• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outraged Liberals Say Obama Is About To Screw Over The People Who Got Him Elected

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Outraged Liberals Are Threatening To Turn On Obama Over Social Security Cuts - Business Insider

Liberals descended on Pennsylvania Avenue Tuesday to protest President Barack Obama´s decision to include entitlement cuts in his upcoming budget, delivering 2 million petitions demanding the White House back off its support for the chained CPI. As we reported this weekend, liberals have been seething over the inclusion of the chained CPI in Obama´s budget, which they see as a huge betrayal by the Democratic president.

Even a very mild cut in entitlements is anathema to these people. I guess it simply comes down to whether or not they get "their" money. They could care less what else is at stake; whether their own children and grandchildren will have a pot to pee in.

Republicans should take note here of the willingness these people are showing to compromise and realize that the way forward will not be one of butterflies and unicorns.
 
There are a few truisms about Obama:
1. Liberals will never turn on him no matter what he does.
2. He is related to Dick Cheney and they are of like minds.
 
Outraged Liberals Are Threatening To Turn On Obama Over Social Security Cuts - Business Insider



Even a very mild cut in entitlements is anathema to these people. I guess it simply comes down to whether or not they get "their" money. They could care less what else is at stake; whether their own children and grandchildren will have a pot to pee in.

Republicans should take note here of the willingness these people are showing to compromise and realize that the way forward will not be one of butterflies and unicorns.

I will be directly effected by the CPI, but if this brings about the change that is needed to make SS more solvent for the future, then I support it.
 
Outraged Liberals Are Threatening To Turn On Obama Over Social Security Cuts - Business Insider



Even a very mild cut in entitlements is anathema to these people. I guess it simply comes down to whether or not they get "their" money. They could care less what else is at stake; whether their own children and grandchildren will have a pot to pee in.

Republicans should take note here of the willingness these people are showing to compromise and realize that the way forward will not be one of butterflies and unicorns.

The way I see it -- if a budget proposal manages to piss off the right and the left simultaneously, it's obviously a good idea.
 
The way I see it -- if a budget proposal manages to piss off the right and the left simultaneously, it's obviously a good idea.

Spending goes up, taxes go up, and benefits go down. Everybody pissed, and no issues addressed.
 
Spending goes up, taxes go up, and benefits go down. Everybody pissed, and no issues addressed.

Some spending goes up, some goes down, overall my understanding is that it's supposed to trim 1 trillion off the deficit over 10 years.

Republicans raise spending plenty, they just don't think anybody should pay for it. It's either "tax and spend" or "don't tax, but spend anyway."
 
Some spending goes up, some goes down, overall my understanding is that it's supposed to trim 1 trillion off the deficit over 10 years.

Republicans raise spending plenty, they just don't think anybody should pay for it. It's either "tax and spend" or "don't tax, but spend anyway."

I prefer the wipe the slate clean and start over approach. Latest GAO report shows anywhere between 100-250 billion in duplicated programs and wasted spending per year.

Need to start fresh.
 
Outraged Liberals Are Threatening To Turn On Obama Over Social Security Cuts - Business Insider



Even a very mild cut in entitlements is anathema to these people. I guess it simply comes down to whether or not they get "their" money. They could care less what else is at stake; whether their own children and grandchildren will have a pot to pee in.

Republicans should take note here of the willingness these people are showing to compromise and realize that the way forward will not be one of butterflies and unicorns.

Yet another Obama budget proposal that increases both federal spending and federal taxes, thus it is "balanced"! In Obama land "entitlements" are those federal programs that are paid for, in advance, by payroll taxes (SS/Medicare) and earned by contributors, never those federal "safety net" programs that are based on low income.
 
Cost of Living adjustments are not the make it or break it for Social Security. Having as many people on it as off it working will be.
 
Some spending goes up, some goes down, overall my understanding is that it's supposed to trim 1 trillion off the deficit over 10 years.

Republicans raise spending plenty, they just don't think anybody should pay for it. It's either "tax and spend" or "don't tax, but spend anyway."

Federal spending went up from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP in 2008/9, basically doubling the federal deficit. We are now gradually increasing taxes (now at 17% of GDP) but not nearly enough to catch up with the spending increases. Nobody is proposing that we increase federal taxation to 24% of GDP, or that we reduce federal spending back to 20% of GDP. At no point is the Obama budget ever going to "balance". Talk of trimming the defict by $1 trillion over a decade (basically a 10% cut) is also the same as saying we will increase the national debt by over $8 trillion in that same decade (instead of $9 trillion), it simply sounds better to spin it as a defict reduction plan.
 
