House Vote 611 - Rejects One-Time $250 Social Security Payment

reply to post by Ahabstar


Most senior citizens and the disabled when given a cost of living increase it is usually an extra 12 bucks a month and then they hike the Medicare premiums. In the end it is like you never received an increase anyway!! So that $250 would help trust me. Medicare premiums went up this year and we didn't receive a COLA............. so now what. I worked, paid into Social Security before I became disabled.BUT.. people on welfare receive better state and federal benefits ie insurance, then people who paid into Social Security. This is how our system works unfortunately. It is so sad.

The thing that really ticks me off to no end is that it hasn't been very long since AIG received billions in bailout money, which was then used to throw an extravagant party for the overpaid CEOs who caused them to be in trouble in the first place, pay them outrageous bonuses, and then asked for MORE!. It hasn;t been very long since we the taxpayers bought out GM, because they couldn't make ends meet due to bad business decisions. It hasn't been very long at all since we bailed out banks, who got into trouble because of their poor lending practices.

Now it's the people's turn... extend the tax cuts, extend the unemployment, give the seniors (and the disabled) a little breathing room at Christmastime... and suddenly we can't afford it?

Daddyroo, think about this for a moment... normally I'm on your side, but think about it:

• Those seniors would have immediately spent the money on needed things, thereby stimulating the economy. The wealthy will simply buy land overseas or toss it back into the bank. They have no long list of things they need to do or buy like the lower class has.
  
  
• Yes, they earned their money... but to earn it, they worked less than the average person does to earn that $250 denied to seniors. I'm sorry, making a few online trades in a portfolio is not what I consider using the sweat of one's brow.
  
  
• If the wealthy do not get their tax cut, none of them will go hungry... none of them will be unable to fill their tanks with gas... no one will be cold this winter because they can't afford heat. But all of these things are going on right now, under your nose, with the poor.

I voted conservative, and always have tried to vote conservative, because I believe in the spirit of the American Dream. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in traditional values: the family, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, success through hard work and perseverance. This is not about such a thing. This is about fairness. People are hurting, primarily because the wealthy are no longer investing in America but rather in importing goods from overseas. People are hurting because the dollar is losing value, primarily because the wealthy have drained the government dry already through these ridiculous bailouts. That's not even just a conservative issue; it is a moral issue. If you still support giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of America, then you support theft... because that group already has their share, and now they want more for anyone else to receive crumbs.

I'm sorry, it's just plain wrong. It's our turn... my turn... the people's turn. Quit breaking line!

I also have to mention that Obama's perfect record seems to be intact... he went along with the Democratic plans until the day they actually tried to do something right, and then decided to offer that arm across the aisle. They say even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but this guy apparently is trying to disprove that.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Can i say that I'm surprised of what I just read?

If i'm wrong in that notion..either way I applaud what you just posted.



I wish that others felt the same way.

The cuts are so bad, now if you become disabled and apply for Social Security Disability...if you are approved you must wait FIVE MONTHS from the approval letter before they will start paying you.

They no longer are backpaying you to your approval letter date either. So much for our "insurance" helping people in need eh?

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
You're right. Both parties are a disgrace.

Agreed on all counts. The system set in place now is there to support those at the very top, not anyone else. Not you, not me, or anyone else reading this. That's what the U.S. government has become. And why I believe a new one should be put into place.

We're going only one way with the one we have that, and that's down.

reply to post by TheRedneck

I also have to mention that Obama's perfect record seems to be intact... he went along with the Democratic plans until the day they actually tried to do something right, and then decided to offer that arm across the aisle. They say even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but this guy apparently is trying to disprove that.

Redneck, my good friend, once again you bring forth points that no one mentioned, and contributed greatly to this issue.I thank you for that.
Yes, it is now obvious that Obama and the rich are watching out for themselves, not for the common folk. As much as I despised Nancy Pelosi, I have to say she is on the right side on this issue. The Republicans have shown what the Democrats had failed to prove, namely that the Republicans do watch out for the rich, at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Starred!

reply to post by Frontkjemper

And why I believe a new one should be put into place.

The sooner the better before it is too late. Too bad we don't have a "vote of no confidence", as many other countries have.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I do not agree with Ron Paul on every issue; however, I know for certain why he votes this way. It is not a vote against the people it is a vote against the government. To that I can agree. I do not like an entitlement system necessarily. But we have one now and to continue funding those that do not need it, and disregard the people who do means is wrong. I still support Ron Paul though, as he says why he votes no on issues like that. He has always done so and believes it should be a state issue not one for the federal government.

reply to post by Pervius


That has been a law for awhile. The first few months on disability are not compensable.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

I also have to mention that Obama's perfect record seems to be intact... he went along with the Democratic plans until the day they actually tried to do something right, and then decided to offer that arm across the aisle. They say even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but this guy apparently is trying to disprove that.

Redneck, my good friend, once again you bring forth points that no one mentioned, and contributed greatly to this issue.I thank you for that.
Yes, it is now obvious that Obama and the rich are watching out for themselves, not for the common folk. As much as I despised Nancy Pelosi, I have to say she is on the right side on this issue. The Republicans have shown what the Democrats had failed to prove, namely that the Republicans do watch out for the rich, at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Starred!

