Literally a matter of life and death!!

[dajoki]

The recent news of the predictions that there will be no COLA raise for all Social Security recipients for the next two years and maybe longer has hit many people I know very hard. I know that many of you will say that its not Obama's fault or not even Congress's fault, its the law and there is nothing they can do. Well, I agree, its not their fault, but I disagree about there being nothing they can do.

First of all there are many questions about the numbers they use to figure out the CPI, which the COLA is based on, and something should be done immediately about that. That is in both Obama's and Congress's control. Secondly, a very similar situation happened back in the mid 1980s, where the numbers showed that there should be no COLA raise. When it was announced back then the heat was immediately felt on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Congress acted quickly to pass a bill to give a raise anyway and Reagan eagerly signed it. Reagan, of all people, the same man who cut every social program he possibly could, felt enough pressure to change the law.

The same thing could be done now!! Can you imagine what the threat of a voting block of more than 50 million people can do to our lawmakers? That's right it would scare the crap out of them, and I'm sure Obama would sign it, changing the law again. It was done before and it can be done again!! I have already contacted my Representative and Senators and I know a few others who have done the same. They are handing money away to the banks like its candy, I believe it is now time for the government to do something for the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak. Maybe it will be the difference of somebody having a place to live or becoming homeless, maybe it will be the difference of a child going hungry or being able to have at least one meal a day. Reagan changed the law once and I'm sure Obama and the Democrats can do it again. Acting or not acting is literally a matter of life and death!!

[ThomCat]

1. Clinton rigged the reporting numbers to minimize

so that economic downturns are excluded from the formulas that are used to determine poverty levels. If fuel costs, specific food costs, and housing costs are not counted then poverty costs can be artificially reduced.

This deliberately minimizes the amount that the government has to pay for benefits of social programs and minimizes increases in payments in these programs. It has been a deliberate effort to screw the poor.

No such effort has been made to minimize payments to the rich who get government money. But that just shows government priorities. The poor don't have lobbyists contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to politicians' pockets.

We're now seeing the cumulative effects of what Clinton started. It has only snowballed under Bush, and now under Obama. The poor get less and less help. And now, in the biggest economic crisis in 80 years, with banks and wealthy people getting record trillions of dollars in government hand-outs, the government is making sure that the poor will get no increase in help for the next several years.

That, my friends, is evil. :grr:

[ProfessorGAC]

95. Umm, Those Numbers Got Rigged. . . .

. . . twenty years before Clinton became president. Not disagreeing with your premise, just your assignment of blame.
GAC

[dajoki]

101. There was no COLA...

20 years before Clinton became President, they didn't start until 1975. Back then they got raises every few years. But if your talking about the poverty level in general, I agree with you.

[dajoki]

100. I have a big problem...

with the way poverty levels are determined, it is terribly outdated.

[xxqqqzme]

2. Back then AARP wasn't yet a full

blown insurance company. They actually still lobbied for senior interests.

[dajoki]

3. Yes, you are right about that!! n/t

[csziggy]

17. AARP was started to sell discounted insurance to seniors

They have always been an insurance company.

Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus founded AARP in 1958. AARP evolved from the National Retired Teachers Association (NRTA), which Andrus had established in 1947 to promote her philosophy of productive aging, and in response to the need of retired teachers for health insurance. After ten years, Andrus opened the organization to all Americans over 50, creating AARP. Today, NRTA is a division within AARP. According to Andy Rooney, AARP was established by insurance salesman Leonard Davis in 1958, after he met Ethel Percy Andrus. Ms. Andrus was at the time helping teachers get health insurance through the National Retired Teachers Association. According to Rooney, Davis saw the opportunity to sell medical insurance to the elderly rather than just retired teachers and for that purpose put in $50,000 establishing AARP. According to Rooney, Davis established the Colonial Penn Insurance Co. in order to control AARP, selling millions of dollars in insurance to its members through advertisings in AARP's magazine Modern Maturity and for several years Colonial Penn Insurance Co. became one of the most profitable in the U. S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP#History

[bobbolink]

4. Of course you're exactly right. People will suffer and die. BUT, this isn't a "progressive"

concern.

As we have seen, cuts to the safety net aren't "sexy" enough for "progressives" to bother with.

Will we see large numbers of DUers organizing to combat this? :(

Will we see big articles about this in the "progressive" literature? :(

Will we hear about this on "progressive" radio? :(

It took me getting a lot of bashing, but I finally got it... "progressives" don't give a shit about people like us. All they want to do is to snark and attack us.

Then DEMAND that we vote for THEIR interests.

I'm done.

[dajoki]

9. It amazes me...

how people will follow Obama blindly off a cliff!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Are you done?

You promise?

[dajoki]

14. No!! Are you?

The truth hurts I guess!!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Two Americas]

20. you prove the point

The self-images of those who think of themselves as progressives is to be seen as more valuable than the lives of poor people, to be protected and defended. So "bashing progressives" is to be seen as the great crime, the thing we should be worried about rather than the real suffering of the people.

