http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_obama
QuoteWASHINGTON – President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.
It would mark the first year without an increase in Social Security payments since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.
"Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession," Obama said in a statement. "This additional assistance will be especially important in the coming months, as countless seniors and others have seen their retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of this economic crisis."
Obama's proposal is similar to several bills in Congress. The $250 payments would also go to those receiving veterans benefits, disability benefits, railroad retirees and retired public employees who don't receive Social Security. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified for more.
The White House put the cost at $13 billion. Obama said he would not allow the payments to come out of the Social Security trust funds, further eroding the finances of the retirement program. Social Security already is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in each of the next two years.
However, Obama did not offer any alternatives to finance the payments. A senior administration official said Obama was open to borrowing the money, increasing the federal budget deficit. The official, who requested anonymity, was not authorized to speak on the record.
Obama also announced Wednesday that the IRS would soon issue tax guidance preventing reductions in contribution limits for certain retirement funds, including 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts. There has been concern among some in the financial industry that federal law could require the limits to be reduced because inflation will be negative this year.
The $250 payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Several key members of Congress have said they are open to providing relief to seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security payments.
"We're looking at a way to address it," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Social Security. "I'm not sure what the exact answer is yet, but we're looking at ways to address that."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he supports the $250 payments, as did Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security in the House.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has introduced a bill calling for similar payments.
"I think that the Obama administration and many members of Congress understand that we simply can't turn our backs on senior citizens," Sanders said.
Other lawmakers said seniors shouldn't get the extra payments because the formula doesn't call for it.
"I think it would be inappropriate," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living."
Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest increase since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.
Inflation has been negative this year largely because energy prices have fallen. Gasoline prices have dropped 30 percent over the past year while overall energy costs have dropped 23 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Social Security payments, however, cannot go down. The average monthly Social Security payment for retirees is $1,160.
Advocacy groups said the payment will be welcomed by seniors hit hard by falling home values and shrinking investment portfolios.
"The likelihood of losing an average annual COLA increase of about $200 to $300 in 2010 may sound like no big deal to some, but for millions of seniors who've already seen a third of their Social Security eaten up by health care costs, this proposed COLA relief could truly make the difference" said Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Democratic member of Congress from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
AARP CEO A. Barry Rand said, "For nearly 35 years, millions of Americans have counted on an annual increase in their monthly Social Security checks to make ends meet."
At this point, I see $13 billion and go, oh that's nothing. Pass that right on through, Barack.
If he would just follow through with his death panels, this wouldn't be a problem. :rolleyes:
Smells like a bribe for health care reform.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:28:41 AM
Smells like a bribe for health care reform.
Smells like an effort of common decency to help those who need it the most. Cynical GOPtard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:28:41 AM
Smells like a bribe for health care reform.
Yeah. Because living on social security isn't living on a shoestring, and cost of living never goes up without inflation following. :rolleyes:
Just FYI, if you give them $250 this year, they will want more next year or they will hate you. Trust me.
Quote from: Tamas on October 15, 2009, 07:32:45 AM
Just FYI, if you give them $250 this year, they will want more next year or they will hate you. Trust me.
They're geriatrics, not gypsies. :contract:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:31:28 AM
Yeah. Because living on social security isn't living on a shoestring, and cost of living never goes up without inflation following. :rolleyes:
Huh?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 15, 2009, 03:58:37 AM
If he would just follow through with his death panels, this wouldn't be a problem. :rolleyes:
This could be the bait. Postal employees are enthusiastic about using firearms. Obama could assign postmen a quota of seniors to finish off as they rush out to get their checks.
Goddammit. Grumbler gets a check and I don't.
I know I want a check too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:36:28 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:31:28 AM
Yeah. Because living on social security isn't living on a shoestring, and cost of living never goes up without inflation following. :rolleyes:
Huh?
Watch it, fellas. It's one of Yi's vaunted word traps.
Are old people really the poorest segment of the population, as the media and Congress's actions seem to often suggest?
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 07:42:27 AM
Are old people really the poorest segment of the population, as the media and Congress's actions seem to often suggest?
Lowest poverty rate of any age group.
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 07:42:27 AM
Are old people really the poorest segment of the population, as the media and Congress's actions seem to often suggest?
