And Now: Back down on earth, we have a trainload of shit barreling our way

[cali]

Sure I celebrated last night. The knot in my stomach eased. I was relieved that the Dems held firm. Now it's the cold light of day; the sober morning following, and the realities of what's to come can't and shouldn't be ignored.

Here's what the cold light of day on this rainy, post-foliage Vermont morning, illuminates:

* We are still under sequester spending and that means cuts- past, present and future. further- and deeper sequester cuts coming in January.

* The agreement forged yesterday includes a commitment to resume budget cuts- and EVERYTHING is on the table. You know as well as I what that means. From Joan Walsh's excellent piece in Salon:

I just watched Sen. Chuck Schumer tell MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that once this deal is out of the way, Congress will resume budget negotiations, and everything, including so-called “entitlements,” must be on the table. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was a little bit more balanced, insisting Democrats should only look at entitlement cuts in exchange for more revenues from people who can pay more. “Why should Granny pay the price?” without asking the rich to share the sacrifice, Pelosi asked.

But with all due respect to the once (and perhaps future) speaker, who’s been the toughest Democrat over the last five years: The answer is Granny shouldn’t pay any price. When Social Security needs “fixing,” we should lift the cap on
income subject to the payroll tax. The chained CPI is a cut and shouldn’t be a first offer, but a last resort.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/16/thats_how_you_treat_a_bully_democrats_win_and_learn_a_huge_lesson/

* Entitlement Cuts. That's what's looming:

Talk about counter-programming: A coalition of Social Security advocates plans a one-day summit meeting later this month to talk about ways to expand Social Security benefits to address America's retirement security crisis. Unfortunately, it looks like Washington will be changing the channel.

If we do manage to sidestep the shutdown-Obamacare-debt ceiling-default crisis this week with our economic system intact, it looks like Congress and the White House will enter a new round of negotiations to cut Social Security - and Medicare.

I don't need a crystal ball to make this forecast. Entitlement cuts are on the agenda not only for Republicans, but for the White House, which included cuts to Social Security and Medicare in its budget for the fiscal year that was supposed to start October 1st. So, the dialog in Washington will keep moving in the wrong direction: taking money out of the pockets of older Americans at a time when Social Security benefits already were cut by 1983 legislation, pensions are vanishing and many approaching retirement haven't saved enough.


<snip>
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-column-miller-cuts-idUSBRE99E11L20131015

The republican extremists and their followers may not be holding us all hostage now, but the threat that they'll pick up the gun again and hold it to our heads, still remains. It's not as existential a threat at this point, but that agreement is for just a few short months and their future behavior depends on polls (and who knows, with the American public?) and how the administration and dems in the House and Senate deal with them.

So it's back to hectoring our reps and telling them that the poor, elderly and working folks shouldn't be asked to shoulder the pain of sequestration or the chained CPI or cuts to just about every other social program extant. Or that the environment shouldn't take a big hit. It's back to objecting to inevitable tax cut proposals that benefit the wealthy.

The facts are that poor people, the elderly and working people have already taken big hits and made those sacrifices that even many dems are demanding they make. No more should be asked of them. Nothing has been asked of the wealthy or corporations. They've made no sacrifices. Where are the dem representatives yelling this from the rooftop? I can count them on one hand. Time for many more to loudly speak out and say just that.

So it's back to demanding/pleading that our democratic representatives hold the line against the tide of rising inequality that threatens to sweep us away like so much detritus.

[Laelth]

1. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[rosesaylavee]

2. K&R

[dorkzilla]

3. K & R--hopefully their backbone is here to stay n/t

[idwiyo]

4. k&r

[TreasonousBastard]

5. I hate it when the chained CPI is made out to be as bad...

as raising the retirement age.

I've done the numbers and the most it could cost me is less than 5 bucks a month. It could even get me more under the right circumstances. And I'll still get 5 bucks more than I'm getting now because it just cuts the increase. (If there is an increase-- which is increasingly doubtful.)

So, please leave me out of the crocodile tears over starving seniors-- I will gladly contribute 50 bucks a year to the cause if it means...

the cap for paying the SS tax is raised

a few pennies a trade on Wall Street is in the deal

inherited wealth is treated like ordinary income

Need I go on? These, and a dozen more, is a wishlist dream for sure, but my speculative 5 bucks a month is a cheap price to pay for finding some real money. Chained CPI is a very cost effective bargaining chip.

[cali]

6. because it is bad- very much so. Is it as bad as raising the retirement age?

Why is that relevant?

It's bad. It will hurt a lot of people badly. It shouldn't happen.

It's the damage over time that's so bad, more than what it means in one discrete moment of time.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Oh, bullshit. Why is it so bad? Increases still happen, nobody gets...

cut off, nobody's going to starve over the cost of a small fish fillet.

