Vote Buying At Work

[Dragoon68]

Add One-Time Payment to Federal Budget Deficit?

Let's cut off the COLA - take away - but "give" a flat sum - $250 - to make the old people think we're taking care of them. Then let's stack that on top of the rest of the bills to be paid by someone else in the future - a bigger take away.

 

[donnA]

These people aren't getting a cost fo living increase next year. For most them social secutiy is all they live on. One time payment of $250. isn't going to pay rent and buy food for the year. They are starting now to eliminate seniors in our country. Mom is losing her medical coverage, if she can't buy insurance she dies, eliminated by obama.

 

[Johnv]

I might be the odd man out, but I don't have any particular sympathy for a person whose only or primary income is Social Security. SS was not designed to be a person's sole or primary source of retirement income. If a person didn't plan for their retirement, the public should not bear that burden.

As for a cost of living increase, the US is actually experiencing a period of deflation according to the IMF, of about a third of one percent, and a deflation of 1.5 percent according to the Consumer Price Index. The right thing to do would be to actually reduce benefits slightly.

 

[rbell]

SS was not designed to be a person's sole or primary source of retirement income. If a person didn't plan for their retirement, the public should not bear that burden.

As for a cost of living increase, the US is actually experiencing a period of deflation according to the IMF, of about a third of one percent, and a deflation of 1.5 percent according to the Consumer Price Index. The right thing to do would be to actually reduce benefits slightly.

I agree with your points.

If costs on the whole went down, then why are we troubled by no cost of living adjustment?

And yet another reason I'm not counting on SS being there...and I'm planning as if it's not.

 

[donnA]

Food prices have nearly doubled here in the past 2 years and continue to rise. If people eat food then their cost of living has gone up with the food prices.
Some people are not as fortune as you people here and have never had moeny to save and invest to make sure they have plenty of money for retirement, when your choice is home and food or IRA's you aren't likely to be investing.
And you condem people who chose to take care of their families and feed their children, give them shelter.

 

[Johnv]

Food prices have nearly doubled here in the past 2 years and continue to rise. If people eat food then their cost of living has gone up with the food prices.

And if food prices went down 10%, would you then favor a reduction in benefits?

Some people are not as fortune as you people here and have never had moeny to save and invest to make sure they have plenty of money for retirement, when your choice is home and food or IRA's you aren't likely to be investing.

Which makes it the government's responsibility how?

How is it that my own mother, a widow who immigrated to the US and waited tables most of her life, managed to raise three boys all on her own, and still managed to buy a house and save for her own retirement?

And you condem people who chose to take care of their families and feed their children, give them shelter.

I do not. I expect people to be responsible for their own choices. A person who chose to not save for retirement reaps what he sows at retiring.

 

[Dragoon68]

Government makes a mess of just about everything to it tries to do and especially so when it tries to "take care" of everyone. The sad part is that so many people now expect the government to "take care" of them - it's a "right" to them - and we see that right away in discussions like this. The argument is that "we've just got to take care" of this or that. Why? Why can't people take care of themselves, their families, their friends, and their neighbors through their own resources, through their churches, or through charitable organizations where they have control of the funds and can make good judgments about needs and use of their money. Why can't we take this away from the federal government who just wastes, corrupts, and politicizes the process. It's our money - no one has a "right" to it except the persons that earned it. The rest is charity. It doesn't belong to the crowd in Washington.

 

[exscentric]

The one time payment will not make up for the cola that would continue on for years to come either.

As to SS, it was a contract between the Government and the people that were required to contribute to the system. It is not you folks taking care of the old folks in theory though that is how it kind of looks like because the government did not invest the money contributed rather than spending it and hoping something would fix it in the future.

 

[Dragoon68]

Social security was nothing but a tax. It was not an investment for us. It was a way for the federal government to collect money from working people and then meter it back out to non-working people based on political basis. If it were a true investment then we would have an actual cash balance that we could withdraw or leave to our estate. If you die your estate gets nothing because it was never really yours after the government took it. That's the problem with all government shell games. The $250 they want to hand out isn't theirs either but they want to make it seem like a nice "gift" from the politicians to soften and take away attention form the loss of the cost of living adjustments. It's just more baloney!

 

[exscentric]

I might add that it is quite strange the way this is all being reported. Here the news acts like the no cola was announced today along with the check proposal but I received a letter a mont or more ago telling of the no cola???? Media misinformation or did they just miss it when it happened?

 

[alatide]

Add One-Time Payment to Federal Budget Deficit?

Let's cut off the COLA - take away - but "give" a flat sum - $250 - to make the old people think we're taking care of them. Then let's stack that on top of the rest of the bills to be paid by someone else in the future - a bigger take away.

These increases are built into the law. They're automatic. Obama had nothing to do with taking them away. He's simply trying to help retirees get by by providing something like a 1.8% increase. Does that sound extravagant to you?

You simply don't care about anybody but yourself, do you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Retirement
No social security Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment (COLA) for 2010
Andrew Chan October 15, 2009

As expected for some time now, the Social Security Administration (SSA) recently confirmed on their web site that there will not be an automatic cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for those who receive monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits in 2010.


Under current social security laws, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits increase automatically each year based on the inflation measure known as the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Each prospective year’s COLA is determined based on the change in the CPI-W from the third quarter of the prior year to the current year’s third quarter. Therefore, the COLA for 2010 is based on the change in the CPI-W from the third quarter of 2008 to the third quarter of 2009. Since there was no increase in the CPI-W for that period, there would be no COLA increase for 2010.

 

[Dragoon68]

If it's "built in to the law" then why does Obama want to circumvent that law except, of course, to gain favor from seniors while not really doing much at all - only 1.8% as quoted - but looking good never the less? It's just another shell game by the master con artists in Washington - take a lot and dole out a little!

The greater point is that no one should get anything they didn't earn and everyone who earned something should get all of it.

Social security isn't a very good investment. You have no cash value. Your estate owns nothing. Your money is spent before you even get to retirement. You're going to be living off the work of someone else in the future. That's not a savings plan. That's a pyramid scheme that sooner or later is going to get busted.

Responsible people put away what they can and it's theirs. They can at least put away as much as they pay in the taxes. If they don't they have no one to blame but themselves.

When will we stop thinking we have to "take care" of everyone's needs through government?

 

[rbell]

You simply don't care about anybody but yourself, do you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I work with kids on a daily basis. Most all of my seventh-graders leave you in the dust with regards to maturity.

Without a doubt, you consistenly post some of the most immature stuff on this board. Grow up, man.

 

[rbell]

When will we stop thinking we have to "take care" of everyone's needs through government?

Bingo.

According to alatide, it doesn't count if you minister to people outside of government. God can't help people unless the US government helps.

It must be sad having a god with such limited power. The God I serve isn't restricted by government statistics.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Social security isn't a very good investment. You have no cash value. Your estate owns nothing. Your money is spent before you even get to retirement. You're going to be living off the work of someone else in the future. That's not a savings plan. That's a pyramid scheme that sooner or later is going to get busted.

You are correct to a point. I went for years that I didn't pay social security security taxes. Then I got that letter from them telling me I had to pay the back taxes and a rather larger fine. I had told them I didn't want to collect so I wanted out of the program. I had read that preachers, farmers and some other workers didn't have to pay, so I went with that, I was wrong. I lost and man, did it cost, so now I wish to collect.