General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

74. Sorry. Patrice. But all I can say is excuses, excuses.

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 12:04 AM

Apr 2013

Here on DU, we all know better than that.

Any member of Congress who votes for the chained CPI will face a firestorm.

I spoke today to a party stalwart, and even she was upset about it. She is normally a huge, huge Obama supporter. But not today. Not about the chained CPI.

More people rely on their Social Security benefits just to survive than a couple of DUers realize.

Obama and Axelrod stepped on a hornets' nest on this one. And they don't yet realize what a big nest it is. Obama and the Democratic Party will get stung real bad this time. Real bad.

The chained CPI is an outrage, and announced on a day when the stock market goes up enough to make headlines. That's a slap in the face to every lower middle class American between the ages of 45 and 110.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

an ongoing discussion [View all] cthulu2016 Apr 2013 OP

Hayes also pointed out the option of raising the cap. winter is coming Apr 2013 #1

One word: Congress. nt patrice Apr 2013 #6

How many in Congress are Jakes Progress Apr 2013 #83

Its a tax increase on the wealthist Americans. GOP will defend their masters FogerRox Apr 2013 #7

Please explain the 168K. That's from Social Security? Stinky The Clown Apr 2013 #11

Yeah..I didn't get that one.. Lochloosa Apr 2013 #12

Benefits are calculated from income See AIME Formula FogerRox Apr 2013 #106

Yes. Raising the cap is a cash flow measure, not charity. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #13

It would not work that way. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #68

presumably the benefit limits would be changed as part of the move cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #80

I doubt that they would be changed by much. It would defeat the purpose JDPriestly Apr 2013 #81

By current law, if all we do is remove the Cap, we create a 14k monthly check FogerRox Apr 2013 #109

If they can change to chained CPI, they can change the law that would JDPriestly Apr 2013 #116

remove the cap we create a 14k monthly benefit, 168k a year FogerRox Apr 2013 #121

As I said, you could remove the cap and also place a percentage limit JDPriestly Apr 2013 #122

IIRC the last bend point is 5%, cant go much lowerr than that, without being called a means test. FogerRox Apr 2013 #123

JD, your understanding is correct. That is what Senator Sanders explained on avaistheone1 Apr 2013 #126

you 'could' do lots of things. that's not how things work currently, however. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #139

IF we capSS benefits with a means test we just turned SS into a welfare program. FogerRox Apr 2013 #108

SO you bekive the GOP when they say SS is broke in 2033? FogerRox Apr 2013 #107

raising the cap *is* charity, unless you adjust benefits accordingly. the highest earners would HiPointDem Apr 2013 #131

The max SS benefit is computed from your input. Raise the cap, and you raise benefits. FogerRox Apr 2013 #105

There's a cap on benefits. You mean removing the cap on benefits? Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #102

Benefits are not capped, but income is, currently at $113,700. FogerRox Apr 2013 #111

Social Security benefits are capped. There is a max. annual benefit. nt Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #112

Which is created by the income cap FogerRox Apr 2013 #120

You said there is no benefit cap. I pointed out that there is, so that would have to be increased... Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #124

lifting the cap while keeping benefits the same = top earners pay for most of the program & get HiPointDem Apr 2013 #133

Its difficult to discuss this when some dont understand the fundamentals, like AIME etc FogerRox Apr 2013 #137

Legally there is no benefit cap, FogerRox Apr 2013 #136

The cap on taxable earnings is raised nearly every year, and so is the maximum benefit. It's HiPointDem Apr 2013 #132

Somehow ProSense Apr 2013 #2

Nonsense. It is self evidently true. Demo_Chris Apr 2013 #28

You spin so much you confuse me Armstead Apr 2013 #30

Only someone who wants to starve granny to pay for war would be for Obamas plan. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #41

Well...you know there are provisions for the oldest recipients that exempt them. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #103

If u have a kid when your 21, and she has a kid at 21, ur a granny at 42! grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #115

That is that poster's job description. Jakes Progress Apr 2013 #84

I don't believe that's his intention. AverageJoe90 Apr 2013 #71

Its always the same recipe for disaster. Screw the young, screw the old. MichiganVote Apr 2013 #3

