Washington : DC : USA | Mar 07, 2013 at 1:32 PM PST
Barack Obama
Obama plan to cut Social Security posted on White House website. Image: Barack Obama.com
 
Barack Obama

Republicans claiming that President Barack Obama does not have a deficit reduction plan need to visit the White House's website. It’s there. And it includes Obama’s plan to cut Social Security payments by $130 billion.

The president’s plan, calling for $4 trillion of deficit reduction, never uses the words “Social Security.” Instead, $130 billion in benefit cuts are called “spending savings from superlative CPI with protections for vulnerable.”

There are no details about what alleged “protections” actually mean, but based on the national average for Social Security payments, which is about $1,100 a month, just about everyone is “vulnerable.”

What the chained Consumer Price Index (CPI) does is use a different formula to calculate cost-of-living adjustments. Instead of raising payments, as the current formula does, chained CPI substitutes cheaper commonly purchased items to create a distorted cost-of-living index. The result is Social Security payments that get smaller each year. The payment cuts grow larger over time as the chained CPI compounds.

Using an average annual benefit of $14,800 for someone 65 years old, after 10 years under the chained CPI their Social Security payment would be reduced by $2,354.81. After 20 years, that cut increases to $8,904.58.

AARP has a calculator for anyone who wants to know just how much chained CPI will take out of their Social Security payments.

Obama’s plan to cut Social Security will do nothing to reduce the deficit, because Social Security is not part of the deficit. The program is funded strictly through payroll deductions and has a separate trust fund that is solvent for the next 23 years, according to the annual Trustees Report on SSA.gov.

In fact, the Social Security Trust Fund has had so much surplus money in it, Congress has been known to borrow from it through bond sales to fund other government spending.

There can only be one reason for the president to sell out seniors and mislead the public into thinking that Social Security adds to the deficit. Obama wants a “grand bargain” with Republicans, and Republicans are more interested in eliminating the social safety net than they are in reducing the deficit.

As it stands now, only people earning less than $113,700 a year pay into Social Security. Above the cap, the wealthy get a free ride. If there were a genuine desire or need to shore up Social Security, simply removing the cap for high-income earners would solve the problem.

So what Obama is actually accomplishing by putting his offer to cut Social Security in writing on the White House's website is a public promise to break his promise to protect working-class Americans.

In addition to being the first president—Democrat or Republican—to promote Social Security cuts, he is handing Republicans a powerful weapon to use again all Democrats in the next election. A majority of Americans like Social Security just the way it is.

If Obama manages to get Republicans to accept his offer to increase financial hardship on seniors, he will go down in history as the president who destroyed what is arguably the most successful government program ever created.

If you like to write about US politics, enter Allvoices’ "The American Pundit" political writing contest. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and Nov. 30. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded in December. If you do not already have a free account, sign up here.

The American Pundit on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmericanPundits

Allvoices on Twitter: https://twitter.com/allvoices

Allvoices on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/freelance.journalism

Sources and more info:

If it's solvent until 2037, why pick on Social Security?

The Hill: Chained CPI: An economic, moral disaster

AARP: 5 Reasons Chained CPI Is Bad For Social Security

National Journal: What Is Chained CPI?

Washington Post: Everything you need to know about chained CPI in one post

itobin53 is based in Tampa, Florida, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.
Report Credibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm just trying to make a way out of no way, for my people" -Modejeska Monteith Simpkins

 

AFRICAN AMERICA IS AT WAR

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICA

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICANS

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

AMERICA'S RACISTS HAVE INFILTRATED AMERICAN POLICE FORCES TO WAGE A RACE WAR AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

THE BLACK RACE IS AT WAR

FIRST WORLD WAR:  THE APPROXIMATELY 6,000 YEAR WORLD WAR ON AFRICA AND THE BLACK RACE

Original Post

It's as quiet as an anechoic chamber on this thread... Well let me be the first to beef. I've been working since I was a teenager at 15. I've been paying into SS, medicare, and other payroll taxes FOREVER. I'm directly affected financially by the sequestration and with the services being cut by the sequestration. I'm a vet. Now that the Congress is cutting SS, damn right I'm pissed. Again another issue that will directly disproportionately affect African-Americans.

 

Now where the hell is our March on Washington, FOR REAL.

"There can only be one reason for the president to sell out seniors and mislead the public into thinking that Social Security adds to the deficit. Obama wants a “grand bargain” with Republicans, and Republicans are more interested in eliminating the social safety net than they are in reducing the deficit."

