as I did when the scuttlebutt started back in 2009.

WHile he may be pursuing what he wants, I don't see how it can be good for those running in 2014.

It's totally unnecessary turmoil imo, for the reason you implied -- foolishness

He ain't running no more.

I can't imagine older folks voting or anything, right? Right?

if nothing else, should the dems up for election protest, it gives the rightwingnuts some cover for their similar desires.

or have someone else assist you in understanding it.

leave the body bleeding on the floor.

President Obama wants, so they won't need Medicare as long.

I'm sure that's the rationale behind it. It certainly isn't because President Obama wants to help seniors. If he did he wouldn't be so determined to cut Social Security.

at least it's an explanation, unlike we haven't seen -- as far as know -- as to why cpi, given the less money it results in in the long run, is a good thing for them.

Maybe I've missed something, and all that stuff is just grbage intended to unfairly malign him.

if that is considering unfairly maligning, then it's the Obama administration maligning itself since that's where the news about it cutting SS is coming from.

I was referring specifically to the net result of the chained cpi he was never ever supported -- according to some around here in the past anyway.

I think they went through denial of that and recently moved onto acceptance that he has/did put it on the table, but won't actually sign it into law.

It's been an ongoing debate around here, and that's my recollection going back months now, before the election.

to $450,000 which were included in the deal to keep the U.S. from going over the fiscal cliff. All the seniors who will be forced to choose among not taking all their meds, skipping a few meals, and/or lowering the thermostat a few degrees in cold weather can take great comfort knowing their sacrifices were not in vain, that their sacrifices paid for this Amgen largess and will be putting those extra dollars in the paychecks of those earning from $250,000 to $450,000 ($1 to $9,200 extra per taxpayer during the entire year). Yeah and YEA U.S.A .

so that they can keep providing the jobs that pay the FICA taxes...

payroll taxes. No payroll taxes with cuts in seniors' social security benefits to bankroll your tax cuts. This income group surely hit the trifecta when also considering the favorable income tax treatment of dividends and capital gains. A quaint right-wing wet dream. Quaint indeed, but sadly all right-wing wet dreams entail pissing on the old, the frail, and/or the poor.

and almost #1 in ignoring the Judeo-Christian heritage we were allegedly founded on and follow religiously

It's been an amazing thing to watch these last few years, the way DC has lurched rightward as the polls show we the people moving progressively leftward.

the payroll tax is capped is that benefits are capped.

There's a link between what you contribute and what you get out.

the tax cuts went to everyone earning below $450,000. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that?

are likely to get theirs (cuts in benefits to pay for that $250,000 to $450,000 tax cuts).

This time for sure.

Sid

and one of the weakest lines of garbage proposed as a defense

by all means, cite me a SOTU speech he's ever given where a "grand bargain" was waiting in the wings/looming overhead, then it might make some sense.

Sid

Is that what you're referring to?

but if he does, there is a perfectly acceptable reason for it!

Eric's a bad looking dude with a beard

Re: Chained CPI

I've long been convinced it's because it's what he wants to do, as he seemed to make clear with a speech he gave way back in 2006 about how so many wanna wrongly cling to things as "written in 1938".

PB

If only he worked at fixing the 99% economy as doggedly as he works at the "tough choice" of putting the elderly into poverty. ..

...political "capital" both from his election and re-election or, in this case, where he's chosen to not spend it.

PB

he's the worst socialist ever

If nothing changes we will be only able to pay 75% of current benefits in 2041. That is a huge cut.

When Roosevelt singed SS there were 42 people paying into the system for every retiree.

We will soon more people drawing SS then people paying into the system. In a few years SS will pay out more in benifts then it receives in tax revenue.

I am 25. I want SS when I retire.

Even if we raise taxes it won't be enough to provide benefits for my generation.

I am not saying CPI is the answer. But doing nothing is not a choice.

No means testing. Just raise the cap. Done. Next!

Raising the cap can put the program into solvency for A MINUTE. You're worried about 2041? Srsly, just raise the cap and move onto hard issues.

"PRO: Lifting the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings is sensible and fair. Only 6 percent of workers earn more than the current cap of $110,100. It is fair for top earners to pay more into Social Security, and they would get a bit more in benefits. This change reflects the intent of Congress in 1977, when it set the cap to include 90 percent of earnings. Congress also provided for automatic adjustments for average wage growth so that the cap would continue to cover 90 percent. But with today’s top earners enjoying much bigger gains than everyone else, the cap now covers only about 84 percent of all earnings. This proposal, together with other changes, could keep Social Security strong and pay for benefit improvements. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance)"


CON: In general, increasing taxes is a serious mistake. It reduces the amount that Americans have to spend on their family’s food, housing, clothes, education, etc. This bad idea would cause a hefty tax increase for middle-income taxpayers while not affecting the rich. It would especially hurt the self-employed and certain smaller business owners. To make matters worse, this tax increase delays Social Security’s problems by only eight years. It does not fix them. (David John, Heritage Foundation)

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.5.html


Public policy like this is not as simple as "Raise the cap. Done. Next!"

we're raising the cap on those with more than enough to spare. How is this a tax increase on middle-income taxpayers?

