[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Economy Title: No Cost of Living Raise For Social Security No Cost of Living Raise For Social Security WASHINGTON — As if voters don't have enough to be angry about this election year, the government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through another year without an increase in their monthly benefits. It would mark only the second year without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation were adopted in 1975. The first year was this year. "If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's not the congressional Democrats' fault, but that's the way politics works," Biggs said. "A lot of people will feel hostile about it." The cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the 1970s. Based on inflation so far this year, the trustees who oversee Social Security project there will be no COLA for 2011. The projection will be made official on Friday, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases inflation estimates for September. The timing couldn't be worse for Democrats as they approach an election in which they are in danger of losing their House majority, and possibly their Senate majority as well.
This past Friday, the same bureau delivered another painful blow to Democrats: The U.S. lost 95,000 jobs in September and unemployment remained stubbornly stuck at 9.6 percent. Democrats have been working hard to make Social Security an election-year issue, running political ads and holding press conferences to accuse Republicans of plotting to privatize the national retirement program. This week's announcement about Social Security benefits raises more immediate concerns for older Americans whose savings and home values still haven't recovered from the financial collapse: Many haven't had a raise since January 2009, and they won't be getting one until at least January 2012. "While people aren't getting COLAs they certainly feel like they're falling further and further behind, particularly in this economy," said David Certner, AARP's legislative policy director. "People are very reliant on Social Security as a major portion of their income and, quite frankly, they have counted on the COLA over the years." Social Security was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008, according to the Social Security Administration. A third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14. Just in time to piss off the most likely to vote demographic. Seniors.
#3. To: Badeye (#1) Exchept its the Repugs doing all the talking about raising the age cap for S.S., or privatizing it. The COLA is something built into the system as per laws and regulation of Social Security, and has been around longer then the Obama Adminstration. IT is one of the reasons Obama should be given a second term, to protect S.S. from the whores who serve large multi-national corporations; the Repugs.
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#3) IT is one of the reasons Obama should be given a second term, to protect S.S. from the whores who serve large multi-national corporations; the Repugs. Guess you haven't seen the billions made by the likes of Goldman Sach's since the bailouts, huh? (just one example of hundreds, btw) We should have privatized SS two decades ago. If for no other reason than congress wouldn't be able to raid it every year to finance bullshit we cannot afford, and don't need. JMHO. Third, if you think not providing a cost of living increase to the seniors, less than a month before the election, won't hurt the Democrats who are in total control of all three branches of the Federal Government, you are sadly mistaken.
#7. To: Badeye (#4) The COLA is triggered by inflation, Badeye. Obama has nothing to do with the mechanisms of Social Security law. And what is hurting Democrats most is the dumping of cash into the mix by foreigners and corporations empowered and emboldened by the SCOTUS' foolish gutting of election financing laws this last year. Most seniors I speak to are way more aware of statements by the Rand Pauls of the world talking about upping the retirement age then the COLA mechanism most well know this Administration has no control over.
#8. To: Ferret Mike (#7) Obama has nothing to do with the mechanisms of Social Security law. While thats true, the fact remains seniors aren't going to be happy about this, they are already pissed off with Owe-bama and company, and are going to give voice to that displeasure in 22 days.
#9. To: Badeye (#8) We will see how the mid term elections turn out. My view of it is quite different then yours' in that because of voter apathy, the party in office generally loses in the off year election years anyway. And I support President Obama taking the money machine that has ripped into high gear with much of the campaign funds going to GOPer candidates coming from un-named and unknown sources thanks to a bad ruling by the SCOTUS. In any event, Obama is merely better then the alternative the last election and the only thing that can fix they system is deep systemic changes. So I really don't worry about this latest showing things are broken in as much as I knew this already. This is only the first two years of what will be an eight year occupancy by the Obama Administration, so let's see if he can turn lemons to lemonade with a strong GOPer showing as Clinton was able to largely do when similar election results occurred on his watch. This is an interesting plot twist, but there is no point to a final judgment until this administration has run it's course in 2016.
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#9) We will see how the mid term elections turn out. My view of it is quite different then yours' in that because of voter apathy, the party in office generally loses in the off year election years anyway. Yep...22 days. And actually, in this century, that well worn vieiwpoint about mid terms has yet to hold true.
#11. To: Badeye (#10) And actually, in this century, that well worn vieiwpoint about mid terms has yet to hold true. Do you mean the GOP actually gained seats in 2006? LOLOL
#12. To: mininggold (#11) And actually, in this century, that well worn vieiwpoint about mid terms has yet to hold true. Do you mean the GOP actually gained seats in 2006? LOLOL No, ming. Sheesh, you really can't follow a conversation. I'll type...s...l...o...w...e...r just for you! First term, mid terms. 2006 was a 'second' (2nd) term, mid term. So far in THIS CENTURY, its a trend that first term, MID TERMS go to the seated President. That would be 2002 for those of you 'keeping score at home'.
#14. To: Badeye (#12) So far in THIS CENTURY, its a trend that first term, MID TERMS go to the seated President. That's a trend based on "one" example. Chuckle. Don't you agree that Reagan was repudiated by the country when his party lost 27 seats in 1982?
Replies to Comment # 14.
Its a new century. Thats why Democrats are going to lose both the House and the Senate. They've promoted 1960's era 'great society' nonsense again. 22 days...
End Trace Mode for Comment # 14. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|