Senior citizens brace for Social Security freeze

[shadowstalker]

Senior citizens brace for Social Security freeze


Oct 11, 8:41 PM (ET)

By MATT SEDENSKY




BOCA RATON, Fla. (AP) - Seniors prepared to cut back on everything from food to charitable donations to whiskey as word spread Monday that they will have to wait until at least 2012 to see their Social Security checks increase.

The government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through a second straight year without an increase in monthly benefits. This year was the first without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation started in 1975.

"I think it's disgusting," said Paul McNeil, 69, a retired state worker from Warwick, R.I., who said his food and utility costs have gone up, but his income has not. He lamented decisions by lawmakers that he said do not favor seniors.

"They've got this idea that they've got to save money and basically they want to take it out of the people that will give them the least resistance," he said.

Cost-of-living adjustments are automatically set by a measure adopted by Congress in the 1970s that orders raises based on the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation. If inflation is negative, as in 2009 and 2010, payments remain unchanged.

Still, seniors like McNeil said they'll be thinking about the issue when they go to vote, and experts said the news comes at a bad time for Democrats already facing potentially big losses in November. Seniors are the most loyal of voters, and their support is especially important during midterm elections, when turnout is generally lower.

"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.

At St. Andrews Estates North, a Boca Raton retirement community, seniors largely took the news in stride, saying they don't blame Washington for the lack of an increase. Most are also collecting pensions or other income, but even so, they prepared to tighten their belts.

Bette Baldwin won't be able to travel or help her children as much. Dorcas Eppright will give less to charity. Jack Dawson will buy cheap whiskey instead of his beloved Canadian Club.

"For people who have worked their whole life and tried to scrimp and save and try to provide for themselves," said Baldwin, a 63-year-old retired teacher, "it's difficult to see that support system might not sustain you."

Baldwin and her husband mapped out their retirements, carefully calculating their income based on their pensions and Social Security checks. Trouble is, they expected an annual cost-of-living increase.

"When we cut back, we're cutting back on niceties," Baldwin said. "But there are other people that don't have anything to cut back on. They're cutting back on food and shelter."

Many at St. Andrews said the cost-of-living decision won't affect who they vote for next month. But seniors tied the Social Security issue to what they see as a larger societal problem with debt, entitlements and hopefulness for the future.

"I'm kind of glad in a way," Stella Wehrly, an 86-year-old retired secretary, said of the freeze. "One thing depends on the other and when people aren't working there's not enough people feeding into the Social Security system."

Wehrly and her husband, Hank, said curtailing government spending is necessary to maintain the Social Security system.

"We have a generation now that we're not going to leave a very good legacy for," she said.

Jack Dawson, 77, said the freeze is the right move considering the state of the government and the American economy.

"Who would be surprised what's happened?" he asked. "I feel this is the right decision in light of the malaise."

More than 58.7 million people rely on Social Security checks that average $1,072 monthly. It was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008; one-third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income.

At the Phoenix Knits yarn shop in Phoenix, 73-year-old owner Pat McCartney said she already worries about paying for utilities, groceries and gas. Not having the increase makes her worry even more.

"If I have any major expense, I don't know what I'll do," McCartney said while helping customers with their knitting. "I live on Social Security."

In Kansas City, Mo., Georgia Hollman, 80, said Social Security is her sole source of income. She would have liked a bigger check, but said she's grateful for what she gets.

"There isn't nothing I can do about it but live with it," she said. "Whatever they give us is what we have to take. I'm thankful we get that little bit."

Advocates for seniors argue the Consumer Price Index doesn't adequately weigh the costs that most affect older adults, particularly medical care and housing.

"The existing COLA formula does not account for the economic reality of the true costs that most seniors faced," said Fernando Torres-Gil, director of UCLA's Center for Policy Research on Aging and the first person appointed to the governmental post of assistant secretary for aging, during the Clinton administration.

Still, Torres-Gil said the political reality is different, and many feel seniors are lucky to have their checks determined by the CPI, instead of some new formula that might make it even harder to secure a raise.

"We may just lucky to keep the current index," he said.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/201...D9IPQTF81.html


**************************************

It's not just the seniors that get jacked in this, its the disabled adults and children just like last year.

[sjkted]

If they're looking for who is responsible, then look no further than Alan Greenspan and his creation of hedonics.

http://mises.org/daily/1873

And if they would like the official response: the prices aren't really going up, they are just receiving additional value for the goods and services they buy.

