Obama Cutting Social Security Benefits

[KD in CA]

Don't worry big guy, I'm sure Seniors will understand you are doing the responsible thing.

 

Yes, I know....eliminating COLA increases isn't exactly "cutting", but it was fun to write a misleading headline just like the professionals always do!

 

However, I do find it fascinating that Obama & Co. have decided that this rather significant step is necessary, considering that the Democrats all told us that 'Social Security is fine' just a few years ago.

[The Dean]

Um...did you even read the article?

 

The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years...Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.

 

No change in policy, and I don't see how Obama figures into this, except for the fact that his picture is on the page.

 

Not only is the headline misleading, so is the rest of you post.

[DC Tom]

Um...did you even read the article?

 

 

 

No change in policy, and I don't see how Obama figures into this, except for the fact that his picture is on the page.

 

Not only is the headline misleading, so is the rest of you post.

 

I think the original article was even more confusing. From what I read, Obama is eliminating the COLA this year, even though the trustees say it doesn't apply because the inflation rate was negative and SS benefits can't be reduced, except it's a de facto reduction because increased health care costs decrease the SS benefits if COLA's taken away...so some lobbying group, because of that, wants the COLA adjustment applied so that benefits aren't reduced, even though COLA would reduce benefits were it applied...

 

Yeah, I want these people running a health care program.

[The Dean]

I think the original article was even more confusing. From what I read, Obama is eliminating the COLA this year, even though the trustees say it doesn't apply because the inflation rate was negative and SS benefits can't be reduced, except it's a de facto reduction because increased health care costs decrease the SS benefits if COLA's taken away...so some lobbying group, because of that, wants the COLA adjustment applied so that benefits aren't reduced, even though COLA would reduce benefits were it applied...

 

Yeah, I want these people running a health care program.

 

 

Actually, my take-away was, there is no COLA increase because the COLA number went down (due primarily to energy costs). SS can't be reduced, therefore, by the formula already in place, SS stays the same. I don't think Obama had much to do with any of that.

 

Now, in effect, the lack of a SS bump likely feels like a functional reduction to SS recipients. If the gov't decided to give an increase despite the lack of COLA justification, you can bet KD and the other knee-jerk Obama bashers would be riding him for increasing Gov't spending.

[DC Tom]

Actually, my take-away was, there is no COLA increase because the COLA number went down (due primarily to energy costs). SS can't be reduced, therefore, by the formula already in place, SS stays the same. I don't think Obama had much to do with any of that.

 

Now, in effect, the lack of a SS bump likely feels like a functional reduction to SS recipients. If the gov't decided to give an increase despite the lack of COLA justification, you can bet KD and the other knee-jerk Obama bashers would be riding him for increasing Gov't spending.

 

That was my take, too. I was just saying that there was a whole crapload of nonsense in that article that was...well, contradictory, as though people involved didn't understand that simple fact (or thought that COLA means benefits will ALWAYS increase year-to-year, and that suspending COLA is a de facto decrease, even though applying COLA as tied to inflation would be a real and not de fecto decrease, if they could, which they can't, so people want them to anyway). Just a whole lot of retardedness in that article, on what should be a very simple concept.

[Steely Dan]

Don't worry big guy, I'm sure Seniors will understand you are doing the responsible thing.

 

Yes, I know....eliminating COLA increases isn't exactly "cutting", but it was fun to write a misleading headline just like the professionals always do!

 

However, I do find it fascinating that Obama & Co. have decided that this rather significant step is necessary, considering that the Democrats all told us that 'Social Security is fine' just a few years ago.

 

 

Um...did you even read the article?

 

 

 

No change in policy, and I don't see how Obama figures into this, except for the fact that his picture is on the page.

 

Not only is the headline misleading, so is the rest of you post.

 

I understand your point and as the article points out SS recipients are actually gaining due to the negative inflation but I feel they should still see an increase. If we can dish out billions of dollars to corporations who CEO's are taking the government funding like welfare for themselves then we should be able to give seniors a modest increase. JMO

[VABills]

The wording is very similar to when teachers get a pay cut. or schools get a budget cut. Every year they put in a 15% increase to the board, the board chops it to Cola or just above Cola, and the media reports it as a 10% reduction in teacher pay and school budgets.

[KD in CA]

I understand your point and as the article points out SS recipients are actually gaining due to the negative inflation but I feel they should still see an increase. If we can dish out billions of dollars to corporations who CEO's are taking the government funding like welfare for themselves then we should be able to give seniors a modest increase. JMO

 

I thought I made a joke about intentionally writing a misleading post but I guess it didn't translate based on the responses. I found it sorta humorous that Obama/Congress will need to defend something that shouldn't really need to be defended.

 

You do make a good point -- as does the article -- about COLA not being an accurate reflection of costs for seniors. But I guess the law is based on a 'COLA' definition and 'it is what it is'.

[DC Tom]

I thought I made a joke about intentionally writing a misleading post but I guess it didn't translate based on the responses. I found it sorta humorous that Obama/Congress will need to defend something that shouldn't really need to be defended.

 

You do make a good point -- as does the article -- about COLA not being an accurate reflection of costs for seniors. But I guess the law is based on a 'COLA' definition and 'it is what it is'.

 

I got the joke.

 

I just thought the article was a joke itself.

[The Dean]

I thought I made a joke about intentionally writing a misleading post but I guess it didn't translate based on the responses. I found it sorta humorous that Obama/Congress will need to defend something that shouldn't really need to be defended.

 

You do make a good point -- as does the article -- about COLA not being an accurate reflection of costs for seniors. But I guess the law is based on a 'COLA' definition and 'it is what it is'.

 

 

Yes, you made it clear that it was intentionally misleading. But based on the bulk of your post, it seemed as though you thought it was only misleading because "eliminating COLA increases isn't exactly 'cutting'." I think it was off on more that that single point.

 

Also, the following suggests you really believe Obama was responsible for the lack of an increase. "However, I do find it fascinating that Obama & Co. have decided that this rather significant step is necessary, considering that the Democrats all told us that 'Social Security is fine' just a few years ago."