Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Social Security makes it official: No COLA in 2010

Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:16 AM EDT
business, politics, us, social-security, cola
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press

FILE - In this Feb. 11, 2005 file photo, trays of printed social security checks wait to be mailed from the U.S. Treasury's Financial Management services facility in Philadelphia. The Social Security Administration makes it official Thursday Oct. 15, 2009: There will be no cost of living increase for Social Security recipients next year, the first year without one since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975. (AP Photo/Bradley C Bower, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — There will be no cost of living increase for more than 50 million Social Security recipients next year, the first year without a raise since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.

Blame falling consumer prices. By law, cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which is negative this year, the government said Thursday, because of lower energy costs. Social Security payments do not go down, even when prices drop.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is pursuing a different way to boost recipients' income. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama called for a second round of $250 stimulus payments for seniors, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities.

The payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the government's economic recovery package. The payments would be equal to about a 2 percent increase for the average Social Security recipient.

Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest bump up since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.

"Social Security is doing its job helping Americans maintain their standard of living," said Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue.

But, he added, "In light of the human need, we need to support President Obama's call for us to make another $250 recovery payment for 57 million Americans."

The Labor Department reported Thursday that consumer prices had declined 2.1 percent since the third quarter of 2008. The cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, or COLA, is based on the change in consumer prices from the third quarter of one year to the next.

Social Security recipients shouldn't get a raise next year because their purchasing power has already increased with falling consumer prices, said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank.

"Since the purpose of COLAs is to preserve beneficiaries' purchasing power, the decline in overall prices means that beneficiaries do not need a COLA in January 2010," Kathy Ruffing, a senior policy analyst at the center, wrote in a report this week.

Over the past 12 months, gasoline prices have fallen 29.7 percent and overall energy costs have decreased 21.6 percent, the Labor Department said Thursday.

Ruffing noted that government forecasters don't expect consumer prices to return to 2008 levels until 2011.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H, called the $250 payments "inappropriate."

"The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living," Gregg said.

Some advocates for seniors, however, argue that older Americans spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on health care costs, which rise faster than consumer prices.

The lack of a cost of living increase triggers several provisions in the law. Among them, the amount of wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes will remain unchanged. The first $106,800 of a worker's earned income is currently subject to the tax.

Also, Medicare Part B premiums for the vast majority of Social Security recipients will remain frozen at 2009 levels. However, premiums for the Medicare prescription drug program, known as Part D, will increase.

Obama's proposal calls for sending $250 payments to Social Security recipients as well as those receiving veterans or disability benefits, railroad retirees, and retired public employees who don't receive Social Security. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified for more.

The White House put the cost of the payments at $13 billion. Obama didn't say how the payments should be financed, leaving that up to Congress. The president is open to borrowing the money, increasing the federal budget deficit, just like Congress did with the first round of stimulus payments.

Obama's proposal has picked up support from key members of Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Several groups that advocate for seniors have also endorsed the $250 payments, including the AARP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

One group, The Senior Citizens League, said Social Security recipients would be better off with a 3 percent increase in their monthly payments.

"Although President Obama's call for a one-time payment of $250 will help seniors, it is a distraction since the zero COLA will cost retirees thousands in lost compounding throughout their retirement," said Shannon Benton, executive director of The Senior Citizens League.

The average monthly Social Security payment for all Social Security recipients is $1,094.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Stephen Ohlemacher's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: EconVine, Happy with Corporate America?, Living with Less
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (46)
hole_in_the_wall

Who cares, I wont get it anyway. Sucks that I have to pay into it too. Might be worth a revolution for steeling my income with no intention of paying it back.

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
LS-415070

Sad as it is to say, I haven't had a COLA in 10 years!! Nor have I had a raise in 5! So I guess my missed raises and COLA's have been going to Social Security all that time!! Hmmmm, let's see, I work hard, don't have increases, and I'll never see Social Security. And now I'm supposed to be saddened that there won't be a pay increase for them? Sorry, I just can't!

