Friday February 21, 2014, 5:01 am
Let's hope so! There are more effective ways of finding savings in the budget, slashing welfare isn't one of them. Unfortunately here in Australia, our PM Abbott thnks this is the best approach for cutting budgetry spending? Why not press the fat-cat mining magnates to share some of their wealth (practically unscathed b taxes or royalties)...and shoulder some of this burden? Ooops...sorry...too much common sense!
Friday February 21, 2014, 11:53 am
my best friend's aunt makes $89 hourly on the internet . She has been out of work for ten months but last month her check was $14568 just working on the internet for a few hours. Get More Information
go to the site for more help and info
Friday February 21, 2014, 12:24 pm
Could someone explain to the Economy "Guru,s(Ryan et.al that AUsterity does not work. Ask Greece and others how,s 28% unemployment work for you?..(of course Austerity only applies to seniors ,working poor and middle class. The repug .mantra. Look after the 1%.they vote REPUG>
Friday February 21, 2014, 4:25 pm
Noted. Thanks, Cal. Yeah, I agree.....I don't like the "for now." And, Vivian (above) suggests at least raising it to $250,000.....while I think there can be no compromise unless we ask for a minimum of $1 million. I'm with Jim for cutting the military budget as well as NSA. Those Fusion Centers cost billions and suck up water and electricity. I'm just hoping the movement to privatize Soc. Sec. is dead and buried!
Friday February 21, 2014, 5:33 pm
Is Social Security Safe For Now?
It looks like Progressives may be able to claim a victory. According to the Associated Press, "The White House says President Obama's upcoming budget proposal will not include his past offer to accept lowered cost-of-living increases in Social Security and other benefit programs." In other words, the next budget won't include so-called "Chained CPI." That cost-of-living calculation would have lowered Social Security benefits by an averaging $70 dollars a month, or about 6.5 percent over 20 years.
If it was enacted by Congress and the President, it would have been a huge cut to seniors, veterans, and the disabled. Ever since President Obama offered chained CPI in exchange for higher taxes on the rich, Progressives have been fighting hard to protect Social Security. They've argued that instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and disabled, we should lift the cap on Social Security taxes and close corporate loopholes that cost us billions. If this AP report is true, Progressives should claim this victory, and keep fighting to make the rich pay their fair share.
Friday February 21, 2014, 6:43 pm
Even the current/remaining CPI calculation isn't appropriate. Medical costs for seniors have average annual increase of 17%; the urban/clerical CPI used has only averaged about 3.7%. SSA needs to create a new CPI that is based on spending needs of the seniors who received it.
Friday February 21, 2014, 7:51 pm
Social Security needs to be made stronger, not taken away there are some senior's this is all they have. for rent, food, bills, meds. Some see it to be borrowed from, never replacing it, just because it's there, well it's not their's to borrow it's our's we worked and paid into it all of our lives expecting it to be there for us when we are senior's. It's not to be touched!! It should have never been on the table at all.
Medicaire is the same way it needs to be strengthened!
Good for Obama!!
Thank You Cal
Saturday February 22, 2014, 11:38 pm
"...Maya MacGuineas, head of the Peterson-bankrolled Campaign to Fix the Debt. "The nation needs the President to lead on this issue [the national debt and social secuity cuts]. The clear pullback on his part is a disturbing sign that he will not.""
It seems to me that social security is totally funded by personal contributions and employer contributions. Nowhere is there any government funding.
Further, the national debt has been engorged by the massive defense expenses of 2 wars orchestrated by Baby Bush and his cronies, and both put on the national credit card. And who benefited from those wars? Let's see, companies like Halliburton and other defense suppliers. And who owns these companies? Mainly wealthy people. It seems that those who benefited so richly from those wars should be the ones to pay more taxes to pay down that Republicanus instigated debt.
Sunday February 23, 2014, 9:44 am
I find the title of this article terribly misleading..progressives have always been in the fight to protect SS and this President would not compromise on the Republican stance on SS. Title of this article makes it look like it was his idea to make the cuts! Disappointed..
Sunday February 23, 2014, 1:29 pm
We do not now and never have had a spending problem. Our problem is not collecting sufficient taxes because we gave the rich and corporations sweetheart deals. Return the tax code to that of the 50s and we'd be rocking out. Also, start charging protective tariffs like every other country on Earth.
Sunday February 23, 2014, 7:10 pm
Bring the President's & Congress's pay in line with the 99% & there would be a big savings. Reduce their benefits, office expense allowances, and travel & we would probably not need any more cuts. Funny, when cuts are mentioned none of them are willing to give up any part of their extravagant package.