65+ votes Republican.

The only difference is which companies and which special interest they choose to do business with.  In some cases it's the same.

The double bubbles from Clinton and Bush resulted in an enormous wealth drain from the middle to the upper class.

The rich and middle class appeared to win on the way up but only the rich made a killing on the way down.  Our leaders made sure of that.

There are only two absolutes our Lords and Masters have sworn to uphold:

1. Timmie Geithner's Rule #1....."The Banksters who destroyed our economy shall not pay even a penny for the damage they've caused."

And,

2. Grover Norqist's Rule #1....."The Millionaires who have purchased the government & the judiciary while looting the country dry shall not pay one penny more in taxes.

Yes, this from "The Greatest Country On Earth."

It has been stated numerous times here on this blog with supportive links that the chained CPI does not impact just Social Security but reduces the eligibility of every domestic program that the poor rely on to survive. Just to mention a few it impacts the school lunch program, SNAP, Emergency heating programs and it also results in a regressive tax increase on the working poor and the middle class.

The fact that you consistently choose to ignore the negative impact of chained CPI in your zeal to defend Obama does not change the facts.

The reality is that people are saying the kinds of things you are because they've been led to believe that there's some reason why we HAVE TO reduce the deficit - and don't say "sequester!" because they didn't have to do that, either, and having done it, they can undo it.

I won't argue monetary theory with you, because I know you don't agree with the concept of the US being sovereign in its own currency and what that should mean for fiscal policy.

And aside from there being no statutory or constitutional justification for doing this, there's no moral justification for policies and actions that take more and more from people who not only have less and less, but have fewer options for changing their situation.

President Obama Wants to Give a Bigger Hit to Seniors on Social Security than He Did to the Wealthy on Taxes

That's what President Obama's aides keep saying. They generally don't put in those terms, probably because they assume that everyone already knows, but the cut to the typical senior's Social Security benefit from the adoption of the chained CPI would be a larger hit to their income in retirement than the increase in income taxes put in place at the start of the year is the typical affluent taxpayer.
...
If we assume that a typical beneficiary lives long enough to collect benefits for 20 years, their hit from the chained CPI would on average be 3.0 percent over this period.

...By contrast, if we assume that a couple earning $500,000 a year is the typical household affected by the tax increase....This means that the Obama tax increase would reduce their after tax income by a bit less than 0.7 percent. This means that the hit to Social Security beneficiaries from the chained CPI will be around three times as large as the hit to the typical affluent taxpayer from the Obama tax increase.

Also it would be nice if you would provide the data that supports this statement:

a calculation has been made that there are many gen x and millenial centrists who believe that they will not be that reliant on SS and thus, won't be significantly impacted.

At this point it is impossible to deny that the idea of cutting Social Security is on Obama's wish list, not the GOP's.

1- SS gets cut.