Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Media Ignores Senate Vote Against Chained CPI: Five Reasons Why We Should Pay Attention

The main stream media couldn't care less that the U.S. Senate unanimously rejected cuts to Social Security via the 'chained CPI.' But WE should care for the following five reasons ...

More at link:

The U.S. Senate unanimously rejected cuts to social security via the “chained CPI” over the weekend, to a resounding chorus of … chirping crickets. Considering that today’s sharply divided legislative bodies rarely vote unanimously on ANYthing — let alone a budget amendment put forward by an elderly, self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont — the lack of news coverage is astonishing. This writer’s editor will likely demand citations, which she cannot provide, due to this deafening silence from the chattering classes. Journalist Dean Baker from Truthout attributes this uncharacteristic non-response from the mainstream media to “a clear case of the elite lining up together against the bases of both political parties [according to a recent poll].”

Baker continues:

If the chained CPI were put to a vote of the people it would lose in a landslide. But the elites are prepared to use their control of the political process and the media to do everything they can to push this cut forward.

The chained consumer price index (“chained CPI”) would change how the U.S. government measures inflation and adjusts cost of living allowances (COLAs) for Social Security. The consumer price index measures the rate of inflation by comparing the costs of various goods and services over time. (NOTE: The CPI does not track housing prices, and housing is the largest household expense for most Americans.) According to a press release from Sanders’ office, President Barack Obama has been willing to consider the chained CPI as a compromise measure for balancing the budget with an uncooperative GOP, but many Democratic constituencies adamantly oppose it, including the AARP, the AFL-CIO, National Organization for Women, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and AMVETS.

by Anonymousreply 503/26/2013

1)Cut $127 billion in benefits over the next 10 years alone;

2)Hurt anyone receiving Social Security benefits, including retirees, widows, children, veterans, and people with disabilities;

3)Start out small, and get larger over time. Projections show cuts for a beneficiary the first year will be $43, then another $43 for the second year, then another $43 for the third year, and so on.

4)Lower your payments as you get older and need social security more. If you retire this year at age 65, by age 70, you’ve lost $645.00, by age 80, you’ve lost $5,113.00, and by age 90, you’ve lost a total of $13,715.00.

5)This means the average senior loses almost $14,000 of the hard-earned money he or she paid into Social Security. This is bad policy, and it’s unfair to seniors who count on this money.

by Anonymousreply 103/25/2013

Why would you give up a starting position?

by Anonymousreply 203/25/2013

While I agree with your post...

[quote]5)This means the average senior loses almost $14,000 of the hard-earned money he or she paid into Social Security.

Technically, what we do is pay for people collecting SS during our working lives. We have been overpaying into the trust fund for 20 years for the Baby Boom generation.

by Anonymousreply 303/25/2013

R3, you sound so.... Republican.

by Anonymousreply 403/26/2013

LOL...hardly. I am way, way left.

But it is true that SS is or was supposed to be pay as you go. I said I agreed with r1's post and I don't like it.

by Anonymousreply 503/26/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!