Could someone explain to me what Obama has done to Social Security?

Or whatever he's "planning" to do? I've read dozens of threads and all I've seen so far is a mentioned of a Chained-CPI which as far as I can tell lowers SS by about 1% at the most.

Obama seems to be getting flack for something he actually hasn't done yet as far as I can tell and what it is that he's supposed to be doing I don't actually see that it's a Chained-CPI. Could I get some links please?

Thanks in advance, my mom is on SSI and lives pretty much by the month, even with my help, and this would be disconcerting to say the least.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1438903

The commission he appointed voted to recommend a 22% total cut benefits, over time, for the average recipient.

All the reputable pro-dignity organizations are telling us that this is a disastrous idea that will turn into a massive cut in benefits, but now that the word has come from up top, so we are supposed to support it. COLA hasn't measured any inflation in the past several years, despite food and energy prices drastically increasing. And yet now we're supposed to believe that the current COLA is too generous? It would be laughable if they didn't appear so earnest.

Over time.

It would be closer to 6% if you go by the average .2% yearly divergence from COLA.

in case I should make it that far. If the law isn't changed before then, the SS Trust Fund will be depleted at some time in the 2030s, and benefits will automatically be cut by more than 20%. I'm 62, but I checked the numbers in the graph and it looks like they are for a person currently age 50. That person, under current law, would have been receiving benefits reduced by more than 20% for at least a decade. Do you think that would be better?

the question what has Obama actually done.

Why not simply imply Ryan's voucher program is being implemented. They are both equally likely at this point.

duh.

Because they hadn't attacked yet?

Both sides want to slash Social Security, while only one side wants to end Medicare (Ryan's plan), so those are different. Both sides do want to cut Medicare, but Medicare will need to be controlled somehow or it will actually become ruinously expensive. Social Security, cooked numbers to the contrary, is fully funded as far as the eye can see. Any cuts are purely to grab money from the $2.6 trillion trust fund to give to the wealthiest.

:hi:

A lot of people seem to have already jumped

:P

:hi:

No one here can explain it.

on the table. This is what he "has done".

on the table before. That's chumming the water for republican sharks. It's saying "there is no line which we will not allow you to cross."

It didn't just get started one day and hasn't been adjusted since 1937.

It's been on the table every few years since it was started.

http://tinyurl.com/3on6vrv

1935 - Social Security Act, Pub.L. 74-271
1939 - Social Security Amendments of 1939, Pub.L. 76-379
1942 - Revenue Act of 1942, Pub.L. 77-753
1943 - Pub.L. 78-211
1943 - Revenue Act of 1943, Pub.L. 78-235
1945 - Federal Insurance Contributions Act, Pub.L. 78-495
1945 - Revenue Act of 1945, Pub.L. 79-214
1946 - Social Security Amendments of 1946, Pub.L. 79-719
1947 - Social Security Amendments of 1947, Pub.L. 80-379
1948 - Provision for Exclusion of Certain Newspaper and Magazine Vendors from Social Security Coverage, Pub.L. 80-492
1948 - Provision to Maintain Status Quo Concept of Employee, Pub.L. 80-642
1950 - Social Security Amendments of 1950, Pub.L. 81-734
1952 - Social Security Amendments of 1952, Pub.L. 82-590
1954 - Social Security Amendments of 1954, Pub.L. 83-761
1956 - Social Security Amendments of 1956, Pub.L. 84-880
1958 - Social Security Amendments of 1958, Pub.L. 85-840
1960 - Social Security Amendments of 1960, Pub.L. 86-778
1961 - Social Security Amendments of 1961, Pub.L. 87-64
1965 - Social Security Amendments of 1965, Pub.L. 89-97
1966 - Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, Pub.L. 89-368
1967 - Social Security Act Amendments, Pub.L. 90-248
1969 - Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub.L. 91-172
1971 - Social Security Amendments, Pub.L. 92-5
1972 - Social Security Amendments, Pub.L. 92-336
1972 - Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Supplemental Security Income), Pub.L. 92-603
1973 - Social Security Benefits Increase, Pub.L. 93-233
1977 - Social Security Amendments of 1977, Pub.L. 95-216
1980 - Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, Pub.L. 96-265
1980 - Reallocation of Social Security Taxes Between OASI and DI Trust Funds, Pub.L. 96-403
1980 - Retirement Test Amendments, Pub.L. 96-473
1981 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub.L. 97-35
1981 - Social Security Amendments of 1981, Pub.L. 97-123
1983 - Pub.L. 97-455
1983 - Social Security Amendments of 1983, Pub.L. 98-21
1984 - Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-460
1985 - Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, Pub.L. 99-177
1986 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub.L. 99-509
1987 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-203
1988 - Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub.L. 100-647
1989 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub.L. 101-239
1990 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-508
1993 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-66
1994 - Social Security Administrative Reform Act, Pub.L. 103-296
1994 - Social Security Domestic Reform Act, Pub.L. 103-387
1996 - Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-121
1999 - Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, Pub.L. 106-170
2000 - Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 2000, Pub.L. 106-182

CUT benefits, NARROW entitlements, and REDUCE the scope of SS?

Or does your cut & paste go not go into such little details?

"Putting SS on the table" does NOT mean 'expanding', 'improving' or 'strengthing' SS. The term comes from poker - and it means, you are willing to gamble it away, use it as a chip.

And that is NOT something that Democrats do.

"CUT benefits, NARROW entitlements, and REDUCE the scope of SS?"

Oh, that's right, there isn't one. There's lots of speculation.

In that list, 1977 and 1983 were the biggest negative shifts, reducing long-term payout costs each time (problems with the inflation formulas and COLA formulas).

Why won't he say it?

Nothing was removed, but the lack of increase, based on a formula, was portrayed as a "cut". I'm guessing that whatever is in the works is likely similar, an increase in benefits, but folks will scream about it being a "cut"...

Heck, even anti-fraud measures are portrayed at "cuts".

"To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.) We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (Applause.)"

He has undermined the Dems chances to regain the House in 2012. Their main strategy was grounded in
the Republican attacks on Medicare. And he has made it easier for Republicans to further whittle away both Medicare and
Social Security.

Pretty good day, don't your think?

based on not much information at all is completely mind-boggling.

I expect more of DUer's. Or should I say REAL DU'ers. I'm not sure WHO some of these respondents are who are freaking the f out.

Doesn't this happen all too often here?

:hi:

Sad, innit?

:sigh:

he agreed with the presidents approach to whatever deal comes out. I guess dean is now a sell-out and caves easily.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

at the origin of that "hate", ya know?

There is absolutely NO evidence that Obama will cut any benefits.

Folks are just going nuts over misinformation and ignoring FACTS.

well that is what DUers and the PL do...are you suprised?

funeral home...I mean website anymore...it used to be based on facts, not emotions and hyperspeculation....I agree ---> sad!

if Obama slashed SS...The way they jump all over a un-sourced story from the WaPo so much so it hits the Greatest Thread Page but the story that was sourced & clearly debunked the WaPo story was largely ignored by those same people...Unless they chimed in to say the administration was lying, of course.

That's how I tend to treat them anyway.

"Y'know, I didn't use to like hitting myself on the head with this big hammer, but I've been doing it for several years -- and now it's hard to stop!"

is convinced something is amiss...

If he does anything he should stop the government from borrowing from Social Security to pay other government debts.

And then what? We get upset and it's already done? Do you think they will undo it if enough of us get upset? Maybe by speaking out BEFORE it happens, we can get them to think twice about what they are about to do.

I have written to both of my Senators, and I told them if they vote for the cuts, they will not get my vote, when they come up for re-election.

zalinda

EVERY Democrat should tell us that they support Social Security, and will work tirelessly to keep it as is or strengthen it.

Something else is happening that's huge, and TPTB want people to focus on SS instead. I'd guess it's Murdoch's organizations doing what government does: warrantless wiretapping and bribery.

This is just to get the left in a tizzy

it's Republican benefactors. Don't fret until you hear from the President. :hi:

from hyperventilating as usual.