Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being a fiscal conservative I am all for cutting our bloated federal gvt. I support Paul's plan to cut a trillion and do away with whole departments. But the way the super committee is changing the CPI formula to make cuts gripes me. First, the change hides the rate of inflation from all the money printing from our FR. Secondly, with all the wasteful spending there has to be a better way then to put it on the backs on those with fixed incomes.
Here is the plan for changes in CPI :
Quote:
A feature said to be in both packages is adoption of the chain-weighted or "chain" CPI for adjusting federal entitlements, a move estimated to save $200 billion over 10 years. Many economists say the chain CPI is a more accurate index of inflation because it addresses "substitution bias" found in traditional consumer price indices run by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
What CPI-W doesn't do is change the mix of goods and services surveyed to reflect changes in spending behavior. For example, as the price of beef rises, consumers buy less beef and more chicken. Because CPI-W doesn't take account of that, critics contend, it exaggerates inflation.
To those that say inflation is not a problem then why is there a attempt to change the CPI formula ? I wonder if our so called leadership have thought Granny is already eating more chicken then beef. Considering, the chicken producers were allotted a 40 million subsidy this year and have been subsidized that last 3 years. My whole lifetime chicken has always been cheaper then beef.
With our out of control spendthrift gvt should 1/6th of the cuts be on the backs of Granny ? Should we punish Granny because she does her shopping at Save A Lot, Aldi's or Walmart instead of Kroger or Giant Eagle? Thus saving some of the little money she has, we are going to punish frugality. Think about that, a over spending bloated gvt is going to make those on fixed incomes take a huge brunt of the cuts.
To our {D} friends who are delusional in thinking that the party cares about the poor consider this :
Quote:
Testifying before the super committee, the co-chairs of the fiscal reform commission again endorsed shifting to the chain CPI. "If we could do it government-wide it would save billions," said Alan Simpson, a Republican former senator from Wyoming. No criticism was offered.
Being a fiscal conservative I am all for cutting our bloated federal gvt. I support Paul's plan to cut a trillion and do away with whole departments. But the way the super committee is changing the CPI formula to make cuts gripes me. First, the change hides the rate of inflation from all the money printing from our FR. Secondly, with all the wasteful spending there has to be a better way then to put it on the backs on those with fixed incomes.
Here is the plan for changes in CPI :
To those that say inflation is not a problem then why is there a attempt to change the CPI formula ? I wonder if our so called leadership have thought Granny is already eating more chicken then beef. Considering, the chicken producers were allotted a 40 million subsidy this year and have been subsidized that last 3 years. My whole lifetime chicken has always been cheaper then beef.
With our out of control spendthrift gvt should 1/6th of the cuts be on the backs of Granny ? Should we punish Granny because she does her shopping at Save A Lot, Aldi's or Walmart instead of Kroger or Giant Eagle? Thus saving some of the little money she has, we are going to punish frugality. Think about that, a over spending bloated gvt is going to make those on fixed incomes take a huge brunch of the cuts.
To our {D} friends who are delusional in thinking that the party cares about the poor consider this :
You are right that the 200 billion is nothing to sneeze at, my problem is it falls on a targeted group with already very limited income. If there is going to be sacrifice I think it should be shared. How can the right in good conscience be against asking wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes {sacrifice} but be for taking away cost of living adjustments from Granny? If that is morality I hope I do not catch it.
Do not get me wrong I am against any tax raises and do not support the Marxist tax code but I think we could agree that there is better cuts that could be made from our over spending gvt. I mean really this is the best the so called super committee can come up with ?
You are right that the 200 billion is nothing to sneeze at, my problem is it falls on a targeted group with already very limited income. If there is going to be sacrifice I think it should be shared. How can the right in good conscience be against asking wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes {sacrifice} but be for taking away cost of living adjustments from Granny? If that is morality I hope I do not catch it.
Do not get me wrong I am against any tax raises and do not support the Marxist tax code but I think we could agree that there is better cuts that could be made from our over spending gvt. I mean really this is the best the so called super committee can come up with ?
I doubt that would be all the committee comes up with. I actually support the new index and making the rich pay more in taxes. Both ways will reduce government debt.
I doubt that would be all the committee comes up with. I actually support the new index and making the rich pay more in taxes. Both ways will reduce government debt.
Though I do not agree with your position I admire your consistency But will admit that raising taxes and the CPI adjustment is shared sacrifice and more morale then not raising taxes. If this was part of a horse trade I could blink only if there were huge, huge cuts.
How to hide the 13% increase over last year in the cost of a traditional Thanksgiving Day dinner? Easy- take food out the equation. Then it's just your imagination that food costs are increasing.
Shadowstats uses the 1980 calculations and that would put inflation over 10% currently.
Now that is apples to apples comparison.
If they keep moving the bar then you cannot make YoY comparisons because what you are comparing is not the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But will admit that raising taxes and the CPI adjustment is shared sacrifice and more morale then not raising taxes. If this was part of a horse trade I could blink only if there were huge, huge cuts.