Perhaps Congress can offer it up to them...since they make so much more than anyone else!

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:53 AM EDT
snake09

No COLA in 2010? Can we at least get Pepsi?

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:32 PM EDT
Wildcard-781265

Your social security is not being wasted, it is going to the people who have already paid in to it and the government used THEIR money to fund other things.

I know it is not fair to spend what you pay on other people but it is not their fault, they paid in believing they would get it back too, now they need it and it’s not there.

It’ the government who are the real crooks here, why didn’t Obama put some of the trillions he printed back into the SS system knowing it was in trouble rather than giving it to a bunch of bankrupt companies for bail out?

It seems everyone is worth saving except our elderly who have paid their fair share, here is a novel idea, make congress pay into the system and live on it, I bet you a dollar to a donut they fix it then and fast.

  • 4 votes
#1.3 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:40 PM EDT
Pamela Drew

Wildcard...It' the government who are the real crooks here...

Really it is seeing fair and balanced for the Alice in Wonderland World of Washington.

There will be no cost of living increase for more than 50 million Social Security recipients next year

Fair and balanced is that no Wall Street Bankers will be seeing their income change either!

The average monthly Social Security payment for all Social Security recipients is $1,094.

The top dogs taking TARP funds average $56,000 an hour, Congress is legislating American values!

  • 3 votes
#1.4 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:18 PM EDT
JoulesBeef

congress should be banned from COLA as well

  • 3 votes
#1.5 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:41 PM EDT
Reply
mountainmike-1199289

All the legislators in congress just got an automatic cost of living pay increase. Most of them are making $150,000 or more, plus perks. Most are well over $200,000 a year. Many of the veteran legislators will retire with pensions that will make them millionaires. Maybe its time that we ask that they be the role model? If they won't tighten their own belts, maybe its time we tighten those belts for them. Maybe they could drive their own cars, shop for and cook their own food, not have maids, cheuffers, manicurists, royal butt wipers, free haircuts, free medical coverage, etc...

  • 5 votes
Reply#2 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:53 AM EDT
pjwrites

Excellent idea, mountainmike. IMO, every single state or national representative in government should live no better than their lowliest constituent, until they do the right thing for everyone they represent, and not just those with money and connections.

I once did the necessary research to figure out this SS thing, and discovered that most people put in about $100,000 more than they ever get out of it, if you can believe that. (Stats are available at the gov's Census website.) There should always be a big surplus if our governments had chosen to be responsible.

I know that some people will get up in arms over the $250 checks, but I can empathize with those retirees. Older folks get shoved out of the workplace and are pretty much disregarded as "productive contributors", then, more often than not, they have to sit out the rest of their lives worrying about meeting their financial obligations.

Most gov checks average about $900 a month, so increasing their annual income by $250 to increase their "purchasing power" is a joke. We might not have "inflation" at the moment, but what about the affect that one-time oil spike is still having on our economy? When the price of gas doubled and tripled, businesses had to raise their prices in order to maintain profitability. But when gas prices went down, how many businesses followed up by lowering prices? I would venture to guess, not many, outside of the restaurant industry.

That's why I'm working harder than ever and socking away everything I can. I don't want to grow old and have to depend on my government or fellow Americans to treat me with dignity and respect, I want to be able to take care of myself. But how much money is enough, when everyone seems to be going backward?

  • 5 votes
#2.1 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:16 PM EDT
Jain

That's why I'm working harder than ever and socking away everything I can. I don't want to grow old and have to depend on my government or fellow Americans to treat me with dignity and respect,

but pj, good idea. But what if I die before reaching old age. All the hard work and savings would have been in wain. Therefore I say " carpe diem" and dont worry about tomorrow.

  • 2 votes
#2.2 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:03 PM EDT
pjwrites

Lol. Nice thought, Jain, and you could be right. But what if you live to be 100? Learn to enjoy cat food?