Today's self-described progressives who are promoting conservative economics do not get credit for having "created social security in the first place." They are using all of the arguments that were used back them against Social Security, and they were not around when the fight was going on back then. "Progressive" and "liberal" is a matter of the ideas that people promote, which side of the fight they are on, not the label they wish to apply to themselves.

"We call ourselves liberals, and 80 years ago liberals did good things, so therefore we should be free today to express conservative economic views and not be challenged" is the logic that many are using on this issue.


...

[bobbolink]

29. Exactly. Defending a label rather than the people they supposedly care about.

Eleanor Roosevelt is spinning in her grave.

:cry:

[dajoki]

25. These are not...

the same "progressives" that started SS, back then being a Democrat really meant something, like standing up for the people who could not do it themselves.

I am answering this for everybody who feels the same way.

And it is not a rumor, its a prediction by the CBO.

[bobbolink]

30. You are answering because YOU are one of those being hurt, and your voice matters.

Whether "progressives" want to hear your voice or not.... and obviously they don't.

They just want us to vote for THEIR interests, then tell us to sit down and shut up.

We haven't been doing that, so, like the Republicans, their only tact is to slam personally.

[dajoki]

37. You are so right...

I often wonder why I even say anything, it seems that the Democratic party doesn't care anymore. But there comes a time when enough is enough.

[saracat]

49. You and me both.The fact that folks will defend a label as opposed to people hurts

and is very depressing. This logic seems to applied to any form of questioning.I so admire those who refuse to be beaten down by this.

[bobbolink]

55. Thank you, saracat! I can't truthfully say I'm not "beaten down" by it....

I can't tell you how much your comment means to me!

Mahalo!

[bobbolink]

28. thank you for showing EXACTLY what passes for "progressiveism" now.

Thank you for making the point for me.

[bobbolink]

27. Are you the one in charge?

Gotta love the authoritarianism.

:wtf:

[sinkingfeeling]

5. I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time getting upset about this. First off, you're a little off on

the COLA thing under Reagan. The GOP (under Bob Dole) tried to freeze the COLA. Passed in the Senate with Pappy Bush casting the tie-breaking vote and failed in the House. Gave the Democrats something to beat up the Republicans with.

Next there was a 5.8% COLA in 2008. How many working people got a 5.8% raise in 2008? Next every SS recipient received $250 this year from the stimulus package. Now since the average SS payment is about $1050, getting a COLA increase of 1.5 to 3% would mean a yearly increase of $189 to $378 a year.

Most years, the SS COLA is a low percentage. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html

[dajoki]

7. You must be...

speaking of something else because in 1986 there was a 1.3% increase that was passed by a new law signed by Reagan.

[onenote]

21. Not exactly right:: there was a 1.3% increase in 1987 because the CPI

increased by 1.3% from the third quarter of 1985 to the third quarter of 1986. If you have a link to some law that supposedly made this happen, I'd be curious to see it. But the fact remains that there is a big difference between what happened in 1987 and what is forecast for December 2009 -- namely there was an actual CPI increase upon which to base the COLA adjustment in 1987 whereas, at the moment, forecasts suggest that there will be no such increase over the period from the third quarter of 2008 to the third quarter of 2009. BTW, if those forecasts prove wrong, there will be a COLA adjustment in Dec 2009.

[dajoki]

24. The law at the time...

stated that there would be no pay increase for SS recepients unless the CPI showed a rate of inflation greater than 3%. The rate was well below the 3% as you have pointed out. This was to be the first time since COLAs were started in 1975 that there was going to be no raise. However Congress and the President worked quickly to change the law to allow a raise for SS recipients because of political pressure.

[onenote]

34. the difference was that there really was inflation in 1985-86

just not enough to trigger an adjustment under the law at the time, so the law was changed.

Unless things change dramatically between now and September, the CPI-W for the relevant period is not going to be a positive number.

Its one thing to change the law to ensure that there is an inflation adjustment when the data shows there has been inflation. Its another thing to change the law to give an inflation adjustment when the same statistics don't show inflation for the relevant period.

Politically, I don't see this happening.

[dajoki]

38. So the law could be changed again n/t

[onenote]

40. and what should the revised law provide?

The law can only be changed again if there is political will to do so. THe issue and the solution in 1986 were pretty clear cut. That doesn't seem as likely to be the case this time. What would you propose as a politically viable change in the law: an automatic upward adjustment no matter what? How much? What should it be tied to?

[dajoki]

41. Change the items used...

to figure out the CPI, that would be a good start, but somebody smarter than me can decide that. All I know is that MY cost of living is not coming down and I'm sure its the same for a vast majority of SS recipients.

[onenote]

45. which items should it exclude? the price of gas? eggs? milk?

All of them are down from where they were a year ago.

My point simply is that if you think that the law can be changed to provide for an upward adjustment in social security at a time when inflation as traditionally measured is flat, you better have a strong case politically. Just saying smarter people can figure it out doesn't cut it.

