Skip to main content

View Diary: An oft-ignored lesson of 2012: The case for appeasing the base (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I realize that you've addressed this to someone (8+ / 0-)

    else, but I feel compelled to answer as to why would they do this?

    From all that I read and hear, the 1% have always wanted "the individual" to have the responsibility, NOT BUSINESS, for providing healthcare.

    Remember, the ACA put the main legal responsibility for having healthcare on the individual.  

    This is a MAJOR WIN for the 1% and the business community.  Again, the ACA came staight out of the Heritage Foundation (see my previous comment).  Not to mention the insurance industry, and other health care related industries.

    And the reason that only a Dem could eviscerate Social Security is being demonstrated right here.

    When George Bush tried to implement means testing (progressive price indexing), the progressive community went ballistic!

    But, tragically, many in the progressive community are now totally compliant in regard to cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

    I find it hard to believe, however, that progressives would not have found their voices to oppose Romney, had he been the one to propose the implementation of the Chained CPI.  (And rightfully so.)

    The implementation of the Chained CPI is the "lesser of the three evils" of the three likely cuts to Social Security which were recommended by the President's own Fiscal Commission (Bowles-Simpson).

    Once you "touch the third rail," coming back to it again, will be a piece of cake.  It's called "the slippery slope."

    Granted, for some folks (especially the top quintile) the loss of 9-10% of their monthly benefit check over years, wouldn't be critical.  Remember, though, this loss compounds.  Alone, it would be very damaging for low to moderate income folks.
    But, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the other two proposed cuts [proposed by the Fiscal Commission.]

    Raising the FRA two years will result in a almost 14% loss of benefit (6-1/2-7% for each year that the FRA is raised).

    And as Rep Schakowsky pointed out in her Reuters Op-Ed, all the cuts to Social Security will come to approximately 35% of their check, for many beneficiaries.

    Try telling all of this to a senior who has no other source of income.
    Lastly, according to the NASI (National Academy of Social Insurance), the BOTTOM FOUR quintiles depend "heavily" on Social Security.  That means that it is either their primary or only source of regular or steady retirement income.
    I have a video clip of Ms. Janice Gregory, then President of the NASI, saying this in 2010.  If I get a chance, I'll post the video clip here.


    “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

    by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:05:33 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site