No 2010 COLA...

[RonBoyd]

Today's headline:

No 2010 increase in Social Security

[Notmuchlonger]

Why stop at 250.

[ziggy29]

I didn't get a raise this year. Where's my $250?

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I didn't get a raise this year. Where's my $250?

Patience, Grasshopper, patience...

[FinanceDude]

It was only a matter of time before a COLA increase was not going to happen. The govt is running out of money even as they print it as fast as they can.........

[W2R]

It seems to me that the median SS payment is roughly $1,000/month.

If $250 is given as a one time emergency assist, then if divided over 12 months that would given them $20.83/month extra.

$20.83/$1,000 = 2.1% increase.

So, really what this is, is a 2.1% increase that will be rescinded after one year. As someone who is presently 61 years old, this seems like quite a contortion and one that is not to my advantage.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Want2retire So, really what this is, is a 2.1% increase that will be rescinded after one year. As someone who is presently 61 years old, this seems like quite a contortion and one that is not to my advantage.

All this is, really, is political damage control because of the so-called "SS benefit cut" because of zero COLA and higher Medicare premiums. I suspect the $250 is a one-time appeasement attempt to cover next year's increase in the Medicare premium.

[mickeyd]

$250 will buy a few senior citizen votes, no doubt.

[randyman65]

Somehow I find it difficult to work up any sympathy for no 2010 COLA. I haven't gotten a raise in two years, and if I did it would only be 3%. Last year, the federal COLA was 5.8% when most of the country was losing jobs and cutting salaries. We're experiencing it on a local level too, where public employee unions are pushing for retroactive 4% annual raises when people all around them are struggling.

I find giving away another $13 billion simply to cater to one specific demographic group to be somewhat abhorrent. It seems to have become an accepted practice to pander to those in retirement right now at the expense of those who will be expected to pay for it later. I also look at what might be the best utility for a $13 billion. rather than giving $250 to 5.2 million people, $13 billion would pay for two years of community college or trade school for 150,000 students, or go long in funding any number of projects that would provide employment.

While I agree that expected Medicare contributions have gone up, so have my health insurance premiums.

[FinanceDude]

The reason, according to the govt, is there is "no inflation".....ha-ha.good one!!

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by randyman65 I find giving away another $13 billion simply to cater to one specific demographic group ...

Here, let me clarify that for you:

Quote:

... of voters...

[Finance Dave]

Ok, I'll go ahead and say it....although I'm stepping into the political mud.

I think this $250 suggestion is total BS. If CPI is zero (actually it's been negative), then why in the he!! should people get more money?

Now some of you might say that although the CPI is down, costs for seniors are up because they spend so much on health care, which is skyrocketing. That is a very good argument, and I agree completely....soooooooooo.....they should not index SS payments to the CPI, rather they should create a new or hybrid index that includes health care and any other such factors and link SS increases to that new index.

Geesh, these politicians get me all fired up. (and not the good kind of FIREd lol)

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finance Dave Geesh, these politicians get me all fired up. (and not the good kind of FIREd lol)

Politicians -- a group of Weasels... like a herd of cattle. Hmmm. A murder of crows.

[WB52]

Dave,
Great points about the fiscal irresponsibility of government. Pandering has become so common it is almost institutional. It really makes my blood boil to see where the politicians spend our money to buy votes. While there may have been better places for the government to "invest" that $250, I believe it should have stayed with the people who earned it. It was never the governments money to spend. This is especially true in the current economy where job losses are rampant and pay cuts common place.
Ok. I have vented and feel better!

[Bikerdude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worker Bee While there may have been better places for the government to "invest" that $250, I believe it should have stayed with the people who earned it.

The people that will earn that $250 have not been born yet.

[randyman65]

"The people that will earn that $250 have not been born yet."

Two generations of Americans will enjoy a lifestyle and financial benefits that neither their forefathers nor their children will enjoy. That so few people see this as reprehensible, selfish, and morally abhorrent is more a commentary on the inherent selfishness of mankind than anything else.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finance Dave Now some of you might say that although the CPI is down, costs for seniors are up because they spend so much on health care, which is skyrocketing. That is a very good argument, and I agree completely....soooooooooo.....they should not index SS payments to the CPI, rather they should create a new or hybrid index that includes health care and any other such factors and link SS increases to that new index.

The BLS has been calculating a special CPI-E since 1982. The experimental consumer price index for elderly Americans (CPI-E): 1982–2007 (EXCERPT), Monthly Labor Review Online, April 2008
It just hasn't gotten into the law.

One issue with medical care expenses is that the higher cost is partially driven by new treatments. So should we "protect" seniors from the cost of new treatments that weren't available a decade or two ago?

Note that Medicare Part B premiums (about $1,200 per year per person) are frozen for low and median income people in 2010 because there is no SS increase. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid hasn't announced what it's going to do regarding premiums for about a quarter of Medicare enrollees who are "higher income". At least I can't find a news release- they are late, last year the announcement was made on Sept 19.CMS ANNOUNCES MEDICARE PREMIUMS, DEDUCTIBLES FOR 2009

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeyd $250 will buy a few senior citizen votes, no doubt.

DING DING DING We have a winner! Obama and his buds (not that Repub's are any better) bribe another group at taxpayers expense. Shooting fish in a barrel...

It takes a village to raise a child. The village is Washington. You are the child.
-The Hellary book, condensed by P. J. O'Rourke

Politics: The art of bribing us with our own money. We complain about the politicians and yet we perpetuate it at the polling booth generation after generation. Ultimately we have no one to blame but ourselves. Rant off...

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent The Center for Medicare and Medicaid hasn't announced what it's going to do regarding premiums for about a quarter of Medicare enrollees who are "higher income". At least I can't find a news release- they are late, last year the announcement was made on Sept 19.CMS ANNOUNCES MEDICARE PREMIUMS, DEDUCTIBLES FOR 2009

You can bet that any government announcements of this type will be reviewed and approved at the very highest level. It could take awhile to get this approval. My guess is the new higher rates for higher income seniors will be announced one day after the full Senate vote on the final health care plan.

[tjscott0]

There may be no COLA increases til 2012.

Bad News For Those Born In 1947 - Forbes.com


"Social Security COLAs are calculated every October by comparing the third-quarter data of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Workers (CPI-W) with the previous year's numbers. An increase in the CPI results in a COLA the following January for retirees and other Social Security beneficiaries. Rising energy prices caused a 5.8% COLA to be ordered in the fall of 2008. However, plummeting prices between the fall of 2008 and the beginning of COLA payments in January 2009 caused the CPI as a whole to drop by around 5%. In effect, the 2009 Social Security COLA compensated retirees for inflation that no longer existed.To make up for this overpayment, Social Security will pay no COLAs until prices rise back to their previous fall 2008 levels, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, won't be until 2012."