--sjkted

[ascendingstarseed]

If there's one good reason to vote Democrat in the upcoming mid-term election its to save Social Security, just hold your nose and do it. If Republicans take control of the Senate or House one of the first things they will go after is OUR Social Security, and they've said so. They also want to raise retirement age, eliminate minimum wage, give tax breaks to the wealthy while robbing the middle and lower class of social programs that millions of lives depend on, they will continue to offshore jobs and pay corporations in massive tax breaks to do so, they deny and cut unemployment....Now after Citizens United foreign corporations are spending millions of dollars on campaigns to buy candidates who favor right wing conservative politics, or fascism. They've even got a candidate in Michigan I thing, who proudly wears a Nazi uniform in public - he says it's for WWII reenactment...yeah right, there's a problem with his judgment if he's a US politician - you're picking the wrong side to reenact Mr Politician.

It really does make a difference who we vote for...now more than ever.

[sjkted]

If you read the details of my response, you will see it was under Bill Clinton's administration that the hedonics program was enacted. For all of the people who voted Democrat, they can thank themselves for it. And not to start a politics debate, but it was George Bush who decided to continue the new rules.

--sjkted

[sjkted]

Social security cannot be saved. First of all, there is no "fund" so it's not like they are taking the money out of a big bank account they have "saved" the money into. Social security comes from the taxes paid in by the working population. In other words, it's a ponzi scheme. When social security started, there were ratios of 1 retiree being supported by 50 or more people. Then it became 1 retiree supported by 20 people. And soon it will be a 1;4 ratio, etc. Eventually, all of us who are still working should be able to receive a photo and a story from the retiree we are personally sponsoring (similar to "adopting" a child in Africa).

In addition, consider that people who started life 20 years ago, generally did pretty well. In most cases, a basic high-school education was enough to get a decently-paying job, buy a house, have a few children and a stay-at-home wife.

Today, wages have dropped and costs have increased. In most cases, a college or graduate education is not enough to secure a job and when it does, is not enough to pay for a house, hence the large number of younger couples who need two incomes to pay the bills. Honestly, there is no way to continue to perpetuate the system. And, when you add in economic collapse and further increases in US debt and loss of additional jobs overseas, there is no way any young people will ever see the money they paid into social security, much less be able to continue supporting those who have already put money into it.

--sjkted

[TigaHawk]

how can people not see the world we live in as nothing but a slaves quarters disguised as freedom/you're home?

You work what.. half the year to pay tax's to the government.

If you get a 2nd job to try and earn more for yourself, the government ensures they tax the crap out of you're 2nd job, so its not worthwile you to work it.. as theres no money in it for you.

When disasters happen, ie floods, manmade or natural, they send out their most sincere apologies, and try to make us optimistic by giving us a number of money they are going to putinto fixing the damage - but they never tell you the damage is just for their property - not yours.


And to top it off - When you've lived you're life, and you're ready to retire, settle down and take it easy in your'e last days.... the government is suposed to ensure you have at least some life of quality by providing you with money to survive when you cannot work, + you are expected to have saved up to support yourself during the years while you were paying the government, and supporting yourself + others.


Now they're trying very hard to remove that last paragraph, and replace it with an "oh, your'e this old? no use to us! *presses the dispose of button*" senario.



I am worried for my parents. The most obvious thing to me is yeah, i'll look after them when the time comes. But when that time comes, will we have enough money after tax, bills, and revenue rasing fines (flying a kite on a beach in australia is now a finable offence by the way!) you're left with diddlysquat left. Oh yeah, and their adding in that Carbon tax too. Then maybe they'll add an Oxygen tax for how much we breathe based on our lifestyle, so the fittness nutts;s get charged extra, encouraging them to be fatties, eat the GMO and watch the hypnobox.

My grandmother barely had enough to live on with her pension - she lived with us but she was fiercely indipendant. Even she struggled to live on her own when she was not paying rent, and this was years ago, when everything was cheaper.

[Mulder]

You oldies will have to start a revolution and show Obama you've got alot of life left in you. In the mean time, I why not do things like start a garden, or food bank, or neighbourhood group to watch avalon interviews!!

[ascendingstarseed]

Posted by sjkted (here)
Social security cannot be saved. First of all, there is no "fund" so it's not like they are taking the money out of a big bank account they have "saved" the money into. Social security comes from the taxes paid in by the working population. In other words, it's a ponzi scheme. When social security started, there were ratios of 1 retiree being supported by 50 or more people. Then it became 1 retiree supported by 20 people. And soon it will be a 1;4 ratio, etc. Eventually, all of us who are still working should be able to receive a photo and a story from the retiree we are personally sponsoring (similar to "adopting" a child in Africa).

