The Sneaky Way They Plan on Cutting Social Security Benefits

Talk of changing the way the CPI is calculated is now part of on going talks on how to deal with the debt expansion. Reuters explains bluntly what is going on:

President Barack Obama and lawmakers are considering cutting Social Security and increasing revenue by changing the way the government measures inflation.

Four senior congressional aides said lawmakers are discussing using an alternative yardstick to gauge inflation, known as the “chained consumer price index,” to determine annual cost-of-living adjustments for millions of Americans. How much of an impact will the change in the method of calculating CPI have on Social Security?

It could result in cutting Social Security by $112 billion over 10 years, raising taxes by $60 billion and cutting pension and veterans’ disability payments by $24 billion, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Advocates say the change is needed because the government’s current measure of inflation overstates how quickly prices rise. Got that? In May, the annualized core CPI came in at 2.4% and the government debt negotiators think this is too high a number.

There hasn’t been any economist anywhere that says we shouldn’t do that, [change the way inflation is measured] Earth to Couburn, start with John Williams at Shadow Stats, if you are looking for some one who thinks the CPI measure has been manipulated downward enough already and read up on the last manipulation of the CPI, which was inspired by President Richard Nixon.

We need a CPI that truly reflects what’s happening in the economy, not what’s good for the politicians.

Bottom line: D.C. politicians are attempting every way possible to raise revenue and cut expenditures, even if it is on the back of the elderly. They will lie and say things with a straight face, even if a quick trip to the supermarket confirms the absurdity of the statements made by politicians like Coburn.

Oh Baloney Rabs....the Gov. has plenty other places to cut and everyone knows this...they’re just looking for the fastest biggest bang because THEY backed themselves in the corner.

I have no problem with ‘changing’ some of the particuliars with S.s. and Medicare....you can always cut the double dippers...and we already know how the seniors play that one sitting in their high-rise apartments...and go to a Dr. every time they have a hang nail. But that’s not whom I’m talking about.

I’m talking about the guy who’s worked his life and his only option , which wasn’t an option but “forced”...was to pay those ahead of him so they could retire...and he did...and yes that means the next generation pays the same way...be it mine yours or otherwise. It’s how it works.

Take the illegals off the welfare rolls...and those still getting who shouldn’t be. Americans first...is now my motto.

I’m talking about the guy who’s worked his life and his only option , which wasn’t an option but “forced”...was to pay those ahead of him so they could retire...

If that guy voted all his life for Republicrats, then that guy should reap what he sowed.

and yes that means the next generation pays the same way...be it mine yours or otherwise. It’s how it works.

Redistribution of wealth is not the American way.

It is, however, the way of the Marxists.

"From each according to his ability, to each his according to his needs" - that's the way of Marx and Communism, not the way of free and independent Americans.

Are you a Marxist? ...or an American?

they’re just looking for the fastest biggest bang because THEY backed themselves in the corner.

The below charts are for Fiscal Year 2010.

Anyone with basic quantitative skills can see that if

What You Earn - What You Spend

you are running a deficit.

In Fiscal Year 2010, the Federal government ran a deficit of $3,456,000,000 - $2,162,000,000 = $1,294,000,000 or approximately $1.3 Trillion.

It is mathematically impossible to stop running a deficit unless at least one of the DoD, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security experience cuts.

Even if the Federal government were to cut back "Other Mandatory" and "Discretionary" spending categories completely (failure to make interest payments would constitute a default), the U.S. would still run a deficit.

And that's not counting the fact that "Other Mandatory" and "Discretionary" includes such useful things as maintaining the interstate highway system, patrolling the border, guarding our coasts, inspecting food, regulating the financial system, conducting scientific and medical research, maintaining relations with other countries, operating the Federal court system, monitoring the weather, delivering your mail, and so forth.

So take your pick. We can start rolling back our hyper-interventionist empire-building foreign policy or we can cut your benefits.

Or, we can just raise taxes.

I want you on my debate team.

Rush claims that the economic ignorance in this country is breath taking. He is dead on. That’s why he brings in guest hosts with strong economic backgrounds on his shows (some are *yawn*) when he is absent.

You can stick the charts six inches from their noses and they still refuse to get it. They still think that cutting benefits to illegals and cutting off foreign aid is all that needs to be done to balance the budget. It’s moronic.

Democrats are always pushing for higher taxes and they are on the losing end of the argument UNLESS and UNTIL they can make higher taxes a stark choice.

“Do you want granny to eat dog food or pop-pop to die because he can’t get his meds - OR do you want to pay a little-eency weency bit more in taxes so granny can eat a healthy diet and pop-pop can afford his meds and they both live happily ever after?”

We (I mean collectively as a nation) want to have it every which way to Sunday. We want lower taxes, but we also want an ever expanding nanny state. For the past 50 years, we’ve had a little of both by mortgaging our future so people are accustomed to it. But we can’t borrow against our mortgage any longer. We’ve hit the wall.

Polls show that people don’t want a debt ceiling raise deal with higher taxes, but 60% don’t want entitlements cut in the deal. We’re a bi-polar nation.

How do you think this plays out?

My thinking is that Republicans will hold the line on taxes and they’ll get a mini deal of some sort on raising the debt ceiling. The whole thing will have to be revisited next year, when we’ll be in worse financial shape and an election is looming, so nothing serious will take place then. It will be pure political posturing. So they’ll kick the can down the road until after the election. Every tie they kick the can, the eventual reckoning becomes more severe.

This time, there will be some cuts to entitlements which will infuriate liberals, but will help Obama with the political middle. Democrats will demagogue the cuts (triangulating themselves from Obama) and may make some gains in 2012.

I think Obama loses in 2012, but possibly Democrats keep the Senate (with the demagoguery) and maybe get the House back.

The Ponzi scheme continues in its death throes and I see us ending up like Iceland or Greece. Sorry to say that and I pray not, but the FSA is too ingrained. It will take generations to change course and it will be painful. Maybe Wisconsin on a nationwide scale and with lethal weapons - I shudder.

Best case scenario is we get a new President in 2012 who has the courage to tell the truth to us, lay out a plan, and lead us through the crisis.

We’re near retirement and will be okay, but like most folks we’re most concerned about our children and grandchildren.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.