It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Social Security payments frozen for 2nd year in a row-Blame Pelosi

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
For only the second time in history, there will be no increase in social security payments to seniors. This is because Pelosi and congress decided to use a 1970's formula for the cost of living.However:



What did happen on October 11, 2010 was the fact that the COLA freeze for 58 million people was announced. And because of how the congress has chosen to measure the supposed cost of living: they found that for the last two years there has been NO INCREASE in those costs. However despite this, the congress did vote themselves a COLA in the senate of $5,300 and in the House it was $ 4,700. Clearly Congress felt they owed themselves a cost of living increase while the 58 million Social Security recipients were denied any increase at all.

rense.com...
It's amazing that they felt that THEIR COL has increased, but seniors have not. In fact, seniors have been the hardest hit, with medical costs skyrocketing.


In addition to freezing the cost-of-living increase: Here are some of the other costs that this congress did NOT address! "Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife. Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000 Do you feel BETRAYED? Will your cost of drugs, doctor fees, local taxes, food, etc., decrease? NO WAY. Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I have. And they are not covered by Social Security ­ because they have something really fantastic, just for them! Why should they care about you or me? You never did anything about it in the past did you? Obviously they believe we are simply too stupid or just don't care. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barney, et al care about you?"

rense.com...

I hope that SENIORS remember this come Election Day.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I hope that SENIORS remember this come Election Day.


Indeed


vote out the party that wants to save money on SS, and vote in the party that wants to completely eliminate it (aka, privatise it)

Let them consider the options carefully



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I remember reading a few years back where Alan Greenspan was proposing (informally) that SS payments should be held to a zero COLA for several years. The reason being that even a small amount of an incerase turns out to be a very large amount of money (e.g. $500B at a 2% increase is $10B which is one-third of a mid-sized state's annual budget).

On the other hand, if Congress gives their members an annual pay-raise, it's a bit disingenuous.



posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Initial post is incorrect. The lack of a "Cost of Living Adjustment" (COLA) is the result of a Republican decision, some years back, to create the COLA from the rate of inflation from a few months of the year which have long been known to have the least inflation, rather than the whole year. Also interesting is that the cost of health care for those on Social Security (Premiums, copays) increases every year.

I do feel that because of the public fury towards government spending has kept the Democrats from trying to increase benefits to individual Social Security recipients. Costs for for Social Security has increased radically because W's administration illegally refused to allow disabled people onto Social Security. Also because the bad economy now encourages those with health problems and no job to apply. In a better economy, those individuals would choose to keep working.



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
It's not just seniors (unless 51 yrs old qualifies me) that are getting screwed.
I am also paying $100 for medicade that I don't use.
I'm on disability and I live on less than $1,000 a month.
I'd like to see Pelosi do that.


BTW - their COLA formulas do not include the cost of food, energy or housing.
Why bother paying us to slowly die of starvation?
signed: - another useless eater.
HI Henry!!!!!

edit on 15-10-2010 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Yeah, I hear you, I live on $720 a month, and if I did not live with other people I would starve, and would be homeless. I actually have been homeless several times.
I don't know how people who are out of a job and with no benefits can make it, unless you happen to be a criminal or a drug dealer you will not be able to feed your family. By law, the Social Security is a Trust Fund. It cannot be legally "borrowed" from for any reason. The powers that be, the government, owes the American people more money than there is in the world. The States are somewhat waking up, the recent lawsuit against the Obama Health Care Plan as an un-Constitutional thing has been approved for trial.

Federal Judge Allows Multi-State Suit Against Health Care Law to Proceed

I somehow see the American Confederation of States will eventually pull away from Federal Control. The wheels are already turning, and they have been for a long time now. If there is a trial, and it certainly look as such, I hope the lawyers for the States bring out and show a pattern of criminal acts and corruption in government in these "plans," which I call "Edicts." If the Administration is found to be guilty of corruption, and violation of Constitutional principles, what will be the next step by the States?