No, but they're the segment of the population which votes in greatest number.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:43:27 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 07:42:27 AM
Are old people really the poorest segment of the population, as the media and Congress's actions seem to often suggest?
Lowest poverty rate of any age group.
Highest mortality rate of any age group.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Highest mortality rate of any age group.
Don't need the money if you're dead.
We're seeing the flip side of the social security privatization debate in action here.
Quote from: Savonarola on October 15, 2009, 07:46:20 AM
No, but they're the segment of the population which votes in greatest number.
I was trying to provoke someone else into saying this. :goodboy:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:35:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 15, 2009, 07:32:45 AM
Just FYI, if you give them $250 this year, they will want more next year or they will hate you. Trust me.
They're geriatrics, not gypsies. :contract:
Yeah I know. :P
Here, over-the-top pension raises were followed by the "13th month" payment, and the following election campaign had the issue of wether there is need for a 15th month payment, or 14th month is enough.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:48:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Highest mortality rate of any age group.
Don't need the money if you're dead.
We're seeing the flip side of the social security privatization debate in action here.
No we're not. We're seeing your typical GOP dismissal of the helpless.
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 07:48:45 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on October 15, 2009, 07:46:20 AM
No, but they're the segment of the population which votes in greatest number.
I was trying to provoke someone else into saying this. :goodboy:
I was provoked. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:49:19 AM
No we're not. We're seeing your typical GOP dismissal of the helpless.
The GOP cares about the helpless, just as long as they've not yet been born. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 07:42:27 AM
Are old people really the poorest segment of the population, as the media and Congress's actions seem to often suggest?
Not necessarily; many seniors supplement their income with something like ownership rights, investments, or rentals.
Living on social security as sole source of income, however, is poverty. It's probably about comparable to unemployment during the first ten years of working life; utilities aren't even covered and are usually paid for through relief programs offered by utility companies themselves (partial-pay or waiver programs for heating, no-disconnect programs offered by telephone and electric companies, etc.).
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
many seniors supplement their income with something like ownership rights, investments, or rentals.
And many don't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:28:41 AM
Smells like a bribe for health care reform.
Yeah because it is the Seniors who really need to get on board with that.
I have to say that now that the stock market is above 10,000 again and prices are starting to go up the government needs to hold back now. If they keep pouring money into the economy inflation will result. Now is the time to think about how we are going to pay back the money we borrowed and get ready for the next time we need to intervene.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:55:35 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
many seniors supplement their income with something like ownership rights, investments, or rentals.
And many don't.
Did you read the second half of my post before quoting?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 08:01:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:55:35 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
many seniors supplement their income with something like ownership rights, investments, or rentals.
And many don't.
Did you read the second half of my post before quoting?
Yes, but it doesn't make my post as effective. Duh.
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2009, 07:57:10 AM
Now is the time to think about how we are going to pay back the money we borrowed
:huh: Dude, it's Congress. :(
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 08:04:38 AM
:huh: Dude, it's Congress. :(
I still like to give my opinion on what we should be doing even though it is futile :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:48:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Highest mortality rate of any age group.
Don't need the money if you're dead.
We're seeing the flip side of the social security privatization debate in action here.
The recession pretty much devastated any chance of social security being privatized for the next decade or two, didn't it? I mean, I'm sure that there are a few free market ideologues who think it's a good idea, but the general population must be unconvinced at this point.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 08:30:07 AM
The recession pretty much devastated any chance of social security being privatized for the next decade or two, didn't it? I mean, I'm sure that there are a few free market ideologues who think it's a good idea, but the general population must be unconvinced at this point.
20 years sounds about right to me.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:48:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:47:11 AM
Highest mortality rate of any age group.
Don't need the money if you're dead.
We're seeing the flip side of the social security privatization debate in action here.
The recession pretty much devastated any chance of social security being privatized for the next decade or two, didn't it? I mean, I'm sure that there are a few free market ideologues who think it's a good idea, but the general population must be unconvinced at this point.