Federal spending went up from 20% of GDP to 24% of GDP in 2008/9, basically doubling the federal deficit. We are now gradually increasing taxes (now at 17% of GDP) but not nearly enough to catch up with the spending increases. Nobody is proposing that we increase federal taxation to 24% of GDP, or that we reduce federal spending back to 20% of GDP. At no point is the Obama budget ever going to "balance". Talk of trimming the defict by $1 trillion over a decade (basically a 10% cut) is also the same as saying we will increase the national debt by over $8 trillion in that same decade (instead of $9 trillion), it simply sounds better to spin it as a defict reduction plan.

And that is the root of the problem. GDP spending/revenue gap is not closing fast enough, if at all.
 
So I ran my own comparison of the CCPI-U and the CPI-W to see what the difference in SS COLA would be. Using the same methodology used by Social Security (change in 3Q average from last year COLA was given) from 2000 to 2013, the CPI-W grew 5% more than the CCPI-U. 5% over 12 years.... average of 0.3 percentage points difference with a high of 0.7 percantage points (2 years) and 0 difference (2 years). A lot of money on the aggregate, but not a large impact on an individual.
 
So I ran my own comparison of the CCPI-U and the CPI-W to see what the difference in SS COLA would be. Using the same methodology used by Social Security (change in 3Q average from last year COLA was given) from 2000 to 2013, the CPI-W grew 5% more than the CCPI-U. 5% over 12 years.... average of 0.3 percentage points difference with a high of 0.7 percantage points (2 years) and 0 difference (2 years). A lot of money on the aggregate, but not a large impact on an individual.

Unless, of course, your rent/utility/food costs go up more than the lower COLA adjustment. Many living on fixed incomes will then qualify to get "offsets", via the many forms of federal/state "low income" assistance programs, which then nullify much of the "savings" projected by the SS CPI formula change.
 
Unless, of course, your rent/utility/food costs go up more than the lower COLA adjustment. Many living on fixed incomes will then qualify to get "offsets", via the many forms of federal/state "low income" assistance programs, which then nullify much of the "savings" projected by the SS CPI formula change.

Sure, but that's where creative accounting enters the picture. Fed/State low income assistance programs (which not everyone qualified for will apply for) versus the savings to Social Security. Different funding, different buckets, etc.
 
Sure, but that's where creative accounting enters the picture. Fed/State low income assistance programs (which not everyone qualified for will apply for) versus the savings to Social Security. Different funding, different buckets, etc.

Might be different buckets, but the pockets are the same.
 
Sure, but that's where creative accounting enters the picture. Fed/State low income assistance programs (which not everyone qualified for will apply for) versus the savings to Social Security. Different funding, different buckets, etc.

Exactly. Different voters. What Obama is doing is explaining the "fairness" of increasing overall federal spending by 6% and yet reducing that "given to" elderly SS recipients. The effect is largely the same as means testing SS, since only the bottom income SS folks see little "net" change. The demorats usually come up short on the elderly vote anyway so it costs them nothing to cut SS/Medicare as long as it gets some republicant votes making it a "bipartisan" deal. Obama still will assert that he "must" cut SS to get (trick?) the republicants into allowing more taxation of "the rich". That takes the "sting" out of claims that Obama will not cut "entitlements" while still allowing overall federal spending to increase. ;)
 
So I ran my own comparison of the CCPI-U and the CPI-W to see what the difference in SS COLA would be. Using the same methodology used by Social Security (change in 3Q average from last year COLA was given) from 2000 to 2013, the CPI-W grew 5% more than the CCPI-U. 5% over 12 years.... average of 0.3 percentage points difference with a high of 0.7 percantage points (2 years) and 0 difference (2 years). A lot of money on the aggregate, but not a large impact on an individual.

Sure...year 1 year 2 year 3 any senior won't be able to feel a large difference. The problem is the difference is compounded the longer they live. The longer someone lives they deplete more of their savings. It's a double whammy...10 years of retirment and you start getting low on your actual savings and Social Security is getting out paced by inflation.

