No increase for social secuity in 2011

[Modelworks]

Supposed to be officially announced friday but the government has determined that there is no need for a cost of living increase for social security recipients in 2011. They also did not increase it for 2010. The last time this happened was 1975.

If there was no cost of living increase then why are government employees getting raises ? I can confirm that my parents expenses have gone up. Food definitely isn't cheaper here. Someone I know in a rent controlled apartment had the rent increased.

Democrats better realize if they allow this to remain unchallenged there is no way in hell they will get elected when 50+ million seniors who depend on social security get passed over again.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

They're trying to appeal to all of the sane people who realize SS is a giant burden on the federal budget.

 

[woolfe9999]

Supposed to be officially announced friday but the government has determined that there is no need for a cost of living increase for social security recipients in 2011. They also did not increase it for 2010. The last time this happened was 1975.

If there was no cost of living increase then why are government employees getting raises ? I can confirm that my parents expenses have gone up. Food definitely isn't cheaper here. Someone I know in a rent controlled apartment had the rent increased.

Democrats better realize if they allow this to remain unchallenged there is no way in hell they will get elected when 50+ million seniors who depend on social security get passed over again.

Point of emphasis to underscore why we will never solve our deficit problem. Everyone wants to balance the budget. No one wants higher taxes. Every individual thing that gets cut people scream bloodly murder and then whoever made the cut presumably can't get re-elected. This type of reasoning will cause our government to eventually collapse, because it isn't just about SS and this issue. It's everything.

Incidentally, there has been nigh zero inflation. Accordingly, SS recipients should not be getting a raise. Government employees probably shouldn't either, but two wrongs don't make a right so I fail to see the point of bringing that in unless you wanted to say good, now let's not give raises to government employees next year either.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

It's plausible this is true, and it's also plausible it's an election cycle lie to try to hurt the Democrats. Got any links to help see which it is?

As for the issue, Wolfe pretty well addressed it.

But it should probably have some rule determining it by default (with override if needed) rather than 'blame the party in power for the choice'.

 

[Modelworks]

Incidentally, there has been nigh zero inflation. Accordingly, SS recipients should not be getting a raise. Government employees probably shouldn't either, but two wrongs don't make a right so I fail to see the point of bringing that in unless you wanted to say good, now let's not give raises to government employees next year either.

- wolf

The problem is how the government measures inflation. They don't take into account did a seniors expenses increase, they only count population as a whole. Seniors have expenses that others do not and very small increases effect them much more. When someone lives off $1k a month and their cost to live increases to $1050 , they don't have the means to get the extra $50. There is no savings account or taking a second job. What they will do is stop taking medication and stop eating. I have seen it many times.

The point about government employees getting raises is that the government determined there was a need to do this for their employees but not for seniors. As if seniors expenses did not increase.

 

[Modelworks]

It's plausible this is true, and it's also plausible it's an election cycle lie to try to hurt the Democrats. Got any links to help see which it is?

As for the issue, Wolfe pretty well addressed it.

But it should probably have some rule determining it by default (with override if needed) rather than 'blame the party in power for the choice'.

There is about 50 links on google and I had abc news on just now and they ran a segment on it.

 

[Craig234]

The problem is how the government measures inflation. They don't take into account did a seniors expenses increase, they only count population as a whole. Seniors have expenses that others do not and very small increases effect them much more. When someone lives off $1k a month and their cost to live increases to $1050 , they don't have the means to get the extra $50. There is no savings account or taking a second job. What they will do is stop taking medication and stop eating. I have seen it many times.

The point about government employees getting raises is that the government determined there was a need to do this for their employees but not for seniors. As if seniors expenses did not increase.

Unfortunately, the government has distorted economic statistics for decades for political reasons. Remember Reagan's unemployment changes, for one?

 

[techs]

Let me get this straight. You aren't getting a cost of living increase on Social Security so you should vote for the party that wants to end Social Security?


When 40 percent of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim, and 14 percent think he is the Anti-Christ, that kind of reasoning makes perfect sense.

 

[woolfe9999]

The problem is how the government measures inflation. They don't take into account did a seniors expenses increase, they only count population as a whole. Seniors have expenses that others do not and very small increases effect them much more. When someone lives off $1k a month and their cost to live increases to $1050 , they don't have the means to get the extra $50. There is no savings account or taking a second job. What they will do is stop taking medication and stop eating. I have seen it many times.

The point about government employees getting raises is that the government determined there was a need to do this for their employees but not for seniors. As if seniors expenses did not increase.

The problem is you haven't suggested a scientific way of measuring "inflation for seniors." Since our system does not have the resources to investigate the financial circumstances of 50 million people, we have only the macroeconomic data to go on. You seem to be arguing that we should automatically give seniors a raise every year regardless of whether there is macroeconomic inflation or not because presumably some seniors had an increase in their expenses.

Like it of lump it, the government balance sheet is heavily in the red right now, and SOMEONE has to feel some pain eventually. It probably will be a lot more than seniors feeling that pain in the near future, but seniors are a reasonable place to start since our total budget is disprortionately geared toward two entitlements for seniors. It doesn't do us any good to complain about every spending cut along the way. This sort of attitude is why we will never balance the budget.

- wolf

 

[JockoJohnson]

What was even more astonishing is hearing that there are 58 million Americans on SS. Raise the damn age limit by a year or two. How can this possibly be sustained long term? I know, political suicide for anyone/any party probably even suggesting it.

58 million out of 300 million is about 1 out of 6 Americans on SS (closer to 1 out of 5 but rough estimates being used here). That's scary.