In addition, consider that people who started life 20 years ago, generally did pretty well. In most cases, a basic high-school education was enough to get a decently-paying job, buy a house, have a few children and a stay-at-home wife.

Today, wages have dropped and costs have increased. In most cases, a college or graduate education is not enough to secure a job and when it does, is not enough to pay for a house, hence the large number of younger couples who need two incomes to pay the bills. Honestly, there is no way to continue to perpetuate the system. And, when you add in economic collapse and further increases in US debt and loss of additional jobs overseas, there is no way any young people will ever see the money they paid into social security, much less be able to continue supporting those who have already put money into it.

--sjkted

Yeah, yeah, yeah they talk about how doomed the program is so Wall Street can steal it. There's no problem with Social Security, the right wing has whipped up so many lies, so much fear, propaganda and rhetoric and it's all in an attempt to dismantle Social Security. There will be plenty of money in Social Security left, especially once we start taxing the wealthy properly, stop giving corporation tax breaks for off shoring jobs, raise wages...etc. Trust me, the only problem with SS is in the minds of those who want to steal it.

There's something fundamentally wrong with this country, what ever happened to compassion? Thank God for social programs like Social Security, Food Stamps and Unemployment! If it weren't for the programs that Roosevelt enacted during the Depression, the US would look just like it did back then. People would literally be starving to death, with the elderly at the top of that list. Those programs were created as part of the checks and balances in our system, that in economic downturns something like the Depression would never happen again. Sorry, there's absolutely no excuse or grounds for gambling away the security for America's seniors. Just lame justifications.

[sjkted]

The problem with all of these programs is that they are part of a ponzi scheme and that they are part of a divide and conquer mentality. Instead of having productive citizens' wealth confiscated by the state and redistributed to the poor or elderly, why don't we have community outreach programs to deal with this type of thing? The divide-and-conquer part is that it takes the younger generations and pits them up against the older generation. And, during this, everyone only complains about the situation politicially and does not actively work to help each other. The older generation and the disabled complain because they don't get enough, and the younger generation complians because there is too much being taken from them.

The truth is that both are right. Like any complex system, the system takes much of the energy (money) in order to keep itself running in the form of administrative costs and corruption. People can help each other, and it can be done on a community level -- and all of it does not need to involve money. People get aggressive and angry when their energy is forcefully taken from them (taxes and theft), but when that happens it prevents people from donating their time or being able to show compassion because the productive classes are more concerned about reacting to what has already been taken with them, than how they can help their neighbors.

There is no right and left and voting will do nothing but perpetuate the system. Clinton created sh** policies that were followed by Bush and now continued by Obama. The notion of a right and a left is nothing but a divide-and-conquer illusion. They make us weak, because we are unable to put up a united front against their fascism and power grabs. That's all it is. And, all ponzi schemes are destined to fail because eventually the system runs out of suckers. It's a mathematical certainty.

--sjkted

[sjkted]

The other problem we have is that the majority of people alive today have never experienced a natural currency or understand what it means. All we understand is fiat currency.

If we have a natural non-manipulated currency, the natural course is deflation. This is actually a good thing because it lowers the cost of living and adds to the quality of it. A great example would be technology. 20 years ago a new computer cost $5000 and internet connections were slow, limited, and expensive. Today, a new computer can be bought for less than $500 and a $50/month internet connection is literally thousands of times faster than a $50/month internet connection 10 years ago. The result is that everyone has a computer and an internet connection, and nobody complains about how expensive technology is. One could look to the medical system as the antithesis of this.

The reason this happens is that we become more efficient. We develop better ways of manufacturing. We have scientific breakthroughs. And, we figure out more efficient means of distribution and organization. When this happens, prices are supposed to go down. This means that people can work less hours, enjoy a higher standard of life. And the younger generation is receiving an "inheritance" from the older generation. It also means that not so much needs to be put into retirement and supporting the older generations.

If you read some of the thread on fiat currency on Avalon and elsewhere, you will see this is the greatest evil we are experiencing today and having a sound currency would literally solve every one of our problems and produce massive benefits for everyone, with the exception of the people who rule over our lives and pull all of the strings.

--sjkted

[TigaHawk]

sjkted - Exactly - im one of those people.

