Skip to main content

View Diary: What's The Goal? What's The Strategy? (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This proposal does not do that (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, CS in AZ, fou, puakev

    So I don't see that.

    •  Sure it does.... (6+ / 0-)

      Take a little bite of SS now and the ball is rolling.

      •  Eh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        puakev

        Don't see it.

        It may happen in the future, but nothing in this would be a path to it.

      •  ywp. New Product! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando, gulfgal98, shaharazade

        Social Securities!  You need 'em!  Like you need a Hoveround!

      •  That is my theory too (7+ / 0-)

        The chained CPI starts the ball rolling, makes the first real cuts in the most fiscally secure of all the safety net programs (Social Security), neutralizes the Democratic party as the gatekeepers to the social safety net, and by the time the real pain hits, Obama is out of the Presidency and in retirement or working for Wall Street.

        In the end, Social Security will become incrementally privatized.  This is what Wall Street wants and Obama is a willing messenger.

        "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

        by gulfgal98 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 12:34:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Eh (0+ / 0-)

          I don't see it.

          I think Boehner gives the game away, this is not enough for that type of change.

          It would have to be waay bigger.

        •  This is not even remotely the "first real cuts" in (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Armando, T Maysle, Onomastic

          SS. Or don't you consider lopping off two full years of benefits by raising the retirement age for SS a cut in benefits? Which plenty of democrats voted for, BTW, and it could not have passed without them. And the president who signed it into law was re-elected in landslide, the following year. So much for political suicide! Shit, people now don't even remember it ever happened.

          •  You are referencing the 1983 stuff (5+ / 0-)

            One thing to note on that is Social Security really did have a solvency problem then.

            Today is nothing like that.

            •  IIRC there was less than 1 yrs benefits in SSTF (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Armando, shaharazade

              Circa Summer 1983.

              ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 01:09:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I agree, but the point is that it did happen (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Armando, Onomastic

              and it bugs me to no end that people have forgotten, and are pretending that no democrat has ever, ever suggested or voted to reduce SS benefits before, which is ridiculous, and that if any cut does ever happen, it is the end of SS. Which it obviously wasn't. I was only in my 20s when it happened, but I was really pissed off about it. They could have also fixed it then by other means, such as raising the cap on contributions, no?

              Anyway, I still feel that losing two full years of benefits was a huge cut, and I am annoyed by people acting like a very small reduction in the annual COLA increase, amounting to around one-third of one percent or maybe $20-30 dollars a month on average, is the equivalent of "dismantling the program" as well as doing something that has never happened before, something so horrid that no true Democrat could even think it.

              I understand fully disagreeing with any reduction. I agree we don't have an urgent need to do it, and there are people for whom that is not an insignificant amount. Obama is not proposing it because there is a 'crisis' -- as I said below it's a bargaining chip and he knows it, and sees it as a relatively small 'give' which has been offset to at least some degree with increased benefits in other areas (such as some free health care services for people on Medicare that were not free before), so he sees it as an acceptable chip to offer for the grand bargain.

            •  Isn't SSDI runing out of funds in 2016 a bit (0+ / 0-)

              of a "solvency problem?"

              Social Security is made up of two programs: the retirement plan supporting 40 million senior citizens and 6 million survivors, and the disability insurance program created during the Eisenhower administration.

              The disability program pays benefits averaging $1,111 a month, with the money coming from the Social Security payroll tax. The program cost $132 billion last year, more than the combined annual budgets of the departments of Agriculture, Homeland Security, Commerce, Labor, Interior and Justice. That doesn’t include an additional $80 billion spent because disability beneficiaries become eligible for Medicare, regardless of their age, after a two-year waiting period.

              The disability program is projected to exhaust its trust fund in 2016, according to a Social Security trustees report released last month. Once it runs through its reserve, incoming payroll-tax revenue will cover only 79 percent of benefits, according to the trustees. Because the plan is barred from running a deficit, aid would have to be cut to match revenue.

              [emphasis added]

              http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...

              I'd think that the fact that over 16 million people are going to be seriously hurting in three short years if something is not done, deserves some consideration.  

              And no, that does not in any way imply that I think C-CPI is a god send.

              "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

              by Onomastic on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 05:08:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  "Working for Wall Street"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Armando

          This isn't something former-presidents do. They write books and go around making speeches for lots of money, or if they're terrible and no one wants them they might do some painting. I don't think Obama's just lining up his next job offer, as he really has no reason to do that.

    •  Why do you say that? (0+ / 0-)

      Especially since one response to this proposal already has been Dick Durbin setting up a commission to study more cuts to be made in the future. Clearly chained-CPI is a good first step toward many, many other cuts. Once the program is no longer sacrosanct, once it's proven that a high political price will not be paid if you cut it, it will get cut early and often.

      Do you seriously think the Wall St guys, including Peterson, aren't thrilled with this proposal? Peterson, at least, seems to be--didn't he gush about it just a day or two ago?

      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 12:01:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site