It is one of the the cheapest, easiest, and least harmful "concessions" we can give them to avoid the more harmful "reforms." And some effects can be alleviated under other food, rent relief, etc. programs that we might keep if we give them this.

As far as the future goes, the sneaky thing about chained CPI is that the underlying data can be changed to increase benefits and under certain circumstances it could increase benefits without any changes.

Why has it become an absolute, non-negotiable demand? Just take it off the list.

[cali]

11. bullshit is right. YOURS. Really? You need this explained? OK, dear.

First, let's also add that it's very bad politics. Older people vote and they HATE this.

Just for you because you are so uninformed:

<snip>

The chained CPI is a remodeled Consumer Price Index based on the idea that when prices rise, consumers will shop around and cut their spending. This reasoning links actual price increases with theoretical compensatory behavior — with the very real result that if the chained CPI is used to calculate Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, they won't go up as much each year.

Since the COLA was established in 1975, annual increases have averaged 4.5 percent.

Lately, with inflation low, the COLA has been smaller. So it doesn't seem like, on a year-to-year basis, switching the way the Consumer Price Index is formulated would be such a big deal. But if you are in your 40s or 50s now, the chained CPI will have your benefits lagging appreciably behind the real inflation rate by the time you are old enough to collect.

<snip>

Last spring, AARP released a survey of Floridians 50 and over about the chained CPI. Among its findings:

• 71 percent of Florida voters 50+ would be less favorable toward their member of Congress if they voted for a chained or superlative CPI (68 percent of Republicans surveyed, 72 percent independents and 74 percent Democrats).

<snip>

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20131014/ARTICLE/131019816/-1/SPORTS?Title=What-exactly-is-the-chained-CPI-

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-02-2013/the-chained-consumer-price-index-explained.html

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Chained-CPI-Overview.php

[another_liberal]

18. Well put.

Good response. This is no time to cave to Republican demands concerning the national safety net. The Republicans lost the last election because they wanted to slash entitlements. Why should Democrats now take on the blame for doing so themselves?

[TreasonousBastard]

26. I need nothing explained, especially if the explanations are simplistic...

A lot of older voters have been told that this will cut their benefits, not cut the increase in benefits. A lot of people hate the idea largely because people like you are telling them it will be the end of the world. True, it's probably better to leave things as they are, but that's not gonna happen in the larger scheme of things.

I know what the chained CPI is. There are legitimate reasons to question its calculation, but it is being used and accepted as a more realistic measure. Do you know how the CPI is calculated? Do you know the difference between the CPI-U and CPI-W? Which one, if either, is used to calculate SS increases? Ever looked at LABSTAT and wondered about rural prices and why they aren't included in SS or CPI increases? How is the market basket decided, anyway?

BTW, why not fight for using the CPI-E since that would increase benefits even more.

Don't try to educate me on the CPI. You know the talking points, but I haven't seen any knowledge of even the basics.

I'll give you time to goggle it all up. It's a lot of reading and it helps if you have some background in statistics.

Once again-- a negotiation always involves giving up stuff. You give up the stuff you can best afford to give up. Hanging on for dear life over the chained CPI is as silly as teabaggers hanging on to eliminating Obamacare,although not nearly as ignorant.

Right now, the median SS payment is around $1,000 a month. Have you calculated the median SS payment for those 50-somethings when they retire? Since SS is based on lifetime earnings, it seems impossible to make any good guess how changing the percentage increase by a point or two would affect the individual. If it even applies.

[JDPriestly]

69. So, give up some of our bases overseas and raise taxes on high-level unearned income like

capital gains. Place taxes on imports. End the trade agreements and bring jobs back home.

We won't have so much trouble balancing our budget, and there will be jobs enough. Who knows? Seniors might work longer and retire later.

It's the miserable job market that is creating the problem in our economy, not Social Security benefits. And it is our trade deficit and the lost jobs it represents that motivates seniors to take Social Security as soon as they can.

The trade agreements are our problem.

If we are going to trade away jobs, we can't expect to raise enough money from taxes on wages to fund our government.

We have to revise our tax system to tax the money where it is -- in the hands of the 1%.

Back in the post-WWII years through the '70s and until we changed our trade policies, our income taxes raised enough revenue to keep up with our needs. That is because wages for working people -- middle class incomes -- rose with inflation. Some say that the wages drove inflation. I doubt that, but they did rise with it.

Now, imports are cheap, but wages are not rising. In fact, compared to the increases in productivity, wages are declining. Of course, as a result, our tax revenue, which is to a great extent a percentage of earned wages, is not keeping pace with inflation, much less with our national needs.

And now seniors are supposed to take a cut in the benefits THAT WE EARNED AND PAID FOR BACK WHEN INTEREST RATES WERE ANYWHERE FROM 7.5 TO 10% JUST ON MORTGAGES AND STUDENT LOANS.