This started for me at ayoung age - my mother as a treat, once a mounth would buy me a Sonic the Hedgehog comic. They implimented a GST on all imported goods, a flat 10%, which was meant to bring prices down. The comic, being from america, started going up in price the moment the GST was put into place. Less than 2 months after the GST my mother refuzed to buy me the comics anymore, back then a priceraise of $2.50 on a comic which was allready $2.50 was outrageous. The comic is stil being produced today, average retail price is just under $10.

As Sjkted also said, with all the advancements in technology there's every reason that prices should be going down, instead they are going up. Company's use the excuse of regulations and rules, and tax's placed on them by the government, they need to pass down the priceraise to the consumer so they can continue earning the same revenue.

Ontop of the greedy companies pricerises, you've got every man and his dog out trying to swindle you out of cash.

Examples of this are Parking in the city - park for 10mins and you're paying $25! makes sense right?

Other examples are automated speed cameras, an article on TV last night aobut how a guy accidently drove down a road meant for trucks. There were 4 stationary cameras along that road, each one snapped a picture of the guy and he got a fine for each picture, even tho it was one offence.

Take this again to the banks, with rates, credit card interest, loans etc are the biggest scams out there that can somehow flaunt themselves as a viable service for customers.

Then you have insurance companies, pay us money and if a natural disaster happens we'll look after you and ensure you get everythign back to normal - all is good untill youneed their help - and they will find any and every loophole avaliable to get out of having to pay you what they promiced.

But Sjkted - is it realy money that is the problem - or people's greed.

If we went back to a barter system, i can guarentee you'd get people trying ot steal the whole market of 1 particular good as well.

[sjkted]

Posted by TigaHawk (here)

But Sjkted - is it realy money that is the problem - or people's greed.

If we went back to a barter system, i can guarentee you'd get people trying ot steal the whole market of 1 particular good as well.

Yes and no. The big corporations on the top knock out all of the competition by increasing regulations and making entry into the market more difficult. This would not be possible if not for a fiat currency, and people would likely see no need for excessive regulation in a deflationary system where everyone is doing better every year.

--sjkted

[Luke]

All that boils down to system designed to leech off energy of productive people to well connected people .. of this world or not

If you think of it ,it's quite marvellous contraption, with all the safety valves, "feel good/do-gooders" traps etc. False choices all the way, just to keep you out of seeing that is basically one big rip-off.
Create needy to create another agency to address the problem, but with no intention of really solving the problem. Rinse, Repeat.
Every time new blood gets elite status, it's absorbed in old ranks, and way they came sealed.

Only way to fight it is to remove your consent/energy and work with other like-minded people to create breakaway civilization based on different paradigm.

[Lost Soul]

Posted by ascendingstarseed (here)
Yeah, yeah, yeah they talk about how doomed the program is so Wall Street can steal it. There's no problem with Social Security, the right wing has whipped up so many lies, so much fear, propaganda and rhetoric and it's all in an attempt to dismantle Social Security. There will be plenty of money in Social Security left, especially once we start taxing the wealthy properly, stop giving corporation tax breaks for off shoring jobs, raise wages...etc. Trust me, the only problem with SS is in the minds of those who want to steal it.

There's something fundamentally wrong with this country, what ever happened to compassion? Thank God for social programs like Social Security, Food Stamps and Unemployment! If it weren't for the programs that Roosevelt enacted during the Depression, the US would look just like it did back then. People would literally be starving to death, with the elderly at the top of that list. Those programs were created as part of the checks and balances in our system, that in economic downturns something like the Depression would never happen again. Sorry, there's absolutely no excuse or grounds for gambling away the security for America's seniors. Just lame justifications.

I beg to differ on your solution about taxing the rich. While I agree we shouldn't be saving the Too Big to Fail (who created the financial mess we're in today), part of our tax policy encourages off shoring. For instance, foreign corporations (think about American corporations that have gone multi-national and now owe no allegiance to the United States or its citizens) or foreign nations don't have to pay income tax. Rather, Congress should not be misappropriating social security funds to the general fund, and then giving a portion of the general funds toward social security. Keep the money collected for social security in social security. Second, another big issue with social security is that we don't have enough taxpayers to sustain it. The baby boomers are retiring and can't be replaced with kids out of college who are flipping burgers (because there are no other jobs). Third, there aren't enough young folks to sustain the growing social security liability. Back in the '60s, there was a four to one ratio of taxpayers to social security collectors. Now it is getting close to one to one. Third, as incompassionate as it seems, those senior citizens who migrate here and never put a dime into the system should be cut off. Why should they draw money when they never contributed? There are people who immigrate and are taught how to apply for all sorts of free government money. If they can't sustain themselves, deny them admission into the country.