Kidding.

  • 2 votes
#2.3 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 PM EDT
Jain

Live to be 100? yikes! I better start smoking and eating more often at McDonalds. :-)

  • 3 votes
#2.4 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:47 PM EDT
Reply
Great GregExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

Social Security was given to people & aliens who don't deserve it by the Liberal scumbags in the Democratic party..

Obama threw away enough money on his BS stimulus plan that even the earmarks could have pulled SS out of the hole.

  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:09 PM EDT
CCArm

Social Security was given to people & aliens who don't deserve it by the Liberal scumbags in the Democratic party..

Bull Sh!t...Greg you add nothing to the conversation again. This isn't about SS being in the hole, you don't comprehend and you don't read. Or maybe you do read...which makes it worse.

  • 4 votes
#3.1 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:12 PM EDT
Great GregExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

This isn't about SS being in the hole, you don't comprehend and you don't read. Or maybe you do read...which makes it worse.

Don't start criticizing me you Cretin, If they had the funds they would give the COLA.

Learn a little about business

  • 1 vote
#3.2 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:24 PM EDT
JoulesBeef

I think her is talking about the multi millionaire McCain that still colelct an SS check.

greg telling someone else to learn something,.

how about we remove the 90k limit.. ss would be fine.
tell me greg how did you boy bush do with his whole "i promise to fix ss thing"

    #3.3 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:24 PM EDT
    Great Greg

    tell me greg how did you boy bush do with his whole "i promise to fix ss thing"

    Bush is not my boy.

    But how do you feel being Obama's boy, knowing that Obama's so called bail out money could have pulled SS out of it's hole. But instead he earmarked money for Rangel, ACORN, ETC. basically wiping out the treasury.

    • 1 vote
    #3.4 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
    Reply
    CCArm

    I really hate inflamatory headlines. Some people never read past that much and then spread lies based on the headline

    Blame falling consumer prices. By law, cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which is negative this year, the government said Thursday, because of lower energy costs. Social Security payments do not go down, even when prices drop.

    This makes sense.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#4 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:09 PM EDT
    redsfan

    Agreed CCArm - as soon as I read the headline I knew there would be people blaming President Obama for this, even though, as you highlighted in your comment, this is a LAW which has nothing to do with the President's policies or stimulus or healthcare, etc.

    • 2 votes
    #4.1 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
    Reply
    nica1829

    funny how the work force that complain that they haven't gotten a cost of living increase in years are told to get a second job or cut out the "extras"

      Reply#5 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:12 PM EDT
      J Lunn

      Do some of you even read the headlines? The cost of living they are talking about is gas prices mostly. The electricity and gas for homes are still going up. The medicare prescription is going up which means less money for the seniors. Most seniors do not drive unless it is to the doctor or market. The only ones that are being helped by lower gas prices are the ones still working, like myself. I am living in a home with 3 people on SS and believe me it is not easy on them when their rent is still going up and utilities and prescriptions are still going up. It puts more of a burden on me when it comes to the excess they are unable to cover. I have not received a raise myself in over a year and my last raise was 10 cents. So some of you need to get a life about people on SS. I know that there are people on SS that do not deserve it but there are others like myself who have worked all their lives for it and then have to rely on their children to survive.

      • 2 votes
      Reply#6 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:21 PM EDT
      DeMonOnDaStreetDeleted
      J Lunn

      No they needed it but utility expenses are getting higher and higher for no real reason. I know they say we are hurting in every aspect of living right now but it is everybody that is getting hurt financially. I am not on SS yet but I hope that it will be something that will help me to survive and not rely on my children to help me live.

        #6.2 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:48 AM EDT
        Reply
        Jack Coyote

        No COLA, Pepsi.