I'd tend to agree on that too. But Social Security is one of the next big and tough issues to hit, and likely Pres Obama will try and take that on as well. Just like Pres Bush found though, that will be another partisan food fight. Soc Sec might have been ok, not sure, if the money that had been paid in hadn't gone into the general funds and used by govt spending elsewhere. The IOU's the govt owes to Soc Sec is a huge amount; I forget how much but it's a figure that the govt probably can't even repay very easily. So I'd have to say that basically our legislators helped, again, to screw that program up.
I'm kind of thinking that something along the lines of expanding IRAs, 401Ks, and other retirement accounts could be implemented, and that all becomes the primary retirement funding for people, in time. And retirees wouldn't have to so heavily rely on govt, but would be eligible for govt funds based on need. But that the system should be set up for people to be able to have more chance of retiring on their own funds. It's been the opposite way for a while, reliance on govt first, though the various private retirement accounts have been in place for the last couple of decades and gives good encouragement to save for retirement.
In 20 years I'll be 40! :o
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:28:41 AM
Smells like a bribe for the upcoming elections.
I fixed that for you!
Quote from: Jaron on October 15, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
In 20 years I'll be 40! :o
:lol:
Only 2 years and 5 days for me. :weep:
I'm okay with this only as long as they keep the tax deduction for pet medical expenses in the current healthscare bill :D
Quote from: Jaron on October 15, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
In 20 years I'll be 40! :o
Damn, you'll be old.
(I'll still be 12).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2009, 10:45:05 AM
Damn, you'll be old.
(I'll still be 12).
You never age? :o
Not on the inside.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:55:35 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
many seniors supplement their income with something like ownership rights, investments, or rentals.
And many don't.
But they all get another $13 billion dollar handout.
Yeah, it's not like they aren't already getting more than they put in, now they're getting a raise.
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:55:35 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
many seniors supplement their income with something like ownership rights, investments, or rentals.
And many don't.
But they all get another $13 billion dollar handout.
I know that's a few more shillings your precious Wall Street tycoons won't get in tax-supported bonuses this year but, as opposed to you, I'd rather see the elderly get a little help for a change instead of your boys down on Wall Street.
Berkut: Hating old people since the Reagan Administration.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 12:17:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:55:35 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
many seniors supplement their income with something like ownership rights, investments, or rentals.
And many don't.
But they all get another $13 billion dollar handout.
I know that's a few more shillings your precious Wall Street tycoons won't get in tax-supported bonuses this year but, as opposed to you, I'd rather see the elderly get a little help for a change instead of your boys down on Wall Street.
Berkut: Hating old people since the Reagan Administration.
But the money won't be coming from the boys down on Wall Street, it will be coming from us.
In fact, what it really means is that a group of people who are probably more well off than the average will be getting money for no particular reason, since in fact their costs of living have not risen.
So it's exactly like those boys on Wall street then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 12:17:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:55:35 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
many seniors supplement their income with something like ownership rights, investments, or rentals.
And many don't.
But they all get another $13 billion dollar handout.
I know that's a few more shillings your precious Wall Street tycoons won't get in tax-supported bonuses this year but, as opposed to you, I'd rather see the elderly get a little help for a change instead of your boys down on Wall Street.
Berkut: Hating old people since the Reagan Administration.
He is right to do so. Years working in a nursing home cleaning up shit has convinced me that the death panels are really the ultimate and final way of preserving human dignity. Berkut's forced euthanasia idea is therefore not without merit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 12:17:19 PM
I know that's a few more shillings your precious Wall Street tycoons won't get in tax-supported bonuses this year but, as opposed to you, I'd rather see the elderly get a little help for a change instead of your boys down on Wall Street.
Berkut: Hating old people since the Reagan Administration.
I would have no problem with lending senior citizens $250 in TARP money at 13% APR.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 15, 2009, 12:29:48 PM
So it's exactly like those boys on Wall street then.
Nothing at all like those boys on Wall Street.
I am telling you, it is the beginning of the end.
It's like a re-run of what happened in Hungarian politics: borders blurrying between the centers of the two major parties cause them to up-play the irrational hate of the opponent to keep and gain votes, one party pays money and takes loans like there is no tomorrow and the opponent has no choice but to promise to spend more, and when given power, indeed it is too afraid to not do so, and starts literally buying off important voting groups.
