Obama calls for $250 payments to seniors

[abcgrad94]

People with mothers on government handout think that others should support their mothers. Here's a novel idea, take care of your own mother. I'll take care of mine, ok?

SS is not just a government handout, Matt. People have worked all their lives and paid into it, only to have the government mismanage the funds.

While it's noble of you to want to care for your own mother, it's not always possible. My grandmother lived with my parents until they could no longer physically care for her. They have health problems of their own and cannot lift her and change diapers, etc. They finally HAD to put her in a home and it was an AGONIZING decision. They have spent what little money they had paying for my grandmother's care because SS and medicare aren't always enough.

We throwing our tax money away on perfectly able-bodied young people who are too lazy to work, but who have no trouble producing babies every nine months. If our government would kill off all the murderers on death row instead of building more expensive prisons, there would be more money for our elderly.

 

[HankD]

On the other hand, the CPI doesn't include the cost of the medicare supplement insurance that most seniors buy. THAT cost is a good part of their monthly expenses and has not decreased.

The Index is derived from a statistical model of consumer commodities (goods and services) which can be changed at will and has been changed over the years.

I took a college course in statistics (one of the hardest courses I have ever taken and I'm a software architect by profession).

One of the first pronouncements of the prof was "you can make or manipulate a statistical model to prove anything you want".

The administration probably overlooked these few factors in my own personal situation and I'm sure there are others worst off than my wife and I.

My real estate taxes went up approx. 150%.
Medigap premiums went up almost 200%.
Utility bills are up about 25%.

OK so the gasoline is down a dollar per gallon from the peak this year.

After the initial hit on our retirement fund of 40% it has leveled off to an approximate 25% loss.

Not only that, my wife and I have contributed into the hundreds of thousands to the SSA (FICA) in our 50+ year history of payments (for many years we paid the full 14% as we owned our own business).

Repeat: I am so thankful to our Father in heaven for America and the benefits of citizenship. In that light, I really wouldn't mind this small denial.

But to also repeat: IMO, This is an indication of this administration's true feeling towards the elderly.

Why is it that these "too big to fail" corporations get multiple billions (approaching a trillion) but the elderly are denied their COLA?

Answer: Because our government has spent all that the elderly have given them over the years. Contributions which were derived from their work and the strength of their youth.

Now they have no more to contribute but are expecting that the "we the people" side of the contract to be honored by their government (which they have done until this year, by this administration).

Relatively speaking they are "too small" to be concerned about and have very little value along with the unborn.

So, IMO, it's more than a just a denial of returning what is rightfully theirs.

It is a small incremental "change" in our value system with many more to come if the current social agenda of this present administration is left unchecked.

And it's not just the elderly who ultimately will be affected.

Someone said they wanted a COLA from the government as well, though they were still working and contributing. Well, quit your present job and take a union job.

And/But don't forget, each dollar (silver certificate) I contributed 50 years ago is worth 17 of today's technically counterfeit "Federal Reserve Note" dollars (with not even a copper penny to back it).


HankD

 

[matt wade]

SS is not just a government handout, Matt. People have worked all their lives and paid into it, only to have the government mismanage the funds.

While it's noble of you to want to care for your own mother, it's not always possible. My grandmother lived with my parents until they could no longer physically care for her. They have health problems of their own and cannot lift her and change diapers, etc. They finally HAD to put her in a home and it was an AGONIZING decision. They have spent what little money they had paying for my grandmother's care because SS and medicare aren't always enough.

We throwing our tax money away on perfectly able-bodied young people who are too lazy to work, but who have no trouble producing babies every nine months. If our government would kill off all the murderers on death row instead of building more expensive prisons, there would be more money for our elderly.

I don't advocate spending money the government steals from me on young people or prisoners either. My idea of a prison is an area of land, with 3 foot by 3 foot by 10 foot deep holes in the ground. Fly a plane over once daily and drop bread and water. Guards on each of the four corners shoot anyone who sticks their nose out of a hole. Doesn't cost much.

As for your grandmother, what stopped you or another family member from caring for her? We need to go back to the days where mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa aren't given over to someone else in their old age. Families need to stick together and care for each other. If America would just go back to that, so much less money would be spent on welfare and social services it would be unbelievable.

 

[Johnv]

... If our government would kill off all the murderers on death row...

Okay, it doesn't matter if one favors or opposed capital punishment, that's an incredibly callous and unrighteous statement.

 

[abcgrad94]

Okay, it doesn't matter if one favors or opposed capital punishment, that's an incredibly callous and unrighteous statement.

