General Discussion

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)

118. I haven't been able to get the details

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:05 PM

Apr 2013

I've read the president's budget, but neither the SSA portion nor the general portion gives details:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

Therefore, I am drawing just on the 20% figure given out by admin talking heads.

It would have to be on benefits paid or household incomes, because there is nothing that allows the government to accurately figure net worths. In the past such measures (such as the higher Medicare premiums) have been done on the basis of income reported on tax returns.

In the summary tables portion it combines the SS/other taxes together for CPI, so I can't even calculate it backward.

I can tell you that the budget also contains increases in the Medicare deductible which would cost some seniors even more than chained CPI.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

165 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Am I wrong that Obama's chained CPI proposal exempts the bottom 20% of seniors? [View all] Recursion Apr 2013 OP

Clueless comment HERVEPA Apr 2013 #1

Absolutely clueless. timdog44 Apr 2013 #36

So...a one-word Presidential budget proposal, then? Something like 'Utopia'. randome Apr 2013 #39

And why should not a budget plan "proposal" timdog44 Apr 2013 #75

It's possible that Chained CPI, combined with the 'donut hole' of prescription coverage... randome Apr 2013 #78

It was probably a mistake because of the "outrage" it caused? Cal Carpenter Apr 2013 #86

It would also be a mistake if it reduces anyone's payments. randome Apr 2013 #92

This chained CPI will not make it out of congress. timdog44 Apr 2013 #121

By itself it could Recursion Apr 2013 #133

Read the AARP report on food insecurity among older Americans Recursion Apr 2013 #85

Agreed that food insecurity timdog44 Apr 2013 #120

What we don't need are Democrats selling out on SS. SS had zero to do with the deficit sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #135

At what income level would the chained CPI kick in? Do we know that? pnwmom Apr 2013 #146

That is part of the problem. timdog44 Apr 2013 #149

No need for apologies! None of us has enough information on this pnwmom Apr 2013 #150

Right. treestar Apr 2013 #2

Because of course if you aren't starving RIGHT NOW you deserve to! n2doc Apr 2013 #5

If you're starving RIGHT NOW you aren't above the 20th percentile of retirees Recursion Apr 2013 #7

What about the Right Now part don't you understand? n2doc Apr 2013 #8

Yes, if you're in the 25th percentile you're not starving RIGHT NOW Recursion Apr 2013 #9

How do we know if someone in the 25th percentile is starving or not. peace13 Apr 2013 #33

Let's factor that in. Under Obama the Medicare drug donut hole is being eliminated, he has expanded Hoyt Apr 2013 #41

Spot on. madokie Apr 2013 #49

So, chained CPI is a good thing? A plan that's supported by the Club for Growth? myrna minx Apr 2013 #52

Chained cpi is not going to happen madokie Apr 2013 #55

+1 ty. so hard sometimes... to be here. n/t Whisp Apr 2013 #70

Bankster IS a word PADemD Apr 2013 #112

People who are starving right now will see no change in their benefits treestar Apr 2013 #10

So you are saying there is no problem with Elderly folks going hungry in this country? n2doc Apr 2013 #12

Per AARP, the main problem is adults age 50-59 Recursion Apr 2013 #15

Rich is now being above the absurdly low poverty line? TheKentuckian Apr 2013 #165

Do you ever hear yourself speak? Oilwellian Apr 2013 #26

I could not even bother commenting on that riduclous statement Skittles Apr 2013 #155

"People who are starving right now...so they are not starving." progressoid Apr 2013 #53

So starving is our new baseline? myrna minx Apr 2013 #54

Ask n2doc; that's who brought it up upthread Recursion Apr 2013 #65

Hell hath no fury like a middle-class retiree... Recursion Apr 2013 #6

I didn't think it was that specific but I could be wrong. randome Apr 2013 #3

If many seniors move most of their expenses into health care, conceivably Recursion Apr 2013 #4

Right, it is merely a different method of calculating COLAs treestar Apr 2013 #11

Well stated. randome Apr 2013 #16

It is not more accurate and sure as hell isn't for Seniors Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #27

How does a chained CPI understate medical expenses? Recursion Apr 2013 #34

Inflation is measured by weighing a mixed "market basket" of typical expenditures Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #40

