent, utilities and medical expenses are not considered. Giving the poorest 20% more money is always a good thing, but they are only lifted out of fantasy "poverty," not real poverty.

[aandegoons]

19. 2010 seniors fled democrats.

"Voters over 65 favored Republicans last week by a 21-point margin after flirting with Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections and favoring John McCain by a relatively narrow 8-point margin in 2008. "

2012

Seniors counted for 21% of the electorate (based on 2010 figures)
Barack Obama 44%
Mitt Romney 56%
2008

Seniors counted for 16% of the electorate
Barack Obama 45%
John McCain 53%
2004

Seniors counted for 16% of the electorate
G.W. Bush 52%
John Kerry 47%
2000

Seniors were 14% of the electorate
G.W. Bush 47%
Al Gore 51%
1996

Seniors were 16% of the electorate
Bill Clinton 50%
Bob Dole 44%

You sure are working hard to get more republicans elected. I am sure glad that you are so sure that we do not need seniors to get elected.

[Recursion]

20. Voters 18-29 outnumbered voters 65+ in 2012

That's only going to continue.

[aandegoons]

64. So we don't need 50+ folks.

Ok I got ya.


Good luck with that.

[Recursion]

67. Well, we're winning without them right now

That's the most Republican-voting segment of the electorate right now. Obviously we'd love to have them in the coalition, but it's not clear at this point what they bring to the table.

[aandegoons]

74. we are calling it close when we should be no where near the repukes.

Do you think that will be better when you loose 80% of the 50+ crowd?

[jeff47]

140. Turnout among young voters plummets in non-presidential years

Seniors always show up.

Young voters don't if nobody's running for President.

Pissing off seniors is a great way to lose non-presidential years.

[eridani]

162. That was because Democrats flat out refused to defend traditional Medicare

ACA cut subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans, and the Repukes successfully framed this as an attack on Medicare.

[duffyduff]

24. It shouldn't be proposed, period.

But Obama has been hellbent on cutting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid since four days before he was inaugurated.

The reason is to help bail out his Wall Street backers who tanked the economy.

They need to be serving prison time not be influencing national policy.

[randome]

30. Read the rest of this thread.

It's possible Chained CPI combined with the 'donut hole' of prescription drug coverage will amount to an increase for most.

I'm not saying this is a fact, just that it's not time to say the sky is falling.

[Life Long Dem]

38. It's not a cut in SS

It's an adjustment. Just as every year we have a COLA adjustment. For a couple years recently we had NO COLA adjustment!. In YOUR mind "is" that a cut in SS? Then we been there done that then.

And by the way we have been there. "Carter" made an adjustment to the CPI in "1977". House, Senate, and Presidency, all controlled by Democrats. Wrap that around your head.

[jehop61]

28. Walk into any Casino

and look at the average age of gamblers. Bet its about 65. Do you think a lower cost of living increase is going to make much difference? The President negotiates differently than most. We trusted him with our vote so lets trust him to govern. Im leery too, but he knows what he's doing. Let's let this play out without freaking out. Way too much energy wasted on DU lately. Glad I voted for him and I'm a senior.

[Jersey Devil]

37. Oh yeah, Social Security is a gambling stake for greedy seniors

You really should be ashamed to have posted that.

[jehop61]

57. my point

Was that many, many seniors will not starve or be reduced to eating catfood with chained cpi AND this could be a ploy to show up the repubs. We just don't know yet. Since I have personally experienced retirement and those retired, I do know whats going on in that age group. Let's give this thing more time before panicing.

[Jersey Devil]

95. Another Obama the grand chess master post

Great gambit! Fake out the Republicans by giving them a gift they can campaign on in 2014 that Democrats want to cut Social Security. What a genius! The old trojan horse trick, eh?

BTW, just because you are retired that doesn't make you some sort of expert on the plight of seniors in general by your observance of them in gambling halls. Though I am still working I have plenty of friends who are retired whose sole income is Social Security. One in particular sleeps with his coat on so he doesn't have to turn on the heat and he sure as hell ain't hanging out in any casino.

