Now the Dems are robbing the poor and elderly

I love how Obama lied during his campaign about how he would take from the rich and give to the poor,even worse he's robbing sick,disabled,and elderly people.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090823/ap_on_go_ot/us_social_security_smaller_checks[/url]

Millions face shrinking Social Security payments

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.

Consumer prices are down from 2008 levels, giving Social Security recipients more purchasing power, even if their benefits stay the same, said Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

"Seniors may perceive that they are being hurt because there is no COLA, but they are in fact not getting hurt," Biggs said. "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," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is working on a proposal for one-time payments for Social Security recipients.

"It is my view that seniors are going to need help this year, and it would not be acceptable for Congress to simply turn its back," he said.

Do you read the articles before you post you opinions?

People who get Social Security receive a increase in payments at the begining of a new year based on the cost of living adjustment. Cost of living actually decreased this year ,so no increase for people receiving Social Security plain and simple.

Payments can't decrease so where is the robbing of these people you was talking about?

And I would bet dollars to donuts they will give Social Security recepients some type of payment to make up for the $2.00 dollar a month increase some might see in their prescription drug program.

[QUOTE=pontooner;379758]Do you read the articles before you post you opinions?

People who get Social Security receive a increase in payments at the begining of a new year based on the cost of living adjustment. Cost of living actually decreased this year ,so no increase for people receiving Social Security plain and simple.

Payments can't decrease so where is the robbing of these people you was talking about?

And I would bet dollars to donuts they will give Social Security recepients some type of payment to make up for the $2.00 dollar a month increase some might see in their prescription drug program.[/QUOTE]

I've yet to see the cost of anything decrease except peoples income,please tell me what is cheaper? With the taxes the Dems have and want to put on every utility the cost will go up more.

What a joke!!!!! Looks like the machine is trying to scare up the old folks toward socialized medicine.


Pontooner, with your head in the sand you are not invisible,just blind.

I read the article you posted and came to the conclusion I did. It said the COL went down so no COLA to Social Security recipients, again the article you posted said it not me.

If you have more links to share regarding the COL and it not decreasing I will gladly read them.


TimE please explain how is this going to scare people to the socialized medicine side.

[QUOTE=pontooner;379758]Do you read the articles before you post you opinions?

People who get Social Security receive a increase in payments at the begining of a new year based on the cost of living adjustment. Cost of living actually decreased this year ,so no increase for people receiving Social Security plain and simple.

Payments can't decrease so where is the robbing of these people you was talking about?

And I would bet dollars to donuts they will give Social Security recepients some type of payment to make up for the $2.00 dollar a month increase some might see in their prescription drug program.[/QUOTE]
I can answer that for him. Its obvious he doesnt understand what he reads. I believe rush, hannity and bortz do his thinking.;) Just kiddin. :)

[quote=kyfanatic;379761]i've yet to see the cost of anything decrease except peoples income,please tell me what is cheaper? With the taxes the dems have and want to put on every utility the cost will go up more.[/quote]
gas! Oil! Taxes! Food!

[QUOTE=slippedcork;379774]gas! Oil! Taxes! Food![/QUOTE]

Please tell me that was just a joke.:eek:

[QUOTE=slippedcork;379774]gas! Oil! Taxes! Food![/QUOTE]

Granted, gas and oil are both cheaper than they were in 2008, but at $2.50+ per gallon it's still over priced by at least .30 cents in my opinion. It never fails to raise by at least .30 cents per gallon over night but it only decreases by mere pennies over several days. I "think" my taxes taken out of my check are less than they were last year too...as far as the food goes, according to my wife nothing is getting less expensive at the grocery store and you think that it would since gas is less expensive than it was a year ago. All the corn and soybeans I see this year are looking GREAT! Therefore I would think the price of breads, cereals, etc would be coming down later this year but they probably won't.

Nah,I can't comprehend what I read,I just enjoy using my stopwatch to time how fast the local Obama apologists jump on any thread pointing out a Democratic Lie or Flaw.
As far as cost of living going down,that's an outright untruth,yes some property values purportedly went down during the great Housing Industry Failure caused by Acorn and the likes forcing loans to people who couldn't qualify otherwise. Funny though,the state raised the property tax on my place over $30000 even though nothing has changed and values supposedly went down,try buying a home,still will cost you plenty.
Gas and Oil are ,like someone else said,over 30 cents per gallon higher compared to the same cost per barrel of oil prior to the markets going wild,increased green taxes on heating fuels,electric,and sneaky Dem taxes on your cell phone,home phone,satellite and cable tv,and water bills have went or will go up,Groceries are out of hand even though they buy all the garbage produce from foreigners that spit on our food because they despise us,just another Dem outsourcing of jobs ploy.The Dems have also raised taxes on Alcohol,Tobacco,Soft Drinks,and are considering several other items which most don't affect me,but they do directly affect the poor and middle class more than any other.
Same old Democrat Party,can't get their way,they use strongarm measures to force people into their organized union crime way of thought.