I'm not opposed to changing the law if a case can be made that it should be changed that is politically viable.

[dajoki]

50. You are wrong...

right from the start, fuel is not used in the formula, and it is rising quickly. Your car insurance is not used either, certain grocery items are used and some are not. All I'm saying is make it fair, do you have a problem with fairness?

[onenote]

53. No, I'm not

I don't know where you got the idea that fuel isn't part of the CPI-W, but it is. Heating fuel, motor oil and gas -- all sorts of energy costs are part of the formula that goes into the CPI-W. Also, the list of grocery items is quite extensive. I believe you are correct that car insurance isn't included.

Here is a the complete list: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiri2006.txt

And, no, I don't have a problem with fairness. I have a problem with vague arguments that don't have their facts straight,since they tend not to achieve the desired ends. If you want to make the CPI-W fair, the way to do so is to adjust the list of products so it more closely reflects what individuals in the social security demographic spend. For example, older, retired Americans spend less on technology than younger workers. Older workers have higher medical costs (although young marrieds with children have pretty significant medical costs as well). There are other similar adjustments that could/should be made. Ultimately, however, food, medical, shelter and energy costs are going to be the prime movers.

[dajoki]

54. I do not know...

exactly what all the products are that are used, I admit that, but I'm pretty sure fuel wasn't one of them, if I'm wrong I apologize. But the fact remains prices have still risen, anybody that shops will tell you that.

[onenote]

59. I shop and prices have not risen significantly compared to a year ago

They rose like gangbusters during 2007 and into mid-2008. But towards the end of 2008 and continuing into this year, they've leveled off and/or dropped for a lot of basic items, like dairy products and gasoline. The projection of no COLA covers a period from the third quarter of 2008 (July-Sept) to third quarter 2009.

Again, I don't disagree that the CPI-W as applied to Social Security has flaws and should be worked on, particularly insofar as it doesn't reflect actual spending pattersn of social security beneficiaries. But simply declaring that prices are really going up when some of the major components of the CPI clearly aren't going up isn't the way to get to the desired result.

[bobbolink]

62. Do you know what a "significantly" is when you're out of money at the end of EVERY month?

To repeat.... the price index for this is based on groceries, which was how it was set up in the 60s, and ridiculous.

Housing, transportation, etc., don't even figure into that. (WHich is a big reason why so many people can no longer afford housing of any kind!)

Maybe YOUR groceries aren't going up, but I see it all the time. Now, maybe for you, a dime here and a dime there isn't "significant". But, if you're in the category of having to chose between buying food and paying rent, or buying food and putting gas in your car to get to work, then it's a big deal.

The problem is that the muddleclass is so far out of touch with us peons on the bottom rungs that we don't even speak the same language anymore.

If you want the Dems to keep winning elections, you might want to look into that factor.

[onenote]

64. I don't what your source of information is, but you need a new one cause you are wrong

The COLA adjustment for social security is based on the "all items" CPI-W index. That index includes not only groceries, but also housing, transportation, medical, clothing, and other items.

In fact, food represents 16% of the index, housing (including utility costs) represents around 40%, clothing around 4%; transportation around 20 percent; medical care 5%; recreation 6%; education and communication (including telephone, computer, etc) 6%; and miscellaneous (including personal care products and services) 3%.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0809.pdf see table 6 at page 25

All of these are used in the CPI-W that is factored into the COLA adjustment.
If you don't believe me, compare the inflation factor for August 2008 from page 25 of the aformentioned link to the AUgust 2008 index used in calculating last year's social security COLA - the fact that they are exactly the same is not just a coincidence. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html

And maybe you are paying more for groceries today than you were at the end of the year, but that makes you the exception, not the rule. Last year at Easter, a dozen eggs was close to $2; this year, it was well below that. Milk prices also have leveled off or dropped from where they were six to nine months ago. Sure, if you go back far enough, prices are higher. But the COLA is an annual adjustment and the last COLA was nearly 6 percent and covered the bulk of the period when prices were shooting upwards. If they simply stay where they were, there isn't a COLA.

And as I've said a couple of times -- the right answer is to adjust the CPI-W as used to calculate the Social Security COLA so it more accurately reflects spending by the social security demographic. That is how you successfully make the case for an adjustment --assuming that the numbers back it up.

[bobbolink]

66. You're all heart, aren't you? Try reading Barbara Ehrenreich, rather than being so

damned willing to blast people who can't even survive anymore.

Whether I'm able to afford those eggs or not certainly isn't a concern of yours, is it?

I'll repeat... I'm saving all of these hardnosed replies. Next election, when all of you are CRYING for votes, and calling people STUPID if they don't vote your way, I'm bringing these out so everyone can see just how much these hard-hearted replies affect what you say you want most... for Dems to be in power.

You'll most likely reply with more venom.

Go ahead.

When people can't show the least bit of compassion, I'm done.