The "lets start and try to do all the necessary reforms at once, ending up half-assed in all of them" is also the same you only skipped the the premature dismissal of an interim PM due to lack of charisma, because you opened with a charismatic leader.
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 12:18:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 12:17:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 07:55:35 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
many seniors supplement their income with something like ownership rights, investments, or rentals.
And many don't.
But they all get another $13 billion dollar handout.
I know that's a few more shillings your precious Wall Street tycoons won't get in tax-supported bonuses this year but, as opposed to you, I'd rather see the elderly get a little help for a change instead of your boys down on Wall Street.
Berkut: Hating old people since the Reagan Administration.
But the money won't be coming from the boys down on Wall Street, it will be coming from us.
In fact, what it really means is that a group of people who are probably more well off than the average will be getting money for no particular reason, since in fact their costs of living have not risen.
% of US senior citizens that live below the poverty level: 18.6%*
% of US Wall Street tycoons that Berkut would rather give the money to instead living below the poverty level: 0%
*NAS stats, not the bogus GOP ones.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 15, 2009, 12:29:48 PM
So it's exactly like those boys on Wall street then.
Don't sweat it, GF. For GOPtard Libertarian Free-Marketers like Yi and Berkut, the elderly are simply unemployed welfare suckers with more gray hair and wrinkles, and we know how nothing could destroy the country faster than old niggers looking for handouts.
Cool, another supposedly disadvantaged group Seedy pretends to care about.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 02:26:56 PM
Cool, another supposedly disadvantaged group Seedy pretends to care about.
I just find it hilarious that, of all the budgetary shenanigans our GOPtards could get worked up about, frothing over giving each senior citizen a month's worth of groceries during these shitty economic times gives us an idea as to where their priorities actually are.
13 billion is what, 2 CVN's? Fuck it, give 'em a check.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2009, 03:49:57 PM
13 billion is what, 2 CVN's? Fuck it, give 'em a check.
I think we should give gays a check.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2009, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2009, 03:49:57 PM
13 billion is what, 2 CVN's? Fuck it, give 'em a check.
I think we should give gays a check.
Good gays like you and Habs? Sure.
Bad evil gays like Mart? No.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 02:36:27 PM
I just find it hilarious that, of all the budgetary shenanigans our GOPtards could get worked up about, frothing over giving each senior citizen a month's worth of groceries during these shitty economic times gives us an idea as to where their priorities actually are.
I think people have been considerably worked up about most of the spending. I personally hate anything that smacks of the economic stimulus packages that were handed out by Bush.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 02:36:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 02:26:56 PM
Cool, another supposedly disadvantaged group Seedy pretends to care about.
I just find it hilarious that, of all the budgetary shenanigans our GOPtards could get worked up about, frothing over giving each senior citizen a month's worth of groceries during these shitty economic times gives us an idea as to where their priorities actually are.
I find it hilarious that you care so much about giving people who ahve more money than you do even more of your own money. It is like you just ahve to slobber all over any transfer payment, no matter how little sense it makes.
They aren't giving *poor* seniors more money - they are giving ALL seniors more money. Just because they vote - not because they need it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 02:36:27 PM
I just find it hilarious that, of all the budgetary shenanigans our GOPtards could get worked up about, frothing over giving each senior citizen a month's worth of groceries during these shitty economic times gives us an idea as to where their priorities actually are.
Your emotional appeals are genuine & heartfelt, I'm sure. And I am so nearly swayed by them.
But the runaway spending has to stop-- that most certainly IS a priority for my side.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2009, 03:59:39 PM
Good gays like you and Habs? Sure.
Bad evil gays like Mart? No.
There are only two Americans at play there.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2009, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2009, 03:59:39 PM
Good gays like you and Habs? Sure.
Bad evil gays like Mart? No.
There are only two Americans at play there.
The check would be huge.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 04:00:17 PM
But the runaway spending has to stop-- that most certainly IS a priority for my side.
it's funny, but sad.
The GOPs claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility used to be such a joke. Now it has credibility again, but not because they actually became fiscally conservative, but because the Dems just increased fiscal irresponsibility by an order of magnitude.
Look at this example - $13 billion more, and we have no way to pay for it, and the response is "Hey, no big deal! Why the fuck not, we are talking about spending trillions that we don't have, who gives a shit about $13 billion!"
