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
 

ND-Dem

(4,571 posts)
17. Thanks for the verification. Found on p. 46:
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:37 AM
Mar 2015

In the interest of achieving a bipartisan deficit
reduction agreement, beginning in 2015 the Budget
would change the measure of inflation used
by the Federal Government for most programs
and for the Internal Revenue Code from the standard
Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the alternative,
more accurate chained CPI,
which grows
slightly more slowly.

Unlike the standard CPI,
the chained CPI fully accounts for a consumer’s
ability to substitute between goods in response
to changes in relative prices and also adjusts for
small sample bias. Most economists agree that
the chained CPI provides a more accurate measure
of the average change in the cost of living
than the standard CPI.

Switching to the chained CPI, which will reduce
deficits and improve Social Security solvency, has
been proposed in almost every major bipartisan
deficit reduction plan put forward over the past
several years, including the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal
Commission plan, the Bipartisan “Gang of
Six” plan, and the Domenici-Rivlin Bipartisan
Policy Center plan.

The President has made clear that any such
change in approach should protect the most vulnerable.
For that reason, the Budget includes
protections for the very elderly and others who
rely on Social Security for long periods of time,
and only applies the change to non-means tested
benefit programs.
The switch to chained CPI will
reduce deficits by at least $230 billion over the
next 10 years.


"Non-means tested" includes SS, which is given to everyone, poor or rich, who worked enough to qualify.



Recommendations

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

Lindsey Graham is a lying piece of shit too NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #1
he may well be. i report, you decide. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #5
There's that.. and also.. Obama's budget rejects House Republicans' Social Security hostage-taking Cha Mar 2015 #21
Indeed Lindsey Graham is a lying piece of shit tularetom Mar 2015 #52
Yay for 'liberals, led by Bernie Sanders'! nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #2
I miss Hannah Bell on threads like this. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #3
So you're claiming there was no such deal? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #10
Manny, I know I'm being a bit inside baseball, and I think you also know msanthrope Mar 2015 #18
IOW, you're busted. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #22
Busted? You think professed belief in anything Lindsey Graham has to say msanthrope Mar 2015 #24
Got it. Your don't dispute that Obama made the deal, MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #26
A sack of shit Republican who called WH officials "scumbags" is your source? msanthrope Mar 2015 #28
Did I say Graham was my source? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #29
He's the source of the OP, Manny, and you want to discuss his remarks. msanthrope Mar 2015 #30
No, I want to discuss your baseless attack on the OP. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #33
Are the first two words of the OP not "Lindsey Graham?" nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #36
That does not imply agreement in any way, and MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #37
When one quotes the right wing, offering them up without critique? msanthrope Mar 2015 #47
No. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #54
Yes. You should believe it. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #56
Manny, sometimes you have to ask yourself Aerows Mar 2015 #59
I don't give a rat's ass about Graham MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #60
And you know what? Aerows Mar 2015 #62
I have a pretty simple view on all this... MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #63
What in the hell are two good Democrats arguing about? Aerows Mar 2015 #57
Precisely. ....and the idea that he should be taken at face value makes me puke. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #58
I'm all for supporting team-Democrat, but people need to be aware ... dawg Mar 2015 #4
Really, it's come to this? Andy823 Mar 2015 #6
If it fits their narative they'll believe it. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 2015 #8
Really. For once in his ****** Lying life.. he's going to tell the truth. Uh huh.. 'course there Cha Mar 2015 #19
This deal is well known, despite what the DU Revisionist History Team claims MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #7
Yep, his offers to cut SS were widely reported and actually included in the 2014 WH budget proposal. pa28 Mar 2015 #9
Where would that be found in the report? Rex Mar 2015 #12
That would be on page 41 of the document you've linked to. pa28 Mar 2015 #15
Page 12 (very last page) Oilwellian Mar 2015 #16
Thanks for the verification. Found on p. 46: ND-Dem Mar 2015 #17
Obama's budget rejects House Republicans' Social Security hostage-taking Cha Mar 2015 #20
I don't know if the liberals will be able to hold Hillary back Doctor_J Mar 2015 #11
Graham agrees. Hillary is so going after SS. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #23
Wait Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #13
Is it not basically true, though? nt MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #27
Basically true? Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #35
"Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP" MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #38
You're trying too hard here... Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #40
So you claim that Rep. Conyers was lying? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #41
So.... Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #42
After Obama is out of office, progressives will post links about how they were almost right alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #45
"progressives" Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #48
why doesn't this win us votes? it's won us approval by oligarchs! MisterP Mar 2015 #14
'close' as in it didn't happen. spanone Mar 2015 #25
Graham musta lost count fredamae Mar 2015 #31
For those who think Graham is lying, can we accept these sources? Doctor_J Mar 2015 #32
Apparently not. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #39
The Nation is a well-known source for far right pro-corporate propaganda Doctor_J Mar 2015 #50
crazy, crazy grasswire Mar 2015 #53
Apparently it did; multiple documentation in this thread. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #34
what were the specifics of this mini Simpson Bowles deal that actually didn't work out? Sheepshank Mar 2015 #43
oh bull. 2014 is really that long ago? ND-Dem Mar 2015 #46
lovely linkys that still don't clarify what is meant by "mini Simpson Bowles" Sheepshank Mar 2015 #49
Horseshoes and hand grenades, Lindsey alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #44
Oh Lindsey, you funny little liar...stop making my sides hurt NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #51
And now, flash flood watches Aerows Mar 2015 #55
It didn't quite happen that way... stevenleser Mar 2015 #61
K&R woo me with science Mar 2015 #64
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Lindsey Graham says Obama...»Reply #17