And others can see that lack, also

[onenote]

68. I'm the only one here using facts to make the case for a fairer COLA approach

The fact that I called you on spreading inaccurate information obviously bothers you. But there is an easy fix to that. GEt your facts right before you respond to someone.

[dajoki]

70. I believe her facts are correct...

because I have always believed the same thing.

[onenote]

71. well the objective evidence I presented proves otherwise. sorry

[dajoki]

74. I still do not see...

that it says anywhere that all those numbers are used in the SS COLA.

[onenote]

80. I'll try again.

First: Here is the Social Security Administration website link showing how the COLA is calculated, showing the exact numbers used for last year's adjustment:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html

Note the CPI-W numbers cited for July (203.700); Aug (203.199) and Sept (203.889) of 2007 and for July (216.304) August (215.247) and September (214.935) of 2008.

Second, here are the links for the monthly CPI reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for those six months. In each case, the number found in the SSA COLA calculation cited above can be found in Table 6, which is the CPI-W data, in the first line, labelled "all items" in the columns marked "Unadjusted indexes"

July 2007 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0707.pdf (page 26): 203.700
Aug 2007 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0708.pdf (page 26): 203.199
Sept 2007 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0709.pdf (page 26): 203.889


July 2008 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0809.pdf (page 25): 216.304
Aug 2008 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0808.pdf (page 25): 215.257
Sept 2008 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0809.pdf (page 25): 215.935

As i've said -- it could not be any more clear that the CPI-W data used by the Social Security Administration is the "all items' category that includes food, housing, transportation, clothing, medical, communications, recreation, and other miscellaneous cost categories.

Hope this finally clears it up for you. I don't know where you got the idea that the COLA was based on inflation data that didn't include housing or food or whatever. But its not the case. What is the case, as I've said, is that assuming that the relative weighting of the categories in the CPI-W are appropriate for an older Social Security demographic is questionable and that our focus should be on that reform, not on claiming incorrectly that the index excludes categories of costs when that is demonstrably not the case.

[dajoki]

75. Another thing...

I'm sure the politicians think everything they do makes sense on paper. But when it hits the real world and real people, thats when the flaws begin to show. So you can wave all the numbers you want in the air, but it still makes no difference to the people relying on SS and their yearly raises.

[onenote]

76. fine. how do you propose changing it so that social security recipients get more

at a time when people are worried about the future of the social security system? Seriously, I'm open to hearing a suggestion, so long as its one that has any political viability. The politically viable solution that I've suggested is trying to reform the current COLA calculation so it more closely reflects spending by the social security demographic (more on medical care, less on communications, for instance).

[bobbolink]

78. Yes, "objective" in being soooo superior.

Check out Barbara Ehrenreich, and her sources that back up what I've said.

THEN COME BACK AND APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR HEAVY-HANDED, CRITICAL JUDGEMENT.

[onenote]

82. Y'know, I never thought I'd see this much hostility on DU to factual information

but I guess there's a first for everything. Maybe 8 years of lies have just led to folks not caring if what they claim has a factual basis and being unable to admit it when it turns out they were wrong.

Oh, and by the way, I have read nickel and dimed and bait and switch. I thought they were terrific books and have recommended them to many people (including my book club).

But that doesn't change the fact that we were discussing how the COLA was calculated and how, politically, to best go about reforming it and you chimed in with completely wrong information (and have yet to offer a constructive suggestion or comment on my suggestion as to how best to go about reforming COLA)

[dajoki]

90. I'm sorry if you think...

that people on SS are not worthy of a yearly raise. People in the workforce have the oppotunity to get pay increases, either through their jobs or by switching jobs, I know, I've done it. Now that I'm on SS I have no way of getting any raises from an employer, that is why we count on the yearly COLA and all I'm saying is that it should be fair and no raise is not fair.

[onenote]

94. I"m sorry you keep putting words in my mouth

sMy point has been that people are entitled to an increase and politically we need to build that case by showing COLA isn't properly calculated. You apparently want to raise the amount that SS recipients get by some amount every year no matter what is going on in the economy -- a politically impossible objective.

BTW, a lot of folks are not getting raises this year. A lot of folks are losing their jobs. That's not fair either.

[dajoki]

103. I agree...

it sucks that people are losing their jobs, my wife lost her's, so I know what that is like also. But you can't compare working people to those on SS because people on SS are completely dependent on the COLA for a raise every year, where working people at least have a chance to better their incomes. I don't think we are that far apart, because I agree that the COLA is not properly calculated, just a difference on how to get it done.

[bobbolink]

123. The hostility comes from your end. And I do mean end.

YOU can change that.

Any time now.

[bobbolink]

77. I really do appreciate your compassion, and your outstanding understanding of others.

I told you where I got the facts, but you would rather DISS me instead.

As I said, you are all heart. You PRIDE yourself on being so LOGICAL, and yet what you miss is that you have demonstrated here over and over and over that you have absolutely NO compassion for those who are suffering.

I've brought instances to your attention, and you skip right over them, claiming all the while that you are RIGHT.

