View Full Version : Social Security and Chained CPI
It has been discussed as a possibility as parts of earlier posts, but it looks like it is closer to reality as a part of a deal President Obama is proposing in exchange for tax increases. In my casual discussions with friends, they are in favor of reducing "entitlements", but seem to think that these are mostly some sort of unnecessary give away programs. My take is that the most significant so-called entitlement programs are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When I present this to folks, they say that these are not really entitlements, but programs they have paid into during their working years of which they deserve their due. It seems even to my more conservative friends, that these should not be cut. So those are the arguments I have heard.
There are more drastic or imaginative ways to reduce SS obligations that could be discussed to no end, but they realistically are just not on the table in the near future.
I thought this was a good unbiased explanation.
When President Obama on Wednesday unveils his blueprint for the government's 2014 budget, he'll offer lots of ideas for changes in taxes and spending.
But the proposal likely to grab the most attention will be the one dealing with cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients. Many economists would applaud a change in the way Social Security officials measure inflation, but many older Americans may hiss, fearing a new formula will cut their benefits.
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/09/176684848/will-you-be-chained-to-a-smaller-check-in-retirement
I agree there's confusion over the word "entitlements." But I also think the chained CPI is a pretty minor adjustment for an individual which, multiplied across the entire program, would yield big savings.
I also know people who haven't gotten a raise at their job in 4-5 years now, so it's only fair that those receiving government checks have to adjust their expectations as well.
ApatheticNoMore
4-9-13, 8:15pm
Many economists say the CPI is not a good way to measure what people actually are spending at the store
And many also say that the CPI probably already understates inflation, the CPI itself has been changed several times. Inflation would already be more if using old measures.
But true if you are no longer even *pretending* to measure inflation as such but instead measuring the cost of base survival then yea. Oh and I just love these anonymous "many economists". Who are they? Noone even knows. They don't even have names. Economists says .... And "many" of them, they don't even claim "most" of them, "many" could be .05%. It's the argument from authority without *even* an authority that anyone can find!!! Meta-absurd.
because it doesn't take into account the common-sense decisions routinely made by shoppers. For example, if the price of blueberries were to go up, you might not buy them. Instead, you'll pick up the strawberries that are on sale. When the price of beef is high, you'll get the pork roast. The thing that matters to your budget is the total cost you pay for all of your groceries when you get to the checkout register, not what any one item costs separately.
I really dislike these food comparisons for other reasons. I mean strawberries, blueberries, whatever, but the reality is the standard of living is so declined that much food actually consumed is already total garbage. We're already buying junk. So junk is *already* the baseline we are starting from. But that's a different discussion, but sometimes I feel half crazed in the land of plastic food: fake food, fake food everywhere and not a bite to eat.
But many lawmakers — both Democrats and Republicans — are worried that the coming waves of retiring baby boomers will put too great of a financial strain on the system that supports retirees. They are looking for ways to reduce the cost of Social Security without radically restructuring the popular program.
SS taxes were already raised for this, precisely for this. Social Security ran a surplus for many years. The surplus funded the government and SS was given bonds to be paid back later. It was known when the SS taxes were raised that they would produce a surplus, that was their intent, it wasn't an accident. Now even assuming all these bonds are paid back in full, SS still eventually runs short but it's not for quite awhile. If the intent is never to pay back the bonds at all can we at least call it what it is? A scam, fraud, and theft committed on the working class. I mean it would be a different thing if SS taxes had never been raised and they were in the same position. It still might not look good for people's retirements, but then at least they could claim "SS is running out of money" with relatively clean consciences. But no, money was raised, money was promised, and it seems it will never be paid back, even though SS bonds are just government bonds mostly like any others. They want to do a selective default.