Well, I think it's callous and unrighteous that my tax dollars pay for murderers to have shelter, three squares a day, free healthcare, and access to more comforts than many hard working, law abiding citizens, especially our helpless elderly!

 

[Johnv]

So just kill em. That way you can feel better about social security.

 

[HankD]

I don't advocate spending money the government steals from me on young people or prisoners either. My idea of a prison is an area of land, with 3 foot by 3 foot by 10 foot deep holes in the ground. Fly a plane over once daily and drop bread and water. Guards on each of the four corners shoot anyone who sticks their nose out of a hole. Doesn't cost much.

As for your grandmother, what stopped you or another family member from caring for her? We need to go back to the days where mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa aren't given over to someone else in their old age. Families need to stick together and care for each other. If America would just go back to that, so much less money would be spent on welfare and social services it would be unbelievable.

But matt, the reason the SSA was created is because that didn't happen. People were going to the "poor house".

I doubt it would work any better today.

We need to face reality and be less visionary.

Plus, it is a theoretical "fund" into which every American pays 7-14% of their earnings for their entire career (there are exceptions).

It is supposed to be self sustaining.

Suppose the government (constitutionality aside) enforced the no-touch policy and invested the money in treasury bonds over the 50 years that my wife and I contributed? We would presently be multi-millionaires.

The fact is that the SSA it is not a welfare system, it is a contribution system managed by the government.

However, the fund has been raided and converted to national debt by every administration since FDR.

In other words the elderly of today were robbed by the several administrations, plain and simple.

SSA payments are hand to mouth:

From whose hand? : the present workers.
To whose mouth? : the retired elderly.

This is not the way it was meant to be.
Today the SSA has a theoretical "fund" of 2.5 trillion dollars.
All in the form of IOU's.

It would have been and still is better IMO to enforce and regulate a private retirement law in the private sector. But the SSA payroll deduction is not going away. BTW you pay 7%, your employer pays the other 7%. Technically the entire 14% is your money.

HankD

 

[Johnv]

But matt, the reason the SSA was created is because that didn't happen. People were going to the "poor house".

I doubt it would work any better today.

We need to face reality and be less visionary.

There's only one practical solution. That is to mandate a withholding from a person's peronal income, and put it into a PRIVATE IRA fund of the withholder's choosing. The money would be withheld through taxes, but paid directly into those private funds.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I am a senior citizen and receive social security. If under the rules there is to be no increase, so be it. I see no reason to send me $250. This seems a bending of the rules and I do not approve of it. We are running a large enough deficit now ... don't pile more debt on for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to have to pay off this debt.

 

[KenH]

"The COLA is determined each year by the Social Security Administration based on observed inflation over the previous year. For example, the COLA applicable to Social Security benefits payable in January 2009 was 5.8 percent, calculated on the basis of inflation observed between 2007 and 2008.

This year, however, incoming data suggest that inflation will average about negative 5 percent. Because nominal benefit amounts will remain unchanged, retirees will experience a 5 percent increase in the purchasing power of their Social Security checks. This is expected to happen next year, too, given forecasts of continued economic sluggishness. Assuming that next year's inflation rate also comes in at negative 5 percent, the cumulative two-year increase in the purchasing power of retirees' Social Security benefits will exceed 10 percent. A quick calculation shows that seniors' real purchasing power (or the amount of additional consumption) from their Social Security benefits will increase by about $1,280 over those two years."

- more at www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10481

 

[webdog]

If a person expects the government to provide for them, then yes, I have no sympathy. If they didn't prepare for their own retirement, they were being irresponsible.

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.

I couldn't help but notice your own broadbrush when you said "People with money never care about those less fortunate". So, you assume that I have money? I'm not wealthy if that's what you mean. I make an honest living, and have been saving for my retirement since I was 18 and flipping burgers. I'm not entitled to have the public to pay for my retirement.

As for your comment abour the elderly depenging on what the government told them would be waiting for them, the government never promised to be the sole source of their retirement income. It didn't even promise to be the primary source of their retirement income.

My sympathy extends to people who need help. I will help them personally (in fact, my church has a ministry that does exactly that). My sympathy does not extend to an expectation of the government and taxpayers doing so.

You've been flipping burgers for a long time!

 

[Johnv]

You've been flipping burgers for a long time!

Believe me, there are some days when I'd gladly do that instead. HeheH! No, I flipped burgers through part of college, then went to work for a law firm in an entry level minimum wage job. I don't think I had anything but a minimum wage job until I was 26, when I was done with school. But I started an IRA with my first paycheck when I was 18. I was actually flipping burgers starting at 16, but I didn't open an IRA till I was 18.