Also there's the fact that seniors don't generally purchase goods that you can substitute. A senior living on Social Security isn't buying steak they are paying rent/mortgage with that SS money. They aren't going on trips they are paying medical expenses. The CPI-E (I believe that's the measure) that takes into account what seniors actually spend their money on actually outpaces the regular CPI.
 
Sure...year 1 year 2 year 3 any senior won't be able to feel a large difference. The problem is the difference is compounded the longer they live. The longer someone lives they deplete more of their savings. It's a double whammy...10 years of retirment and you start getting low on your actual savings and Social Security is getting out paced by inflation.
That's assuming the CCPI understates inflation when there's no reason to assume that.

Also there's the fact that seniors don't generally purchase goods that you can substitute. A senior living on Social Security isn't buying steak they are paying rent/mortgage with that SS money. They aren't going on trips they are paying medical expenses. The CPI-E (I believe that's the measure) that takes into account what seniors actually spend their money on actually outpaces the regular CPI.
True, but the problem with the CPI-E is that the sample size for determining weights is tiny...less than 20% of the consumer units in the Consumer Expenditure Survey qualify for the CPI-E. And the shopping outlets will be different too.

Basically, the CPI-E is a great idea, but not accurate and would be too expensive to get any decent accuracy.
 
That's assuming the CCPI understates inflation when there's no reason to assume that.
.

Well it's lower based on the idea of substitution. For a middle income family substitutions probably occurs I just think it's reasonable to assume that when you're talking about a lot of soon to be seniors (have very little to no savings) they already substituted down when they retired.

True, but the problem with the CPI-E is that the sample size for determining weights is tiny...less than 20% of the consumer units in the Consumer Expenditure Survey qualify for the CPI-E. And the shopping outlets will be different too.

Basically, the CPI-E is a great idea, but not accurate and would be too expensive to get any decent accuracy.

Sure I'm not saying it should be fixed to the CPI-E but it's useful barometer for what expenses are like for seniors compared to the regular CPI. If the CPI-E always rises at the rate higher than the regular CPI it's an indication that Seniors are getting hit by specific costs that outpace inflation. We pretty much know that medical costs for seniors is a huge deal and that it has outpaced inflation for awhile now.

Honestly I think if cuts to SS benefits are taking place the benefits should be cut up front and increase over time as spendings are exhausted and medical costs increase.

Edit: Not to mention there would be higher savings.
 
Every journey begins with a single step.

While this change will not solve all of our problems, it is a start. Every change of every kind will meet resistance from some. Personally, I would do something more drastic but I'm not President (yet).
 
Outraged Liberals Are Threatening To Turn On Obama Over Social Security Cuts - Business Insider



Even a very mild cut in entitlements is anathema to these people. I guess it simply comes down to whether or not they get "their" money. They could care less what else is at stake; whether their own children and grandchildren will have a pot to pee in.

Republicans should take note here of the willingness these people are showing to compromise and realize that the way forward will not be one of butterflies and unicorns.

Is this actually a cut to entitlements or simply a slowing of the growth in entitlements?
 
Well it's lower based on the idea of substitution. For a middle income family substitutions probably occurs I just think it's reasonable to assume that when you're talking about a lot of soon to be seniors (have very little to no savings) they already substituted down when they retired.

But it's not the "idea" of substitution...it's actual substitution. The whole point of the CCPI is to adjust weights based on the actual changes in consumption. The current method adjusts the weights every 2 years. The CCPI adjusts weights every month.

But you do have a point that the expenditure patterns are those of the general population and the patterns of the elderly will differ, especially when it comes to medical care and services.
 
I will be directly effected by the CPI, but if this brings about the change that is needed to make SS more solvent for the future, then I support it.

I believe the change is going to be as small as $50 a year at first.

The "cut" is simply trimming the rate of inflation adjustment, its not an immediate cut to benefits.

I don't understand the outrage here.
 
But it's not the "idea" of substitution...it's actual substitution. The whole point of the CCPI is to adjust weights based on the actual changes in consumption. The current method adjusts the weights every 2 years. The CCPI adjusts weights every month.
.

You are correct I was wrong.
 
You are correct I was wrong.

You'd think I'd get tired of hearing that from people, but I never do. Good thing I'm so incredibly humble. ;)

But you were right in your other points about elderly expenditure patterns. They are different and that's difficult to measure, and a concern of economists.
 
Back
Top Bottom