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2009, 03:58:38 PM
I think we should give gays a check.
...right into the boards :menace:
edit: I was going to post a pic, but I couldn't find one that didn't look like one hockey player buggering the other :D
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 04:00:17 PM
Your emotional appeals are genuine & heartfelt, I'm sure. And I am so nearly swayed by them.
But the runaway spending has to stop-- that most certainly IS a priority for my side.
At least the spending could be justified before for Keynesian stimulus. Now, with prices going up, it could be disastrous for the average wage earner.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2009, 04:02:25 PM
The check would be huge.
If I was a rich boy, na na na na na..., I'd have all the money in the world.
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 04:03:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 04:00:17 PM
But the runaway spending has to stop-- that most certainly IS a priority for my side.
it's funny, but sad.
The GOPs claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility used to be such a joke. Now it has credibility again, but not because they actually became fiscally conservative, but because the Dems just increased fiscal irresponsibility by an order of magnitude.
Look at this example - $13 billion more, and we have no way to pay for it, and the response is "Hey, no big deal! Why the fuck not, we are talking about spending trillions that we don't have, who gives a shit about $13 billion!"
True enough. The GOP is the party of being slightly less fiscally irresponsible.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 04:03:14 PM
...right into the boards :menace:
edit: I was going to post a pic, but I couldn't find one that didn't look like one hockey player buggering the other :D
I was quite confused. I pictured headboards and went um...
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2009, 04:04:35 PM
At least the spending could be justified before for Keynesian stimulus. Now, with prices going up, it could be disastrous for the average wage earner.
Are prices going up? Inflation is as close to zero as you can get right now.
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2009, 04:16:38 PM
Are prices going up? Inflation is as close to zero as you can get right now.
A little bit...about 0.3% a month right now. But that along with the stock market hitting 10,000 again suggests to me the problem right now is not a lack of cash in the economy.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 04:03:14 PM
edit: I was going to post a pic, but I couldn't find one that didn't look like one hockey player buggering the other :D
Well, that would certainly add a new element to the game.
Garbon is "Canadian"
Garbon is gay.
Canadians like hockey.
QED Hockey is gay.
:tinfoil:
"Canadian" being a code word for black according to some thread on Languish several years back.
I thought that I only pretend to be black? :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 12:18:49 PM
But the money won't be coming from the boys down on Wall Street, it will be coming from us.
In fact, what it really means is that a group of people who are probably more well off than the average will be getting money for no particular reason, since in fact their costs of living have not risen.
The "cost of living" increase is tied to inflation and inflation only. Nobody's claimed that "their costs of living have not risen."
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 15, 2009, 04:14:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 04:03:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 04:00:17 PM
But the runaway spending has to stop-- that most certainly IS a priority for my side.
it's funny, but sad.
The GOPs claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility used to be such a joke. Now it has credibility again, but not because they actually became fiscally conservative, but because the Dems just increased fiscal irresponsibility by an order of magnitude.
Look at this example - $13 billion more, and we have no way to pay for it, and the response is "Hey, no big deal! Why the fuck not, we are talking about spending trillions that we don't have, who gives a shit about $13 billion!"
True enough. The GOP is the party of being slightly less fiscally irresponsible.
There is nothing "slight" about it.
The Dems, as soon as they got into power, took spending that was already insanely high, and made it look downright pauper-like with their complete contempt for anything that even vaguely looks like restraint.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 06:32:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 12:18:49 PM
But the money won't be coming from the boys down on Wall Street, it will be coming from us.
In fact, what it really means is that a group of people who are probably more well off than the average will be getting money for no particular reason, since in fact their costs of living have not risen.
The "cost of living" increase is tied to inflation and inflation only. Nobody's claimed that "their costs of living have not risen."
Isn't that what the Consumer Price Index, which this stuff is tied to (which artifically overstates cost of living increases by a large amount) is intended to measure?
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 06:54:37 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 06:32:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 12:18:49 PM
But the money won't be coming from the boys down on Wall Street, it will be coming from us.
In fact, what it really means is that a group of people who are probably more well off than the average will be getting money for no particular reason, since in fact their costs of living have not risen.