"whistling with their hands in the pockets of the elderly" - great line! grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #43

Look at his public education policies and then try to argue with a straight face duffyduff Apr 2013 #49

It's not screw the young. It's to benefit the young. It's only screwing the SS recipients... Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #104

Oh now I've heard it all. So these people pay into a system for decades MichiganVote Apr 2013 #110

You need to learn to read. And don't call me "sugar." That is condescending bigotry. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #125

Axlerod pissed me off to the point Laurian Apr 2013 #4

Me too! And this baby boomer has been paying in to SS Lifelong Protester Apr 2013 #5

They already "fixed it" for the Boomers during the Reagan years. Marr Apr 2013 #16

Exactly. Lifelong Protester Apr 2013 #19

Yup, We've been trailing the Reagan generation of boomers all our lives. MichiganVote Apr 2013 #93

us late boomers Skittles Apr 2013 #96

Your payments went to folks your parent's age. Not right, but a fact. Hoyt Apr 2013 #17

Doubled the tax to pay for both...so boomers paid for parents and pre-paid their own SammyWinstonJack Apr 2013 #31

That is correct, and that is where the funds in the Social Security Trust Fund came from Samantha Apr 2013 #67

difficult? daybranch Apr 2013 #73

Geitner said exactly that in an interview on cable Samantha Apr 2013 #82

That's very ... interesting. OK, alarming. delrem Apr 2013 #86

Jonathan Alter... delrem Apr 2013 #87

It seems interesting that SS is the only creditor they don't HAVE to pay back Dragonfli Apr 2013 #95

Do you know that the largest holder of US debt is its American citizens -- not China, not Japan Samantha Apr 2013 #113

It sounds more like theft than coincidence, good advice to watch every move. /nt Dragonfli Apr 2013 #114

Bogus BS. bvar22 Apr 2013 #36

Correct. That person doesn't understand the concept 'insurance'. nt delrem Apr 2013 #88

Wrong. Those payments created the SS trust fund. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #45

No. Hoyt. The baby boomers paid extra. Reagan assured us that JDPriestly Apr 2013 #70

Current benefits exceed inflow. I did not say all this is right. Hoyt Apr 2013 #89

We may yet take several trillion dollars out of places like bush's arse. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #97

We could take several trillion dollars out of the offshore bank accounts..... socialist_n_TN Apr 2013 #98

If the President had wanted to reassure me today unrepentant progress Apr 2013 #8

Sigh. THE SKY IS FALLING!! babylonsister Apr 2013 #9

Then why the hell did Obama even bring it up? Armstead Apr 2013 #32

He hates our grannies and loves the hoarding class. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #48

Well at least he didn't offer an increase in the retirement age. neverforget Apr 2013 #58

That would be a tough lift because it is already going to 67 cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #62

But Republicans want 70. Obama should offer 70 so he can neverforget Apr 2013 #65

bullcrap. Whisp Apr 2013 #10

First, Obama is 'selling this crap'... TheProgressive Apr 2013 #14

Your beautiful mind shall remain untroubled. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #15

this so reminds me of when Obama 'cut Medicare'... Whisp Apr 2013 #47

Read his budget. It is in writing. How do you feel about raising the cap? grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #50

Is it a done deal, signed and sealed? n/t Whisp Apr 2013 #51

Its failure will not be due to Obama. He has agreed to it. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #55

and it doesn't mean that you know what the President is thinking either. n/t Whisp Apr 2013 #57

I'm not a mind-reader, but why should I have to be? Why assume everything he says is a lie? cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #59

A lot of what he says is misunderstood, he's not a liar, but nice try. n/t Whisp Apr 2013 #63

He's a professional communicator. I am fluent in English. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #66

1) Yes: "something Actually Happen(ed) in writing", 2) Do we agree raising the cap is better? grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #92

When it's a "done deal, signed and delivered" isn't that a little late.... socialist_n_TN Apr 2013 #99

