Why are we debating cuts to Social Security?

[abelenkpe]

Why are we debating cuts to Social Security?

http://news.yahoo.com/why-debating-cuts-social-security-095809481.html

The Washington elites apparently believe that we are in the worst downturn since the Great Depression because of free spending seniors running wild with their Social Security cheques. What else could explain their obsession with cutting Social Security benefits?

The fashionable cut these days is adopting a "chained" consumer price index for the annual cost of living adjustment. This chained index would reduce the size of the adjustment by 0.3 percentage points annually. This cut is especially pernicious. Since it is cumulative, it would hit the oldest of the elderly hardest. Beneficiaries would see their cheques cut by 3 percent 10 years after they start collecting benefits, by 6 percent after 20 years and beneficiaries in their 90s would see cuts of close to 9 percent.

Of course, Social Security is supposed to be off-budget so it really should not even be included in budget negotiations. From the standpoint of its own finances, it's hard to see how any defender of the programme would support these cuts.

Burden on the economy

In the long-term, Social Security is projected to face a shortfall that will have to be dealt with in the decades ahead. Presumably this would involve some additional revenue and probably also some spending cuts. Why would any supporter of Social Security agree to these benefit cuts now, without getting anything whatsoever on the revenue side?

But the bigger question is why the President and Congress are even discussing such nonsense at all?

(more at link)

[SugarShack]

1. Keep these post coming and keep them kicked! Democrats don't do this, they ENHANCE IT!!

For cripes sake!

For putting the people through this BS during Christmas and our New Year celebrations with family, we need to throw these bums out! All of them. The BIGGEST races ever are on the horizon. Our most important issues are legislated in congress. They've all been there way too long. They pulled this crap when dems had all three branches too, before we lost the house. We know who the four or five good ones are, and those constituents can help other districts nearby. KICK THEM OUT!

[indepat]

2. Because the oligarchs and plutocrats will not allow the government to raise the sufficient revenue

needed to operate the government, service its debt, and meet its obligations for such would require the most affluent and large corporations to bear an equitable portion of that tax burden. Therefore, the old, the frail, and the poor are to be gouged and saddled with the brunt of this shortfall in revenue: certainly no meaningful reductions will be made to a bloated MIC geared for exerting global hegemony. See, this is simple: it surely ain't rocket science.

[abelenkpe]

3. So sad and so true. nt