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by rectangle
 





Initial post is incorrect. The lack of a "Cost of Living Adjustment" (COLA) is the result of a Republican decision, some years back, to create the COLA from the rate of inflation from a few months of the year which have long been known to have the least inflation, rather than the whole year. Also interesting is that the cost of health care for those on Social Security (Premiums, copays) increases every year.

No it isn't. A bill was written to change the COLA formula, that would have allowed a 3% increase for this year, but Pelosi REFUSED to bring the bill to the floor, because it was written by Republicans.



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
The CPI is calculated like this:


The prices of 95,000 items from 22,000 stores, and 35,000 rental units are added together and averaged. They are weighted this way: Housing: 41.4%, Food and Beverage: 17.4%, Transport: 17.0%, Medical Care: 6.9%, Other: 6.9%, Apparel: 6.0%, Entertainment: 4.4%. Taxes (43%) are not included in CPI computation.[2]


Note that medical care is weighed at 6.(%, when in reality, for seniors medical care consumes 30-60% of the average senior expenditures. Note that housing is weighed at 41.4%, and of course, since the housing market has crashed, it gives an unrealistic value for what seniors are paying. Many seniors own their own home, mortgage free, and thus are not even spending on housing, other than incidentals.

The entire formula is rigged against seniors, who have paid into social security for an average of 45 years.
However, Congress can manage to give themselves a substantial cola.Many Congress members are seniors- so how can they have a different COLA than seniors? Don't bother to answer. I know the answer,and so do all of you. They make the laws, they make the rules, and if you don't like it, Tough cookies!

Disgusted.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I admit to being unaware of any bill proposed by Republicans that would have allowed any change in the Social Security benefits next year. It is completely inconsistent with all the other efforts of the Republicans, which are negative to disadvantaged Americans, to create a COLA increase.

Seems inconsistent that Republicans, who have loudly complained about all Democratic spending, would advocate a COLA increase to a program they have often said needed to be fixed. For which it feels the only fix they have in mind is cutting benefits, ‘It is fiscally irresponsible to pay out more money than is coming in.’ Insofar as the raided trust fund, I do not see easily available numbers that reveal the projected income for Social Security and when Social Security begins to rely primarily its IOU backed trust fund. Versus when the trust fund IOU expires. I guess that is all very variable as to how fast the economy recovers, and more money flows into SS coffers, and how much one calculates Medicare costs will be in the future. The media, now owned by big business, seems to indicate that those on Social Security are about to start receiving money to which they are not entitled that is a cost against current SS revenues and seem to forget the borrowed SS Trust Fund money. Now I wonder if the Trust Fund is all that large versus the future need.

Congressional candidates now use the standard arguments about economic theory. Conservatives complain about “tax and spend” liberals. Liberals call the Republicans the party of “NO” while pointing to the current crises is the end result of Republicans being in power. Seems to me like the current economic crises is more like a war, where normal sensibilities do not apply and sometimes policies are implemented that turn out to be wasteful than wise. In 1975 I would have said it would be horrible economic policy for the US Government just to hand out money to every adult in the country. Now some say the issue is whether it was enough money. Still feels like a bad policy just to pass out money, but it probably was not. it is hard to shift gears.

Perhaps the Democrats are not willing to admit that we are still in an unsolved crisis, preferring to insist that they have applied the fix, the boat is no longer sinking. I recall the words of Ronald Reagan, whose policies I did not like, "Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. . .”

I also wonder about another type of Phenomena with the Congressional budget process. In 1973 my brother was trying to go to a University on his VA education benefits. The size of the monthly benefit was less than a month’s rent, and the entire benefit for the four and half months of a Semester was less than the cost of registration, fees, and books. The first benefit check was paid months behind the first day of school. My brother kept saying that the next Congressional budget included a major increase for the VA education benefit in the separate House and Senate versions of the budget (which were different) but both were a huge multiple of the current payment. When the budget finally came out, almost no increase while the national economy had ever soaring inflation.

There are many examples of Republicans who advocated policies that are positive in benefit to the rich, investing class. Public policies today often seem to be like a class war between the rich, investing class, versus the non-investing class, the poor, who are both the working poor, and those on public assistance. As John Grisham says, “people live poor and vote rich.”



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join