A lot of DUers were saying that? cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #53

way before the Romney thing. in the hatching of it, not the aftermath. Whisp Apr 2013 #56

Fair enough. A lot of stuff was said during the healthcare debates... cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #60

The media and the GOP? Marr Apr 2013 #27

Think goddamit!!! Corporate Personhood: if DAVID AXELROD said a NEW CONGRESS could raise the cap, patrice Apr 2013 #18

What? We can't take our President or his representatives at their word? Laurian Apr 2013 #21

When the best defense is "It is all lie..." one loses hope and interest. cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #23

You know darned well that Presidents aren't kings & CONGRESS WRITES THE LEGISLATION. nt patrice Apr 2013 #33

He is considered the leader of the Democratic Party. Laurian Apr 2013 #37

That is the most lame rationalization ... bvar22 Apr 2013 #40

That should be true. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #75

He took the lead on that in order to pair it with a powerful poison pill, Universal Pre-K, which has patrice Apr 2013 #127

You are right. Most people have no clue. Obama has no clue. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #128

You think he's not using focus groups and poling data like so many other presidents have? patrice Apr 2013 #135

I love it. So the fact that they only offer corporate solutions is proof Marr Apr 2013 #34

We are expected to be the ones on our side, while they do their jobs that happen to include a bunch patrice Apr 2013 #38

So no more "brilliant rope-a-dope", huh? Marr Apr 2013 #54

Just dopes who thought this is a good strategy. neverforget Apr 2013 #61

I don't understand a thing this Patrice is saying. xtraxritical Apr 2013 #69

Try asking a question. nt patrice Apr 2013 #129

Sorry. Patrice. But all I can say is excuses, excuses. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #74

I think we should sent Hekate's thread to him on how to Cleita Apr 2013 #20

Doesn't his actual proposal raise benefits for those most in need? bhikkhu Apr 2013 #22

Myself, I reject turning SS into a welfare program cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #26

Wouldn't raising the cap do the same thing, in principle? bhikkhu Apr 2013 #29

Not conceptually. Raising the cap would lead to some HUGE SS benefit checks down the road cthulu2016 Apr 2013 #35

There is a relationship between how much you put into Social Security JDPriestly Apr 2013 #78

We don't have to monkey with it at all, so why you keep insisting we should is a mystery. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #134

Would conceptualizing it as insurance do that? loyalsister Apr 2013 #76

Those "supplemental payments" are actually just a transfer of JDPriestly Apr 2013 #77

Both sources come from the SS trust fund, originating in FICA payments... bhikkhu Apr 2013 #85

If he wanted to do that, all he had to do was to propose raises in SS. There is enough money, sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #130

There IS something we can do - raise the cap. But I think what Jonathan Alter was saying is that jwirr Apr 2013 #24

(Posted in wrong spot!) Social Security, Obamacare and this summer's debt-limit debate WorseBeforeBetter Apr 2013 #39

Yeah I know about this and its sad because GOPers Iliyah Apr 2013 #79

will not pass in this congress DJ13 Apr 2013 #72

Of course but in the mean time these little fixes can do a lot of damage. jwirr Apr 2013 #91

So don't do ANYTHING now. I swear, WHY....... socialist_n_TN Apr 2013 #100

I think that is what I was saying - that all this conceding little changes is going to hurt SS and jwirr Apr 2013 #119

Becasue top earners get hit hard FogerRox Apr 2013 #138

Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #25

Obama wants to cut Social Security?? He CAN'T be SERIOUS!!!! on point Apr 2013 #42

Yeah, he is. Just like the good neoliberal he truly is. duffyduff Apr 2013 #46

As an old baby boomer ... I hope that Obama isn't serious! In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #90

No he doesn't. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2013 #44

Yep. Rachel said it must be politics, but it IS policy. Obama wants SS cut, period. DirkGently Apr 2013 #52

I didn't like Chris Hayes anyway... ReRe Apr 2013 #64

K&R 99Forever Apr 2013 #94

Bull Shit. elleng Apr 2013 #101

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #117

Axelrod is a moron. That is part of this WH has always concerned me. The man is ignorant, sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #118