"I live on $710.00 a month, what exactly am I supposed to cut?"

[BlueCaliDem]

322. What are you going to do next?

Start a #ISupportBoehnerAgainstObama blitz on Twitter? Of course he's rejected it. The proposal includes closing lavish tax loopholes for the rich. DUH.

But of course Boner is now hiding behind the anger of the too-frightened-of-change people and the misinformed and myopic who's supposed to be on the president's side, but who loathe change soooo much, that they are now agreeing with the toothless Speaker-in-Name-Only of the House. And then you have the audacity to suggest I'm a third-wayer? Last I checked, I want to save Social Security, not dismantle it for myself and other future recipients, so if anyone supports the status quo over chained CPI, they're supporting the destruction of Social Security. And that ain't me.

We don't need chained CPI to "fix" social security today or three decades from now.

That's not what the 2012 SSA Trustee's Report says. That's not what the lack of getting an annual Cost Of Living Adjustment on s.s. benefits for the last four years points to. That's not what two liberal think tanks say. Who should I believe? A faceless poster on DU or them?

And all those wonderful naysayers you've listed don't give a good goddamn that Social Security is set to CUT basic benefits by a whopping 25% come 2033, according to the same 2012 SSA Trustee's Report. The last time they warned about this was in 2005, and the year they projected that they would begin to CUT basic benefits was 2041. Yeah, let's keep the status quo COLA formula and watch Social Security go bankrupt {just like Boehner knows it will} instead of changing it to calculate the RATE OF GROWTH of benefits that's just a minor adjustment, certainly a FAR cry from a whopping 25%, while leaving the basic benefits intact and saving social security for future beneficiaries who have worked HARD all their lives and expect to see their full benefits when they retire. People like me.

By the way, when was the last time the current COLA formula has calculated giving s.s. recipients a raise in their benefits again? Oh yeah. 2008. But people will whine and wail to keep the shaky status quo because they are all are so terrified of change. No wonder this country still votes in Republicans, believes a black man shouldn't be in the White House, and think universal health care is the devil. Change scares the shit out of them.

Those people you've listed all believe, much like some idiots on the Left-fringe {not saying you}, that as long as they've got theirs, fuck everyone else who comes after them. Well, I'm one of those people "who comes after" them. So if nothing is done, if the short-sighted, myopic people you've listed don't read the writing on the wall or pay the 2012 SSA Trustee's Report any heed or listen to experts at THE CENTER FOR BUDGET POLICY PRIORITIES and the CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, two powerful LIBERAL think tanks that do this budget policy analysis thingy for a living and that have endorsed chained CPI to replace the current COLA formula, I will see a CUT of 25% in my BASIC benefits, not the rate of growth, but my BASIC BENEFITS.

Finally, I didn't address the widow in your example simply because it was too generalized. And I'd assumed you knew that she's already saved a lot since ObamaCare closed the donut hole and his current proposal will create savings in Medicare {disingenuously propagated by corporate media as "cuts} that she will see in cost-savings in her medicine and doctor's visits for which she doesn't have to pay any co-pays. All those combined would make up for that 0.3% lower growth rate in the Chained CPI by far, and she doesn't see a 25% cut in her benefits.

The goal of Social Security was to ensure that no elderly would live in poverty when they retire. It was the promise. It's a promise we won't be able to keep in twenty years when SSA is set to cut basic benefits by a whopping 25% if we do nothing. Your widow, though, with her pensions in addition to her social security doesn't appear to fit the example of the elderly in Social Security's original promise, does she?