Seniors would see smaller Social Secu...

Seniors would see smaller Social Security checks under Obama budget due to chained CPI

There are 99 comments on the money.cnn.com story from Apr 10, 2013, titled Seniors would see smaller Social Security checks under Obama budget due to chained CPI. In it, money.cnn.com reports that:

The budget plan, being released Wednesday, calls for changing the way the annual cost of living adjustments for Social Security and other federal programs are calculated.

The budget plan, being released Wednesday, calls for changing the way the annual cost of living adjustments for Social Security and other federal programs are calculated. Shifting to "chained CPI" from the current inflation measure could reduce the federal debt by $230 billion, but it would also mean that seniors would get smaller increases in their Social Security payments each year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at money.cnn.com.

Since: Dec 07

Frankston, TX

#23 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet the GOPasaurs are just as guilty of "spending us into oblivion"....
Remind us how many balanced budgets there were under Bush and the GOP controlled congress?
Bush warned of the coming problems with fannie/freddie 5 times from 01-2006 (full dem congress in 2006) Frank/Dodd said nothing wrong with fannie/freddie 2009 the bottom fell out.

Bush said on international TV that they didn't know where bin laden was even though the CIA was on his trail according to No Easy Day and Zero Dark Thirty....many are saying now Bush took massive heat so nothing would be revealed about the hunt for obl.

Bush was smarter than all you numbnuts put together.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#24 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with everything else you say, but the simple fact is that EVERY American alive today has benefitted from the artificially low income tax rates as a result of raiding the social security trust fund.
If we hadn't allowed Congress to raid those funds, then they would have had to raise taxes to pay for that spending instead.
So yes, we ALL benefited.
What are you saying? SS is not driving the deficit never has, it should not be part of the debt reduction bill ...

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#25 Apr 10, 2013
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
"...throw seniors the desabled and working people under the bus to please his corporate masters...." Nice comment there, vladimir.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
Vladimir Lenin
Cool, you misquoted me, quoting "Sterkfontein Swartkrans" above; and then you mis-interreted Lenin.

That's three strikes in your short but snide comment

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#26 Apr 10, 2013
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
Reminder slick willie made up a false projected surplus based on money for SS and the dot.com industry which fizzled and busted in 01.
It bogus, a myth and a con game...google clinton surplus myth..enjoy all night reading.
Now, what the hell do you think is killing California right now??????????the massive retirement promises made 30 years ago to state employee's based on....ta da.....the dot.com industry..........
"Uh, it's Bush fault!" You lefties are constistent...consistently wrong...but consistent just the same. LMAO
I never said Clinton balanced the budget; he used the same accounting gimmicks every other president has used.

Once again, why can't you morons simply address WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, instead of making up crap I never said to attempt to refute what I DID say?

Republicans ran up deficits.
Democrats ran up deficits.

It's one of the few bipartisan acts in Washington.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#27 Apr 10, 2013
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush warned of the coming problems with fannie/freddie 5 times from 01-2006 (full dem congress in 2006) Frank/Dodd said nothing wrong with fannie/freddie 2009 the bottom fell out.
Bush said on international TV that they didn't know where bin laden was even though the CIA was on his trail according to No Easy Day and Zero Dark Thirty....many are saying now Bush took massive heat so nothing would be revealed about the hunt for obl.
Bush was smarter than all you numbnuts put together.
And yet he continued to spend us further into debt, killed thousands of American servicemembers unnecessarily, and ...... hmmmmm......oh yeah, he FAILED to kill Bin Laden.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 Apr 10, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I like that line. Let's let the bank robbers use it. After the bank has been robbed, there will be no money in the bank, and then all the customers, and the bankers will have to pay a little to make up for all that was stolen. Why ask the bank robbers to contribute when we can simply make it up taking even more from those who were not bank robbers.
Again, EVERYONE benefitted from artifically low tax rates by raiding the social security trust fund.

EVERYONE.