[jehop61]

115. Sorry

But I've only been in gambling halls twice in 16 years of retirement (briefly). See, you shouldn't judge. Your friend with no heat will likely be exempt as he's probably in the 25% exemption group. Take a ride to Florida, (or Arizona, or Texas or the Carolinas, etc.) drive around the state(s) and you'll see millions of seniors doing pretty well. Not to panic. Nothing is written down yet and DUers seem to be going crazy.

[kiva]

132. And walk into any club or most concertss

and you'll see people under 30 spending a great deal of money on entertainment...so what? Does that mean we should cut WIC?

[jehop61]

158. oh dear

no, it just means those that can afford to go to concerts likely aren't on the WIC program. If they are, perhaps they could better spend their funds elsewhere. All I am saying is let this thing play out without getting crazed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. "if you're in the 25th percentile you're not starving RIGHT NOW"

You posted that in one of your replies on this thread. You have been using starvation as a measure for poverty. Seriously, you have. More than once on this thrad. Do you realize what many people on Social Security do to keep from starving? The don't turn on the heat until the temperature in their home drops below 50 degrees. They flirt with eviction on a continual basis. They alternate days when they take their meds.

I do not believe that you read any authoritative source that the bottom 20% of people on Social Security will be exempted from the Chained CPI. As far as I can see, and I have been looking, no specific figures have been released, but the term being thrown around is "those below the poverty line." You remember all of the debate that's been going on about whether or not Republican governors will accept the Medicaid expansion that is part of Obamacare and how important it is to so many people's lives that the Medicaid cut off level be raised? Do you realize that the proposed new standard is to include people earning, I think I have the figure right but if not it is close - up to 133% of the poverty line? And you think it is reasonable to cut Social Security benefits for those whose income puts them at 105% of the poverty line?

You are using the fucking poverty line as a justification for shrinking the safety net for everyone even marginally above it?!? People working at full time at minimum wage have incomes above the poverty line? Do you think we should cut the minimum wage too?

[Oilwellian]

43. It's your typical, Third Way propaganda

I can smell the stench from a mile away.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. You nailed it Tom, and there is a good reason all of these defenses of the cuts

offer no authoritative sources, why they persist in posing their statements in the form of questions. If they actually used the numbers, they would be ashamed to type the defenses.

[The Link]

47. This new justification is fucking sick.

That seems to be the new tactic. Its not a big deal. No one will even notice.

Disgusting.

[Recursion]

59. No, you're confusing me with n2doc

n2doc said "what if I'm starving RIGHT NOW". And I said if you are, you aren't above the bottom 20%. Address your concerns about starving being a metric for poverty to n2doc, please.

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. No I'm not. You may not have said it first but you said it:

Header for post #9 by you:
"Yes, if you're in the 25th percentile you're not starving RIGHT NOW"

The quote I used if from your post. I don't think n2doc even used that exact quote, just you. And I am not quoting you out of context. You AGREED with n2doc.

[Recursion]

106. I certainly did not agree with n2doc. I thought that post was silly and derailing (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. It's ever so progressive to cut SS for all but the poor while not raising the taxes of the rich.

[cali]

60. this thead is so depressing with all the fucking right wing memes

and stupid clueless heartless asshole comments.

[Recursion]

62. Two issues

1. Yes, cutting for all but the poor is in fact "progressive" in the technical sense.

2. This is being proposed as part of a deal that includes raising taxes on the rich

So, your point was....?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Why the "deal"? Considering there a multitude of other ways to find the money.

And, how is "helping the poor" by making those not quite poor enough poor by cutting their benefits?

[Recursion]

69. Because it passes a budget

I'm curious if you also think Sophie wanted her child to die?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Is there no other way to raise the money?

Who the hell is Sophie and should I care?

[Recursion]

76. You've never heard of a Sophie's Choice?

It was a book and movie, and is used a lot in ethical arguments. A mother has two kids and the Nazi's say if you don't shoot one we'll shoot both, so she shoots one. That doesn't mean she wanted that kid to die.

Chained CPI is not what any Democrat "wants", but it's the least stupid way to decrease entitlement spending.

