Skip to main content

View Diary: African-Americans, Social Security Cuts & Priorities (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Just so everyone is clear (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitown Kev, JayRaye

    (1) I asked you to please stop being vague in your attacks here , engaging in false equivalence and not attack people  based on how you feel about them personally if that has nothing with substance of public debates. You respond by claiming I am writing ambiguously.

    At this point, if you aren't able to backup your statements, please avoid making them. I don't think anyone here would question the meaning of what I am saying to you.

    (2) Your rebuttal about the facts relies on a post from the People's View that states Chained CPI isn't a cut because they say so. That's the core of the argument as written.

    I will focus on the relevant portions of the article you cite towards this discussion, which is under the sections about whether Chained CPI is a cut rather than the politics.

    Here are some of the articles and opinion pieces that the article you cite leaves out in its citation from Krugman:

    Switching from the regular CPI to the chained CPI doesn’t affect benefits immediately after retirement, which are based on your past earnings.What it does mean is that after retirement your payments grow more slowly, about 0.3 percent each year. So if you retire at 65, your income at 75 would be 3 percent less under this proposal than under current law; at 85 it would be 6 percent less; there’s supposedly a bump-up in benefits for people who make it that far.

    This is not good; there’s no good policy reason to be doing this, because the savings won’t have any significant impact on the underlying budget issues. And for many older people it would hurt. Also, the symbolism of a Democratic president cutting Social Security is pretty awful.

    3. Other things the article you cite says;

    (a) Compares Chained CPI to slowing the rate of growth in Defense spending

    (b) Mischaracterizes an article published by CBPP  by 2 authors there that was published months earlier that in fact admits that in terms of inflation Chained CPI can lead to cuts, but decides its worth the risk.  Your article claims that the article is some how endorsing the idea that its not a cut due to the impact of inflation.  Your article also ignores that the same CBPP said only 2 days before about the actual proposed policy:

    http://www.cepr.net/...

    I can go on, but what would be the point. You aren't from what I can tell dealing fairly or honestly here.

    Feel free to respond as much as you want here, but realize that no one is buying that you are trying to bring civility. You are engaged in the politics of distraction.

    (c) Manipulates and parses in precise the way you attempted to accuse me of language to pretend that their statement about 'baseline benefits" has any meaning in the context of a discussion about benefits matching the rate of inflation.

    To illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of the article, let me offer a really simply version of the facts:

    i. I offer you 30k a year in salary.
    ii. Inflation is increasing by 3 percent.
    iii. I assume that inflation is increasing by 0 percent each year.

    So for each year that I make that assumption where I leave you at 30k, the reality is in real dollars, you have less money although baseline looks the same. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to claim that I have no harmed you economically by pretending that inflation is zero. Yet that's what the article you cited does.

    If you think you are dealing with two equal sides here- pro and con, I got to question whether you are as objective as you claim or simply pretending to be. Objectivity doesn't mean pretending all sides are equal. It means understand factually and logically what arguments actually pan out to be true.

    On its face, none of the pro-CPI peo claiming its not a cut. they are simply trying to obfuscate the admission.

    •  ambiguous...not at all (0+ / 0-)

      On one hand, you present a "set of facts."

      You say that the set of facts have been opposed by nothing other than accusations of racism and not another "set of facts."

      It's pretty much the exact same thing that I saw in the People's View post (TPV gets to be too much of an Obama circle jerk for my tastes...which is such a bad pun...)

      Now you're dealing with a "set of facts" from the opposition.

      That's what I really want to see.

      I haven't rebutted either of the posts, by the way.

      •  By the way (0+ / 0-)

        all I'm really asking is that you engage in the substantive arguments that the other side is making, which you do wonderfully here. That's what I (as a reader and as someone who doesn't know much about this stuff) needs to see.

        •  THis is not a conversation that exists (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayRaye

          tableau rasa

          Youa re doing something I find annoying about people online.

          Its not my job when you are in an online environment to engage every aspect of an argument that leads me to write an article on one aspects of the debate.

          Readers needing to see what you want to see are being unreasonable. If you wanted to know why this is a cut, you could have read the article to which you link me by linking through to the citations (that a lone would have made you question the article you linked me to since that's all I did). Instead, you required that I do that for you. Do you see a problem with that?

          And if after reading if, it you were uncertain, you could also do what I did, which is google the topic to once again confirm, think about logical analogies etc

          Again, see the problem here with what you are saying?

          Its not my job to make you think. Its my job to present an argument that I care about, and if you don't hve enough background to understand it, and if you want to understand it, you will look it up. If you don't care todo that, you don't care tounderstand the debate. its really that simple.

          And yes, of course, most Americans won't. That does't make it something that explains your arguments about vitriol or spewing.

          if its all substnanceless exchanges in which you don't undrstand the debate then of course it appears the same, but that's your fault for not taking the time to understand. Not that of the anti-cut side. These arguments are all over the placed with a plenty of backup. You just have to choose to google them.

          •  You're the one (0+ / 0-)

            who started this conversation on this thread about civility.

            It's in your first sentence, as a matter fact.

            It's a topic that's important to you, yes, and by writing about it, I have to assume that you would think that it should be important to me.

            And perhaps it should be. Not all of us have the time to research this stuff that thourghly.

            and I don't trust either camp of circle jerkers

            So you (or the TPV, for that matter) basically are doing the exact same thing...granted, I think there's more substance to your article.

            There's a bigger issue more in line with my own interests, actually.

            It's not simply questions of bias or information objectivity (whatever that is) or even TMI...it's all of that.

            You haven't exactly presented a debate. You've presented a set of facts with a POV...which there's nothing wrong with, provided we all know exactly what it is.

            •  I don't find this exchange fruitful. (0+ / 0-)

              Good luck.

              •  Hey, you started the conversation (0+ / 0-)

                about civility.

                And you further stated these premises.

                If you are discussing civility, rather than how to prevent the cuts, you and I are quite simply going to fight.
                I'm saying that discussions of civility may not be simply a derailment of the issues (very often it is).

                I am saying that the lack of civility could result in non- or mis- communication. If I say I don't understand what's being said or that I don't have enough information on the topic (pro and con) to form an opinion (although it is resonable to make an assumption based on the fact, for example, that I am a semi-regular poster at Daily Kos), then I'm not attempting to derail an issue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site