          Reply#7 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:35 PM EDT
          Thatsthewaylovegoes

          EVERYONE here, has missed the 'excuse" they are giving us, for the reason no one will get a COLA. Re-read the opening statement after the announcement "Blame falling consumer prices. Do they REALLY expect us to buy that excuse? Did they tell AIG, GM, or any of the Banks that THEY would not get a bailout? If consumer prices ARE falling, then why are Seniors going to pay MORE for their Medicare costs? Don't you think the cost of Medicare deductions, should follow suit, and fall as well, to match the reduction in the Cost of Living Allowance? After all, the Congress has been working on a NEW and better Healthcare plan, yet they allow the cost of Medicare to rise, while they deny the COLA? Who is watching the Hen house up there, the Fox?

          All of you, who don't believe you will receive your Social Security, are enjoying the benefits of LESS income taxes, that would be paying for "indigent" Seniors, were it not for the payments Seniors have already made, most of their lifetime, before you were even born. Those Medicare dollars they sacrificed, have gone to pay for other needs of this country, so I am really tired of hearing those in the workforce, today, who are whining about how they will never see Social Security. Your alternative, is NOT to pay into it, and to take those dollars and set up your own Social Security account, at your local bank, if you don't wish to participate in the system. Then, you can do what you wish with that money, and don't come crying to Social Security, when you are no longer entitled to it, and it is still around. You're on your own, if you disagree with the system in place, and if you can do better than Soc.Security, be my guest. Most of the "me" generation has to have what they want NOW, and they don't believe in saving for anything. Those Seniors, who are receiving Soc.Security and Medicare, are from the generation that believed in "saving" and denying themselves instant gratification, in order to have something to look forward to, in their old age, and so that they would not burden "your" generation with their care. Open your eyes, and see the whole pie, instead of the slice you are looking at. Most of the whiners, haven't been working for 35+ years, so you still have time, to create your own retirement medical care, or vote for those who will control it for you, and pay them, so they can then use what you give them, to bail out the Giants in private enterprise.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#8 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:53 PM EDT
          J Lunn

          thatsthewaylovegoes: I myself have worked for the last 30+ years and I see the difficulty of living on a fixed income. I will probably have to work even after I reach retirement age because of how things are now. I do not see them reducing the amount of SS the seniors get because that would be the same as your employer cutting your pay because of the economy. I have not worked 40 hours in almost a year because of the economy. The costs that these seniors and people on disability are facing are increasing at an alarming rate and the cost of living is NOT going down on everyday expenses. The only thing going down is the amount of money that the consumer can spend on luxuries or other things. You need to get your facts straight and look at the entire picture.

          • 1 vote
          #8.1 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:30 PM EDT
          J Lunn

          thatsthewaylovegoes: I made a mistake I did not read your comment quite right and I am sorry. What you said is very true and the younger generation is being a little self-centered. I have been checking on SS and the future and have read several articles about the security of the system and at this point and time it is in a safe position.

            #8.2 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:38 PM EDT
            nica1829

            J Lunn - i do not see myself as self-centered when it comes to cost of living increases for SS recipeints - i have been told myself for the last few years there will be no cost of living increase for me or my husband - we have had to cut back & get second jobs to cover - so why is it self centered to expect seniors to do the same cost cutting? - just because we haven't paid in as long? - has anyone seen the increase in FICA withdrawals from their paychecks? - i have - so more is taken out - i do not support increases in pay for our gov't reps or the fact they can vote for them themselves - BUT its not fair to lump the younger generation in to self centered because they think if they have to spend more for insurance premiums & get no cost of living increase then why should we be expected to fund one for seniors - and before you say you are just getting back what you put in - can you honestly say that? - how much did you contribute? - to the penny - if that is the way you want to go then i guess when you reach your limit of what you put in you should be cut off - and are these the same seniors seen at health reform rallies screaming not to have health care reform because of the cost? but they want more coverage and a cost of living increase?