**************************************************************************************

 


I cannot express how disappointed I am to know that President Obama is actually going to offer up Social Security as a sacrifice, and to the very people that have did nothing but try to destroy his presidency, his image and his legacy [whatever will be left of his 'legacy' after such a betrayal to the American people, his voters, his supporters and to senior and disabled Americans].

 

 

"As it stands now, only people earning less than $113,700 a year pay into Social Security. Above the cap, the wealthy get a free ride. If there were a genuine desire or need to shore up Social Security, simply removing the cap for high-income earners would solve the problem."

******************************************************************************


This is where President Obama should have made ANY cuts in social security, and the only place, and for those reasons.


 

"In addition to being the first president—Democrat or Republican—to promote Social Security cuts, he is handing Republicans a powerful weapon to use again all Democrats in the next election. A majority ofAmericans like Social Security just the way it is.

If Obama manages to get Republicans to accept his offer to increase financial hardship on seniors, he will go down in history as the president who destroyed what is arguably the most successful government program ever created."

************************************************************************************


This is the absolute truth!  It will also prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we did not vote for who we THOUGHT we were voting for; but, however, that we have been "hoodwinked!" "bamboozled!" "Led astray!" "run amok!"


Not to mention what it will seal in time for any other potential Black president.

Well .... not trying to defend the President's actions (I'm still trying to  see exactly what's being proposed (this article is more than a little biased!!)... so, I can't make any real judgment at this time) .... but ... just to put things into a little more perspective ...

 

#1 - the proposed deduction in SS payments (as stated by the article) over a 10-year period would equal approximately $19 a month less out of recipient's checks (which is no small potatoes:  we're talking at least a half a tank of gas ... 2-3 'eating out' meals that I wouldn't have to cook ... or half of my cell phone bill .. per month .. for me!!  However ... it's not a major, life-destroying deduction, either!!).

 

#2 - they're basing the amount on a retire-at-age-65 scenario as well .... which, is NOT  considered the "full retirement age" in order to receive maximum benefits!!   It's hundreds of dollars a month less than any of us would really be receiving at that time!!  So, again .... $20 a month probably wouldn't "break-the-bank" for those affected.  But ... over time, it DOES add up!!

 

#3 - This particular "proposal" is "dead on arrival" already.  It's not one that the Republicans are even considering accepting - because of the tax increases on the wealthy that they say they NO intention of agreeing to!!   Now, of course, that may change (although it seems highly unlikely at this point and time ... the Repubs are having to compromise on too many other things that they don't want right now ... so, there's still a bunch of "fight" to go over this 'deficit reduction' thing to assume that this will be the FINAL deal that is reached!!).

 

#4 - As with ALL political posturing and showmanship ... The President's "proposal" is just that ... a "proposal" ... that has NO teeth to it!!  There's no mention of what the Congressional Democrats think about it .... whether or not they would agree to the President's plan ... and what the FINAL bill could/would look like!!!  If they don't agree to SS "cuts" ... there won't be none!!  Period, plain and simple.

 

So .... while I understand the hoopla at just hearing about such proposed cuts to benefits ... I'll have to take it as just that for now .... play the "wait and see" game ... because this isn't even close to a 'done deal' at this point!

Originally Posted by sunnubian:

 


This is the absolute truth!  It will also prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we did not vote for who we THOUGHT we were voting for; but, however, that we have been "hoodwinked!" "bamboozled!" "Led astray!" "run amok!"


 

Well ... I don't know about "hoodwinked,""bamboozled" and "led astray" .... but ... I've been trying to tell people from the beginning that the President is NOT who MOST Black people thought they were voting for!!    Never was.  

 

But ... it's not the President who's changed.  He didn't "bamboozle" ANYBODY who was seeing him for who he REALLY was/is.  From Day 1 of his (2008) campaign ... He  NEVER pretended like he was a "liberal" (in the Democratic Party agenda sense of the word) .... He NEVER pretended like he didn't have "conservative leanings" (he was severely, publicly faulted for being 'Mr.  Willing to Compromise with the enemy at all costs' ... remember that??) ... he NEVER even pretended to be considering any type of specific "Black agenda" once he became President (he was always "Mr. Lift all boats"!!) 

 

All of which - among other things - are what many Black people are mad at him for today!!  

 

I suggest going back and re-watching those 2008 presidential debates .... with a perspective of 'not knowing then what they know now" ... to see that Candidate Obama and President Obama are indeed one-in-the-same.

 

I would say that Black people "hoodwinked" themselves ... not the other way around.  They saw what they wanted to see .... not WHO and WHAT was REALLY there.  

It has nothing to do with how liberal the president is or isn't, it has to do with his campaign promises, and the fact that he is willing to sacrifice ANY [self-funded, nothing to do with the deficit] social security merely to appease republicans; and to still, at this stage in the game, even be trying to 'compromise' with republicans at all, is astonishing.  