NO THANK YOU. Don't think that seniors will accept any cuts whatsoever to our increases or to our Social Security and Medicare benefits. We have no ability to earn more when the economy improves. Our children may.

Change our trade policies. Bring our jobs back home. And you will solve our tax and job deficits at the same time. And tax computers. They are doing the work these days.

[TreasonousBastard]

79. You make it sound so easy...

just close down the military and raise taxes. Stop buying clothes from Thailand and TVs from China.

Maybe you missed how every one these things comes up every few months and si tossed into the trash for many reasons, most, but not all of them, bad.

Keep the wishlist going, but don't think the House is going to magically turn into the liberal bastion it would take to put a serious inheritance or capital gains tax on the books.

[eridani]

71. Jeezus H Keerist on a raft! We ARE fighting for CPI-E!

The current COLA has resulted in lower SocSec benefits every single year since I've been receiving it. Why? Because the Medicare assessment goes up faster than the fucking SocSec COLA! And you want to make this worse with chained CPI?

Chained CPI is founded on the notion that substitutions can maintain current living standards. Fine if you are talking about substituting hamburger for steak, but coming close to advocating mass murder if you are talking about a substitute for insulin. There are no substitutes for necessary medical treatment, and CPI-E takes that into account.

[TreasonousBastard]

75. Who's fighting for it? You're the first person around here I've seen who even knows what it is...

pretty much everyone else is yakking the talking points without understanding them.

But, why are you arguing with me about that? I'd be thrilled if they started using CPI-E, chained or not, and the only reason they aren't is because it will send benefits through the roof for us the way medical expenses are soaring.

I agree that Medicare increases do wipe out the COLA, but while that's obviously related, the DC bargaining chip is about C-CPI, not Medicare; and the way things are now I would hesitate to try to link the two.

My point through all of this is that there are forces trying to take it all away and I don't agree with the stand and die types who insist we not give an inch. The other side just tried that and look what it did. It looks like if we give them this it will cost the median SS recipient less than five bucks a month. Sure, it's easy to say SS recipients shouldn't pay for the wealthy sliding out, but not giving anything could cost us a lot more.

Next year, if there is a God and we see Speaker Pelosi back, we can work on how to properly fix the system. For now, I would just try to damage it as little as possible and hold off the vandals as long as we can.

[eridani]

83. I think it is appalling that anyone would compare intransigence on mundane business

(debt ceilings raised many times more under Republican administrations), with defending the living standards of retirees. Five bucks a month is bullshit, unless God told you what inflation is going to be 5 or 10 years from now. When it comes to senior survival, there just plain is no way to separate Social Security and Medicare. Given that CPI-E is different in that it accounts for the fact that seniors spend much more out of pocked on health care, it can't be chained because medical treatments don't have substitutes.

Who is pushing CPI-E? Only the AARP, Alliance for Retired Americans, Social Security Works, Strengthen Social Security and just about any elderly issue group. Around here, madfloridian, though she hardly posts at all on DU3. Cleita, redqueen...

One area that we could compromise on is the process of setting initial benefits. This is skewed toward lower income beneficiaries, and it could be even more so, with the slope of increase flattened more at higher income levels. That would save money.

You want to make sure that we never see a Speaker Pelosi? Cut Social Security--that will do the trick.

[quakerboy]

78. well, AARP made a calculator

http://action.aarp.org/site/PageNavigator/SocialSecurityCalculator.html

You can let us know if they are doing it incorrectly. But it sure looks like a pretty big difference by the time I reach retirement age, if their numbers are accurate.

I would differ with you on one point from an earlier post as well. At a certain level of poverty, even $5 a month really does make a difference.

[TreasonousBastard]

81. They don't explain their methodolgy, and since your benefit is...

based on your income, how do they know what you will be making between now and your retirement? How do they know the COLA each year in the future?

Myself, grossing slightly less than that number they give, tends to get a COLA of around 10 bucks or so, except when I didn't get one at all. So, I'm guessing that it would be cut in half down to 5 bucks. Could be cut by less.

And, yes there are people for whom 5 bucks is important, but if we were really talking about doing the right thing we would raise SS to a living standard across the board. But we're not talking about doing the right thing, we're talking about doing the possible thing.

[onyourleft]

30. Thank you.

Social security cuts should not even be a last resort, as stated in the OP. It is amazing to me how this keeps coming up every time there is talk regarding cuts. Americans do not want Social Security touched and it should not even be a talking point.

[malokvale77]

60. Yes...

and we should never have given an inch on retirement age.

Occupations that are labor intensive, make reaching 65 very difficult. I know I'm one.

[Sheepshank]

112. NOT BUDGE AN INCH?

Seriously you think it's realistic to place an agenda on Obama that has not been 'required' and successfully excecuted 100% of the time by previous presidents? Attempting to set up Obama to fail under the guise of "there can be no other alternatives" is starting to get tiresome and frankly disingenious.

