http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091015/D9BB77S00.html
The purpose:
To buy the support of seniors for his healcare plan.
Shameful.
Obama calls for $250 payments to seniors
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by carpro, Oct 15, 2009.
Page 1 of 4
-
-
Another $12,500,000,000 stolen...
-
One thing we already know is he plans to finance his healthcare agenda largely through medicare cuts.
I believe this is a blatant effort to curry favor with seniors , in the hopes they will turn a blind eye as as he cuts their medicare benefits. -
This $250. payment is in place of their usual yearly cost of living increase. Next year they will get no cost of living increase. Many of these seniors depend on social security to live on, it is their only income.
Mom's medicare is being taken away at the end of November, she will have to pay for her own medicines or find an insurance she can afford. Obama is on his way to eliminating seniors from this country. -
I like how Neal Boortz puts it:
We have three populations in this country: Producers, looters, and moochers.
Producers are what make this country run. Go to any seat of government (particularly Washington DC) to find the looters...they are the ones who, when a good opportunity presents itself, take stuff that isn't there--either for their own gain, or in order to buy votes.
Moochers can be seen in their natural habitat--usually in line, waiting for a handout. Some people fall on hard times and need help...but they work themselves out of their troubles, and only need a hand for a while. Moochers, however, make no effort to self-sustain. They know that if they can find a looter to team up with, their needs (and often their wants) will be taken care of...the looters will steal from the producers, give to the moochers--in exchange for their vote. The best example of this travesty in action was in Detroit a few days ago, and the "handouts" people congregated for.
Obama's plan: loot from as many producers as he can...in order to create a generation of moochers, who will vote for Obama and his party. Sad thing is...it'll probably work. -
-
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.
-
People who worked to live and paid their taxes, social security taxes, with not enough money to invest and get rich, and now depend on what they were told would be waiting for them, and they have to go without, sometimes without food. And you have no sympathy.
People with money never care about those less fortunate. This board proves it everyday.
some christians -
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. -
Normally, I wouldn't complain and almost every day of my life I thank my God that I am an American citizen living in a country where foreigners risk life and limb to get within our borders.
I am thankful for the benefits of that citizenship.
I am thankful that my grandparents migrated from Italy in the early 1900's to seek "the American Dream" and that they actually accomplished that dream via hard work and investments.
My actual beef is with this administration, in that everyone "too big to fail" gets a megabuck bailout but the seniors who have contributed to the system with their hard work and society building during their youth and beyond.
I guess they are not considered a "too big to fail" entity.
OK $250. Yes, it's better than nothing after the 40-60% pilfering of our private retirement funds.
My complaint is actually this waving red flag: I believe this decision is a small step (the camel's nose) of many to come indicating the real attitude of this administration towards the senior sector and the "change" they can expect.
They forgot that we are still allowed to vote (unless the future Eugenics Committee declares us "incompetent").
Kill grandma (actually "let her die")?
Sure, a rhetorical hyperbole, but I wonder if that series of decisions will indeed end up there.
HankD -
-
The way Obama treats the elderly and the unborn reaveals much about his character, or lack thereof.
Obama throws money at the big auto industries. He throws money overseas for abortions. He wastes our tax dollars on silly programs and digs our country deeper into debt, yet denies our elderly an increase in social security. This inconsistency is why people are up in arms.
In theory, yes, maybe the elderly should not depend solely on SS, but remember, they grew up in a time when families actually lived frugally and helped out their older members instead of letting the government do it. We only have ourselves to blame, not the old folks who worked hard to give us what we have today. I wonder how many of us are actually willing to live in a smaller house and let Mom and Pop move in to spend their remaining years with us? -
-
Here is what I said after I amended my post:
Hank -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I didn't see anything remotely insidious about this. Because the consumer price index dropped (I think) 1.5% from year most seniors won't get a cost of living increase.
Living on Social Security stinks, but to suggest these good honest people are moochers because they are using the promised and paid for government program to live is just plain mean.
Listen if you don't like our President, that's fine. If you don't like Democrats, that's fine too. But most of these people on Social Security spent 40+ years of their life paying into the program. They put in an honest and hardworking career and had a reasonable expectation of care from their government that had promised it for them.
Some you all around here are just plain disagreeable. Nothing satisifies you other than running off at the mouth. That is sad. -
-
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.
-
-
-
Page 1 of 4