The fact that decreasing entitlement spending isn't a great idea is completely irrelevant to the fact that the American people have elected a House that wants to see it happen, so don't even go there.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. At what point in the film did Sophie offer a proposal to kill one of the kids?

As I recall, it was not her proposal at all, but rather a hideous choice imposed upon her suddenly and without warning by cruel right wing racists with an agenda far out of her control.
Sophie did not draw up a proposal to kill one child to protect the other and send that to the Nazis, not as I remember the film.
As I remember the film, it was the proposal and demand itself that was evil, her choice was not her choice at all her choice was both children live but she had no actual choice. The film condemns not her choice, but the proposal of that choice and the imposition of that choice upon Sophie. The proposal itself was a great act of violence against Sophie.
Hint: the Nazis were the bad guys in that movie!

[whatchamacallit]

84. I know, right?

Ridiculous.

[myrna minx]

93. No kidding! This thread is surreal.

[Bluenorthwest]

104. It certainly is absurd. Theater of Cruelty comes to mind.

That Sophie analogy really gave me a twinge. Does the person actually think it was Sophie's idea to make that 'choice' or what?
It shows the intellectual level of those who defend cuts to poor people because it exempts the incredibly poor. Or course that crowd is hard up for literary or cinematic references that would support that which they support, but Sophie? They could at least draw from Ayn Rand, as is traditional when ranting about the burden of the takers and all.

[myrna minx]

111. I was actually stunned by that comment.

Thanks for putting it far better and I ever could.

[Rex]

116. DU is so strange lately, I believe I am seeing the scope of some peoples

comprehension on this topic or something else entirely.

[The Link]

97. Dumbest analogy ever.

Did Sophie walk up to the Nazi and offer one of her children.

Jesus.

[PA Democrat]

147. +1000

[Bluenorthwest]

72. What is the standard you are using for 'poor'?

Because the way this CPI change is applied, I don't see it as very progressive in the technical or in any other sense.
What is the break off point you use, where you would say 'that's not poor at all, that person needs less increases'?
Do you know what the break off for exemptions is in the proposal? Can you cite them for us?

[Liberalynn]

81. And it's ever so progressive to hit women harder than men

as Social Security Administration predicts this will. Like we don't already get the short shrift already.

[BlueCheese]

87. We won't raise taxes on the top 3%...

... but we'll propose curtailing the benefits of the top 80% of freaking senior citizens.

What's become of the Democratic Party?

[Recursion]

89. We have raised taxes on the top 3%, and this is part of a proposal to raise them more

So, umm... sort of the opposite of what you said.

[BlueCheese]

100. Sorry-- I meant top 3% as opposed to the top 1%.

Didn't keeping the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 protect those in the 97-99th percentiles?

[Yo_Mama]

91. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised by the answer!!!

Note that senior household incomes will continue to decline in the coming years, but 28% of senior households already have incomes of 20K or less:


More than half of all senior households have incomes less than 35K a year.

Compare that to the US national median household income around 50K a year. 67% of all senior households have incomes of 50K a year or less.

Over 7% of all senior households have incomes less than 10K. Over 18% of senior households have incomes less than 15K. Over 28% of senior households have incomes less than 20K. Thus the cut kicks in probably around 16-17K a year. Perhaps you think these people are just rolling in clover. I'd say no.

You are talking about cutting incomes for a bunch of senior households with less than 20K in annual income, and many of those household contain 2 people!!!.

Over 37% of all senior households have incomes of less than 25K annually, and again, many of those are two person households.

So yes, the middle income senior households ARE doing that badly. Also the "higher" income groups actually have lower living standards than it would appear. The lowest income seniors get Medicaid, so they don't pay the Medicare part A premiums ($1,200 plus annually), or the 20% copay and deductibles. And they are on food stamps. As soon as you get beyond that level, most of the senior households are paying that, which promptly lops about another 3K a year of their "real" incomes, which does not show up in the Census figures.

So lop another 3K off the incomes of the 15% of senior households who have income between 25 and 35K a year.

