Obama and social security

  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Aug 23, 2009 5:23 PM GMT
    If our president is going to screw the elderly gays are lower on the food chain, what do you think he will do to us!!! Fools!! I didn't vote for him and now millions wish they didn't!!! Most seniors SS money goes to pay for their meds!! Truely a sad day in America!!icon_idea.gif

    WASHINGTON – Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.
    The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.
    By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.
    "I will promise you, they count on that COLA," said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "To some people, it might not be a big deal. But to seniors, especially with their health care costs, it is a big deal."
    Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.
    Advocates say older people still face higher prices because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care, where costs rise faster than inflation. Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios just as they are relying on those assets for income.
    "For many elderly, they don't feel that inflation is low because their expenses are still going up," said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. "Anyone who has savings and investments has seen some serious losses."
    About 50 million retired and disabled Americans receive Social Security benefits. The average monthly benefit for retirees is $1,153 this year. All beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent increase in January, the largest since 1982.
    More than 32 million people are in the Medicare prescription drug program. Average monthly premiums are set to go from $28 this year to $30 next year, though they vary by plan. About 6 million people in the program have premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, according to the Social Security Administration.
    Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors' visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise as well. But under the law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients.
    There is no such hold-harmless provision for drug premiums.
    Kennelly's group wants Congress to increase Social Security benefits next year, even though the formula doesn't call for it. She would like to see either a 1 percent increase in monthly payments or a one-time payment of $150.
    The cost of a one-time payment, a little less than $8 billion, could be covered by increasing the amount of income subjected to Social Security taxes, Kennelly said. Workers only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of income, a limit that rises each year with the average national wage.
    But the limit only increases if monthly benefits increase.
    Critics argue that Social Security recipients shouldn't get an increase when inflation is negative. They note that recipients got a big increase in January — after energy prices had started to fall. They also note that Social Security recipients received one-time $250 payments in the spring as part of the government's economic stimulus package.
    "Seniors may perceive that they are being hurt because there is no COLA, but they are in fact not getting hurt," said Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "Congress has to be able to tell people they are not getting everything they want."
    Social Security is also facing long-term financial problems. The retirement program is projected to start paying out more money than it receives in 2016. Without changes, the retirement fund will be depleted in 2037, according to the Social Security trustees' annual report this year.
    President Barack Obama has said he would like tackle Social Security next year, after Congress finishes work on health care, climate change and new financial regulations.
    Lawmakers are preoccupied by health care, making it difficult to address other tough issues. Advocates for older people hope their efforts will get a boost in October, when the Social Security Administration officially announces that there will not be an increase in benefits next year.
    "I think a lot of seniors do not know what's coming down the pike, and I believe that when they hear that, they're going to be upset,"

    Great he's going to fuck up healthcare this year and next year SS. Plan on a smaller check after taxes for all!! Yeahicon_mad.gif
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 24, 2009 1:15 AM GMT
    The hypocrisy of it all...

    I'm no Obama fan, but here are the flaws in your thinking.

    1. You guys are against universal health care. If we had it, seniors would have all their med needs taken care of without SS or Medicare.

    2. You complain about the deficit growing and then you complain when cuts are made to reduce the deficit.

    3. You are championing SS even though it was originally introduced by democrats following the Great Depression, in which the republicans were against it viewing it as a tax.

    If you would stop bitching and bringing your guns to town halls and let the government pass health care reform, perhaps you would see there would be no need for the rancor.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Aug 24, 2009 2:28 AM GMT
    This isn't even an Obama issue. Al Gore warned about this during the 2000 Presidential campaign. Remember the LOCKBOX?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2009 2:32 AM GMT


    ...and what would your Republican gov't have done today if they were in power instead? icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2009 2:39 AM GMT
    I didn't realize MikemikeMike was such a Socialist...Have you been vacationing in Sweden?
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Aug 27, 2009 2:33 AM GMT
    aeois saidI didn't realize MikemikeMike was such a Socialist...Have you been vacationing in Sweden?


    No fembot-still proud American Repulican. The Reagan years were the best so far in my generation!

    As president, Reagan implemented sweeping new political and economic initiatives. His supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," advocated reduced business regulation, controlling inflation, reducing growth in government spending, and spurring economic growth through tax cuts. In his first term he survived an assassination attempt, took a hard line against labor unions, and ordered military actions in Grenada. He was reelected in a landslide in 1984, proclaiming it was "Morning in America."