              #8.3 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:04 PM EDT
              pjwrites

              nica, just an fyi - I actually did this research, using the gov's census site and other statistics.

              The average person works for 50+ years, pays in nearly $200,000, retires somewhere around 66 - 70, takes out an average $900 a month, and lives for 11 years after retirement. So, on average, we put in about $200,000 and take out about $110,000. That statistics tell the true story. With interest earned, there should be big surpluses, not deficits.

              More government games.

              • 2 votes
              #8.4 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:24 PM EDT
              J Lunn

              nica1829: I am not saying all of the younger generation is self centered but a majority just think of themselves. I have quite a few years to work yet and I do not see an end to it from either perspective. The medicare is being cut even though their income is not and they are having to pay more for their medications. Medicare is cutting the money that was covering their medications and now on some of the medications they have to pay full price and that in itself runs in the 100's of dollars and when you only receive $1100 a month with other expenses something has to go and in most cases that is the medication that you need to survive or thrive. Medicare does not cover name brand and unfortunately there is medication not available in generic. That is my biggest concern for the people in my household alone.

              • 1 vote
              #8.5 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:25 PM EDT
              nica1829

              pjwrites - thank you fro that information - and in truth the outcome is wrong - it should be a surplus but it is not - so how do we make this up? - how do we fund a COLA for the SS reciepients? - by taking more out of the working class - that already has not had a pay increase in a couple of years? -

              J Lunn - and i can only tell you like it is at my house - no income increase in at least two years - no vacations for my family - cut back to a non-exisitant entertainment fund - trying to keep daughter in school (she is working 3 pt jobs - full time student & internship) and save some to put my son into college next year - so to do that what do we do? - get a second job - cut back - as far as medical? - you really want to go there - are you saying that we can afford our meds any better - or our insurance premiums - our health care isn't any better than those living with you - we pay premium rates for low coverage & meds - unless we are really sick we don't go to the doctor - scripts aren't any cheaper for us - and i hate to tell people BUT there are alot of working people out here that are on a "fixed" income - its not just the elderly

              • 1 vote
              #8.6 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:37 PM EDT
              J Lunn

              My insurance was terminated as of 7/1/09 due to company cutbacks. I have no medical to speak of so I have to pay for everything out of pocket. I have two grown sons and they have put themselves through school. I am putting myself through school and helping to support the others in my home. So do not go there.

              • 1 vote
              #8.7 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:50 PM EDT
              nica1829

              J Lunn - go where? - outlining that it is not just the seniors that are having difficulties? - why not? - you are not the only that has these issues - so don't YOU go there -

              • 1 vote
              #8.8 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:15 PM EDT
              LS-415070

              so I am really tired of hearing those in the workforce, today, who are whining about how they will never see Social Security. Your alternative, is NOT to pay into it, and to take those dollars and set up your own Social Security account, at your local bank, if you don't wish to participate in the system.

              I was completely unaware that we had a choice! Oh, that's right, we don't!! Guess what? We have to pay anyway! I've been working for almost 30 years. I work hard, and I don't rely on the government for support. My parents are on SS. They both have other jobs to help make ends meet. Just like the rest of the us!! J, you have quite a compassion for the seniors; perhaps you're one of them that is reliant on SS and are quite pissed you won't be getting a raise. Sorry about that, but guess what, I don't get one either. And I still pay into SS. And I still pay in to Medicare. And frankly, there's only been a $15 reduction to my FICA. Yup, that $15 bucks doesn't even buy one full tank of gas.

              So, J, we're all having issues. Sorry that seniors get hurt, but we all do!!

              • 1 vote
              #8.9 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:43 PM EDT
              J Lunn

              I guess yesterday when I was posting I was in a sour mood. Maybe I was feeling sorry for myself. I know everybody out there has issues and their issues are different from everybody else. I have had a difficult life and I guess there are times when I feel that everything is falling around my shoulders. Sorry if I offended anyone.