You can confirm that the above figures are correct by referring to the 2011 Census data at this page:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/hhinc/hinc02_000.htm

Use the top table and scroll down to find the 65 and over table.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. Thanks for injecting some facts and figures.

nt

[Recursion]

107. OK, where does the cut-off kick in?

That's something I don't know; I have heard "the lowest 20%" but I have no idea if that's true, and whether it counts net worth or just income.

[Yo_Mama]

118. I haven't been able to get the details

I've read the president's budget, but neither the SSA portion nor the general portion gives details:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

Therefore, I am drawing just on the 20% figure given out by admin talking heads.

It would have to be on benefits paid or household incomes, because there is nothing that allows the government to accurately figure net worths. In the past such measures (such as the higher Medicare premiums) have been done on the basis of income reported on tax returns.

In the summary tables portion it combines the SS/other taxes together for CPI, so I can't even calculate it backward.

I can tell you that the budget also contains increases in the Medicare deductible which would cost some seniors even more than chained CPI.

[Recursion]

126. The bottom third or so of seniors are dual-eligible

So the part B premium increase won't really affect them since Medicaid covers that. (Yes, there will be some corner cases as higher Medicaid costs drive some people off the rolls. There are unfortunate corner cases in any plan, including the current one.)

It would have to be on benefits paid or household incomes, because there is nothing that allows the government to accurately figure net worths.

That's a good point, and a shame. There's a huge difference in $14k of income with a house free and clear and $14k of income renting a room.

[Yo_Mama]

160. But it doesn't save much money!

Some seniors (quite a few, really) who are just making it right now aren't on Medicaid/SNAP. As these policies are implemented, a ton more seniors are going to be driven into eligibility and a lot of those who were eligible before but weren't signed up will sign up.

This imposes thousands of dollars ( averaging at least $3,500 a year, maybe more like $5,000 a year) in cost for each additional enrollee. But your savings are marginal on each SS recipient who doesn't sign up, so this is not a very good way to reduce the deficit.

There are other proposals in the budget - such as raising Part D premiums for the lowest-income beneficiaries - that will have more effect, but the big "savings" comes in the form of a regressive income tax increase on lower income earners and the IPAB limit, which is supposed to be cut from GDP + 1% to GDP + 0.5%. That is a huge change, and the only way to accomplish that would be to cut overall Medicare coverages pretty sharply.

There is also the attempt to raise Medigap rates because the administration doesn't want seniors to buy high coverage policies. But it really is true that cancer clinics are dumping Medicare patients, and often the ones they are dumping are the ones who don't have those Medigap policies. For many poorer seniors, those Medigap policies are the only way they can get medical care for some conditions.

If you take the proposals all together, they amount to a HUGE attack on retirees.

[NYC_SKP]

145. Thank you for posting this. (nt)

[Rex]

152. So in other words there is not a magic '20% protection' legal wording

in the budget proposal?

[Yo_Mama]

159. Here's the text

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.

This didn't sound to me like there was any protection for the lower income SS recipients at all, except that they won't be raising the bar for food stamps or Medicaid. Note that this is an implicit concession that in fact C-CPI-U is not an accurate method of calculating inflation.

Also they are planning to give a step-up when you are 80 or something like that.

I think the "protection" in the budget proposal is composed of poverty programs, which they know perfectly well that many more elderly people will have to use. But that is one of the reasons that the program actually won't save much money - most of the 230 billion in deficit reduction over ten years they claim will be from higher taxes on lower-income workers. Look at the last page in this segment.

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

However in oral statements the claim was made that they would protect the bottom rung of SS recipients, so I am not willing to call the administration outright liars. But it does not seem to be in the budget posted on Whitehouse.gov.

[Rex]

163. Thank you!

That is what I have been wondering this whole time. I did not see anything in the proposal, but could have missed it. So it is really more programs to help the poor and like you said, knowing that a lot of elderly will be among them.

[Yo_Mama]

164. Laughing

Rex, as soon as I read your post I had the mental vision of thousands of people all reading through the budget stuff, all thinking they had missed it.

Because that's exactly what I thought, so then I went back and read most of it again.