No, it could be used to boost revenues as well. That's because many parts of the federal tax code, such as tax brackets and standard deductions, are adjusted annually for inflation, based on the CPI reading. But the White House wants to use the alternative benchmark. Using the chained CPI when setting the tax code would raise an additional $124 billion of tax revenue through 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
True something to watch out for. I don't have the slightest problem with funding SS from general revenues considered it was borrowed from for all those years. But these tax increases won't go for that, and like I said it's the sneakiest kind of spending cut/tax increase. Remember regular inflation is how everyone and their brother fell into the AMT, a tax intended for the super rich (but never inflation adjusted), pretty soon everyone will fall into the top tax bracket. A flat tax by other means?
Yeah, except, those who are still getting check have the potential of getting more, either in their present job or a different job, where as the ones on SS, this is it. This is all they get, cause, it's not easy for a 75 year old with a bad hip and heart to get a job, even at Wal-Mart!
Why don't we just admit we like SS and Medicare, and all the other programs that make living in the US wonderful, and PAY for them! Stuff costs, and if we want these things....and everyone wants them, eventually, they have to be paid for. Period! Paying for them individually, like the incredibly goofy republican voucher idea, is so inefficient as compared to co-op ideas, like universal health care, or 'universal pensions', like SS. It works with vegetables, why not with health care and SS?
Ayn Rand was wrong! There, I said it. She was greedy, and self centered, and wrong. She had no idea how a civilized, modern society works, for the good, and yes growth, of that society. The main principle she never understood was, we take care of our elderly, even though they are no longer productive, because WE WILL BE OLD SOMEDAY TOO!
This seems to be a truth that the (young) wealthy completely disregard, because, well, it doesn't affect them! Every man for himself! That's the Rand way!
As far as conservative voters and SS/Medicare...it's the NIMBY mind-think.
ApatheticNoMore
4-9-13, 8:36pm
I also know people who haven't gotten a raise at their job in 4-5 years now, so it's only fair that those receiving government checks have to adjust their expectations as well.
I don't know how comforting that is: so I hear you haven't gotten a raise in 5 years, that stinks, by the way in order to cheer you up: you'll also never retire, and you may have to support your parent in their retirement. Smile!
And many also say that the CPI probably already understates inflation, the CPI itself has been changed several times. Inflation would already be more if using old measures.
I really dislike these food comparisons for other reasons. I mean strawberries, blueberries, whatever, but the reality is the standard of living is so declined that much food actually consumed is already total garbage. We're already buying junk. So junk is *already* the baseline we are starting from. But that's a different discussion, but sometimes I feel half crazed in the land of plastic food: fake food, fake food everywhere and not a bite to eat.
I really think if there is going to be some sort of Tom Foolery with CPI adjusted SS increase, they should have a Senior Inflation Rate or something. One of the reasons the CPI doesn't accurately reflect true inflation for SS aged people is the increasing cost of health care relative to other goods and services. It is not exactly like you go to a blueberry doctor and then switch to a strawberry one without some reduction in quality. And indeed when it come to food costs we pretty much know how at some point your start trading off a healthy diet for cheap carbohydrates. Not to mention the other core items that seniors may spend a relatively disproportionate amount of discretionary income on, like home heating.
It is lame and inappropriate justification. As much as conservatives are against tax increases, I wonder what the public that they represent would say if the choice was between higher taxes or lower social security benefits. I suppose a person could put a pen and calculator to it, but we all know the example of compounding interest, where you take the small amount of a penny and double the value each day. It isn't long before you're a millionaire. The same goes with the cut in SS, where at some point in the retirement age of a future generation it affords half the spending power.
flowerseverywhere
4-9-13, 10:33pm
this is exactly why we need to encourage each other to be frugal. This is bound to happen, the writing is on the wall. A paid off house, no consumer debt, knowing basic cooking skills etc. are absolutely essential to be able to survive when you get old. The 401/IRA contributions we are making now could make the difference between cat food and a healthy meal. "The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012 " per the ssa http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/~/average-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker How many people do you know that are able to live on that?