It must be very comforting to consider yourself so superior.

However, some of us don't think that having no heart is truly superior.

Unfortunately, there isn't an easy "FIX" to that.

[onenote]

83. I'm sorry, I must have missed the source you gave for the claim housing isn't in the CPI-W

used to calculate the COLA adjustment. I just looked again and still seem to be unable to find. If you'd direct me to it, I'd appreciate it.

In the meantime, I only dissed your misstatement of facts. You are the one questioning my compassion.

[dajoki]

91. Like I said before...

sometimes things look good on paper but do not translate well to the real world or real people. This is where the compassion must come into play. If there is no compassion for our fellow human beings then these facts don't mean anything to me and many other people. I can see you are not going to change your mind, so I will have to give up on trying to sway you to the side of compassion.

[onenote]

96. Again, I don't know where you got the idea that my desire to improve the COLA

reflects a lack of compassion. I think we both have compassion for those on SS. I just want to have a workable plan for improving the situation not one based on misinformation and/or a politically impossible goal of simply raising the SS amount every year no matter what is going on in the economy or the state of the SS funds.

And I guess I'll give up trying to get you to admit you were wrong in your claims about what goes into the current COLA adjustment (which, one more time for the record, I think is a seriously flawed measure).

[dajoki]

98. Well I agree that it is seriously flawed...

but I'm not sure you are correct about what is counted in the CPI.

[onenote]

105. how many times do I have to show the actual information to convince you

Are you intentionally putting your head in the sand? If so why? I have given you direct links to the official calculation of the COLA and to the source of those numbers and shown how the SS COLA adjustment is based on an "all items" line in the CPI-W that includes the very things you and others seem to imagine -- you offer absolutely no support for your position -- aren't included, such as housing costs.

I believe that you are sincere in your desire to reform COLA. But if you don't accept the facts about the current approach, you will never be a good advocate for changing that approach.

[dajoki]

106. There are words in there like...

"general" and "percentage" so I'm not convinced that you are generally 100% accurate in your interpretation. And although I can't remember now, I did read somewhere that says everything is NOT counted. I don't have a link, my memory is bad, but that sticks in my mind for some reason. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just not sure you are corect.

[onenote]

110. you can't be this obtuse -- its not my "interpretation"

Its hard cold data. I have shown you the SSA numbers used to calculate the COLA (for example, the Aug. 2008 CPI-W of 215.247). I have shown you the source of that CPI-W from the BLS. Table 6, the table I linked to provides a detailed breakdown of all of the categories that go into that figure, adding up to 100 percent. It shows, for example, that 14.901 percent of the figure represents food costs. It even breaks that number down by distinguishing between Foods at home (8.595 percent) and Foods Away from Home (6.305 percent). Within these categories, even more detail is provided, to the point that Meat, Poultry, Fish and Eggs" is broken out separately from "Cereals/Bakery". The same is true for the other categories.

And if that's not enough detail for you -- go to Table 8. That starts with the same CPI-W figure (215.247) and breaks it down in such excruciating detail that you can see exactly what weight was given to ground beef as opposed to beef roast as opposed to beef steak. You can see the different weights give for apples versus bananas versus citrus fruits or potatoes versus lettuce versus tomatoes. It goes on for pages.

Accept the facts: the COLA calculation is based on a CPI figure that is derived on the basis of the costs of a vast array of items and that does not exclude things like housing or food as some have erroneously claimed.

If you contact anyone who knows anything about the COLA adjustment and argue it should be changed because it excludes major categories of costs like housing or food you will be laughed and rightly treated as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. On the other hand, if you approach those in charge armed with the actual facts and make the case that the weighting is not representative of how retirees spend, you will put them on the defensive.

Its pretty clear to me which is the better approach.

[dajoki]

111. And which is the better approach?

How do you go about it other than calling our Congress People?

[onenote]

113. The best approach is to contact members and staff and make a well-informed argument

which is what I've been suggesting. A not good approach is to contact members and staff and make an easily knocked down argument based on misinformation about the current COLA calculation. Telling members/staff that there is a problem is only half the battle. You need to direct them towards an achievable solution, such as re-weighting the COLA calculation to reflect retiree's reality.

Another option is to work through AARP, which monitors SS issues and has been vocal about the problems with the COLA calculation, doing calculations to show that the inflation rate for retirees is actually higher than what is reflected by the CPI-W because retirees spend more of their income on items with escalating prices, like medical care, than they do on items whose prices are declining, like consumer electronics.

[dajoki]

114. It also works to put a scare in them n/t

[onenote]

115. right now I imagine they are more scared of ss becoming insolvent

than they are of not increasing benefits.

They need to have "cover" for doing something that will increase benefits -- and that cover comes from good, empirical arguments about the shortcomings of the current CPI-W, not from erroneous claims that the CPI-W doesn't include costs that it unquestionably does include.

[dajoki]

117. They have been talking about that for decades n/t

[onenote]

119. talking about what for decades? reforming the COLA calculation?