 

[HankD]

There's only one practical solution. That is to mandate a withholding from a person's peronal income, and put it into a PRIVATE IRA fund of the withholder's choosing. The money would be withheld through taxes, but paid directly into those private funds.

Agreed.
But there are problems:
It makes too much sense and it's too simplistic.

HankD

 

[HankD]

I am a senior citizen and receive social security. If under the rules there is to be no increase, so be it. I see no reason to send me $250. This seems a bending of the rules and I do not approve of it. We are running a large enough deficit now ... don't pile more debt on for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to have to pay off this debt.

Agreed CTB, but it wouldn't be a debt if the fund hadn't been raided. However, I know it's too late now.

But there are ways to pay this debt. Unleash the natural resources of America to the world market. While I am a conservationist, I am not an environmental hysteric. Open up our oil, gas and precious metals resources and the so-called "trickle-down" will turn into a "gush-down" for our economy.

HankD

 

[HankD]

"The COLA is determined each year by the Social Security Administration based on observed inflation over the previous year. For example, the COLA applicable to Social Security benefits payable in January 2009 was 5.8 percent, calculated on the basis of inflation observed between 2007 and 2008.

This year, however, incoming data suggest that inflation will average about negative 5 percent. Because nominal benefit amounts will remain unchanged, retirees will experience a 5 percent increase in the purchasing power of their Social Security checks. This is expected to happen next year, too, given forecasts of continued economic sluggishness. Assuming that next year's inflation rate also comes in at negative 5 percent, the cumulative two-year increase in the purchasing power of retirees' Social Security benefits will exceed 10 percent. A quick calculation shows that seniors' real purchasing power (or the amount of additional consumption) from their Social Security benefits will increase by about $1,280 over those two years."

- more at www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10481

Ken, does anyone really believe that we had a -5 percent rate of inflation?

HankD

 

[KenH]

Ken, does anyone really believe that we had a -5 percent rate of inflation?

I don't. I think that the official inflation rate, which the COLA is based on, has been understated for years.

 

[Nonsequitur]

I noted this on another thread, but I'll repeat it here. 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.

Gee, that's funny. That's what S.S. was supposed to be for. Now it's not? Uh....get the name?......SOCIAL SECURITY? Try reading a fifth grade history book, and unless you can prove it is wrong, that is EXACTLY what S.S. was for. To provide a way of life for older people.
If it is not, then why are we (the people who actually work, I didn't mean the libs) providing for it?

I won't even comment on your "but I don't have any particular sympathy for a person whose only or primary income is Social Security."
(Real good Christian attitude. [So I lied about not commenting. Go sue me.])
But you are right on one thing.
You are an odd 'man'.

SNIP

 

[tinytim]

This is one act I totally agree with Obama...

If banks can get bailed out.. .the elderly should too.... They deserve it more.

It is a shameful person that has no sympathy for someone that lives paycheck to paycheck...
Not everyone is as blessed with opportunities as others.. .

And I know that when my grandparents were alive, SS was all they had to live off of.
And they worked hard all their lives!!!!

Hear that...

They worked hard all their lives.. but they didn't hoard the money.. they had to use it...

They were laborers.... HARD WORKING Laborers

Grandpa worked in the oil fields.. and Grandma did the Godly thing and stayed home and raised the children!..

WE owe it to them.

It is the only decent thing to do.

 

[matt wade]

Grandpa worked in the oil fields.. and Grandma did the Godly thing and stayed home and raised the children!..

WE owe it to them.

It is the only decent thing to do.

No...WE don't owe YOUR grandparents anything. YOU owe your grandparents something. YOUR PARENTS owe your grandparents something. WE THE PEOPLE do not owe your grandparents anything.

I'm glad they worked hard. I'm glad they were Godly people. That's all great. That doesn't mean that my money needs to be taken from me by gunpoint to support YOUR grandparents.

I do have sympathy for the elderly that are living in poverty. I just happen to have greater sympathy for my own family. When money is forceably taken from me and made unavailable for me to take care of my own family, then there is a problem!

If you are posting on this internet forum, you are likely doing it from your own computer and your own internet connection (yes, I realize someone may be at the library, but that's the exception). If you can afford the luxury of internet, don't tell me that I should be paying for your grandparents, or parents, or wayward child, or anyone else. You take care of your family. In those rare cases when someone doesn't have family to take care of them, then and only then should WE THE PEOPLE care for them.

 

[matt wade]

On another note, I find it amusing how some of the most "conservative" on this forum suddenly aren't so conservative anymore when their parents or grandparents need a handout. Try and be consistent, ok?