The "cost of living" increase is tied to inflation and inflation only. Nobody's claimed that "their costs of living have not risen."
Isn't that what the Consumer Price Index, which this stuff is tied to (which artifically overstates cost of living increases by a large amount) is intended to measure?
CPI isn't the only measure of inflation, and is, in fact, on the rise.
From CNN today:
QuoteThe Consumer Price index (CPI) rose 0.2% in September, after rising 0.4% in August. The rise was in line with a consensus of economists surveyed by Briefing.com.
The so-called core CPI, which strips out volatile food and energy, rose 0.2% after rising 0.1% in August. Economists thought it would rise 0.1%.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2009, 02:36:27 PM
I just find it hilarious that, of all the budgetary shenanigans our GOPtards could get worked up about, frothing over giving each senior citizen a month's worth of groceries during these shitty economic times gives us an idea as to where their priorities actually are.
This is the kind of argument that would get rave reviews from the Michael Moore fan club. These shitty economic times are affecting seniors how exactly? By driving down the cost of their food, their gas, and their Power Chairs. By driving their unemployment rate from 0% to 0%. You could of course introduce the devastating argument that everyone (including seniors) have seen the value of their retirement savings drop recently (although most of those gains have been made back) but then you would have to face the fact that the great majority of seniors *have* retirement savings and don't live on just their Social Security checks. And even for those that do, 2 grand a month in a house with a paid off mortgage is not exactly a recipe for dumpster diving.
The road to hyperinflation is paved with good intentions. Giving seniors more money would be a nice thing to do. Giving everyone who bought much more house than they could afford a free house would be a nice thing to do. Giving every member of the Democratic leadership a couple billion more in pork would be a nice thing to do. Giving GM and Chrysler a couple billion more so they can double UAW salaries would be a nice thing to do. Doubling the salaries of state and municipal workers would be a nice thing to do. Free insulation for everyone. Free wind turbines and solar panels for everyone. Let's increase farm subsidies. A trip to Disney and Universal Studios for every member of the Nobel committee, except the mean ones who said they were opposed to Obama. These are all such nice things, you'd have to be a terrible person to be against them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:50:49 PM
Giving seniors more money would be a nice thing to do. Giving everyone who bought much more house than they could afford a free house would be a nice thing to do. Giving every member of the Democratic leadership a couple billion more in pork would be a nice thing to do. Giving GM and Chrysler a couple billion more so they can double UAW salaries would be a nice thing to do. Doubling the salaries of state and municipal workers would be a nice thing to do. Free insulation for everyone. Free wind turbines and solar panels for everyone. Let's increase farm subsidies. A trip to Disney and Universal Studios for every member of the Nobel committee, except the mean ones who said they were opposed to Obama. These are all such nice things, you'd have to be a terrible person to be against them.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:50:49 PM
The road to hyperinflation is paved with good intentions. Giving seniors more money would be a nice thing to do. Giving everyone who bought much more house than they could afford a free house would be a nice thing to do. Giving every member of the Democratic leadership a couple billion more in pork would be a nice thing to do. Giving GM and Chrysler a couple billion more so they can double UAW salaries would be a nice thing to do. Doubling the salaries of state and municipal workers would be a nice thing to do. Free insulation for everyone. Free wind turbines and solar panels for everyone. Let's increase farm subsidies. A trip to Disney and Universal Studios for every member of the Nobel committee, except the mean ones who said they were opposed to Obama. These are all such nice things, you'd have to be a terrible person to be against them.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_dSZ36A0-GBI%2FSYey8cuaxZI%2FAAAAAAAACQw%2FJQwh9aQH0hA%2Fs400%2Fsarcasm%2Bmeter.jpg&hash=9dfa5c85cf836db4d18ff3c0a5e81e53e813090e)
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2009, 04:43:30 PM
I thought that I only pretend to be black? :unsure:
No, you were only pretending to be gay.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 15, 2009, 10:22:29 PM
No, you were only pretending to be gay.