Right, but the point of a chained CPI is to *actually measure* what people spend Recursion Apr 2013 #58

Any general CPI understates the inflation that the elderly see muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #98

It understates the inflationary impact of rising health care costs for seniors. Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #99

if the inflation index accurately portrayed real price inflation magical thyme Apr 2013 #31

SS provides majority of income for 2/3 of retirees PA Democrat Apr 2013 #13

More data before you pooh-pooh the impact: PA Democrat Apr 2013 #17

I think benefits should be increased. But SS was never intended to be a pension. randome Apr 2013 #21

Only about 20% of retirees use it as their *sole* income Recursion Apr 2013 #23

Interesting observation. randome Apr 2013 #25

Interesting load of codswollop, really. enlightenment Apr 2013 #114

Thank you for posting this info, kiva Apr 2013 #125

20% was the *lowest*, not highest, earners Recursion Apr 2013 #129

Nice try, but that's not what you said. enlightenment Apr 2013 #154

I remember hearing about pensions. Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #29

I think you can still find mention of them in history books. randome Apr 2013 #32

At a time of elimination of defined benefits pensions, and stagnant wages PA Democrat Apr 2013 #44

No. I doubt anyone on DU thinks it's a good idea. randome Apr 2013 #50

All over the map of course whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #68

Read this very thread. The narrative is now changing. Now chained CPI is evolving into a good thing. myrna minx Apr 2013 #77

I've seen one person say it's good Recursion Apr 2013 #80

It COULD be a good thing when combined with the 'donut hole' of prescription coverage. randome Apr 2013 #82

Yeah, pretty sickening, isn't it? PA Democrat Apr 2013 #90

Denial and then finally acceptance. Less is the new more. neverforget Apr 2013 #94

The original intent is irrelevant. HERVEPA Apr 2013 #61

Yes, SS is difficult to retire on by itself, and wasn't designed to be a sole income Recursion Apr 2013 #22

And people did not plan on stagnant wages, skyrocketing health care costs, PA Democrat Apr 2013 #109

We've had 30 + years of stagnent wages, our "investments" in the failed myrna minx Apr 2013 #113

The budget would pump money into job creation Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #119

I agree there's some great ideas in his budget, but you myrna minx Apr 2013 #122

The crisis will be coming within 30 years!!! Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #153

You are correct. sinkingfeeling Apr 2013 #14

The poorest Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #18

You keep typing that all over DU without any supporting facts and without details. Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #42

Then if it's such a great proposal, one that's supported by the Club for Growth, then why myrna minx Apr 2013 #46

I don't think it's a bluff. I DO think it was a mistake. randome Apr 2013 #51

Because it IS a tax increase that is skewed to impact the middle class PA Democrat Apr 2013 #83

There are protections mentioned in the budget, too. randome Apr 2013 #96

I think this bill is about 4 months away Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #63

You're *for* chained CPI? This is a good proposal? myrna minx Apr 2013 #71

I'd like more from COLA Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #88

Wow. I just don't know what to say. I can't believe some Dems are just willing myrna minx Apr 2013 #103

Desperate people will grasp at straws Rex Apr 2013 #108

Jimmy Carter did the same thing in 1977 Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #110

That is pretty misleading. No one will be lifted above the poverty line by Chained CPI Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #48

What did SS have to do with the deficit? Why would a Democrat perpetuate the sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #137

This is the problem I have with the so called timdog44 Apr 2013 #141

The "poverty line" is just a bunch of irrelevant horseshit eridani Apr 2013 #161

2010 seniors fled democrats. aandegoons Apr 2013 #19

Voters 18-29 outnumbered voters 65+ in 2012 Recursion Apr 2013 #20

So we don't need 50+ folks. aandegoons Apr 2013 #64

Well, we're winning without them right now Recursion Apr 2013 #67

we are calling it close when we should be no where near the repukes. aandegoons Apr 2013 #74

Turnout among young voters plummets in non-presidential years jeff47 Apr 2013 #140

That was because Democrats flat out refused to defend traditional Medicare eridani Apr 2013 #162

It shouldn't be proposed, period. duffyduff Apr 2013 #24

Read the rest of this thread. randome Apr 2013 #30

It's not a cut in SS Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #38

Walk into any Casino jehop61 Apr 2013 #28

Oh yeah, Social Security is a gambling stake for greedy seniors Jersey Devil Apr 2013 #37

my point jehop61 Apr 2013 #57

Another Obama the grand chess master post Jersey Devil Apr 2013 #95

Sorry jehop61 Apr 2013 #115

And walk into any club or most concertss kiva Apr 2013 #132

oh dear jehop61 Apr 2013 #158

"if you're in the 25th percentile you're not starving RIGHT NOW" Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #35

It's your typical, Third Way propaganda Oilwellian Apr 2013 #43

You nailed it Tom, and there is a good reason all of these defenses of the cuts Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #45

This new justification is fucking sick. The Link Apr 2013 #47

No, you're confusing me with n2doc Recursion Apr 2013 #59

No I'm not. You may not have said it first but you said it: Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #101

I certainly did not agree with n2doc. I thought that post was silly and derailing (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #106

It's ever so progressive to cut SS for all but the poor while not raising the taxes of the rich. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #56

this thead is so depressing with all the fucking right wing memes cali Apr 2013 #60

Two issues Recursion Apr 2013 #62

Why the "deal"? Considering there a multitude of other ways to find the money. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #66

Because it passes a budget Recursion Apr 2013 #69

Is there no other way to raise the money? Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #73

You've never heard of a Sophie's Choice? Recursion Apr 2013 #76

At what point in the film did Sophie offer a proposal to kill one of the kids? Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #79

I know, right? whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #84

No kidding! This thread is surreal. myrna minx Apr 2013 #93

It certainly is absurd. Theater of Cruelty comes to mind. Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #104

I was actually stunned by that comment. myrna minx Apr 2013 #111

DU is so strange lately, I believe I am seeing the scope of some peoples Rex Apr 2013 #116

Dumbest analogy ever. The Link Apr 2013 #97

+1000 PA Democrat Apr 2013 #147

What is the standard you are using for 'poor'? Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #72

And it's ever so progressive to hit women harder than men Liberalynn Apr 2013 #81

We won't raise taxes on the top 3%... BlueCheese Apr 2013 #87

We have raised taxes on the top 3%, and this is part of a proposal to raise them more Recursion Apr 2013 #89

Sorry-- I meant top 3% as opposed to the top 1%. BlueCheese Apr 2013 #100

I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised by the answer!!! Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #91

Thanks for injecting some facts and figures. Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #102

OK, where does the cut-off kick in? Recursion Apr 2013 #107

I haven't been able to get the details Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #118

The bottom third or so of seniors are dual-eligible Recursion Apr 2013 #126

But it doesn't save much money! Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #160

Thank you for posting this. (nt) NYC_SKP Apr 2013 #145

So in other words there is not a magic '20% protection' legal wording Rex Apr 2013 #152

Here's the text Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #159

Thank you! Rex Apr 2013 #163

Laughing Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #164

Yup, only 80% get screwed Progressive dog Apr 2013 #105

Totally. Utterly. Wrong. MannyGoldstein Apr 2013 #117

Your basis for that? Recursion Apr 2013 #127

Gotta link? MannyGoldstein Apr 2013 #139

very interesting. That is how I read it myself. graham4anything Apr 2013 #123

Are only the bottom 20% having trouble? gollygee Apr 2013 #124

Most retirees I know own their house, which is unimaginable to me Recursion Apr 2013 #128

Really? gollygee Apr 2013 #130

Yes, but most retirees I know are in small rural towns in the South or in my neighborhood in DC Recursion Apr 2013 #131

I doubt anywhere vaguely close to 80% of seniors own their own homes gollygee Apr 2013 #134

81% over 65 own their home Recursion Apr 2013 #143

I saw 81% listed in the census as home owners gollygee Apr 2013 #144

At that age many have reverse mortgages, which is kind of the point Recursion Apr 2013 #156

That number doesn't just include people with reverse mortgages gollygee Apr 2013 #157

Wow. It sounds like you begrudge them having a roof over their heads. PA Democrat Apr 2013 #148

It will turn the "middle and higher" into the most vulnerable. Stop with the BS madfloridian Apr 2013 #136

I don't buy it Recursion Apr 2013 #138

Democrats are making cuts from which they must protect the poorest. madfloridian Apr 2013 #142

yes n/t Enrique Apr 2013 #151