[malokvale77]

113. I didnt set up Obama to fail.

Have you ever done real physical labor in your life? It breaks down the body. Outside of that, I don't have a clue what you are accusing me of, and I really don't care. You don't make any sense. I think you are talking out your ass.

[Sheepshank]

118. REALLY?

that's your response....name calling and personal attacks?

[Enthusiast]

15. Oh, bullshit is right. If you actually believe Chained CPI would increase benefits...

"under certain circumstances". LOL!

Your future must be pretty well funded if you believe Chained CPI is no big deal. Why should seniors pay for Wall Street malfeasance, Bush tax cuts and two unnecessary wars one of which we were lied into. Why should SS be subjected to a raise in the retirement age or Chained CPI? Either or? Why? Just because? Baby boomers paid way more than necessary to take care of shortfalls.

No concessions, not from "entitlements".

Military spending is two times as high as it should be. Cut the living fuck out of the military (and the NSA).

[zeemike]

25. Why is the question.

And the answer is that they are the least able to influence the congress with big donations to their campaign fund...money talks and they listen.

[LuvNewcastle]

37. Thank you.

Social Security is not a welfare program. It's money that has been paid to people who have worked and paid into the system. It shouldn't be tampered with; it's fine just like it is. The average American is not responsible for the lack of funds in SS. That money has been drained out over decades and has been given to the wealthy in tax cuts and bailouts. They owe that money back to SS, and they should not be let off the hook. We need to have a hands-off policy concerning SS. It is not ever to be on the table for 'reform.'

[rhett o rick]

47. When you start off your argument with "bullshit", you lose your creditability.

You are basically saying that you know and only you know and you're not interested in the opinion of others.

Any cuts to SS should be consider terrible. Once you start down the cuts path there will be no end. The line should be drawn at no cuts. And your explanation that tiny cuts to SS are ok if we get big revenue increases is balderdash. Why would the Republicans buy that?

[JDPriestly]

68. How could you possibly have calculated how chained CPI would affect you?

You have no idea what the inflation rate will be in the future.

Sorry to call you on this, but that claim does not make sense to me. Please explain.

[TreasonousBastard]

82. I actually received Social Security and have actually received COLAS...

and since the "cut by half" meme is all over the place I simply guessed my future COLAs under C-CPI would be half of the 10 bucks or so I've received. In the years I actually got a COLA at all.

And speaking of the future, this is simply a stopgap bargain to appease teabaggers who are too stupid to realize it means little. If there is a God, we'll have Speaker Pelosi back next year and we can make some serious changes, like using CPI-E to calculate the COLA. CPI-E is specifically designed for seniors, but they don't even look at it because it would send benefits through the roof.

[djean111]

8. Chained CPI is not a good bargaining chip. it will be eagerly raked in, and then

all of Washington will be on to the next bargaining chip.
You really thing chained CPI will keep Washington from raising the Social Security or Medicare age? It is just one thing on a list that Washington is determined to do.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. That will happen anyway- it's what happens. But, you don't...

give away your valuable chips before you give away your cheap ones.

In a negotiation, no matter how much God and goodness is on your side, nobody gets 100% of what they want. You have to have priorities in your demands.

[djean111]

12. In the Washington negotiations, the GOP is, incrementally, getting 100% of what they want.

The only priorities these days are what do the Dems give them first.
Your reasoning is just slowing the downwards spiral, not stopping it, not reversing it.
We are giving away ALL the chips, we just start out with the cheap ones.

We don't even make demands, for fuck's sake. We just give in to the GOP demands, incrementally.
We shouldn't fucking START with chained CPI, we should start with demanding a higher COLA or lifting the cap.
The Dems are not good negotiators, IMO, unless this is all just a show......

[joshdawg]

31. We shouldn't even have Social Security

on the table. It contributes nothing to the deficit. Medicare should also remain untouched. Both should be strengthened, not bargained with.
Someone mentioned cutting the military budget. That would be a great place to start.
Cut republican's pay, especially the tea-baggers.
Let the wealthiest experience a tax hike. They can afford it. Seniors, like me, can't.

[BornLooser]

36. "Negotiation" = "give away". More third way capitulation. Go tell it to the mountain, meats.

There's your' "statistic", the only one that matters, to Citizen Democrats.

[rhett o rick]

48. The 1% has stolen trillions and you want to bargain with them. If you had your way we would

incrementally give away all the chips.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Here we go. n/t

[cali]

14. Alas. And I'm afraid that there are quite a few Congressional dems

who will take that line.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Here we go again ...

CHAINED CPI ... CHAINED CPI ... CHANGES TO ENTITLEMENTS ... CHAMGES TO ENTITLEMENTS ...

Without any details a cccpi can be formulated to exclude the elderly, the disabled and the poor, thereby affecting only those that can absorb the change (as was the laast proposed non-proposal); or it can be formulated to affect only those with incomes of a million or more. And changes to entitlements can be the lifting of the payroll cap or including all income in the taxation formula; but ... the perpetually worried will be worried in perpetuity.

Does anyone really believe, coming out of this recent crazy, President Obama would introduce a naked ccpi (that affects the middle incomed) or would raise the eligibilty age without providing significant changes to the formulation?

[tkmorris]

24. It's early and I'm still groggy but...

How exactly does implementing a chained CPI on Social Security benefits exclude "the elderly, the disabled and the poor"? Is there a cadre of thirty-something millionaires hanging out by the pool somewhere collecting SS I should be aware of?

[TreasonousBastard]

27. It doesn't...

there are two CPI's currently in use and they have heavily weighted market baskets which, no matter how you fiddle with them, can't "exclude" anyone from SS.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. The proposal for the Chained CPI ...

submitted by President Obama (and rejected by boehner) specifically excluded the elderly, veterans, the disabled and the poor.

Maybe you didn't know; but the CPI is a formula that can be written with any specifications desired.

[eridani]

73. Goddamit!!!! If you are applying chained CPI to SocSec, you are NOT excluding the elderly! n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. Okay ...

the elderly poor! (That was the reported langauge of exclusion in the Proposal).

I don't think we should be particularly concerned with Warren Buffett, in a discussion of SocSec. Do you? ... goddamit!!!!!

[eridani]

89. Those who depend on SocSec for half or more of their retirement income will--

be hurt the MOST by chained CPI.

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. Not under the last CCPI proposal ...

presented by the President. The one presented by the President was reported to have exempted the elderly poor.

[eridani]

97. It exempts no one. It gives the poorest a tiny raise which does not get them out of poverty

In return for that, it forces millions of others INTO poverty.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. Are you stating fact ...

or just arguing?

The CCPI is a formula that can be changed to exempt whomever decided AND that was the case in the previous proposal.

[eridani]

104. There is no such thing as an exemption for COLAS, period

There are no low incom exemptions--just a small adjustment to their initial benefit calculations. Initial benefit calculations and COLAs are NOT the same thing!

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. Awww ...

I see the disconnect ... you are talking about CPI and COLAs as they stand today, as if they are some fixed in stone calculation. From that view you are absolutely correct.

I, however, am speaking of them for what they are ... data formuli designed to meet policy objects. This is the context in which the CCPI was offered, and from where I am speaking.

[eridani]

107. That does not change the fact that one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other

Changing the initial benefits calculation to benefit the poorest retirees is a good idea--in fact, it is already being done. This calculation could be further adjusted to benefit lower income people even more. You do NOT need to adjust COLAs for everyone in order to do this adjustment. Just because Obama is trying to link the two doesn't mean we have to accept the linkage.

My Social Security check has been shrinking every single year I've been receiving benefits, because Medicare costs go up even faster than the current inadequate COLA adjustment. And here you sit in delirious glee cheering for the prospect that my received benefit could shrink even faster. Thank you so very, very much.

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. I am not "gleefully cheering" anything; but ...

Last edited Tue Oct 22, 2013, 01:02 AM - Edit history (2)

I think one of us has it confused as to the CCPI's effect on benefits. I am given to understand that the CCPI is not, or at best only tangentially, related to the initial benefit grant ... it is related to future increases to keep pace with inflation.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm

[eridani]

109. Yes, that is correct. But current COLA does NOT, no way in hell, keep pace with inflation

--for seniors, given the large share of budget devoted to medical expenses. You are proposing that seniors should be grateful to fall even further behind with chained CPI.

The proposal to assist the poorest further is not at all related to chained CPI, but to boosting their initial benefits calculations, or for those already collecting, adding a one-time increase to this figure.

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. Stop with the histronics ...

First, I am not proposing anything ... I am a poster on an anonymous message board; not an elected official, nor a member of a citizen's initiative committee.

Secondly, we have done this dance before ... the ccpi formula President Obama is rumored to have submitted had "protections" for the elderly poor, the poor, the disabled and veterans ... so no, they would be unaffected by, or maybe even prompted up, by the introduction of a ccpi.

Lastly, the discussion of assisting the poorest with additional revenue boosts was absolutely related to the ccpi ... again, you seem to have a very static understanding of policy.

"It is as it was and so it will be" is not the mantra of this President ... have we learned nothing about the man?

[eridani]

111. Elderly people receive Social Security. Chained CPI CUTS SOCIAL SECURITY!

The elderly are NOT protected. Chained CPI cuts veterans benefits, disability allowances--everything! Adding a small amount of cash back to the very poorest does nothing to lift them out of poverty.

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. Have you read a single thing I have written? n/t

[eridani]

116. You seem to think that CCPI can be applied randomly. It can't

Once the standard is implemented, it affects all disbursments--SocSec, veterans, disability. Everything! A one time cash boost to basic benefits for poor people does NOT correct for this?

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. No ...

I KNOW that the CCPI is a mere data formula that can be applied however to accomplish a policy goal ... and that application (as in this case) was/is to specifically exempt the poor, the disabled, veterans and the elderly poor.

Have you never written, or been involved in policy development?

[eridani]

119. It exempts NOBODY! The lowest income beneficiaries get a small extra stipend

--to partially correct for the harm caused by the cuts (which in itself is an admission that the proposed cuts are indeed harmful) , which comes nowhere near lifting them out of poverty.

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. Okay ...

You are either NOT reading what I am writing; or have covered you ears, while stomping your feet, while singing "La La La La La."

Either way ,,, I'm done.

[Mojorabbit]

91. There is a huge amt of space between the elderly poor and Warren Buffett. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. Yep ...

that is my point. The CCPI can be formulated to exclude everyone from Buffett to someone bringing in $100,000 per year.

[PETRUS]

96. Such a policy is a gift to the Mitt Romneys of the world.

Feeds right into the "makers v. takers" bullshit. Why help the right wing?

[eridani]

100. CCPI cuts Social Security, period. Those who advocate it help the right wing

Please let us all know how the Mittster felt about waiting several hours in an institutional beige waiting room to fill out his application. Or maybe billionaires have better things to do with their time?

[PETRUS]

103. Hey -

I'm thinking either you misunderstood my meaning, or I'm not getting what you're saying, or you meant to reply to someone else. Looks to me like we're on the same side when it comes to this one.

[eridani]

105. Sorry--too many subthreads n/t

[eridani]

99. That is just utter tripe

You can reduce the payments to people at top earning levels by lowering the slope of increase OF THE INTIAL BENEFITS PAYMENT determination, and increase payments by upping the initial benefit calculation for the poorest.

CCPI is about what happens after that, period. There is not even the slightest relationship of COLAs to inital benefits calculations.

[eridani]

98. You do realize that you actually have to apply in person for Social Security, right?

And that it is not worth the personal time of your average billionaire to do that? And even if they did, completely eliminating payments to the top 1% of seniors would reduce the total Social Security payouts by less than 0.01%

[L0oniX]

49. Chain CPI to congressional pay!

[JaneyVee]

54. Won't there be protections for the most vulnerable?

Thought I read that somewhere.

[eridani]

72. The poorest get a tiny raise which comes nowhere near lifting them out of poverty

And to get that we force millions of the slightly less vulnerable INTO poverty.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. Nothing reasonable can pass The House.

So long as (D)s don't give away the farm, nothing meaningful will get done. The status quo is what we will be riding into the midterms.


We need 18 seats. If we can get them we have a good chance of ending the sequester and raising revenues in 2015.

[grahamhgreen]

17. If you focus the message to raise the cap on every 50+ person in every R district, I think you can:)

[TBF]

16. TPP and austerity -

big threats right now. The ruling class has a "problem" with Social Security because they have a baby boomer generation to pay and they already spent the $$$ everyone sent in on their endless warmongering. Whether it's wrapped in "reasonableness" or with a confederate flag the result will be the same - austerity for our elderly.

TPP is out there under the radar as well ... and that will finish off the younger generation when they realize what has been shoved through.

[libdude]

19. How about this,

no compromise on Social Security other than the improvement aspects e. g. to what amount will the cap be raised. No changes to the current retirement age. As to Medicare there have been many proposals to improve the system to cut costs and improve service delivery.
Chained cpi will not only negatively affect these programs, but disabled veterans, SSI recipients, and many other government programs.
No negotiations on SNAP, Headstart, other than improving the programs and improving service delivery.
Negotiations on corporate welfare subsidies, tax code reforms which increase the effective tax rate of the 1%.
What is progressive about cutting benefits for ordinary Americans? This is nothing more than one aspect by which the oligarchs continue the redistribution of wealth.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Just a point of information ...

Chained cpi will not only negatively affect these programs, but disabled veterans, SSI recipients, and many other government programs.

The President's previous ccpi offer (that I have said all along was put out there just to show how unserious the modern gop is/was, since everyone except the Left seemed to know it wasn't going to go anywhere; but I digress ...) did just that; it exempted/excluded each of the groups you mention.

[L0oniX]

50. Riiiiiiight. So ...the gun to grannies head is empty so no big deal. FFS pfffft

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. Okay ...

I see where this is leading.

Nevermind ... I would just suggest that you review what was written about this the last time. You will see that the only one's that took that proposal as a serious offer was internet warriors on the left.

[malokvale77]

61. For now

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. Do you really believe ...

that President Obama would propose/allow ANY cuts to SS, in an election year?

If so, you have not been paying attention.

[malokvale77]

64. He will not be the President forever.

This is about precedent.

Maybe "you" are not paying attention.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Precedent? ...

Ture ... He will not be President forever; but he will be President for almost three more years ... he has an interest in flipping the House and as quiet as it's been kept, he knowns that he cannot do that by cutting "entitlements" in an election year.

[Pakid]

22. As bad as the sequester is the grand bargain could be even worse

There is no reason at all to touch SS or Medicare/Medicaid Lets start with ending all of subsidies that fortune 500 companies get then get corporate America back to paying it share and spare me the BS about how high taxes kill jobs greed is what is killing job in America today. The tax burden is so low on the rich that it a joke and they still ship job to China since they can never seem to get enough money to satisfied there greedy stone cold hearts. Get the revenue back up where it belongs and then see what happens before we start cutting. If you want to put an end to jobs going to China then stop buying goods made in China. Walk up to the store managers and tell them that you would like to shop there but you won't until they start having more items that are made in the USA after a while they will get the hint especially after they start losing money!!!!

[Cleita]

23. I can't celebrate this. Our great country has been pulled down so

far into behaving like a banana republic, how can I be thrilled in celebrating the fact that our elected government has agreed to go back to the business of the people like it's supposed to do? We are supposed to cheer Congress for putting America first before Party and their Heritage Foundation overlords?

This should never have been tolerated from the beginning and as far as I'm concerned Ted Cruz should be stripped of his citizenship for sedition and deported back to Canada. We once had laws in the past that would have done just that.

[MsLeopard]

34. ^^^This!

Completely agree. We once had laws, but now they've all been rewritten or are ignored by those who run the show.

[MisterP]

41. BUT WE BEAT THEM! so any Earntitlement cuts would be different from what the Kochs want!

[malokvale77]

63. ^^^OMG^^^

Somebody gets it.

[Jakes Progress]

28. K&R Celebration is dangerous.

While we look the other way, celebrating that we only gave in to what they had already taken, the dark forces of the republican party and the reagan democrats of our own party have an agenda that they have not given up.

We have to show that some aren't totally unaware.

[CrispyQ]

29. I read this last night & went to bed depressed:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-0

Outsourced Cities, Brought to You by CH2M Hill

When the town of Sandy Springs, Georgia, spun-off from Fulton County and established a brand new government, it didn't sign a Declaration of Independence; it signed a contract.


The 100,000-person town entered into a five-year contract with the for-profit management company CH2M Hill to operate almost all of the town's services: running trash collection, and street cleaning, and wastewater management, and even security and administration for the courthouse. A for-profit company, rather than public officials and public employees, would be in charge of providing all "public" services except for fire and police departments. CH2M HILL employees, wearing Sandy Spring uniforms and driving trucks with Sandy Spring logos, even enforced municipal ordinances like grass-cutting and parking regulations.

Sandy Springs, an affluent suburb of Atlanta -- home to Herman Cain, professional sports players, and the woman who voiced Iphone's Siri -- had been fighting for years to spin-off from Fulton County, with many residents resentful that they were subsidizing services for poorer parts of the county. In 2005, after Republicans gained new majorities in both chambers of the Georgia legislature, Sandy Spring got its wish. The new town -- conceived by retired engineer Oliver Porter, a devotee of Austrian free-market economist Frederich Hayek -- had just a few months to set up a fully-functioning city government, and CH2M Hill stepped in, offering itself up as a one-stop-outsourcing-shop.

more...

While state and local governments across the country have experimented with privatization, selling off public assets like bridges, roads and parking meters, and outsourcing public services (including those for vulnerable populations), this experiment in "contract cities" is new and shocking to some.

The rich don't mind paying taxes, as long as the riff-raff doesn't benefit from it. I'll bet we see more of these privatized cities.

[cali]

32. it's somewhat surprising to me that anything in the OP is controversial

[Hotler]

33. Nothing is going to change.

Both sides are bought and paid for and they only care about protecting the rich and the corporations. If the president and the Dems had any spine those fuckers on Wall St. would be rotting in prison right now.

[Coyotl]

35. A recognition that some people want to break up the USA is in order. Let's call them treasonous.

They cannot say what they are scheming in public because it would get them hanged.

We need to see this for what it really is, sedition.

[cali]

38. what's the point? how does that address the specific issues I bring up?

[Coyotl]

40. The point is to undertstand the motivations and respond to the real problem.

What underlies the attack on government needs to be solved, instead of fighting battle after battle after battle after battle.

[jsr]

39. Recommend

[progressoid]

42. "should only look at entitlement cuts""

Hey, remember how we won?

[1000words]

43. I'm glad Dems showed some spine, but kicking the can down the road is hardly a profile in courage.

Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst.