[QUOTE=kyfanatic;379824]Nah,I can't comprehend what I read,I just enjoy using my stopwatch to time how fast the local Obama apologists jump on any thread pointing out a Democratic Lie or Flaw.
As far as cost of living going down,that's an outright untruth,yes some property values purportedly went down during the great Housing Industry Failure caused by Acorn and the likes forcing loans to people who couldn't qualify otherwise. Funny though,the state raised the property tax on my place over $30000 even though nothing has changed and values supposedly went down,try buying a home,still will cost you plenty.
Gas and Oil are ,like someone else said,over 30 cents per gallon higher compared to the same cost per barrel of oil prior to the markets going wild,increased green taxes on heating fuels,electric,and sneaky Dem taxes on your cell phone,home phone,satellite and cable tv,and water bills have went or will go up,Groceries are out of hand even though they buy all the garbage produce from foreigners that spit on our food because they despise us,just another Dem outsourcing of jobs ploy.The Dems have also raised taxes on Alcohol,Tobacco,Soft Drinks,and are considering several other items which most don't affect me,but they do directly affect the poor and middle class more than any other.
Same old Democrat Party,can't get their way,they use strongarm measures to force people into their organized union crime way of thought.[/QUOTE]

I agree, plus if they don't get their way they talk Right Wing Conspiracy...kinda like obamy is doing right now with his deathcare bill..dang I mean healthcare bill.

What's even funnier is,some folks question my intelligence,but vote for people that push bills like this,this is the Democrats I might add =

[url]http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090602135111.aspx[/url]

Congressman Warns of 'Cow Fart' Tax Causing Beef and Dairy to 'Disappear' from Supermarkets
Ranking member of House global warming committee James Sensenbrenner tells Heartland conference EPA positioning itself for a power grab with such measures.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
6/2/2009 3:55:19 PM




Is regulating greenhouse gases a necessary means to stop so-called manmade global warming? Or is it an effort by the government to exert more control over Americans’ day-to-day lives?




According to Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking member of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, it is the latter, and it could have a devastating impact on agribusiness.



Sensenbrenner, speaking at the Heartland Institute’s Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. on June 2, explained that a 2007 Supreme Court decision gave the Environmental Protection Agency the ability to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant, which opened the door for the agency to regulate other gases.



“In a 5-4 decision in the case of Massachusetts versus the EPA,” Sensenbrenner explained, the Court “said the EPA could declare CO2 was a pollutant. Now there are several greenhouse gases. CO2 is the one that is the most common and the largest producer of CO2 in the world is the ocean, which we’re not going to be able to control.”



However, if the EPA were given the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, it would also mean the government agency has the ability to regulate methane gas – which is primarily emitted from livestock. Sensenbrenner called this the “cow fart tax.”



“However, methane gas is much more effective in keeping warmth in the atmosphere than CO2, but has a much shorter half-life,” Sensenbrenner explained. “To show you how ridiculous this is getting, the EPA has got the proposed regulation imposing a cow fart tax of $175 a year on every head of dairy cattle in the United States and $80 for beef cattle, $20 per head of hogs.”



The Wisconsin congressman didn’t have a technological solution for livestock greenhouse gas emissions.



“I don’t know if we’re supposed to develop the technology to strap a catalytic converter on the back of a cow,” Sensenbrenner quipped.



Earlier this year, the Farm Bureau told the Business & Media Institute such a tax was plausible according to the EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. However, Sensenbrenner speculated that such a tax could result in dairy products and beef disappearing from the shelves in supermarkets, as a British study he cited had warned.



“This again has got a pretty hefty impact,” Sensenbrenner said. “What I will say is the Brits have looked at this issue and there is a study that was given by a scientific advisory committee to British Parliament that said the cow fart tax will have to be imposed in the U.K. in order to reduce what are referred to as congestive gases. Dairy products and beef will disappear from the shelves in British supermarkets. This goes to the whole business of control.”

Anybody that actually believes that cow and pig farts have a bigger impact on the "Supposed" global warming (which hasn't been proven to exist by the way) proves to me that they aren't working with a full deck,if they start trying to tax me on my livestock then I'll raise enough secretly to feed my family and let all the Dems starve on an Obama diet.