I'm Martinus? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 07:50:49 PM
This is the kind of argument that would get rave reviews from the Michael Moore fan club. These shitty economic times are affecting seniors how exactly? By driving down the cost of their food, their gas, and their Power Chairs. By driving their unemployment rate from 0% to 0%. You could of course introduce the devastating argument that everyone (including seniors) have seen the value of their retirement savings drop recently (although most of those gains have been made back) but then you would have to face the fact that the great majority of seniors *have* retirement savings and don't live on just their Social Security checks. And even for those that do, 2 grand a month in a house with a paid off mortgage is not exactly a recipe for dumpster diving.
The road to hyperinflation is paved with good intentions. Giving seniors more money would be a nice thing to do. Giving everyone who bought much more house than they could afford a free house would be a nice thing to do. Giving every member of the Democratic leadership a couple billion more in pork would be a nice thing to do. Giving GM and Chrysler a couple billion more so they can double UAW salaries would be a nice thing to do. Doubling the salaries of state and municipal workers would be a nice thing to do. Free insulation for everyone. Free wind turbines and solar panels for everyone. Let's increase farm subsidies. A trip to Disney and Universal Studios for every member of the Nobel committee, except the mean ones who said they were opposed to Obama. These are all such nice things, you'd have to be a terrible person to be against them.
How about replacing those weasel words with some actual statistics, chief? As of 2008, 22.4% of seniors 65 or older made less than 150% of the poverty line (that benchmark would be $14503.50 for a single earner, $18,279 for a couple).
I'm also currently looking for a percentage of Social Security retirees collecting from IRAs.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
How about replacing those weasel words with some actual statistics, chief? As of 2008, 22.4% of seniors 65 or older made less than 150% of the poverty line (that benchmark would be $14503.50 for a single earner, $18,279 for a couple).
I'm also currently looking for a percentage of Social Security retirees collecting from IRAs.
So you've established that there is somewhere upwards of at least 60% who probably don't need cash infusions.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
How about replacing those weasel words with some actual statistics, chief? As of 2008, 22.4% of seniors 65 or older made less than 150% of the poverty line (that benchmark would be $14503.50 for a single earner, $18,279 for a couple).
I'm also currently looking for a percentage of Social Security retirees collecting from IRAs.
Which weasel words would those be slick?
I already gave one statistic: 65+ has the lowest poverty rate of any age group. Here's another one: the average estate at inheritance is $160,000.
Also, how many of those mortgages really are paid off? How much medication or medical equipment does the senior need? Is the senior housebound and requires personal assistance? If the senior is not housebound, what are their transportation options (if they're forced to continue driving, insurance is an iffy proposition for a senior)?
Basically, you can't just compare cost of living for a young worker living alone and a housebound senior living alone; travel and medical assistance also have to be factored in much of the time. In addition, I think you'll find with the recent housing bubble, not as many of those mortgages are paid as you think.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 10:47:13 PM
Also, how many of those mortgages really are paid off? How much medication or medical equipment does the senior need? Is the senior housebound and requires personal assistance? If the senior is not housebound, what are their transportation options (if they're forced to continue driving, insurance is an iffy proposition for a senior)?
Basically, you can't just compare cost of living for a young worker living alone and a housebound senior living alone; travel and medical assistance also have to be factored in much of the time. In addition, I think you'll find with the recent housing bubble, not as many of those mortgages are paid as you think.
Of course you can't compare cost of living for a young worker and a housebound senior. The young worker has student loans to pay off, payroll taxes deducted from his pay check, down payment on a house to save for, commuting costs, and the likelihood of paying to rear children.
Why would the housing bubble affect the number of seniors with mortgages?
And I ask you again: what weasel words?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 10:57:14 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 10:47:13 PM
Also, how many of those mortgages really are paid off? How much medication or medical equipment does the senior need? Is the senior housebound and requires personal assistance? If the senior is not housebound, what are their transportation options (if they're forced to continue driving, insurance is an iffy proposition for a senior)?
Basically, you can't just compare cost of living for a young worker living alone and a housebound senior living alone; travel and medical assistance also have to be factored in much of the time. In addition, I think you'll find with the recent housing bubble, not as many of those mortgages are paid as you think.
Of course you can't compare cost of living for a young worker and a housebound senior. The young worker has student loans to pay off, payroll taxes deducted from his pay check, down payment on a house to save for, commuting costs, and the likelihood of paying to rear children.
Why would the housing bubble affect the number of seniors with mortgages?