From the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich, we ALL benefited.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#29 Apr 10, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you saying? SS is not driving the deficit never has, it should not be part of the debt reduction bill ...
We have to pay back the $2.5 TRILLION spent from the social security trust fund over the past decades in order to pay current and future obligations. That money has to come from somewhere.

Either taxes have to be raised or money must be transferred from elsewhere in the budget back into social security for it to remain solvent.

So I'm saying since we ALL benefited from the artificially low income tax rates that spending the surplus social security funds allowed, then we ALL must pay a little bit to restore that $2.5 trillion back into the system, INCLUDING current senior citizens.
Bon mot

Phoenix, AZ

#30 Apr 10, 2013
Obama has been itching to cut Social Security, Medicare and Military. If he can't increase taxes, he'll find another way to support his extravagant and wasteful spending habits. The new CPI is a contrivance typical of his methods to secure more money for himself and his cronies. It puts middle income earners arbitrarily into a higher tax bracket so he can tax them.

If Obama cared about not cutting Social Security and Medicare, he would have long ago stopped his extravagance spending. He claims the budget is not his blaming Republicans for the sequestration and cuts. But honestly, if he didn't rack up multi-digit trillion $ deficit, there would have been no need for this budget that cuts SS. Take responsibility Obama. Have never seen a person nevermind a president pass the buck as much as this charletan does. A wolf in sheep's clothing.
tomuch

Roseville, MI

#31 Apr 10, 2013
I hope all you Liberals are happy. You voted for this.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#32 Apr 11, 2013
The WhiteHouse & MSM will deem as necessary, then ignore until it requires another power grab.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#33 Apr 11, 2013
It sounds like a threat, another ObamaCare.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#34 Apr 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, EVERYONE benefitted from artifically low tax rates by raiding the social security trust fund.
EVERYONE.
From the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich, we ALL benefited.
All benefited??? No, not all people are filthy rich. The poor didn't benefit because it crashed the economy, and the safety net was abolished. Going hungry regularly is not my idea of a benefit.

The middle class didn't benefit. They paid as much or more in taxes, all the while having wages reduced and benefits eliminated; that is if they got to keep their job. A great many became unemployed and moved from the middle class to the ranks of the poor.

The hundreds of thousands who had their homes foreclosed upon didn't benefit, they became homeless.

Those nearing retirement didn't benefit because all the money they paid into SS and retirement accounts is moving to the hands of a few rich people, never to be seen again.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#35 Apr 12, 2013
tomuch wrote:
I hope all you Liberals are happy. You voted for this.
??? What liberal voted for this? The republicans are so right wing they are self-destructing and the democrats are moving right to take up the vacuum. The dems are now more right wing than even Reagan was. There are no liberals to vote for in either of the major parties.
Bon mot

Phoenix, AZ

#37 Apr 12, 2013
This might be facetious, but then again, maybe not.

Interestingly the Bible written years ago predicts that the Anti-Christ's reign will end in a lake of fire. O is the lake. The fire is anger of the people.

How did a blatant liar like Obama receive such idolatry?

He blends in with any constituent he is falsely emulating in order to win favor. That's how. Every name he takes on is a lie.

Obama’s logo with the false red, white and blue and empty hole behind is the mark of the Beast. The “anti-christ” arrives very quickly according to the bible, from nowhere and rises quickly from small advances in position. He feigns to be God acting charismatic, kind and loving. He uses 666 names (black, poor, Newton families, women rights, gay marriage, immigration, friend of israel, students, taqquiya etc) to blend in with all constituents. He is a the great deceiver each name. The timing of his power is 3 1/2 years. The public was onto his demonic ways prior to the Nov 2012 election but his brainwashed constituents now too powerful to get him removed. He has a dozen demon helpers, or as we know them, highly appointed Czars. Michelle Obama is one of those helpers. See how she influenced Beyonce and transformed her into Linda Blair in the Exorcist. Then she goes on to stroke Beyonce’s ego by telling her how proud the First Devil is with her ugliness. The Obama logo is an empty hole surrounded by 6 shapes. His followers take on the mark of the beast on their forehead, iow, on very apparent places to show their support. Some followers go even further and put their faces in the hole of the Obama logo. See here,

Make Your Own Obama Logo, With Your Face
http://mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/0...

and here,

http://blog.thomasjquinn.com/wp-content/uploa...