    His second term was primarily marked by foreign matters, namely the ending of the Cold War, the bombing of Libya, and the revelation of the Iran-Contra affair. Publicly describing the Soviet Union as an "evil empire", he supported anti-Communist movements worldwide and spent his first term forgoing the strategy of détente by ordering a massive military buildup in an arms race with the USSR. Reagan negotiated with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, culminating in the INF Treaty and the decrease of both countries' nuclear arsenals.

    Reagan left office in 1989. In 1994, the former president disclosed that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease earlier in the year; he died ten years later at the age of 93. He ranks highly among former U.S. presidents in terms of approval rating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Clinton was high at 66% Do you really think Obama will be up there??? Really awwwicon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2009 10:43 PM GMT
    I suppose since you added all those extra exclamation marks at the end your last post you didn't need to cite Wikipedia as your source...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

    I just thought it was interesting that someone so opposed to Obama's slide down the slippery slope of Socialism would be decrying the collapse of a government Social program.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2009 10:54 PM GMT
    MikemikeMike saidNo fembot-still proud American Repulican. The Reagan years were the best so far in my generation!

    'Nuff said. Another brainwashed Republican bot. I think we can dismiss this non-discussion for what it is, Republican propaganda, and move on to something else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2009 11:04 PM GMT
    Like everyone else in America, they too will have to cut back somewhere. They will have to look at the savings they put aside during the working years when they were told that SS is just a supplement to their savings. If it is their only income then they will have to look to their children, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles to help them along. Being dependent entirely on a government program does not allow them to be accountable for their actions during their working years. There are other public programs to help also if they are truly in dire need. There are a lot of folks scraping by now and many of the elderly receiving SS are NOT amongst them. I don't wish anyone struggles in their life but I doubt that no COLA during a time when the amount would have been next to nothing (or nothing) anyway is going to affect as many individuals as it sounds. America needs to stop the constant give aways and people need to look at their own priorities, style of living, and family units to be accountable for the way they live.

    Critics argue that Social Security recipients shouldn't get an increase when inflation is negative. They note that recipients got a big increase in January (5.8% when inflation is negative) — after energy prices had started to fall. They also note that Social Security recipients received one-time $250 payments in the spring as part of the government's economic stimulus package.

    Sounds like they got the COLA early to me! What's the complaint?

  • cowboyathlete

    Posts: 1346

    Aug 27, 2009 11:07 PM GMT
    The system of adjustments for Medicare premiums takes places regardless of which party is in power. I agree with those who see the OP as another right wing nut job.
  • cowboyathlete

    Posts: 1346

    Aug 27, 2009 11:08 PM GMT
    calibro saidThe hypocrisy of it all...

    I'm no Obama fan, but here are the flaws in your thinking.

    1. You guys are against universal health care. If we had it, seniors would have all their med needs taken care of without SS or Medicare.

    2. You complain about the deficit growing and then you complain when cuts are made to reduce the deficit.

    3. You are championing SS even though it was originally introduced by democrats following the Great Depression, in which the republicans were against it viewing it as a tax.

    If you would stop bitching and bringing your guns to town halls and let the government pass health care reform, perhaps you would see there would be no need for the rancor.
    Several good points here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2009 11:23 PM GMT
    Social security has major problems inherent to the system. However, I don't think any of it can be blamed on Obama. Unfortunately for him, SS is a no win situation. The program in its current form is unsustainable, so if he wants to try and repair it his only two choices are very unpopular: Decrease benefits or increase taxes.

    The article you cite is calling for MORE money to be spent on SS, a very non-conservative thing to do. As for the Medicare Prescription Drug Program (Medicare part D) which is causing some problems, that is a G.W. Bush thing.

    I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make. The problems with SS cannot be attributed to Obama at this point. Both Democrats and Republicans have their hands in the creation of the current SS/Medicare system. You also can't have it both ways; increasing SS payments while not increasing taxes.

    Please don't lash out with unfounded, illogical, and/or hypocritical allegations. It hurts those making legitimate arguments against Obama's initiatives and gives those you oppose another reason not to listen.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 28, 2009 1:33 AM GMT
    In the first place, Social Security wasn't meant as a person's sole means of support.

    The biggest lobby in Washington is the senior citizens. If members of Congress want to be re-elected, they will raise Social Security. So, stop worrying about Grandma.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 28, 2009 1:34 AM GMT
    BTW, to the ignorant OP:
    Obama isn't in charge of raising or lowering Social Security.
    CONGRESS IS !!