Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated pundit round-up: A Social Security change that liberals don't love (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Most xperts say it is less accurate ... (6+ / 0-)

    and Obama all but admits it by saying the poorest retirees will be provided a bump after 10 and 20 years.  If chained CPI were accurate, why would a bump be necessary?  BTW, would the bump be an increase in the monthly benefit and or a cash payout?  If a cash payout, would it be the total shortfall over 10 years (7 or 8 grand) plus  monthly benefit increases equal to ten years of monthly shortfalls ( raises of several hundred dollars per month)?

    •  Less accurate is a bad thing. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ichibon, DSPS owl

      Slowing the rate of increase to more accurately reflect cost of living increases would make my benefit smaller, but I could live with that.  I'm not looking to make myself better off at my children's expense.

      Slowing the rate of increast so slow the rate of increase?
      Different thing.  I'm also not looking to make myself worse off for my children's benefit.  Sounds a little selfish, but it isn't.  I sincerely hope that they will live to receive benefits themselves, benefits that haven't been eroded by a constant cycle of cutbacks.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 07:28:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site