ApatheticNoMore
4-9-13, 11:25pm
this is exactly why we need to encourage each other to be frugal. This is bound to happen, the writing is on the wall.
it may be bound to happened (or not, but things do not look good) but we were still robbed. Cypress may have been bound to happen but depositors were still betrayed.
"The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012 per the ssa http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answ...retired-worker How many people do you know that are able to live on that?
I've looked at a family members similar income recently and pronouced it probably doable: 1) medicare covering medical bills 2) paid off house 3) low property taxes locked in forever by prop 13 (I don't like that law but ..). 4) SS income is state tax free. 5) savings to tap for major expenses. I told them there was nothing wrong with tapping some principle (old enough) but advise caution even there given how things are going, if they had a long life etc.. So the money does go a lot further than say my wage income. Still ZIRP is also complained about in the conversation. It really is pretty brutal to older people wanting to live on safe investments (CDs etc.) to get used to this brave new world of no interest ever and that's if you did what you thought was the *right* thing (put money in savings for old age hoping it could generate some interest). "Doesn't the Fed realize what they are doing to old people?!?" Sigh, they dont' care, noone in power really does, it's all for the plutocrats.
As much as conservatives are against tax increases, I wonder what the public that they represent would say if the choice was between higher taxes or lower social security benefits.
Actually, with regard to Chained CPI, it is a fair combination of both: Neither side is being fair about it though: The left is complaining because it blunts benefits; the right is complaining because it keeps increases in the boundaries of the tax brackets smaller. Well, at least they've agreed on something... but of course they won't get up together and present their points against Chained CPI as a united front, because both secretly want "half Chained CPI" - just the impact that feeds their political perspective and not the part that feeds the opposing political perspective. It's like they're not just against each other, anymore, but actively opposed to anything that even smells of even-handedness.
flowerseverywhere
4-10-13, 7:52am
it may be bound to happened (or not, but things do not look good) but we were still robbed. Cypress may have been bound to happen but depositors were still betrayed.
I've looked at a family members similar income recently and pronouced it probably doable: 1) medicare covering medical bills 2) paid off house 3) low property taxes locked in forever by prop 13 (I don't like that law but ..). 4) SS income is state tax free. 5) savings to tap for major expenses.
I never said it was fair. Most of us don't have prop 13 so I guess we are up the creek without the proverbial paddle. And Medicare is not free. The premium for part B is over $100 per month. Just as with private health insurance, Medicare has deductibles, copays and coinsurance. The Part B deductible is $147 in 2013, after which Medicare typically pays 80 percent of the Medicare-approved amount of the service. There's no annual limit on what you might need to pay out-of-pocket. You only need to have a fall, a bout of Pneumonia, or even high blood pressure or blood sugar problems to quickly spend a lot of money.
Most everyone I know who is eligible for medicare has supplemental insurance to cover the gap between medicare coverage and coverage for medicare deductibles and medications. I haven't researched it, but my impression is that it could run two or three hundred dollars a month. I will be eligible for early SS soon and my accountant has advised to delay until full retirement age or even later just to cover medical expenses and the possibility of changes to Medicare.
ApatheticNoMore
4-10-13, 11:44am
Really I think Medicare is pretty good coverage, I could look into all the details, but end of life stuff quoted at 100k each hospital visit (absurd I know), will end up costing a few thousand, without anything supplemental I don't think. Many complaints, but I explained they simply would not get better in most cases with private insurance coverage (like the under 65 set have) - because private insurance deductables can often run that high (my out of pocket maximum is 3000k in net-work, 6000k out of so yea) and the premiums are more, even if you're less than half that age. So whatever bad deal you imagine medicare has there's a good chance you probably already have a worse deal with your current insurance. Of course decades hence I can't say, they do want to cut Medicare.
Actually, with regard to Chained CPI, it is a fair combination of both: Neither side is being fair about it though: The left is complaining because it blunts benefits; the right is complaining because it keeps increases in the boundaries of the tax brackets smaller. Well, at least they've agreed on something... but of course they won't get up together and present their points against Chained CPI as a united front, because both secretly want "half Chained CPI" - just the impact that feeds their political perspective and not the part that feeds the opposing political perspective. It's like they're not just against each other, anymore, but actively opposed to anything that even smells of even-handedness.
It is interesting that letting temporary tax cuts expire and closing tax loopholes are framed as "tax increases" - but getting less benefits for the same amount of taxes paid in is not.
It is interesting that letting temporary tax cuts expire and closing tax loopholes are framed as "tax increases" - but getting less benefits for the same amount of taxes paid in is not.
I'd have no problem calling Republicans out on their hypocrisy - they commit so much of it - but I don't see it in the case you outlined: No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised. Less benefits is simply less benefits.
Really I think Medicare is pretty good coverage, I could look into all the details, but end of life stuff quoted at 100k each hospital visit (absurd I know), will end up costing a few thousand, without anything supplemental I don't think. .Like private insurance, Medicare (and the various private insurances you can get using your medicare premiums) doesn't cover end of life care unless it's medical stuff. So if you have dementia or a stroke and don't need medical care for those things just custodial care in a nursing home, you'll have to pay for that yourself, buy a long term care insurance policy or go on Medicaid. Even when my Mom was in hospice, Medicare wouldn't cover what would have been a $5,000/month nursing home cost just for her to be there so she came to live with me instead.
ApatheticNoMore
4-10-13, 1:27pm
I'd have no problem calling Republicans out on their hypocrisy - they commit so much of it - but I don't see it in the case you outlined: No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised. Less benefits is simply less benefits.
Paying back the money that was borrowed from SS (ie making good on the bonds) MOST CERTAINLY WAS PROMISED otherwise SS tax increases would have been wildly unpopular. "We're going to raise wildly regressive SS taxes, not to fund SS, but to fund the general government" would have had to be the sales pitch, when the sales pitch in actuality was "we're doing this to help preplan for baby boomer retirements".
Pay it back though general tax revenue fine, it was used to cut taxes all those years ... it was only through borrowing from SS surpluses that the government was financed even as well as it was all these years - the overt debt would have been much higher without this SS subsidy (and then would they have dared to default on external creditors they way they are trying to default on SS promises?)
After that point where all bonds are paid back, perhaps you are right, that nothing was promised, but not until after that point, and after that point is not until several decades. I suspect what they (they? actually it's mostly Obama at this point, although more may join that parade) want is never to make good on any of the bonds - ie selective default. Borrow from SS all these years to fund the general government and never pay it back.
Like private insurance, Medicare (and the various private insurances you can get using your medicare premiums) doesn't cover end of life care unless it's medical stuff.
yea that's what I meant hospital care at the end of life. Medicare came through really well.
I'd have no problem calling Republicans out on their hypocrisy - they commit so much of it - but I don't see it in the case you outlined: No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised. Less benefits is simply less benefits.
Put that way actually no return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised, we're just paying for the people currently in the system on the assumption that same would be done for us when we go on SS. But it's just an assumption, no guarantees. They could just legislate that in year xxxx it's done, no more payouts - but I don't think people would just calmly sit back and say "oh well, it was never promised".
awakenedsoul
4-10-13, 3:32pm
These numbers make me see that I better keep my tiny home with capped property taxes. I notice that my neighbors who bought their homes here in the 60's and 70's are elderly, and they seem to have enough money. They only paid $20,000. for their houses back then. I could live on that amount, but just barely. But, I grow a lot of food, ride my bike, and have a low overhead. We have Dial A Ride here and seniors can ride for free. The main thing I see around me is people my age are upsizing. They are buying huge houses, campers, SUV's, etc. I think they are going to have a hard time when they retire. (My neighbor, who is single, just moved from a cute tiny house into a huge 5 bedroom place.) She's in her fifties. I don't know what she's thinking. She has two new SUV's and is trying to rent out her little house. So far she has no renters and two mortgages. Yikes!
No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised.Paying back the money that was borrowed from SS (ie making good on the bonds) MOST CERTAINLY WAS PROMISEDNo specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised.
otherwise SS tax increases would have been wildly unpopular.Don't try to attribute today's rampant, rabid irrational antipathy for government to any point in American history between 1930 and 1960.
"We're going to raise wildly regressive SS taxes,Social Security is actually not a regressive or progressive tax. It starts progressive and ends regressive and so it's basically a wash.
not to fund SS, but to fund the general government"No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised.
Put that way actually no return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised, we're just paying for the people currently in the system on the assumption that same would be done for us when we go on SS. But it's just an assumption, no guarantees. They could just legislate that in year xxxx it's done, no more payouts - but I don't think people would just calmly sit back and say "oh well, it was never promised".Indeed. Someone on another forum points this out very elegantly, saying, essentially, that if obstructionism is allowed to prevail, it'll result in Social Security running out of money at a certain point, resulting in a sudden end to benefits. There wouldn't even necessarily need to be any legislation I don't think. No money, no checks.
ApatheticNoMore
4-10-13, 4:20pm
Indeed. Someone on another forum points this out very elegantly, saying, essentially, that if obstructionism is allowed to prevail, it'll result in Social Security running out of money at a certain point, resulting in a sudden end to benefits.
Even after Social Security bonds are projected to be exhausted (which should be paid the way other government obligations are paid until then) they can STILL pay out social security payments, they will just be % of what is currently paid out and so on. Social Security will NEVER run out of money, it's actually impossible unless your imagining 100% unemployment or something, because income is always coming in from Social Security taxes. So it simply CAN NOT run out of money and make checks stop entirely. Unless the general budget was made to take the entire of SS revenue. And that would be a conscious political choice, to discontinue SS and use it's tax for funding the general budget. It would not just happen by some kind of passive "running out". And suppose that SS is not running out but isn't bringing in as much after SS bonds have been exhausted and revenue was not enough except for vastly reduced payments. Then other options exist then, like raising SS taxes. None of it is inevitable, some kind of inevitable running out, it's all about policy choices.
ApatheticNoMore
4-10-13, 4:37pm
No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised.
Paying back the money that was borrowed from SS (ie making good on the bonds) MOST CERTAINLY WAS PROMISED
No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised.
Making good on the bonds was promised, the SS trust funds holds government bonds. Wow this conversation is productive. Say, I lend you $200 bucks, you never pay it back, and claim "no specific rate of return was promised ... and add: or any return at all! haha!". Talk of rate of return could only apply to the interest anyway. I learn never to lend you $200 again, wait I mean never trust the government again especially Alan Greenspan, but I don't necessarily trust it anyway, no, what I REALLY mean is simply: working people should demand their "$200" back. Really, that's it.
otherwise SS tax increases would have been wildly unpopular.
Don't try to attribute today's rampant, rabid irrational antipathy for government to any point in American history between 1930 and 1960.
I dont' always consider it irrational and raising SS taxes to fund the Reagan defense spending and tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and wars and on and on (and SS surpluses did make all that possible) is not something I imagine being popular.
"We're going to raise wildly regressive SS taxes,
Social Security is actually not a regressive or progressive tax. It starts progressive and ends regressive and so it's basically a wash.
You're basically wrong or maybe don't know the definition of the terms regressive and progressive as applied to taxation. My understanding (and I'm open to *factual* rebutal - ie show me the rates are not what I think they are) is the tax is flat and starts on the first dollar and then maxes out (that's the regressive element). Where's the progressive element? You do realize if someone earning 10k payings 1k in taxes and someone earning 100k pays 10k in taxes that's considered a flat not a progressive tax right? A flat rate across all income is considered flat taxation. That's just definitions.
not to fund SS, but to fund the general government"
No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised.
The money from SS taxes was sold as going to a certain thing. It's not about "rate of return".
No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised.Making good on the bonds was promisedNo specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised.
Wow this conversation is productive.It would be if you would stop ignoring what you're replying to and stop insisting on moving the goal posts to where you want them, only. Facts are great things, but only if they actually prove your hypothesis. You haven't presented any facts that supports your objection to my observation of lack of evidence: "No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised." You haven't presented evidence supporting the idea I was disputing, that there is a problem with people receiving "less benefits for the same amount of taxes paid". Why you thought it would be a good idea to post what you posted in reply to what I posted is bewildering.
I REALLY mean is simplyExcept it isn't. You are objecting to my comment that no promise was made to recipients of any specific return on the taxes they paid, and your "evidence" is talking about a different promise.
working people should demand their "$200" back. Really, that's it.A statement that is grounded in nothing other than one biased perspective. There's nothing wrong with that - it just doesn't happen to be the perspective that will likely prevail.
Don't try to attribute today's rampant, rabid irrational antipathy for government to any point in American history between 1930 and 1960.and raising SS taxes to fund the Reagan defense spending and tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and wars and on and on (and SS surpluses did make all that possible) is not something I imagine being popular. If you really are serious about placing those events in the time period 1930-1960, then you're not worth the effort.
One last comment. I have to grant that the progressive aspect is hard to find in Social Security - it is in the taxation of benefits in retirement - so I really shouldn't call it a "wash". There's a strong regressive bent to it, and a rather weak progressive bent.
I realize the SS debate is critical and will affect almost every person in this country at some point in their lives. Without taking anything away from that I have, over the past few years, become almost completely apathetic regarding the issue. Hate to say it, hate to admit it, but its true. I've become part of the problem rather than the solution thanks to the constant rehashing of the same rhetoric with no discernible signs of progress. I'm certainly not alone in my detachment. If that can happen to someone who enjoys being reasonably engaged in political discussion then its not a huge stretch to think that a broader based sense of apathy might actually be the goal. The down side, or up side depending on your position, is that there is no bigger blank check than constituents saying, "we don't care what you do, just do something and be done with it". My thanks to all of you who have the staying power to keep going.
ApatheticNoMore
4-11-13, 11:58am
It would be if you would stop ignoring what you're replying to and stop insisting on moving the goal posts to where you want them, only. Facts are great things, but only if they actually prove your hypothesis. You haven't presented any facts that supports your objection to my observation of lack of evidence: "No specific return on Social Security taxes paid was ever promised."
So? No specific return was ever promised therefore the chained CPI is a good idea? Why do you think I even care like at all about whether a specific return was promised? Whether a certain return was promised or not has nothing to do with the ENTIRE issue in my mind.
1) I was explaining how the trust fund was used (to fund the general government when income taxes were actually cut). Since there seems vast and endless confusion about what time period I am referring to (might it perhaps be 1945?), I am referring to the time period after Greenspan's Social Security Reform Act of 1983 when social security taxes were *raised* to pre-fund baby boomer retirements. A surplus was run before then, but this greatly increased the size of the surplus. I believe if you watch the patterns of how things play out over decades (like how a trust fund is used and may? not be paid back) you can help see exactly why the middle class was (um I mean will be) reduced to poverty. And it involves lots of deceptions, things being sold as other than what they are.