[stage left]

44. I was also relieved, very relieved.

But I also have no illusions that there are no battles in the future for liberals. It is insane that this one had to be fought just to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a default, actions that used to be a matter of course in this country. We need to keep saying that cuts have already been made and more cuts don't need to be made. People, real people, not pawns, are hurting. It's like, in right wing minds, the sequester doesn't exist exactly, and they're hoping the rest of the country will ignore it's existence, so they can start over again in January, howling about the deficit. Frankly, I think that's pretty much the case, anyway. I never really heard it raised as an argument by any Democrat in Congress, but maybe I missed it.

Anyway, kicked and recommended. A valuable post.

[cali]

46. thank you so much and welcome to DU

[NuttyFluffers]

45. don't play defense, play offense. open the Overton Window to the Left!

be aware that for what we thought the Tea Party didn't get, they got to keep the sequestration as a status quo, we are only functional for a few mere weeks before the next hostage crisis -- and fucking Paul Ryan and his ilk are involved in hashing out a "compromise."

playing defense is a bullshit game in this situation. you fight back, draw lines, take no quarter, and throw out the most extreme of left positions so as to pull back that spectrum of 'acceptable thought' so the center of compromise ends up more left than before.

no defense -- offense!

"i want Angela Davis as the next Supreme Court nominee; i'll settle for Lauren Hill or Whoopi Goldberg." see? easy!

[stage left]

59. What an Image!

Angela Davis on the Supreme Court. That's making me smile. Democrats do need to quit being on the defensive and fight for some of the things the majority of the people want. BTW--What's the Overton window? I'm pretty much a political novice, but I'm trying to learn.

[Myrina]

51. Kick

Sadly. Sigh.

[lostincalifornia]

52. Just increase the cap

[L0oniX]

53. No real hard core Dem would ever hurt SS. Cut the fucking military!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. That whole "share the sacrifice" meme might work if the rich weren't getting richer.

[malokvale77]

65. I have no more to sacrifice (nt)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. The 1st place to go is Big Oil....

[cali]

76. Nothing disgusts me more than than the phony "share the sacrifice"

bullshit. seniors, the poor, children and working people have already "sacrificed" (more like been screwed). the wealthy haven't been asked for any sacrifice.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

87. Whenever they say that it feels like Oliver asking for more.

[woo me with science]

115. +10000

[wildbilln864]

58. k & r! n/t

[JDPriestly]

66. See my post here, either # 72 or #75

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3872978

I heard Obama stammering about Social Security in his speech today. It was clear to me that he plans to cut it. The worst, the most miserable of the whole stunt is that he is trying to divide young from old in order to do it.

In American families, the young pay when their parents don't have enough income. Maybe Obama's grandparents had plenty of money in their retirement, but most American seniors don't.

Hearing aids cost $3000 to $7000 very often. Then there is all the other medical equipment and co-payments for medical care that Medicare does not pay. Glasses are expensive.

And you have no idea how much dentists charge the elderly to keep them chewing.

If you want more seniors on welfare, go ahead and cut Social Security. But it won't save the government any money. Seniors will just qualify for food stamps instead of for their monthly Social Security checks. The checks at an average of about $1,230 per month in 2012 are barely enough to cover rent, taxes, Medicare monthly payment, medical costs, food, and other necessities.

This country fought the Cold War on the backs of the baby boomers. We were grateful to the generation that fought WWII. But the generation that paid the taxes that made it possible for the US to out militarize and outproduce the Soviet Union is to be put out to an empty pasture.

What a horrible thing to do. What an ungrateful nation.

[cali]

77. right on. we have a fight on our hands. one we can't back away from.

[Liberal_in_LA]

67. good post

[caseymoz]

74. Why there should be no negotiating of entitlements:

Simple reason, it defeats the purpose of taxing the wealthy. If the funds don't go to the poor and equalize this wealth chasm in our country, then there's no point in taxing the wealthy.

It's simply a trick that will undermine the Democrats and with unpopular cuts while it gives no benefit from raising taxes on the wealthy.

[djean111]

80. I am beginning to think the only Democrat in Washington is Bernie Sanders.

Maybe Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren.

[blkmusclmachine]

84. The GOP hostage-taking will recur, every 90 Days.

And that's a WIN! for the Anti-America Tea Party scumbags.

[Southside]

88. Great job, great post, leave grandmother alone

Leave grandma out of this should be defacto law of the land. The thought of her sharing any hardship is sickening to me. Go everywhere else to help working families, but not grandmother.

Thanks

[SamYeager]

90. With Bernie Sanders on the committee I think we're a lot safer than last time.

Bernie will hold the line on increasing the cap.

[alp227]

92. Schumer the sellout. He's gotta be primaried in 2016 if he keeps up this "entitlement reform" crap.

I think another DUer had a tag that read something like "I will vote against any politician who defunds Social Security".

[DirkGently]

95. KNR

[LostOne4Ever]

101. I want to believe they are probably just playing politics by saying that

But history proves otherwise

I can't wait for the rise of the new left to get here.