Whether you believe in predictions or not, there is something sinister about the power hungry, baby killing Obama who has proven himself a liar with Social Security. Senior black americans who are the poorest will suffer most severely from the cuts in SS. The Mark of the Beast, his logo, is something to avoid. Remove it from your car, destroy it, throw your shirts away.

Obama reducing Air Traffic Controllers smacks eerily of the 9/11 airplane crashes. If he is not anti-christ, he damn sure is jihad.

Tell your loved ones to keep away from promoting the fiend and marking themselves with his logo.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#38 Apr 13, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
All benefited??? No, not all people are filthy rich. The poor didn't benefit because it crashed the economy, and the safety net was abolished. Going hungry regularly is not my idea of a benefit.
The middle class didn't benefit. They paid as much or more in taxes, all the while having wages reduced and benefits eliminated; that is if they got to keep their job. A great many became unemployed and moved from the middle class to the ranks of the poor.
The hundreds of thousands who had their homes foreclosed upon didn't benefit, they became homeless.
Those nearing retirement didn't benefit because all the money they paid into SS and retirement accounts is moving to the hands of a few rich people, never to be seen again.
It would have been even worse with $2.7 trillion in either higher taxes or less spending, even for the poor and middle class.

So yes, even the poorest of the poor benefited from raiding the social security trust fund.

Now we all have to contribute to pay it back or the system collapses.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#39 Apr 14, 2013
President Obama is out on his own on this one.

The Democrats won't accept a cut to Social Security; and the GOP, who demended it, are now turning their scorn on Obama for raising a SS benefit cut.

Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#40 Apr 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It would have been even worse with $2.7 trillion in either higher taxes or less spending, even for the poor and middle class.
So yes, even the poorest of the poor benefited from raiding the social security trust fund.
Now we all have to contribute to pay it back or the system collapses.
I have been trying to figure out what you are trying to say. Do you mean that the SS fund, had trillions in it, and it was loaned to the federal government at an interest rate, and now that loan must be repaid? Yes, and the SS fund grows with the re-payment with interest.

As to who benefited, do you mean the very very rich who got to take all that money? bush gave trillions to pharms and the military industrial complex, and the public got nothing, but the bill. Now it appears you are asking me to repay the debt, that bush created to give his buddies a giant bonus. I didn't benefit from that spending; unless you mean that SS increased its funds because of the interest I now have to pay into it.

I suggest the very very rich who got all that excess wealth, giving nothing in return, actually be required to give something in return. Let the people who benefited from the trillions they were given, pay it back.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41 Apr 14, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been trying to figure out what you are trying to say. Do you mean that the SS fund, had trillions in it, and it was loaned to the federal government at an interest rate, and now that loan must be repaid? Yes, and the SS fund grows with the re-payment with interest.
As to who benefited, do you mean the very very rich who got to take all that money? bush gave trillions to pharms and the military industrial complex, and the public got nothing, but the bill. Now it appears you are asking me to repay the debt, that bush created to give his buddies a giant bonus. I didn't benefit from that spending; unless you mean that SS increased its funds because of the interest I now have to pay into it.
I suggest the very very rich who got all that excess wealth, giving nothing in return, actually be required to give something in return. Let the people who benefited from the trillions they were given, pay it back.
Poor people got welfare payments, food stamps, everyone got tax refunds or lower tax rates or childcare credits, or home mortgage interest deductions, low interest loans or grants, etc, etc.

Had we not taken the $2.5 trillion from social security, many of those payments or refund or deductions would have had to be eliminated or cut way back or taxes would have had to be raised.

EVERYONE got SOMETHING from the $2.5 trillion spend out of the social security surplus.