              • 1 vote
              #8.10 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:52 AM EDT
              pjwrites

              Have a good weekend, J.

              Like my Granny used to say, "Don't worry. This too shall pass."

              And she always said it in an infuriatingly cheerful tone, too. ;-)

              Best to you, J.

              • 1 vote
              #8.11 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:17 AM EDT
              nica1829

              J Lunn - no apolgies needed - we all have our crosses to bear & we all are having issues - i too am sorry if i came off wrong - things are piling up here too - too many hours to work & not enough time with my son - feel like a horrible mother but am trying to make a better life for him & i just get angry when i hear some people want more when i keep being told to get a second, third job & cut out extras -

              • 1 vote
              #8.12 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:59 AM EDT
              Reply
              Bill G-409298

              Well said Thatsthewaylovegoes. I worked all my life (46years) and put into the system so I damned well deserve what I am now getting from SS at the age of 65. The generation of today DID NOT and ARE NOT paying my benefits as I pre-paid them for 46 years of employment and military service of 6 years.

              • 3 votes
              Reply#9 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:00 PM EDT
              Bill G-409298

              Well said Thatsthewaylovegoes. I worked all my life (46years) and put into the system so I damned well deserve what I am now getting from SS at the age of 65. The generation of today DID NOT and ARE NOT paying my benefits as I pre-paid them for 46 years of employment and military service of 6 years.

              • 2 votes
              Reply#10 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:01 PM EDT
              RF373Deleted
              tony1234

              Obama signed today an order to give every senior on SS a $250 bonus next year to compensate for the COLA. Evidently he got the word that many seniors are pissed with the COLA thing. Was this planned all along to make Obama look like a hero?

                Reply#12 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
                redsfan

                Yup, I'm pretty sure that when they passed the law in 1975 tying social security COLA to inflation, they knew that the first time there would be no COLA would be in 2010 when Barack Obama would be president and that would give him the opportunity to give seniors a one-time $250 payment....and thus be a hero. Boy those socialist, fascist Democrats can sure see into the future a long ways, can't they?

                • 1 vote
                #12.1 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:37 PM EDT
                tony1234

                They sure don't have a sense of humor, if you ask me. They don't recognize a satire when they see one. Or maybe they are psychic, who knows those creatures?

                  #12.2 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:45 PM EDT
                  redsfan

                  If you want a rational analysis of whether President Obama should have even done this, here's an article...

                  They make the point that if congress is determined to do a COLA anyway, it’s much more fiscally responsible to do it as a one-off payment than to make a permanent upward adjustment. If you accept that political reality wasn’t going to allow the no-COLA scenario to happen, having the administration get out in front of a one-time payment may help preempt congressional pressure for a worse idea.

                  In Semi-Defense of Obama's Social Security Pandering

                  • 1 vote
                  #12.3 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:50 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  tony1234

                  What’s more, the saving grace of this is that if Obama said “we need $13 billion in additional stimulus” then every Republican and the bulk of moderate Democrats would say “no way.” But if Obama says “we need a $13 billion giveaway to Social Security recipients” then the vast majority of Republicans and moderate Democrats are going to say “you betcha.” And judged as economic stimulus, what the administration is proposing isn’t a totally ideal use of $13 billion but it works pretty well.

                  Any way you slice it, it's a smart political move by B.O. "Boy those socialist, fascist Democrats ..."

                    Reply#13 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:34 PM EDT
                    SandyGayle-1147870

                    Tony1234-- Good points. Almost all of this money will go straight into the economy. It will be a nice mini-boost. What's more, seniors really need it. I

                    t's also true that $250 might make some of them look more kindly at a president they have been falsely told is undermining their medicare.

