Senior citizenss would see smaller Social Security checks under Obama budget
27 replies, posted
[quote]The budget plan, being released Wednesday, calls for changing the way the annual cost of living adjustments for Social Security and other federal programs are calculated. Shifting to "chained CPI" from the current inflation measure could reduce the federal debt by $230 billion, but it would also mean that seniors would get smaller increases in their Social Security payments each year.[/quote]
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/news/economy/chained-cpi-social-security/index.html?hpt=hp_t2[/url]
[quote]Senior [b]citizenss[/b] would see smaller Social Security checks under Obama budget[/quote]
sssenior cccccitizensss would ssssee ssssmaller ssssocial sssecurity checkssss under obama budget
It should be that both party's have cuts to what they hold dear.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;40235440]sssenior cccccitizensss would ssssee ssssmaller ssssocial sssecurity checkssss under obama budget[/QUOTE]good job you noticed alliteration
Instead of cutting those who live off that check, lets make the politician salary $20,000 a year. That'll save us some dough.
[QUOTE=areolop;40235568]Instead of cutting those who live off that check, lets make the politician salary $20,000 a year. That'll save us some dough.[/QUOTE]
I should have reworded the title, I doubt anyone will read what I actually put in the OP:
"get smaller[B] increases[/B] in their Social Security payments each year."
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40235611]I should have reworded the title, I doubt anyone will read what I actually put in the OP:
"get smaller[B] increases[/B] in their Social Security payments each year."[/QUOTE]
I still stand by my point.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;40235440]sssenior cccccitizensss would ssssee ssssmaller ssssocial sssecurity checkssss under obama budget[/QUOTE]
I wish I could speak parseltounge
[QUOTE=areolop;40235625]I still stand by my point.[/QUOTE]
Your point is they shouldn't cut the checks. They aren't. They're cutting the increases to the checks.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40235635]Your point is they shouldn't cut the checks. They aren't. They're cutting the increases to the checks.[/QUOTE]
The latter half
[QUOTE=areolop;40235568]Instead of cutting those who live off that check, lets make the politician salary $20,000 a year. That'll save us some dough.[/QUOTE]
As much as I would like to see their wages cut, that doesn't account for a very large sum of money in the grand scheme of things.
[QUOTE=areolop;40235640]The latter half[/QUOTE]
The only way to do that would be if the people in office voted for that. And they won't ever do that :v:
If you look at the Federal budget you'll see that Social Security, Defense, and Medicare/Medicaid are the three biggest(by far) expenses.
There is no way to get the budget under control without cutting those three AND raising taxes.
It's like if your three biggest expenses were rent, health insurance, and your car payment. You can't balance your budget by saying "Oh, I'll just eat more meals at home and spend less money on Starbucks too." That's not going to do it since that's not what's sucking up your money.
The big question is who do we raise taxes on, and what do we do more of, cut spending or raise taxes?
[QUOTE=areolop;40235568]Instead of cutting those who live off that check, lets make the politician salary $20,000 a year. That'll save us some dough.[/QUOTE]
Lobbying would get a lot worse, and corruption would sky rocket.
We're giving out more money than what we earn with social security
shit's terrifying yo
[QUOTE=don818;40236126]Lobbying would get a lot worse, and corruption would sky rocket.[/QUOTE]
You imply greed can be satisfied past a certain level.
By the time I get to that age, there might not be a social security for me, or the age limit increased by a decade or so. Best I can do is invest and accrue money now so I've got some money when I retire later on, since I can't trust SS to be there to supplement that.
The reality is that NO ONE should have been depending on Social Security as their retirement fund. It was designed to be a supplement, a last ditch safety net, to add to the money you saved yourself for your retirement. Everyone would have their personal retirement savings + SS, so even if you didn't save a lot it would all add up to something decent.
Somehow over the years people got lazy about saving for retirement and all assumed "I'll live on my Social Security check."
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40236601]You imply greed can be satisfied past a certain level.[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is, the more you take away from them, the more they'll take from others.
[QUOTE=don818;40239706]What I'm saying is, the more you take away from them, the more they'll take from others.[/QUOTE]
Which implies they wouldn't take from others if we don't take from them. I find that hard to believe.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40238447]The reality is that NO ONE should have been depending on Social Security as their retirement fund. It was designed to be a supplement, a last ditch safety net, to add to the money you saved yourself for your retirement. Everyone would have their personal retirement savings + SS, so even if you didn't save a lot it would all add up to something decent.
Somehow over the years people got lazy about saving for retirement and all assumed "I'll live on my Social Security check."[/QUOTE]
I think you'll find it's quite a bit more complex than "people got lazy about saving for retirement". A lot of people don't have the money to save in the first place.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40239742]Which implies they wouldn't take from others if we don't take from them. I find that hard to believe.[/QUOTE]
You're thinking too hard.
[QUOTE=don818;40239832]You're thinking too hard.[/QUOTE]
I feel the same way about you, so let's call it even.
It's awful, but the price of Social Security is increasing at an exponential rate and if it isn't cut, it's just going to become a worse and worse burden on the budget.
It's a necessary evil, sadly.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40239819]I think you'll find it's quite a bit more complex than "people got lazy about saving for retirement". A lot of people don't have the money to save in the first place.[/QUOTE]
This is certainly true, but these are the working poor, or just poor you're talking about. For these people a comfortable retirement was never a possibility.
I'm talking about middle class people. The kind of people who work for 40-50 years and maybe have some money in the bank in a 'emergency' savings account but that's it. The rest of their paychecks they spent on housing, family, cars, vacations, whatever...but not on any retirement planning.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40241350]This is certainly true, but these are the working poor, or just poor you're talking about. For these people a comfortable retirement was never a possibility.
I'm talking about middle class people. The kind of people who work for 40-50 years and maybe have some money in the bank in a 'emergency' savings account but that's it. The rest of their paychecks they spent on housing, family, cars, vacations, whatever...but not on any retirement planning.[/QUOTE]
Again, even middle class people don't have the kind of disposable income that would allow them to save a significant amount. Unless you're honestly suggesting that all money not spent on absolute necessities should be put in the bank.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40239869]I feel the same way about you, so let's call it even.[/QUOTE]
No, you're thinking about it too hard. He didn't imply there was a max limit that would end lobbying and corruption, he was just saying that the likelihood of lobbying and corruption occurring would probably increase if their salary only allowed them to barely make it by... especially after they've had such high salaries for so long.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;40235440]sssenior cccccitizensss would ssssee ssssmaller ssssocial sssecurity checkssss under obama budget[/QUOTE]
[img]http://thestickytongue.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Brown_tree_snake_Boiga_irregularis_2_USGS_Photograph.jpg[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.