[Progressive dog]

105. Yup, only 80% get screwed

only one out of 6 seniors lives in poverty so the 20% includes over 3% of seniors who don't need all that money. How generous.
There is no spin that can make this right.

[MannyGoldstein]

117. Totally. Utterly. Wrong.

And if it were true - which it isn't - it wouldn't matter.

[Recursion]

127. Your basis for that?

Why is every reporter on this wrong?

[MannyGoldstein]

139. Gotta link?

I've googled and found no such thing.

[graham4anything]

123. very interesting. That is how I read it myself.

[gollygee]

124. Are only the bottom 20% having trouble?

Most seniors I know are barely scraping by. Certainly well over 20%. And I'm pretty wealthy so I'd think the seniors I know would be more likely to be among the more wealthy as well.

I think most seniors can't afford this. Well more than 20%.

I don't really like the concept of chained CPI at all. You have less money, so you adjust your spending so you won't fall too far behind, and then the money you saved by adjusting your spending is taken so you fall behind anyway.

[Recursion]

128. Most retirees I know own their house, which is unimaginable to me

If I didn't have to pay rent, I'm not sure how much money I would need, for that matter.

[gollygee]

130. Really?

Wow. Most retirees I know rent and can barely afford the rent. I know a few really wealthy seniors who own their own houses, but almost none.

ETA: You probably don't have the medical expenses of a senior citizen.

[Recursion]

131. Yes, but most retirees I know are in small rural towns in the South or in my neighborhood in DC

In both cases, they've owned their houses for decades now.

[gollygee]

134. I doubt anywhere vaguely close to 80% of seniors own their own homes

I see post #91 shows how much money seniors actually have. And they have lots of medical expenses.

Once upon a time a lot of seniors did own their own homes, but there was a push to get seniors to cover their medical expenses by doing "reverse mortgages",and I don't think that many do. Also, a lot of seniors have had to take out mortgages on houses they've lived in for a great deal of time to cover expenses for themselves or their children. There could very well be people living in houses they have mortgaged, and in fact maybe chained to the house because housing values have gone down many places so some people, including seniors, own more on a house than it's worth.

And even then a lot of seniors never owned a house. My parents must be above average as far as wealth goes and never had a house that was paid for.

[Recursion]

143. 81% over 65 own their home

Funny how we keep coming back to an 80/20 split

[gollygee]

144. I saw 81% listed in the census as home owners

but it appeared to include people with mortgages. What is your source that 81% of seniors own their own homes and no longer have any mortgage?

[Recursion]

156. At that age many have reverse mortgages, which is kind of the point

It's a way to transform your house into an annuity.

[gollygee]

157. That number doesn't just include people with reverse mortgages

it includes regular old mortgages too.

And reverse mortgages aren't always that great: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/business/reverse-mortgages-costing-some-seniors-their-homes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Really your number just means "80% of seniors don't rent." It isn't about how many are paying a mortgage or not.

[PA Democrat]

148. Wow. It sounds like you begrudge them having a roof over their heads.

It also appears that you do not understand that there are still significant costs to owning a home even if your mortgage is paid in full. Property taxes in my middle class neighborhood run more than $4,000 a year, and then there is insurance and all of the utilities and maintenance. Roofs need to be replaced, furnaces, water heaters, and appliances break. Many elderly pay for help with things like yard work and snow removal.

A lot of the seniors who own homes are struggling to hold on to them as it is the only sizable asset they have left. Many have taken out reverse mortgages, many have liens on them due to a spouse who has had to resort to Medicaid for nursing home care. Many have adult children living with them to help out with expenses.

Things are not always as hunky dory as they appear. A lot of us are helping to keep aging parents financially afloat.

[madfloridian]

136. It will turn the "middle and higher" into the most vulnerable. Stop with the BS

[Recursion]

138. I don't buy it

I don't buy that having a somewhat smaller increase than they otherwise would -- and still making more than the people poorer than them -- will turn someone into the "most vulnerable".

[madfloridian]

142. Democrats are making cuts from which they must protect the poorest.

That in itself is a shame.

[Enrique]

151. yes n/t