 

[Modelworks]

The problem is you haven't suggested a scientific way of measuring "inflation for seniors." Since our system does not have the resources to investigate the financial circumstances of 50 million people, we have only the macroeconomic data to go on. You seem to be arguing that we should automatically give seniors a raise every year regardless of whether there is macroeconomic inflation or not because presumably some seniors had an increase in their expenses.

How about we start treating seniors like people and not numbers on paper ? The CSI is completely unbalanced when it comes to seniors.
Using it just because it is what we have and keeping it as the method for determining cost for seniors makes them think that the government has taken their money and is now done with them. I have talked to a lot of seniors who feel like the government has abandoned them and they are lucky to get anything.

Like it of lump it, the government balance sheet is heavily in the red right now, and SOMEONE has to feel some pain eventually. It probably will be a lot more than seniors feeling that pain in the near future, but seniors are a reasonable place to start since our total budget is disprortionately geared toward two entitlements for seniors. It doesn't do us any good to complain about every spending cut along the way. This sort of attitude is why we will never balance the budget.

- wolf

There are plenty of places to cut without harming seniors. The average increase per senior would have been about $40 per month, an extra $10 per week. With all the billions we spend in foreign aid and we can't give our seniors $10 more per week ?

Balancing the budget doesn't mean you take food out of the mouth of people that have no other resources.

 

[Modelworks]

What was even more astonishing is hearing that there are 58 million Americans on SS. Raise the damn age limit by a year or two. How can this possibly be sustained long term? I know, political suicide for anyone/any party probably even suggesting it.

58 million out of 300 million is about 1 out of 6 Americans on SS (closer to 1 out of 5 but rough estimates being used here). That's scary.

SS would have been alright if it hadn't been manipulated over the years. It should have been set up with a 'keep your hands off' policy.

Watching a local debate now and both candidates said they wouldn't be for increasing the retirement age and that it would require more creative measures to fix. Meaning they didn't want to make younger voters mad and they don't want to offend seniors so elect them , then when they are in office they will do what they want.

 

[Balt]

SS would have been alright if it hadn't been manipulated over the years. It should have been set up with a 'keep your hands off' policy.

And the same people who have constantly re-elected the politicians who raided it are now having to pay some small price for it. I have no sympathy for the AARP crowd, especially considering that younger generations will still bear the heaviest burden from the older generations' short-sightedness.

 

[Slew Foot]

Makes sense to me. If theres no increase in inflation then there's no reason to get a cost of living raise.

 

[Throckmorton]

Cut them off. This is America not the USSR

 

[spidey07]

Makes sense to me. If theres no increase in inflation then there's no reason to get a cost of living raise.

It makes sense because it was adjusted to account for the high gas rates of 2007/08. But for somebody that is on a fixed income (a shocking high number rely on SS alone, like 50+ percent) their cost of living did indeed go up. Many articles even have interviews with seniors that say they're cutting back spending because of this.

More bad news for democrats, two years in a row no COLA. Seniors are going to look squarely at Obama and congress as the cause even if they have little to do with it. When you tell folks their cost of living hasn't gone up so no adjustment when it really has there's going to be hell to pay at the voting booth.

 

[Modelworks]

Cut them off. This is America not the USSR

okay then give them back everything they paid in but haven't gotten back.

 

[bamacre]

Unfortunately, the government has distorted economic statistics for decades for political reasons. Remember Reagan's unemployment changes, for one?

No, no. Our resident Keynesian experts have sworn that the CPI numbers are correct, and as accurate as possible. No manipulation.

 

[sactoking]

If there was no cost of living increase then why are government employees getting raises ?

All of the government employees I know have had their pay frozen since July 2009 and it won't be eligible to be unfrozen until July 2011. It's likely to remain frozen until at least July 2013. Oh, and they've had unpaid furlough days foisted on them which is about a 5% pay cut which is projected to last through July 2013. From their POV, SSI recipients can go suck it.

 

[spidey07]

okay then give them back everything they paid in but haven't gotten back.

With compounded interest of even the lowest bonds of the time period.

 

[spidey07]

All of the government employees I know have had their pay frozen since July 2009 and it won't be eligible to be unfrozen until July 2011. It's likely to remain frozen until at least July 2013. Oh, and they've had unpaid furlough days foisted on them which is about a 5% pay cut which is projected to last through July 2013. From their POV, SSI recipients can go suck it.

Clearly you are in a democrat controlled (aka broke) state.

 

[bamacre]

BTW, according to a link posted in another thread,...
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp
... we've average 1.85% inflation this year.

Gold up 20%, SS checks up 1.85%. Damn how does that wealth distribution get so bent out of shape?

 

[sactoking]

Clearly you are in a democrat controlled (aka broke) state.

R Governor
27-14 D-R Assembly
12-8 D-R Senate

The Prior session:
R Governor
27-15 D-R Assembly
10-11 D-R Senate

 

[Throckmorton]

okay then give them back everything they paid in but haven't gotten back.

Fine with me. It will be a lot less than they'd get from us taxpaying good citizens, and I'll get to keep a much bigger chunk of my paycheck. I can handle homeless old people getting in my way when I walk down the street, as long as they don't get too aggressive. Should have planned better for the future, you old bums!!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

What was even more astonishing is hearing that there are 58 million Americans on SS. Raise the damn age limit by a year or two. How can this possibly be sustained long term? I know, political suicide for anyone/any party probably even suggesting it.

58 million out of 300 million is about 1 out of 6 Americans on SS (closer to 1 out of 5 but rough estimates being used here). That's scary.

300mil is an outdated figure 500-600mil is more accurate, closer to 1 out of 8, which is not unusual. And they have already begun raising the age.