So everyone must help pay it back.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#42 Apr 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor people got welfare payments, food stamps, everyone got tax refunds or lower tax rates or childcare credits, or home mortgage interest deductions, low interest loans or grants, etc, etc.
Had we not taken the $2.5 trillion from social security, many of those payments or refund or deductions would have had to be eliminated or cut way back or taxes would have had to be raised.
EVERYONE got SOMETHING from the $2.5 trillion spend out of the social security surplus.
So everyone must help pay it back.
I still disagree. While the wealth of the nation was taken from the middle class and just handed over to the rich, the middle class did not benefit. For example, since 1980 the GDP has increased substantially. Productivity has increased significantly. However, the portion of this growth has gone 100% to the rich, and none of it to the people who actually did the work. Since 2000 unemployment is way high and the number of people leaving the economy continues to be outrageously high. A recent report on CNN said that of those with a high school diploma, about 58% of people did not participate in the economy (meaning about 42% were unemployed) and 73% of those with college degrees were not participating, meaning 27% are unemployed.

While you might suggest that if you lost your job you paid less in taxes and thus a tax cut, but that is not a decent thing to say.

And not everyone got a tax cut. While the tax rates themselves decreased, the ranges changed. For example,(guessing the numbers for example only) the 10% tax went down to 9% but the range went from 22,000 to 28,000 to 20,000 to 25,000. Thus if you made 21,000 you paid more in taxes; you got a tax increase.

Additionally Clinton trashed the welfare system, essentially shredding the social safety net. Thus those who were middle class, pushed into poverty, didn't get to take advantage of the programs they paid for. Instead the money went to the very very rich.

Don't forget the high price we all pay for so many people having not option to contribute to society. When you cannot contribute, you have nothing to lose and you no longer act to support that society.

Jobs have to be restored in order for society to heal. Things will only get worse until that happens. Asking those who lost everything to pay more, so the rich get even more is disgusting.
XDR

Miami, FL

#43 Apr 15, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
I still disagree. While the wealth of the nation was taken from the middle class and just handed over to the rich, the middle class did not benefit. For example, since 1980 the GDP has increased substantially. Productivity has increased significantly. However, the portion of this growth has gone 100% to the rich, and none of it to the people who actually did the work. Since 2000 unemployment is way high and the number of people leaving the economy continues to be outrageously high. A recent report on CNN said that of those with a high school diploma, about 58% of people did not participate in the economy (meaning about 42% were unemployed) and 73% of those with college degrees were not participating, meaning 27% are unemployed.
While you might suggest that if you lost your job you paid less in taxes and thus a tax cut, but that is not a decent thing to say.
And not everyone got a tax cut. While the tax rates themselves decreased, the ranges changed. For example,(guessing the numbers for example only) the 10% tax went down to 9% but the range went from 22,000 to 28,000 to 20,000 to 25,000. Thus if you made 21,000 you paid more in taxes; you got a tax increase.
Additionally Clinton trashed the welfare system, essentially shredding the social safety net. Thus those who were middle class, pushed into poverty, didn't get to take advantage of the programs they paid for. Instead the money went to the very very rich.
Don't forget the high price we all pay for so many people having not option to contribute to society. When you cannot contribute, you have nothing to lose and you no longer act to support that society.
Jobs have to be restored in order for society to heal. Things will only get worse until that happens. Asking those who lost everything to pay more, so the rich get even more is disgusting.
Check out the Venezuelan election results. A great place for you and those in America who lost everything to the rich to make your future home. Over there you can really stick it to those bastard rich people who never work, who just got rich by getting lucky, and who stole all that money you had. Plus, they're giving away free gas! And no snowstorms! LOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Social Security Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump Must Keep His Promise: Repeal DACA Mon spud 236
News Undocumented Workers Contribute Billions to SSI... Sun Retribution 37
News Bill would stop Equifax and other credit report... Oct 12 Kasick of Pancakes 1
News Falling for this Myth Means Running Out of Cash... Oct 10 Slimey 1
News EDITORIAL: Study finds a high cost of allowing ... Oct 7 Quirky 3
News Dreamers deserve legislative compromise Oct 7 coco 123
News Bipolar Disorder and Social Security Disability... Sep 27 observe 48
More from around the web