Excuse me, but I'm confused. Obama refused to raise taxes for the middle class too. The lower class doesn't pay much in taxes, because most are on welfare anyway. The middle class makes up the majority, right? Obama could have raised taxes for income above $250,000, but didn't. Congress always wants to leach out every dime possible from the middle class.

I would agree with your statement,if Obama had raised taxes for the middle class, but he stated before taking office that he would not raise our taxes.

this is why politics can never work. both houses need abolished and a newer wiser system be implemented.

remember when they use to chop off the heads of their rulers?

thats the one i'm in favor of.

bring back violence and threat of execution to politicians and things will become harmonious once more.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I am with you on this. I am conservative and yet it makes no sense for the ruling class, to go with more when the average person is going with less. Your points are well received with me. You cannot let grandma make a decision to keep the heat turned down to almost freezing half the day, just because of outrageous prices imposed by corporations. By the way, these corporations that run the basic commodities and utilities are regulated by the government. They pull profits from servicing what is basically the publics utilities. I am all in favor of being able to make a buck, but what is wrong with our country that we can instantly bail out the rich when needed and turn our back on the poor, the homeless, and those that can not work for a living. None of those rich people as you said will be homeless if their taxes are increased. None of those rich will have to decide whether to eat plentifully or keep the heat going.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

do not agree with Ron Paul on every issue; however, I know for certain why he votes this way. It is not a vote against the people it is a vote against the government. To that I can agree. I do not like an entitlement system necessarily. But we have one now and to continue funding those that do not need it, and disregard the people who do means is wrong. I still support Ron Paul though, as he says why he votes no on issues like that. He has always done so and believes it should be a state issue not one for the federal government.

Yes, I understand that. However, for those of us, including myself that have paid into Social Security for over 50 years, it is a breach of promise. I can understand phasing it out, but not for those who had paid in all of their lives, to be thrown aside, is wrong.

reply to post by Onboard2

Excuse me, but I'm confused. Obama refused to raise taxes for the middle class too. The lower class doesn't pay much in taxes, because most are on welfare anyway. The middle class makes up the majority, right? Obama could have raised taxes for income above $250,000, but didn't.

True, but he DID agree to keep from raising taxes for those that can afford it. That means that a heavier burden of the deficit falls on all of us. Raising taxes on those that can afford it, would reduce the deficit, and leave less of a tax burden on our children and grandchildren.

reply to post by Onboard2

Excuse me, but I'm confused. Obama refused to raise taxes for the middle class too. The lower class doesn't pay much in taxes, because most are on welfare anyway. The middle class makes up the majority, right? Obama could have raised taxes for income above $250,000, but didn't.

True, but he DID agree to keep from raising taxes for those that can afford it. That means that a heavier burden of the deficit falls on all of us. Raising taxes on those that can afford it, would reduce the deficit, and leave less of a tax burden on our children and grandchildren.

I support Ron paul on some issues..but he is a Libertarian...which means he is against SS. I can't agree with that...never will.

reply to post by David9176

I support Ron paul on some issues..but he is a Libertarian...which means he is against SS. I can't agree with that...never will.

Actually, he does support keeping it for those already collecting. That is why I am surprised by his vote:

With Paul’s well-known propensity for voting against anything that could be considered spending by the government, as well as cutting back current levels of spending, his position on the Social Security question is pretty basic, and has been presented in numerous interviews he has done. Essentially, he would allow the younger workers to opt out of the system and take care of themselves, with the end goal being the abolishment of the entire system. In the meantime, those who are dependent on Social Security payments for their retirement or medial benefits would still receive their payments. No one would have benefits eliminated.

www.foreclosurefish.com...

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


To quote Ron Paul he doesn't like Social Security because of it's monetary design. It is a treasure trove that legislatures dip into to fund their projects. This is why he wants it gone ultimately, but knows he cannot get rid of it without getting people off of it. Again, I agree with the monetary aspect of what Ron Paul speaks of and let's face it Ron Paul doesn't blow tax payer dollars needlessly. However, I also agree with both you and David in stating that we must as a country help those in need collectively when necessary.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

However, I also agree with both you and David in stating that we must as a country help those in need collectively when necessary.

Agreed. When we fail to do that, then the words on the base of the Statue of Liberty have been betrayed:

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

www.bos.frb.org...

Well my conservative friends, this is how it is.

You know, the "TEA PARTY" movement (not RON PAULS) was funded and executed by corporate interests to
reverse the "socialist" Obamas agenda of smashing socialism we all learned about from corporately funded FOX.

Now we get the juice from the first batch of nectar makings and it is, low and behold, top down approach to making a national miracle! Cut SS to ensure corporate dominance

I am partial happy to see some of you recognize the M.O - at the same time I wonder where in the heck you guys have been?

I am sorry I am always an A$$helmut, but it gets very trying...

The GOP is going to push new free trade agreements
Please tell me you guys hate that too - LET OBAMA KNOW CONSERVATIVES - you see your effect on him?

PLEASE - dust off your TEA PARTY BEST