Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama's Social Security cuts = Bill Clinton's NAFTA [View all]Divernan
(15,480 posts)54. DEMS reject obamas chained CPI formula for social security.
As The Hill reported on April 22, 2013, Obama DID propose chained CPI be used to calculate Social Security Benefits, and YES, Obama's formula WOULD REDUCE SOCIAL SECURITY COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS. Now what will you argue? That a reduction is not a cut? It's like shooting fish in a barrel to "debate" you!
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/295297-dems-reject-obamas-chained-cpi-formula-for-social-security
Dozens of House Democrats on Monday introduced a resolution that rejected President Obama's proposal for calculating growth in Social Security benefits.
(headline, April 22, 2013)
The resolution, H.Con.Res. 34, was sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), and co-sponsored by 81 other Democrats. It says it is the sense of Congress that "the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits."
Obama used his 2014 budget plan to call for imposing a so-called chained CPI formula. That formula would reduce Social Security cost of living adjustments by taking into account alternative purchases people can make in order to avoid goods and services whose costs are rising quickly.
Since Obama's budget was released, Democrats have criticized it as a way to shrink Social Security payments to seniors and have repeatedly rejected it in speeches on the House floor. "We should not expect Rhode Island seniors to sacrifice their earned Social Security benefits to fix fiscal problems that they had no hand in creating,"
The resolution finds that Social Security payments average about $14,000 per year, and that more than 53 million people receive them. It also adds that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that chained CPI would cut Social Security benefits by 0.25 percent, and would reduce outlays by $112 billion over the first decade.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/295297-dems-reject-obamas-chained-cpi-formula-for-social-security#ixzz2bQdLjMax
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/295297-dems-reject-obamas-chained-cpi-formula-for-social-security
Dozens of House Democrats on Monday introduced a resolution that rejected President Obama's proposal for calculating growth in Social Security benefits.
(headline, April 22, 2013)
The resolution, H.Con.Res. 34, was sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), and co-sponsored by 81 other Democrats. It says it is the sense of Congress that "the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits."
Obama used his 2014 budget plan to call for imposing a so-called chained CPI formula. That formula would reduce Social Security cost of living adjustments by taking into account alternative purchases people can make in order to avoid goods and services whose costs are rising quickly.
Since Obama's budget was released, Democrats have criticized it as a way to shrink Social Security payments to seniors and have repeatedly rejected it in speeches on the House floor. "We should not expect Rhode Island seniors to sacrifice their earned Social Security benefits to fix fiscal problems that they had no hand in creating,"
The resolution finds that Social Security payments average about $14,000 per year, and that more than 53 million people receive them. It also adds that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that chained CPI would cut Social Security benefits by 0.25 percent, and would reduce outlays by $112 billion over the first decade.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/295297-dems-reject-obamas-chained-cpi-formula-for-social-security#ixzz2bQdLjMax
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I recently checked out the status of stocks I lost my retirement savings on in 2008.
Divernan
Aug 2013
#25
Obama has advocated publicly or the chained CPI which will mean a cut in my already small
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#17
I'm every bit as against Bill Clinton as you are for the exact same reasons you mentioned.
livingwagenow
Aug 2013
#21
It's Clinton's NAFTA because he signed it into law. My husband's grandfather was a cattle rancher,
liberal_at_heart
Aug 2013
#39
Clinton should have refused to sign it. If he had I would have a lot more respect for him. But he
liberal_at_heart
Aug 2013
#59
The TPP certainly does equal NAFTA. And much like Race to the Top is worse than
liberal_at_heart
Aug 2013
#9
Yep. And that's the plan by the PTB, the only ones who matter. No matter what, it's coming. We
silvershadow
Aug 2013
#11
Except that the main point of the OP is not true at all. I knew you would approve Woo. nt
tridim
Aug 2013
#27
The OP lied about Obama SS cuts, you know he lied (there are no cuts), and then you defended it.
tridim
Aug 2013
#37
I then went on to explain quite well that I was referring to his PROPOSED cuts. nt
livingwagenow
Aug 2013
#47
My understanding is that the proposed cuts are part of an overall budget proposal
maui902
Aug 2013
#55
What is the name of the Judge who struck down the provision protecting American jobs?
SleeplessinSoCal
Aug 2013
#62
I see lots of rhetoric in this thread with nothing referencing any facts
liberal N proud
Aug 2013
#80
Yep. He will destroy what might have been an impressive legacy. It's such a shame.
OnionPatch
Aug 2013
#85
His lagacy, yes lagacy,will be of complete control of all things by republicans.
Safetykitten
Aug 2013
#88
Still need the name of the judge who "scrapped provisions that PROTECTED American jobs"
SleeplessinSoCal
Aug 2013
#89