Skip to main content

View Diary: Rep. Jerry Nadler warns us that the chained CPI shifts costs onto seniors and the disabled (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I was completely in agreement until this: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, Larsstephens
    There is no component of a "grand bargain" that would be worth this, not even the $30 billion extension of unemployment benefits for the 2 million out of work
    Perhaps you could offer that they allow Medicare to negotiate for better drug costs as an offset.

    While a compounded chained CPI would hurt over time, no fix for UI would leave those 2 million people with nothing. Absolutely zero.

    •  We Don't Have to Choose. (16+ / 0-)

      We need to stop giving up some safety nets to preserve others and start pushing to expand (and not just preserve) everything. Trading one limb to keep another from being lopped off turns us all into amputees.

      The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

      by teacherjon on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:42:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I meant there is no component of a grand bargain (6+ / 0-)

      that would be worth destroying Social Security for by making the chained CPI concession.

      I favor allowing Medicare to negotiate with big Pharmaceutical companies to reduce costs.

      I also favor allowing people to choose an at cost Medicare Buy In as their ACA public option, which I understand could save substantial amounts.

      I think of myself as a rationale, reasonable, and even flexible person, when it comes to finding solutions to our budget crisis, and even the need for "real politick" to sometimes  make painful compromises to achieve "greater" political objectives HappyinNM.

      But, I opposed non-rationale, or unreasonable sacrifices to social programs, including unemployment benefits, when our bloated military budgets remain unexamined.

      For example, I would be glad to support any deal that offered to extend unemployment benefits for the 2 million who will apparently lose them and pay for the $30 billion with cuts to some part of the military budget, other than the VA, or veteran's benefits, or military compensation, to be determined by our DoD.

      My understanding is that about 200 of the 800 military bases we maintain around the globe are of dubious value and could save substantial amounts.

      So what I meant in that paragraph is that I would not trade a major cut to Social Security that would compound forever, and harm all recipients, (hundreds of billions) for a 30 to 40 week extension of unemployment benefits for 2 million, that give them only $30 billion of benefits, and probably would only be extended for a few years.

      As in trading $67 trillion, and harming hundreds of billion for the short-term benefit of 2 million would be a stupid trade.  We should be able to get that worthwhile unemployment compensation at a lower cost.  

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:50:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point is that it's not fair to trade benefits (0+ / 0-)

        for anyone in order to prevent the chained CPI from being enacted. There are other places we can draw money from that won't hurt anyone. I haven't heard that it still is happening, but I remember reading stories about Halliburton waaaay over-charging for their services for the military. And I know for sure that the plan to outlaw negotiating for drugs was put into Medicare Part D as one of the ways to make Medicare unsustainable. I just don't think your choice of UI is a good example.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site