Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:26 PM Apr 2013

Curious... does anyone FAVOR the CPI proposal?

Like, you know... affirmatively FAVOR it.

Like, "I think this is good policy and should be adopted."

Can someone make an affirmative argument for the thing as policy so that such an argument will exist be discussed on its merits?

It seems perverse to have a raging policy debate wherein there is no advocacy for the policy.

(An argument that people opposed to a policy are risible, disloyal, effeminate, hysterical and/or un-serious is, whatever its merits, not affirmative advocacy of a policy. I am talking about defending the policy itself.)

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
2. To tell the truth, I don't understand it.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:37 PM
Apr 2013

But in general, I don't think SS payments are going up too fast, so if this means they go up more slowly, then it seems like it is not a good idea. Before we do this, we should remove or at least significantly raise the cap on income subject to the SS payroll tax and I suspect SS would be good for many years to come even with the current method of calculating COLAs. I would like to see Obama propose that and see if he can get it through Congress.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
3. We are not going to remove the cap. Even our Representatives and Senators are not going to remove
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 03:08 PM
Apr 2013

cap.

If you would like to see Obama propose removing the cap, don't hold your breath. He said that he was going to propose removing the cap more than two years ago. He didn't do that. He's had plenty of time. If he wanted to do that (in a sincere way), he would have done that.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
4. In politics, you try not to push an issue you know will lose.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 03:12 PM
Apr 2013

The proposed Chained CPI is also politics but it's to peel off a few Republicans from the House to support the revenue increases.

I think.

Politics is not rational nor consistent.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
9. No one's ever really looked for that
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 03:29 PM
Apr 2013

It surely has been debated before. There is some argument is more accurately adjusts for inflation, but nobody has bothered to look into that. Basically someone looked for something to be outraged about and found something that, with hyperbole, can be called a "cut" to SS.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
11. I think it's a Schroedinger's cat kind of thing.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 03:32 PM
Apr 2013

The Third Way Obamaian interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday policy proposals results in a contradiction with common sense.

The scenario presents a boxed senior citizen who may be both alive or dead, impoverished or well-fed, depending on the political spin of the day. When the policy is being proffered as a cynical multidimensional chess game to expose the avarice of Republicans, it is malignant policy and no Democrat actually supports it. However, when the policy is presented as a serious and necessary reaching out to Republicans to which munificent safeguards have been applied to perhaps keep from fully starving the already starving, it is artful policy being maliciously miscast by poutragers and hissyfitters.

The Third Way interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the senior citizen is simultaneously helped and harmed by the proposal. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the senior citizen either alive or starving/dead, not both alive and starving/dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.


We have to get the damned corporatists out of our party.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
12. Yes, I do. Anyone that really know the intent and history of SS will favor the President's
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:41 PM
Apr 2013

proposal. It is better to adjust increases to reflect inflation rather than have an axe taken to the program later. Those that are frothing at the mouth about Chained CPI should study the history and intent of Social Security, the program was NOT created to take care of the needs of everyone, FDR didn't want that. I for one favor raising the SS Tax Cap and means testing for recipients that can fore-go some benefits, I am pure on this because I will pay if both changes are implemented, that is more than some of the mouth frothers are willing to admit to.

 

Arugula Latte

(50,566 posts)
16. Why in the world wouldn't you favor a solution that wouldn't hurt the most vulnerable?
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:06 PM
Apr 2013

The banksters, the military and the top two percent are swimming in trillions. It's ridiculous we're even mentioning Social Security.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
15. There are many in this thread that favor the policy
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:00 PM
Apr 2013

OP Jaysunb
Emotions are running high about SS and these supposed cuts to the program, but as a recipient and strong supporter, I urge others to take a look at the facts as they were presented in this segment.

I don't remember who said it, but I remember a quote about trying to fit a man in a boys coat. Four Presidents since FDR (Francis Perkins) created SS , have made cuts/adjustments to the program. (Nixon,Carter,Reagan and Clinton) In every case there was either a Democratic controlled Congress or voted for by a majority of Democrats. The sky is not falling.

And btw, I got 0 cola the first three years I drew SS. The $21 bucks a month don't make too big a difference in real life. I'm still poor.....




http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022658518

Robb

(39,665 posts)
17. I favor the idea.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:11 PM
Apr 2013

I don't however like the measurement it's being "chained" to. It makes good policy sense to tie benefits to actual costs of living, but I don't think the index used is adequate.

I believe I expressed support early on, when it appeared a better index was being proposed that might more accurately reflect the costs of goods and services as felt by beneficiaries.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Curious... does anyone FA...