http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32528090/ns/politics-more_politics/?GT1=43001 It's not going down, but since COLA is not present (2 year freeze), it represents a smaller payout. C'mon, Mr President, step up for the seniors...
He's trying to with health care for seniors who can't afford it and a guarantee they can receive health care even if they have pre-existing conditions but you won't let him. "Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios" - You mean just like the rest of us? I think our when we're very young and very old we deserve to be taken care of the best. But seriously, negative inflation and you want to jack up the COLA for a program which has severe financial limitations as it is?
So are the Republicans fighting tooth and nail to extend or increase this "Entitlement Program"? I thought they were always saying it's fatally flawed and underfunded? So it should be increased? I'm sorry, it's just that I'm so confused. In fact the more I read from Republicans the more confused I get. Reading about SEIU thugs from their news sources and then reading all other news sources and hearing that actually it's heavily armed Republicans that are starting fights and shouting down opposition. Sort of like all the people in 2000 saying Gore was trying to steal the election. This just in from Fox news "Republican Party is the party of inclusion and Healthcare reform, then after the break, Hannity on how Obama is pandering to minorities and is trying to enslave us with healthcare". Good lord i'm confused...
When I read the title I thought it was talking about paying for mental healthcare. Well if you were to look into the numbers you would find that a majority of seniors have supplemental insurance that does not get totally used. In other words the insurance companies are not having to pay as much as the policy holders currently pay premiums for. I think the seniors should get what they pay for, and the government can take the savings rather than the insurance companies.
Because many seniors worked hard and have only SS to show for it. And just because the overall cost of living goes down, it doesn't for them. Bus fare, cab fare, food, health care... those prices go up. That's what they pay for. I have great compassion for the elderly and this, to me, is wrong. Before SS was used for people who ate themselves to obesity or phantom illnesses for women who no longer want to work... it was strictly to assist the elderly. Now they're being shoved aside.
I'm not an economist, but I thought those things you mentioned (food, buses, etc.) were part of the Cost of Living calculation. Am I way off? So if the calculation of all those things doesn't increase, should the cash increase?
I think so, but when housing tanks, it draws down the overall figures. But most seniors receiving SS aren't buying houses.
Didn't you see the commercials? KFC is lowering prices and that is all that seniors eat so no COLA for you! (soup nazi voice)
From what I read it was reduced energy prices that dropped the COLA off this year, not houses. I could be wrong. I'm a little confused because you argue their SS should be increased because food and buses have become more expensive but then agree with BFW that those are already factored in the COLA. Apparently I need to go do some research on this COLA thing.
flag@whitehouse.gov FTW You might consider a few things. People on SS paid into the system for 45 years, typically (age 20-65). They're getting a fraction of what they deserve back in SS payments, and can't leave it to their kids when they die. What do you think the devastation of home prices has done to reverse mortgages? Maybe a lot of the elderly are in a world of hurt and the pittance they get from SS makes a huge difference to them.
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it." But really, how do you determine what they deserve? Some of them don't even have kids. Life is unfair. Honestly, never thought about it. What has it done? Seems like in the typical granny reverse mortgages to get cash to live on while staying in her house scenario, the effect would be zero. Or am I missing something? I guess if granny hadn't yet taken out the reverse mortgage, there would be less to borrow against. Or maybe no one will make a reverse mortgage loan to granny anymore? Am I getting warmer? Can I call a lifeline? barfo
How about a paltry 2% compounded return on the money they put in? That's more than they're getting now. I don't think you can borrow more money than your home is worth. At least banks who do lend up to 125% ended up foreclosing on a lot of people. If $300K in equity was going to be much of a retiree's living expenses, now it's $100K, they're fucked. How fucked? Out on the street or looking for a job at age 75 after not working for 10 years.
Agreed. But it also depends on what SS is really for. Is it a pool for all people to draw from, or a pool of money for just some to draw from. If the latter, then it's really just another tax to soak the "wealthy". To me, while I am not oppossed to a "means test" in retirement, for those who do live off it, COLA every year should just be part of the equation. Seniors face many challanges and worrying about their SS dropping should not be one of them.
