Skip to main content

View Diary: Chained CPI for Dummies (78 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "myth of eating pet food?" My grandparents did (5+ / 0-)

    because that is all they could afford (1958). I remember my parents finding out and the tears that followed. Yeah, believe your own bullshit. It's all you've got.

    Poverty and Income Inequality isn't Democratic, Justice or American. It is Tyranny.

    by Wendys Wink on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:08:45 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  so then (0+ / 0-)

      social security was never adequate no matter how cpi has been calculated.

      •  Social Security was never totally adequate, but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brown Thrasher, bakeneko

        worked fairly well until the age of monumental greed.

        Poverty and Income Inequality isn't Democratic, Justice or American. It is Tyranny.

        by Wendys Wink on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:16:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  how can you say it worked fairly well (0+ / 0-)

          if in 1958, that's 54 years ago, your parents had to eat pet food?

          •  I mean, grandparents n/t (0+ / 0-)
            •  Oh, for christ's sakes. It worked well for most of (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              polecat, Brown Thrasher, bakeneko

              seniors. Not all seniors. It never has, but should. May you never know hunger or go without.

              Poverty and Income Inequality isn't Democratic, Justice or American. It is Tyranny.

              by Wendys Wink on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:28:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't engage with the troll. /nt (4+ / 0-)

                Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                —Spike Milligan

                by polecat on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:30:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  so we're back at (0+ / 0-)

                the real argument is that social security is not adequate.  Because you could say the exact same thing you just said regardless if COLA is computed by a chained cpi or any other way it's been computed over the last 54 years.

                •  More deliberate obfuscation. Chained-CPI is ABOUT (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  greenbell, Brown Thrasher

                  making SS even less adequate over time.

                  Which is the entire point of the diarist's rant.

                  You're being intentionally obtuse.

                  /facepalm

                  Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                  I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                  —Spike Milligan

                  by polecat on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:13:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I know that's what you think it's about (0+ / 0-)

                    and from what I've read many think that any Democrat, especially President Obama, who doesn't condemn it is in on some nefarious plot to weaken social security because they hate seniors.

                    I don't believe the economists and BLS look at it that way.  As long as the most vulnerable and long term recipients are protected I think we need to look at this in a more analytical way.

                    I will admit that I am persuaded by the argument of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  I believe others are as well.   If you want to change those opinions then tell me why their argument is wrong.  I'm not persuaded by this diary or by saying that people who don't condemn it just want to weaken social security or hate seniors.

                    •  Justification is bogus: (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      nchristine, Brown Thrasher
                      Because many economists believe the official CPI is upwardly biased and regard the chained CPI as a more accurate measure of inflation, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has long supported switching to the chained CPI for adjusting federal benefits and taxes — if it is accompanied by several necessary adjustments to prevent significant hardship, as described below. The policy clearly amounts to a reduction in future Social Security benefits, which many find objectionable. However, we believe that the chained CPI is a reasonable component of a comprehensive package to put the budget on a sustainable course, under the following conditions:
                      Who are these mythical economists?  My college roommate is an economist working in state government.  I've done more math in my life (engineering) that you can shake a stick at.  Find me a measurable number of economists that actually can show that the CPI is overstated (the justification for your position) and then we'll talk.

                      Until then I reiterate my cry: "Bullsh*t!!"

                      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                      —Spike Milligan

                      by polecat on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:16:37 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Then look at the outcome (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      nchristine, polecat, Brown Thrasher

                      The only reason they want to do this is to reduce benefits.  The fact that they tell you that they need to adjust the calculation to address the most vulnerable is a concession to that reality.  They understand full well the outcome of this calculation.  Seniors will have smaller Social Security benefits.  They're admitting they have to do an adjustment because the outcome is a very significant decrease in benefits for those who live beyond 80.  If the calculation actually worked, if it was a true and fair and equitable COLA they wouldn't have to do the adjustment at all in the out years!!

                      So what you have here is a calculation with an outcome that they know as a matter of mathematical fact will steadily reduce benefits over time.  That is the outcome.   I totally reject that outcome.  

                      The sop to adjust it for the vulnerable is just a step in the direction of truly making Social Security nothing but a meager poverty program.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site