The need for broad SS reform has been an issue for decades. And it provides a nice excuse for not addressing some shorter term issues, like the COLA problem. My point is that we aren't going to scare Congress into raising benefits at this point. We need to make them understand it as a fairness issue in a time of economic distress -- its fine and dandy to have an empirical measure to ensure that SS stays up with inflation, but if that empirical measure turns out to have flaws in its weighting so that retirees aren't actually keeping up with inflation, then its hard to against that, whether or not its part of a bigger reform package.

[dajoki]

121. No, SS reform n/t

[dajoki]

122. Did you read the link you posted below?

Well, the answer could be in there.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/medicare/articles/p...

"To address this problem, one action the Congress might consider is to grant a flat Social Security COLA increase each year, during times of low inflation, to offset the impact of rising Medicare costs," Rother adds, "This would avoid the full burden of cost increases falling on a minority of beneficiaries and help keep Part B solvent in the long run."

[onenote]

126. I did read the link

And while that is one approach, its probably not one that is as politically viable at this time as one that relies on the COLA, but reforms it so that it actually reflects retirees' costs, including medicare and other medical expenses.

The problem is that we are in the middle of a period of low inflation and low wage growth (or indeed, deflation and negative wage growth). Politically a guaranteed adustment is simply a non-starter at the present time, what with SS benefits increasing by 5.8 in 2009 (the highest increase in 26 years) -- a year in which most people did not see 5.8 percent increases in their wages. I know baby steps suck, but sometimes you have to take them. An approach that continues the current focus on CPI-W, but reforms it is far more likely to garner support on the Hill (imo) than an approach that will be characterized as a budget busting "increase come hell or high water" approach. Would the latter approach be better? Probably. But I don't see it as being politically viable. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.

[dajoki]

127. It is a solution...

but you seem to not want a solution. Let me ask you one question and then we can this conversation. Knowing what you know right now about the CPI and the COLA numbers and a possible short term solution, do you believe that Social Security recipients should get a raise for 2010? Just a yes or no please, no ifs or thats or buts, just yes or no!!

[onenote]

129. I don't want a solution? Are you incapable of reading?

YOu truly are a piece of work. I"ve been repeatedly suggesting a specific solution -- revising the CPI used to measure the COLA for SS to more accurately reflect how inflation hits seniors based on how they allocate their spending. And I think that such an approach would result in an increase for 2010.

I'm done with you. We may share the goal of improving the system, but you've shown yourself incapable or unwilling to admit to factual misstatements in the face of overwhelming evidence that you, not me, were wrong in describing how the COLA is calculated now and you've now decided to make the utterly bullshit suggestion that I don't want a solution when you've done nothing but propose a pie in the sky let's give everyone more money every year argument with nothing to support it.

As for your question: if I could just snap my fingers and make there be an adjustment in the SS benefits next year would I - yes.
Of course, if I could do that, I'd also snap my fingers and end all war, poverty, suffering, and illness.

Go ahead and support the unattainable and rant about it. I'll stick with working for something that actually has a chance of being seriously considered.

[dajoki]

133. Your the piece of work...

it seems that it has to be your way or no way. Who left you in charge? There could be many different ways to get something done, but you won't accept them, you insist, like a spoiled child, that if you don't play by your rules, you will take your ball and go home. And please stop posting to me!!

[onenote]

134. Stop posting to you. Start making sense and I'll stop.

It seems to me that everything you've said about me applies to you. I support reform. You support reform. You want to do it your way (which seems to involve making an argument based on a factually inaccurate perception of the current system) and I want to do it my way (which involves making a fact based case for politically achievable reform). How that translates into my wanting to take my ball and go home is beyond me.

[dajoki]

136. You simply have no compassion...

you would rather see people starve if something other than what you want can be done.

[bobbolink]

124. Gee, we just never thought of that. It's really good that much more intelligent person has come

along to show us the way.

:sarcasm:

Oh, and where were YOU the times we've asked DUers to write and call about these issues?

Hmmmmm?

"Another option is to work through AARP, "

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

The business that wrote that abortion of a drug bill????

THAT AARP?

Yup, that's real good logic concerning options!

:crazy:

[onenote]

125. if you think Social Security reform can get enacted without AARPs support

I want some of what you're smoking.

Sometimes you have to make unholy alliances to get things done rather than stand on the sidelines and shout about them not getting done.

[dajoki]

128. But do you really want it fixed?

[onenote]

130. apparently more than you do

Since you seem only to want to make an argument for a fix that isn't politically viable at this time and to top things off, you want to base your case for the change on the fallacious argument that the current COLA adjsutment doesn't account for housing and food.

Nice.

[dajoki]

132. Politically viable...

that's all I've been hearing from you, we have to make it politically viable.

[onenote]

135. and that's a bad thing?

Tiliting in windmills is great in novels and musicals.
It doesn't put food on the table.

[dajoki]

73. I see nothing there to back up your point n/t

[dajoki]

57. Of course you do know...

that entire list is not used for SS COLAs don't you?