And I ask you again: what weasel words?
First off, a little mythbusting on "tax-free Social Security:" http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179091,00.html
You make over the base amount, you pay income tax, Social Security or work. The percentage of Americans choosing to stay in the workforce past retirement age because they'd be financially insecure is also rising, as is the percentage of senior citizens attending college or vocational training programs. Also, take it from a guy who dealt with loads of transit agency dispatchers, NO transit company offers free transportation for seniors; reduced fare, yes, but never free.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2009, 10:27:49 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 15, 2009, 10:22:29 PM
No, you were only pretending to be gay.
I'm Martinus? :unsure:
I thought Martinus was definitely gay, but pretending to be a lawyer. :unsure:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 11:14:39 PM
First off, a little mythbusting on "tax-free Social Security:" http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179091,00.html
You make over the base amount, you pay income tax, Social Security or work. The percentage of Americans choosing to stay in the workforce past retirement age because they'd be financially insecure is also rising, as is the percentage of senior citizens attending college or vocational training programs. Also, take it from a guy who dealt with loads of transit agency dispatchers, NO transit company offers free transportation for seniors; reduced fare, yes, but never free.
So, OK, so, and so what? No one has even mentioned any myth of tax free Social Security. A rising percentage of seniors attending classes is *not* a sign of penury and need, it's a sign of disposable income and free time.
Third time's a charm: what did you mean by weasel words?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 15, 2009, 11:16:32 PM
I thought Martinus was definitely gay, but pretending to be a lawyer. :unsure:
He doesn't have gay sex. :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 11:19:44 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 11:14:39 PM
First off, a little mythbusting on "tax-free Social Security:" http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179091,00.html
You make over the base amount, you pay income tax, Social Security or work. The percentage of Americans choosing to stay in the workforce past retirement age because they'd be financially insecure is also rising, as is the percentage of senior citizens attending college or vocational training programs. Also, take it from a guy who dealt with loads of transit agency dispatchers, NO transit company offers free transportation for seniors; reduced fare, yes, but never free.
So, OK, so, and so what? No one has even mentioned any myth of tax free Social Security. A rising percentage of seniors attending classes is *not* a sign of penury and need, it's a sign of disposable income and free time.
Third time's a charm: what did you mean by weasel words?
Your little "great majority of seniors have retirement savings" comment, which is still suspect.
I mentioned the income tax situation because you brought payroll taxes into it. Also, I shouldn't have to point out that real cost of living varies from market to market, and can easily hit 200-300% of the "poverty line" that the government uses in its census calculations.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2009, 11:25:19 PM
He doesn't have gay sex. :mellow:
Oh yeah. Forgot about that. Well......
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 15, 2009, 11:30:51 PM
Oh yeah. Forgot about that. Well......
I wouldn't be surprised if he is really a 17 year old girl named Millicent.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 11:26:40 PM
Your little "great majority of seniors have retirement savings" comment, which is still suspect.
I mentioned the income tax situation because you brought payroll taxes into it. Also, I shouldn't have to point out that real cost of living varies from market to market, and can easily hit 200-300% of the "poverty line" that the government uses in its census calculations.
I'll have to remember your definition of weasel words the next time you bring up an undocumented claim.
Payroll taxes are Social Security and Medicare contributions. I.e. non-income taxes.
Yes, cost of living varies, and can easily hit 50% of the government poverty line.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 11:33:24 PM
I'll have to remember your definition of weasel words the next time you bring up an undocumented claim.
Payroll taxes are Social Security and Medicare contributions. I.e. non-income taxes.
Yes, cost of living varies, and can easily hit 50% of the government poverty line.
Non-income, yes, but marginal. FICA is by far the largest withholding, and Medicare contributions are only on the first $104K, to boot, so there's a pretty good percentage of American households that pay comparatively less for Medicare.
And if I rebut you with an unverifiable claim, feel free to call me out on it.
Meanwhile in a dialogue with Katrina victims:
Quote"I expected as much from the Bush administration, but why are we still being nickeled and dimed in our recovery?" asked Gabriel Bordenave, 29, of New Orleans.
"I wish I could write a blank check," Obama replied, promoting Bordenave to shout back, "Why not?"
Indeed, sir, why not? :bowler: