Skip to main content

View Diary: Chained CPI, Social Insurance and Two Kinds of Politics (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That is a very interesting chart (24+ / 0-)

    illustrating the disconnect between the average citizen & wealthy elites. average people strongly support expanding social security, whereas the wealthy want to cut it..

    Also, to me the issue isn't whether Chained CPI is more accurate. While it isn't, even if it was I wouldn't favor it..

    To me, we need to do everything possible to increase the average person's standard of living. And social security is one way to do that. Raising the minimum wage is another. Getting jobs back to the U.S. is another. Health care is another. And so on..

    As a member of Courtesy Kos, I am dedicated to civility and respect for all kossacks, regardless of their opinions, affiliations, or cliques.

    by joedemocrat on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:31:26 PM PDT

    •  Exactly.... (12+ / 0-)

      The real problem with our social programs is that they're too stingy, with too many bureaucratic hoops through which to jump, to serve even the "most vulnerable"/"truly needy" well.

      Is it courageous to propose tax cuts but not identify a single tax expenditure to rein in? Is it courageous to target your deepest cuts on the poorest Americans, who vote in lower numbers and provide little in campaign contributions?

      by caul on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 03:19:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  let's start with the so-called "poverty line". (4+ / 0-)

      Here are the current guidelines:

      A single person is at 100% of the poverty level at $11,490 per year, except if living in Alaska or Hawaii. ($14,350 and $13,230, respectively.)

      In CONUS that's $955 per month. To reach 100% of poverty-level, you have to have an income of $31.83 per day. It's higher in Alaska or Hawaii.

      If you have a minimum wage job at $7.50 an hour and you work an 8 hour day, that's $60.00 per day. So in theory you're almost at twice poverty level on a minimum wage job. Sounds good, yeah?

      Now, how many Social Security recipients exceed that level of income, if single?

      How many who receive widow's benefits or SSI?

      Or let's talk about disabled American vets, shall we?

      Divide those numbers by 12 and look at the income levels -- then look at the "qualifying percentage of income" to get real help in the USA today.

      Look at the states' guidelines on qualifying for Medicaid under the current funding levels, never mind the sequester-related cuts. Look at CHIP.  Over 18? Bye-bye, CHIP.  Now, factor this in: most states won't offer Medicaid to a single, childless adult -- male or female.
      Look at the states' guidelines on qualifying for SNAP / TANF.
      Now, factor this in: most states won't qualify a single, childless adult for TANF. Look at the states' guidelines on qualifying for LIHEAP.
      You have to have a place to stay, meaning an address and utility bills, to qualify for LIHEAP.

      No. This budget takes too many swipes at the American people, individually or as a whole, working or long-term unemployed or ill or injured or young or old, to benefit corporations and their lobbyist-aided cabals. Big Oil. Big Pharma. Big Bidness' TBTF banking and "financial sector" shell-game, Ponzi-scheme ripoff specialties.

      This budget is aimed squarely at the people Democrats have, traditionally, represented and defended, on behalf of the entities that have, traditionally, counted on the Republicans for their legislative support.

      Oh, and the non-social-safety net cuts? They're to NASA and to STEM education; they're to the CDC and the National Parks; they're to our shared, common-good.

      They're not to things like the F-35 program, that our military services have said they don't trust and can't use. They're to things like salaries and benefits for military members and their families -- provided, of course, they're E-6 and lower on the food chain.

      It sucks, plain and simple.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 09:53:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are you calling widow's benefits? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1

        Or do you mean survivor's benefits for military spouses/children?

        •  surviving spouse (0+ / 0-)

          of a SocSec recipient -- if you are a dependent / survivor, your benefits are figured as a fraction of the principal's.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

          by BlackSheep1 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 10:02:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, when the spouse dies you either (0+ / 0-)

            keep your own benefits or those of the deceased, depending on whose is more, but not both.

            •  my mom predeceased my dad (0+ / 0-)

              and had her own benefits, but because he was 80+ he got no survivor's benefit. And the "burial allowance" is a sick joke -- IIRC it was $280.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

              by BlackSheep1 on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 04:23:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site