[onenote]

60. You have a link for that claim? Cause I think you're wrong about that

[dajoki]

61. I am looking...

but its hard to find one, but I don't believe the count everything. I'm pretty sure its more like a sampling.

[onenote]

65. see post 64

For links that establish that the CPI-W "all items" line is what is used in calculating the Social Security adjustment. Takes into account food, housing, transportation, clothing, medical care, recreation, communications and miscellaneous costs. Probably not in the right proportion for the Social Security demographic, which is what we should be focusing on, not claiming that the price of eggs is more expensive today than last spring when it demonstrably is lower.

[dajoki]

69. Eggs are cheaper?

[bobbolink]

63. Would actually considering how many people on these programs go hungry, go without medicine and

doctors, go without HOUSING for crying in a bucket be "significant" to you?

[bobbolink]

58. Exactly right. There isn't Political Will. THAT'S what we've been saying.

Yet, all these DUers expect our automatic vote.

What a disconnect!

Hell, there isn't even "political will" to reverse homelessness!

[dajoki]

8. The raise was recieved in 1987...

but the law was changed in 1986.

[blindpig]

13. So I guess you don't shop for groceries.

I had wanted to retire at 65. Guess not.

Social Security payments are barely enough to live on as is and prices in grocery stores are up something like 20%.

Whose side is we on?

k&r

[bobbolink]

32. "Whose side is we on?" I think the poster is pretty clear... it certainly isn't the side

of those of us on the bottom of the ladder.

Too bad we don't ride around in limos and sip champagne.

[onenote]

97. I'm on the side of those who want to fix COLA, not just complain about it

I've specifically and repeatedly made the point here that the current COLA is flawed and needs to be reformed to better reflect the actual spending patterns of retirees. RIght now, by (imo) overweighting things whose prices regularly decline, like computer equipment and telephone service, and underweighting things whose prices increase, like medical care, the system screws SS recipients. I've said this any number of times and yet you have not once commented on it. Do you agree or disagree? Or do you just want to complain about it without offering a constructive proposal with a snowball's chance of political success?

As for the claim above that groceries have increased in price by 20 percent during the relevant period (i.e since last September), I'd like to see a link to support that claim. If its true, it would help build the case for reforming the COLA. Its an easily provable assertion and if its true, it will help the cause of reforming COLA -- and if its not -- it will hurt it.

[dajoki]

99. $24...

1 dozen eggs, 1 gallon milk, 1 lb. cheese, 1 small box cereal. What my daughter spent just the other day. Those are prices that are not coming down.

[sinkingfeeling]

108. Wow, where does she live? Here are today's prices for those items here:

$1.65 - dozen Grade A eggs
$2.95 - 1 gallon 2% Milk
$3.99 - 1 lb. mild Cheese, unsliced
$2.00 - 1 small box cold cereal (Kix) at 2 for $4.00

Total = $10.59

[dajoki]

112. I forgot the butter n/t

[dajoki]

102. How do you plan on fixing it?

Maybe start calling your Congress people? That is the same thing I am suggesting.

[onenote]

104. it is indeed what I've been doing -- and with a specific suggestion

I would hope you would do the same

[dajoki]

107. I am doing the same...

that was the point I was trying to make in the OP, I want everybody to do the same.

[bobbolink]

67. Neither does onenote. (Boy, what an apt name!) We're just weird because

we keep seeing higher prices.

Guess we just are too dumb.. that's us poor folk for ya.

:nuke:

[Two Americas]

22. then don't

Amazing that anyone in the Democratic party would say that they are "having a hard time getting upset about this." Millions are having difficulty ignoring it.

Good for you if you personally are not upset. Of what value is that to the rest of us?


...

[bobbolink]

31. Is there anything having to do with poverty that you DON'T have a hard time being upset about?

[sinkingfeeling]

109. Yes, states that reduce there food assistance programs, homeless shelters, places that

run the homeless off the streets, the failure of areas to provide child care for the working poor, etc. A COLA, set by law, to Social Security isn't one of them.

[dysfunctional press]

47. it will actually mean that most recipients will get a SMALLER monthly check next year.

because an increase in the medicare deduction is pretty much guaranteed.

[Wetzelbill]

6. K&R!

[JNelson6563]

10. SS recipients are some of the most vulnerable.

We all need to contact our Congress-critters about this. BTW, for best results we should be contacting local offices. All of them.

I'll be calling mine, I hope my fellow DUers will be doing the same.

Thank you Dajoki for bringing this to the fore! :toast:

Julie

[emilyg]

11. I'll be calling mine.

[dajoki]

15. Thank you Julie!!

[JNelson6563]

81. And another kick!

:kick:

[G_j]

18. important K&R !

[Hannah Bell]

19. trillions for banksters, nothing for the proles.

[bobbolink]

36. Exactly! So, please make some calls and raise a fuss!

[Hannah Bell]

43. already did.