2) Chained CPI is a bad idea. Chained CPI is not just a cut but one that compounds over years. It's actually far more a cut to much younger generations than older ones (people retired now). I see it's ultimate results as reducing social security checks to the equivlent of maybe $100 a month. I know, I know ... "no specific return was every promised" will be written on the inflation equivalent of the $100 a month checks that are mailed for a lifetime of contributions. Now I know one could argue chained CPI doesn't do this and won't even if compounded for 60 years (for the young uns). Well at least that argument would be interesting, though it would take a lot to convince me, since even CPI may understate inflation and achieve some of the results of chained CPI (although much slower). I think this is a *major* cut to SS that is being sold as a small cut (years from now when it's all compounded into major cuts who will bother with the history - "oh that was a bad idea afterall"). Some say I should work on saving for my own retirement. Um, frankly that's not an idea I have any great problem with, I save from between 10-20% of my income for retirement at any given time (specifically in retirement vehicles, money I can't touch). Maybe I should save more in retirement accounts or something (or save up for a house?), I don't know. The retirement vehicles we save in are not delivering the anticipated result ("no return was promised" - um duh everyone knows this about mutual funds and so on, it's an acutal legal disclaimer!), but this isn't helping people's retirements. And isn't it kind of scary that people have no vehicle than can depend on for any sort of returns when they are old and helpless (not SS I guess, not pensions - all gone now, and of course not 401ks and the like, and ZIRP on anything "risk free"). But let's say I'm just fine because I saved most prudently for retirement (and realize my financial position isn't bad now so it's not from a position of great financial hardship that I am writing), is a society where old people are mostly reduced to poverty going to be a society that treats old people well in general? Is it a society in which I am going to like being old? (to the extent one can like being old you know) Or is it going to be a society filled with run down hospitals that care for old people because most have no money, with even less social esteem for old people than already exists, etc. etc.
So? No specific return was ever promised therefore the chained CPI is a good idea? Yet again, you chose to make up something to argue against instead of replying to the message that you're replying to. If you just want to have a discussion with yourself, then just say so, and we can create a thread just for you, I guess.
1. I said, "No specific return was ever promised."
This came up in response to a concern expressed about "less benefits for the same amount of taxes paid", the word "for" implying a quid pro quo that simply never existed. (Interestingly, the person who wrote the original comment didn't object to my clarification - only you did. The other poster confirmed my clarification and doubled-down on it, saying that there were "no guarantees".) You have yet to clearly acknowledge the truth of this, and I'm leery about continuing the discussion without some clear indication of acceptance from you that what I wrote is true. Having said that, I'll say one thing about this other thought...
2. I didn't say, "Chained CPI is a good idea."
I didn't say it was a good idea. I said it was a fair combination. I said it "smells" even-handed. That's it. Nothing more. Again, if you want to just have an argument with yourself about some things that no one said, I don't know what to do for you, but at the very least, please don't place such comments in response to messages posted by me. It makes other people think that I actually wrote that which you're arguing against, and that's wrong.
Why do you think I even care like at all about whether a specific return was promised?The only thing we have to go on is what you choose to reply to. Since you replied to my saying so, in response to something another poster posted, the reasonable assumption is that you did care. Evidently you didn't, and perhaps really had no interest in anything I said, but just posted a reply to it anyway.
Whether a certain return was promised or not has nothing to do with the ENTIRE issue in my mind.It has to do with what I was saying. You're welcome to be uninterested in what other posters are discussing, and even ignore messages entirely when they're uninteresting to you.
ApatheticNoMore
4-11-13, 7:05pm
:doh:
An argument about arguments, about nothing at all, other than that someone who disagrees with you, for instance say about a topic like "chained CPI", will be treated to every lawyers technicality in the book until the plot has been completely lost never to be found again, which might have been the whole point to begin with!
I mean this argument is so drained of substance and of any relevance to the actual original topic "Social Security and the Chained CPI" and so meta at this point that ... no I really don't want to continue it. And I really can't imagine it being of ANY value (frankly even of entertainment value, much less of informational value) to anyone at this point. Whereas a discussion that actually was about "chained CPI" might at least be of minimal interest. It kinda concerns many of our future old ages (provided we don't die young) and maybe that of our families and so on. Now I have heard this forum has a blocking feature ...
It does appear that the inclusion of Chained CPI in the budget is having its desired effect. It got Paul Ryan to say perhaps the first positive thing he's ever said about the President: “I think the president should be commended for leaning into an issue that is not popular.” There was never any pretension that the proposed budget would be passed by both houses of Congress intact, but it will be interesting to see if such integration of Republican intents into the White House's proposal will help get people in Washington talking to each other again. Hope springs eternal.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.