Oh, and did you realize the information is quoted from the Heritage Foundation? Thanks for including that.

Some people laughed about it at the time, but he seemed to know what was coming down the pike.

I often wondered if he and Clinton ever discussed the latters plans to partially privatize it, not that the two things are totally incompatible .

He wrote me back, saying that he was proposing that ss funds be put in a lock box and not be used for anything but benefits. I couldn't believe it! He is parroting Al Gore? A republican Senator from Louisiana?

My Republican Senator, on the other hand, seems to be in the "gotta cut them entitlements" camp

With the debt ceiling. With the fiscal cliff.

He has not done it yet. I don't think he will. He is winning his battles with Congress. He has the best political team that American politics has ever seen. I think they know how unpopular it is. He throws a bone to GOP. They will say no because its not enough of a concession. Then he will say "I tried to offer the GOP a compromise thats is deeply unpopular with my party. I was willing to go out on a limb they said no. Its now off the table"

Lets not freak out over one statement at a press brefing.

If I am wrong about what the White House is up to we keep writing the Pres and say its unacceptable to cut SS.

and it's not just one isolated remark if the one posted here and this are a generality to specificity thing.

The proposals that I put forward during the fiscal cliff negotiations in discussions with Speaker Boehner and others are still very much on the table. I just want to repeat: The deals that I put forward, the balanced approach of spending cuts and entitlement reform and tax reform that I put forward are still on the table.

I’ve offered sensible reforms to Medicare and other entitlements, and my health care proposals achieve the same amount of savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms that have been proposed by the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission. These reforms would reduce our government’s bill -- (laughter.) What’s up, cameraman? (Laughter.) Come on, guys. (Laughter.) They’re breaking my flow all the time. (Laughter.)

Security. I know. It was the Republicans' idea first.

But the fact that Obama is supporting it too means that he will be blamed for it. And that is not good. The math just does not work out for the oldest among of us who often rely on nursing home care.

If they must cut Social Security, they should cut it in a way so that the very oldest receive more, not the other way around. This idea of a chained CPI is just sick. It will deprive those of us who recently retired or about to retire of the money that we need when we need it most.

This is a terrible idea. Cut the military. Don't cut Social Security.

We need to charge up our economy, not tear it down. Our military expenditures, those outlays help charge up foreign economies. Social Security and Food Stamps support American farmers and American companies.

This chained CPI plan in particular and cuts to Medicare and Social Security and Food Stamps and Medicaid in particular will raise the misery index here in the US. I think that is what Republicans want, and Obama would be foolish to crumble under the pressure. It will hurt him a lot in 2014.

it's also a legacy issue, which could already be burdened/tarnished by prior silence on climate change, and perhaps a few other things, like the other big controversy unfolding over drone use/assassinations should he be on the wrong side of history with that.

and I'll get right on it

because he KNOWS they'll never go for it.

This makes him look like he's "willing to deal" although he knows they'll never go for anything less than gutting it completely.

And that won't happen.

I know that a lot of people accuse Obama of playing "3-d Chess" but I'll say he's the best poker player I've ever seem.

And not that wannabe "Texas hold-em" poker wannabe fake game, but REAL "dealer calls" Poker.

that's the most popular pov on the matter, but I have a hard time buying into the "bluffing" game.

Exactly who is this "willingness to deal" supposed to appeal to, those who'd never vote for him to begin with? Balanced against those as this experiment shows, who might not vote for him or vote period as a result of the disgust generated by his putting it on the table alone, that wouldn't appear to be a very good "bluff" in terms of potential rewards. That this is a real possibility has been admitted in a roundabout way here by many who make that argument, given it was what underlied all that "you guys are just trying to dampen enthusiasm/take the votes away from BHO" talk I saw before the election, made in an effort to silence us.

Surely a good "3D" chess player or world class poker player would understand that. I don't see how he could possibly gain any meaningful quantity of support for being "reasonable" from outside his base, whereas as we can see from the dismay and disgust in this post alone, it's easy to see how he can erode his base as a result of the "bluffing".

The 'raising the eligibility age for Medicare' bit was only taken off the table because of pressure from the public.