                      #13.1 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:21 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      DeMonOnDaStreetDeleted
                      Thatsthewaylovegoes

                      nica1829- In case no one ever told you, wages are much higher today, than they ever were,when Seniors were first working.  Try earning 48 cents an hour, as opposed to the minimum wage today, of $7.25/hour.  Seniors making .48 cents an hour, during their working years, were taxed FICA, and it was relative to their wages earned.  Believe me, they struggled and even though the cost of a home and automobile, were much cheaper in those days, it was a nightmare, to try to feed, and clothe and educate your children, earning .48/hour.    I suppose you would have to have been there, to appreciate how much easier the younger generation has it today, and they are STILL not satisfied.   No one paid $48/month for TV, there was no TV in those days.  People didn't have IPods, or Blackberrys or Nike sneakers at $75/pair.   So when people talk about sacrifice, they can't begin to imagine the sacrifice that the Grandparent group made, during WWII, or shortly thereafter.    It is the Seniors who did without, during the Depression and WWII, who built this Country with the sweat of their brow, and their willingness to postpone "the luxuries" and most of them never saw any luxury, unless it was to see one of their children graduate from College.  They had a different mindset, in those days, and they were patriotic enough, to suffer in silence, for "the Good of the Nation".   BTW, everyone knows that any excess that was paid, into SS, was used by the USG, for other programs, and even today, if you check it out on Google, you will see that the "new" and "improved" healthcare bill that is being raved about in the House, will cost Soc.Security, over $500Million dollars to provide....there again, Seniors are being asked to take less, have poorer quality healthcare, in order to provide it to those who either lost theirs through losing their employment, or to those who really don't want to work, but expect the rest of the Government (which is really all their neighbors) to take care of them, without any conscience whatsoever.   I'm not saying you are not having it rough, on your income, or that you should have to pay more to get less.  I'm only giving you some insight into the fact that many Grandparents, who are trying to live on $800/month, after working all their lives, can't make it, at today's prices, while our elected officials vote themselves a nice hefty raise, without asking our permission, and then enact "reform" bills that will plunge all of us into such debt that we will never see the light at the end of the tunnel.   If THIS is the CHANGE everyone voted for, what a disappointment.  When something is working, you don't go trying to fix it.   IF this administration had worked harder, to create more jobs, with some creativity, such as adding Duties and taxes to those American companies who are manufacturing "offshore" and then bringing their cheaply made products back here, for the rest of us to buy, then Mr. "O" would have a surplus of money, with which to buy healthcare coverage for those who haven't any.  If those manufacturers who are protected under NAFTA, saw that they would be taxed and their products assessed "duties" in order to provide for those who were displaced through offshore manufacturing, they would pack up their companies and move back here in a heartbeat, and give the jobs back to the Americans they left in their dust.    It's all about "regulating" the right way....and nobody has their thinking caps on, in our Government.  As I see it, when your Congress is made up, of nothing but Lawyers, can you really expect them to represent the ordinary citizen?   Lawyers are always trying to do what?    I'll leave that answer to your imaginations.

                        Reply#15 - Sun Nov 8, 2009 10:26 PM EST
                        nica1829

                        and things cost way more today then they did back then - come on - get real - i did not say they did not struggle back then BUT it is too much for them to expect to get a cost of living increase when most working people that are putting in to the system are not getting an increase - where is this increase going to come from? - higher FICA taxes for the working & then how do they feed their families? - milk isn't free today either & since this conversation is not about Congress or lawyers i will not address those comments

                          #15.1 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 7:23 AM EST
                          Reply
                          Leave a Comment:
                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                          You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                          (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                          Newsvine Privacy Statement
                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                          FUN STUFF:
                          • Leaderboard |
                          • E-Mail Alerts |
                          • Top of the Vine |
                          • Newsvine Live |
                          • Newsvine Archives |
                          • The Greenhouse
                          COMPANY STUFF:
                          • Code of Honor |
                          • Company Info |
                          • Contact Us |
                          • Jobs |
                          • User Agreement |
                          • Privacy Policy |
                          • About our ads
                          LEGAL STUFF:
                          • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                          • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                          • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com