[bobbolink]

56. Mahalo! We need to know there are folks behind us.

We really appreciate your efforts!

[smokey nj]

23. I'm going to call my congress critters

K&R!

[bobbolink]

35. Thank you! If only some of the naysayers would do the same!

:hug:

[LiberalHeart]

26. I was relieved when I read that there'd be no COLA till 2012 at the earliest....

That must mean my cost of living won't be increasing, so that was excellent news.

I had no 401k, no pension. I retired on SS and some investments. The investments are demolished. I also have a house to sell. Ha. Good luck with that. The only good thing age has brought me is qualifying for Medicare. My health insurance was $1181 per month. Now it's under $200 for better insurance via a Medicare HMO-type coverage.

[maryf]

33. Really important stuff here, dajoki...K&R nt

[dajoki]

39. Thank you Mary!!

[maryf]

72. Anytime Dajoki! Kick!!

:)

[dem629]

42. Thank you for this information. Here's the crime of it all:

Banks and companies get trillions in bailouts.

People on SS (and SSDI and SSI) get hurt.

I'm for major SS reform in order to save it, but cutting the COLA for those currently on it should be off the table (in my opinion).

[dajoki]

44. Thank you dem629!!

[onenote]

84. COLA is not being cut

THe forecast is that the data used every year to calculate the COLA adjustment will not show positive inflation for the relevant period (third quarter 2008 through third quarter 2009). THe best response is not to ignore the facts, but to analyze the data to show how the CPI-W used for this purpose does not accurately reflect the actual spending of the social security demographic. To give but one example, the CPI-W for workers probably overstates spending on communications (computers, telephone, etc) and understates medical costs when compared to what retirees spend.

That is what we should make our immediate focus since major SS reform isn't likely to end up producing higher benefits any time soon.

[dysfunctional press]

46. if there's no COLA increase- does that also mean there won't be an increase in cost of medicare..?

if they aren't going to RAISE my check with a cola- they damn well bwtter not try to take more away through an increased medicare deduction, either.

[dajoki]

51. What I read was...

that 75% of the people will not see a rise in Medicare premiums, but the other 25% will see increases up to $119 a month for 2010 and $132 a month for 2011. I don't know how it is determined who will have to pay more.

[onenote]

85. yep. here is a link with some more info on this

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/medicare/articles/part_b_premiums_in_2010_frozen_for_many_higher_for_some_.html

[dajoki]

120. Here is the answer, right in your link

"To address this problem, one action the Congress might consider is to grant a flat Social Security COLA increase each year, during times of low inflation, to offset the impact of rising Medicare costs," Rother adds, "This would avoid the full burden of cost increases falling on a minority of beneficiaries and help keep Part B solvent in the long run."

[QueenOfCalifornia]

48. Poverty in this country

is swept under the rug and ignored by most people because it isn't a very attractive reflection to see in our collective mirror.

I will contact our local congress people (even though they are mostly Republicans and have zero interest in helping people on the lower tier.)

This is an important issue.

K&R

[dajoki]

52. Thank you QueenOfCalifornia!!

[Wednesdays]

79. K&R

:kick:

[JeffR]

86. K & R.

:kick:

[Mnemosyne]

87. KnR for greater visibility. n/t

[shimmergal]

88. We need annual COLA increases

to simply avoid falling further and further behind, but...

I wonder if, in this climate, it might be easier to get the stimulus payment made permanent. Now that they've been given two years in a row; that's almost a precedent.

This year their rationale is to provide some rough equivalence with employed Americans, who're getting an income tax cut as "ordinary people's" part of the stimulus. Those cuts aren't scheduled to stop at the end of 2009, are they? So neither should the SS recipients' stimulus payments! Maybe this would be an easier case to make to congresscritters than asking them to rejigger the COLA indexing. Just wondering . . .

[dajoki]

93. That is exactly...

what I have been saying, but some people just don't want to hear any of it. They can and have made those numbers come out the way they want.

[lbrtbell]

89. I think Obama needs to address this, at the very least

I'm not on SS, but I firmly believe that our elderly deserve a COLA every year. I don't know who's spouting the nonsense that prices aren't going up, because every single time I go grocery shopping, one or more items on my grocery receipt have been increased.

Even when prices haven't been increased, the portion/serving sizes are smaller, so you still end up paying more money for the same amount of food.

The elderly deserve better than this. :(

[dajoki]

92. Welcome to DU lbrtbell...

I like your thinking on this subject. Thanks!!

[Eyerish]

116. K&R...

My mother worked from the age of 15 til her mid 50's when her Lupus made her unable to work. After a 9 month battle she was lucky enough to get SSI the first time around(an achievement I know). She has given so much in, that for her not to get a cost of living increase is such an injustice.

This is only going to get worse as the boomers hit SS age...

[dajoki]

118. I'm glad for your mother...

and yes its going to get worse. I read a few different versions of the forecasts, the worst being no raise until January 2013 and then only 1% raises to 2019.

[20score]

131. K&R