Well, yeah, but .... let's be real!!

 

It certainly isn't the FIRST time he's done either one of those things!! (i.e., offer compromised or put social services on the table!)  This is not new.  But people seem to be just "seeing" this for the first time.  

 

And, I beg to differ that being "liberal" has nothing to do with it!!  There isn't ONE "Liberal" Congressperson that would even think about considering to THINK about talking about putting ANY social service on the table!!!

 

For those who thought (or hoped) he would never do it ... they weren't paying attention to "Candidate" Obama and what he was saying his intentions were during his campaign.  

 

Do you NOT remember how many times ... and how many Black people ...he threw under a bus ... even before his battle with Hillary even took off good???    Yes, Black people gave him the "oh, he has to do that to get elected!" excuse for doing so!  But the TRUTH is that ... in his eyes ... those Black people were WHOLLY expendable ... for his purposes!!  And he didn't feel as if he was doing anything wrong .... the way that ALL OTHER BLACK PEOPLE thought it WAS wrong ... but that there was a justification for it!!

 

Well .... there was NO justification.  It wasn't an "excuse."  The President was being the President.  And he's STILL being who he was/is THEN/NOW.  No 'smoke and mirrors.'  No "(justified) excuses."  

 

President Obama has in some way "sacrificed" the American people/Black people/other various special interest groups .... to "appease" Republicans with EVERY proposal he's put forth for EVERY type of problem he's tried to solve!!  

 

A lot of Black people are VERY upset right now about the President's new-found support for gay marriage .... but, nobody seems to remember that 1) gays were highly pissed off at him the day before he issued that so-called support; because 2) he had said NOTHING for the three years prior in the way of giving support .... and STILL might not have done it yet, had it not been for VP Joe - (unfortunately) speaking 'on behalf of the White house' - and publicly giving HIS support for it!!   After that ... the President had to come on out with it ... if he wanted to get their votes!!

 

The gay people LOVE him .... NOW!!!  But a year ago today???  Not so much.  

 

The President has NOT changed who he was.  For whatever reason ... people are just seeing a different person now than who they THOUGHT they were seeing then. 

LOL .... it's okay, Ms. Koco!!  

 

I'll tell ya what .... cuts or no cuts ..... I totally TRUST that whatever the President proposes or does with respect to the so-called "entitlement programs" ... WILL NOT be something that severely adversely HARMS any of us who are "vulnerable"!!  

 

I know people get all weirded out when they even hear the words "entitlements" and "cuts" in the same sentence!!  And if they were coming out of the mouth of a REPUBLICAN president .... I'd be crappin' in my pants right now, too!!  

 

While I agree with Sunnubian 150% on the fact that Social Security isn't something the President needs to even be holding out as a carrot - since it doesn't have anything to do with the deficit ... and is ONLY being used as an "appeasement" to the Republicans to try to get them to believe that they President is willing to show compromise (and I totally agree that THAT'S NOT a good enough reason!!!) ....

 

.... the fact is ... I do TRUST and BELIEVE that, in the end, the President has the best interests of the people/country OVER the best interests of the rich and elite!!!  I do TRUST and BELIEVE that .... what he does ... what he compromises for .... IS indeed a compromise ... having to 'give something up' to get "something good" that is beneficial for 'we the people' in the process.

 

I know that ex-Prez Bush NEVER had the 'interests of the people' in his heart ... and couldn't have cared less what negative impact his proposals had on us ... compared to his concern of protecting the rich's riches.    Everything he did was to benefit THEM ... not US.  

 

And the same goes for his putting us in the two unnecessary "wars" that have killed thousands of our innocent troops ... and brain damaged tens of thousands more.  President Obama has not ONCE sent our troops into harms way in that same thoughtless fashion.  And NEVER would!!  People complain that he has "kept" troops in that "war zone"  .... but President Obama has NEVER CONDEMNED our troops to die for no good reason!!!

 

The same is true for any "entitlement cuts" that may (or may not) happen!!  He PROTECTED Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from being part of this so-called "Sequester."  He agreed to "furloughs" (one day a pay period) and NOT massive job losses (everybody gets fired, instead!).  When he "compromised" to extend the Bush-era tax cuts ... he did so so that MILLIONS of Americans would CONTINUE to receive their unemployment checks for an additional 70 weeks than they originally should have!!

 

So, yes .... you give some to get some!!  That's the way it goes.  But .... if what you're getting in return is significant .... and what you're giving up isn't .... then I'll take that bet!!    It's better than nothing.  And better than the alternative.  

 

Nobody gets 100% of what they want.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×