PDA

View Full Version : Social Security to Hand Out First Raises Since 09.....



MMC
10-19-2011, 01:56 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/social-security-hand-first-raises-since-09-164904352.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Social Security recipients will get a raise in January — their first increase in benefits since 2009. It's expected to be about 3.5 percent.

Some 55 million beneficiaries will find out for sure Wednesday when a government inflation measure that determines the annual cost-of-living adjustment is released.

Congress adopted the measure in the 1970s, and since then it has resulted in annual benefit increases averaging 4.2 percent. But there was no COLA in 2010 or 2011 because inflation was too low.

Some of the increase in January will be lost to higher Medicare premiums, which are deducted from Social Security payments. Medicare Part B premiums for 2012 are expected to be announced next week, and the trustees who oversee the program are projecting an increase.

Monthly Social Security payments average $1,082, or about $13,000 a year. A 3.5 percent increase would amount to an additional $38 a month, or about $455 a year.

Most retirees rely on Social Security for a majority of their income, according to the Social Security Administration. Many rely on it for more than 90 percent of their income.

Wednesday's COLA announcement will come as a special joint committee of Congress weighs options to reduce the federal government's $1.3 trillion budget deficit. In talks this summer, President Barack Obama floated the idea of adopting a new measure of inflation to calculate the COLA, one that would reduce the annual increases.Advocates for seniors mounted an aggressive campaign against the proposal, and it was scrapped. But it could resurface in the ongoing talks.....


Now aint that something.....here the left wants to blame the right for trying to get rid of Social Security. Yet Obama and the Dems want to stop the COLA and stop annual cost of living increases with Social Security. So there will always be a Cost of living increase. But it is the Dems that want to remove it from SS.

This should be highlighted anytime Dems speak about the right wanting to get rid of Social Security. This Should be Highlighted each and everytime this President Speaks.

wingrider
10-19-2011, 02:09 AM
don't you know that seniors are the expendable group?

have you ever seen cass sunstiens chart of life viability? everyone over the age of 55 is non productive to society.

here is a little info on this guy and what he thinks of seniors

This could be bad. Cass R. Sunstein, just appointed by President Obama to be “regulatory czar,” is a big “quality of life” guy in determining the cost/benefit ratio of government regulations. This is the executive summary of a paper he wrote back in 2003 for the Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, entitled “Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay.” From the paper:


In protecting safety, health, and the environment, government has increasingly relied on cost-benefit analysis. In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of “value of a statistical life” (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million. Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the “value of a statistical life year” (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP) [what one would pay to obtain a good] is generally the place to begin…In fact, a focus on statistical lives is more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people.

The paper dealt broadly with how to measure the cost/benefit aspect of government regulations generally, and illustrates how bureaucrats and their enablers are the real kings now. But that aside, its applicability to regulations in a regime of national health care law are obvious and frightening: If regulatory policy is to be based on granting the lives of elderly people a lesser value, it begs for health care rationing that would be supported by terms such as “value of statistical life year,” “willingness to pay”–and other such euphemisms that will no doubt be coined–as bureaucrateze cover for blatant medical discrimination.

MMC
10-19-2011, 05:47 AM
don't you know that seniors are the expendable group?

have you ever seen cass sunstiens chart of life viability? everyone over the age of 55 is non productive to society.

here is a little info on this guy and what he thinks of seniors

This could be bad. Cass R. Sunstein, just appointed by President Obama to be “regulatory czar,” is a big “quality of life” guy in determining the cost/benefit ratio of government regulations. This is the executive summary of a paper he wrote back in 2003 for the Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, entitled “Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay.” From the paper:


In protecting safety, health, and the environment, government has increasingly relied on cost-benefit analysis. In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of “value of a statistical life” (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million. Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the “value of a statistical life year” (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP) [what one would pay to obtain a good] is generally the place to begin…In fact, a focus on statistical lives is more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people.

The paper dealt broadly with how to measure the cost/benefit aspect of government regulations generally, and illustrates how bureaucrats and their enablers are the real kings now. But that aside, its applicability to regulations in a regime of national health care law are obvious and frightening: If regulatory policy is to be based on granting the lives of elderly people a lesser value, it begs for health care rationing that would be supported by terms such as “value of statistical life year,” “willingness to pay”–and other such euphemisms that will no doubt be coined–as bureaucrateze cover for blatant medical discrimination.


Yep bro.....I see it every year of my life now. I would like to take this pencil pushing geek out to some reality. He wont like what I will take him to.

she who must be obayed
10-19-2011, 07:30 AM
don't you know that seniors are the expendable group?

It 's not only the seniors that are expendable, it is also people that can not fight back like the dying disabled, yes boys and girls it makes the Fed feel superior, that it can attack its own. What do expect from America after all we are the most effective killing machine ever invented. I am surpized they could spare it. Lets us see what Eric Canter has to say about this. I bet this is giving him a major case of the red ass.

MMC
10-19-2011, 04:19 PM
don't you know that seniors are the expendable group?

have you ever seen cass sunstiens chart of life viability? everyone over the age of 55 is non productive to society.

here is a little info on this guy and what he thinks of seniors

This could be bad. Cass R. Sunstein, just appointed by President Obama to be “regulatory czar,” is a big “quality of life” guy in determining the cost/benefit ratio of government regulations. This is the executive summary of a paper he wrote back in 2003 for the Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, entitled “Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay.” From the paper:


In protecting safety, health, and the environment, government has increasingly relied on cost-benefit analysis. In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of “value of a statistical life” (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million. Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the “value of a statistical life year” (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP) [what one would pay to obtain a good] is generally the place to begin…In fact, a focus on statistical lives is more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people.

The paper dealt broadly with how to measure the cost/benefit aspect of government regulations generally, and illustrates how bureaucrats and their enablers are the real kings now. But that aside, its applicability to regulations in a regime of national health care law are obvious and frightening: If regulatory policy is to be based on granting the lives of elderly people a lesser value, it begs for health care rationing that would be supported by terms such as “value of statistical life year,” “willingness to pay”–and other such euphemisms that will no doubt be coined–as bureaucrateze cover for blatant medical discrimination.


Another frggin CZAR.....I am tired of them giving these putz's that Name. We the People should be able to stop this. All should jump on the Media's ass when they use it. Start Correcting the dipshits. Don't allow them to say such. Czar is Russian for Ceasar. What is it they are trying to say? Some Puncil pushing politican in a suit is Ceasar. Cmon Down to the South-Side.....after were done with their asses. They will be calling them salad. Not Ceasar. Just Tossed! http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/rant.gif

Conley
10-19-2011, 06:01 PM
Yeah, how did this whole practice of calling these guys "czars" begin with? This is America, not Russia -- it aint right!

MMC
10-19-2011, 06:14 PM
Yeah, how did this whole practice of calling these guys "czars" begin with? This is America, not Russia -- it aint right!


I thought the Media were the ones to start it. Then MSDNC always used it or coined it. Either way people should be all over the world of media when they try to use it. So much so that some network would report the outrage of it. Then done deal. No one in the press will want to touch it. Even use the radio jocks for shit like this. Plus now there is twitter. So it can be done.

Mister D
10-19-2011, 09:21 PM
Yeah, how did this whole practice of calling these guys "czars" begin with? This is America, not Russia -- it aint right!


I prefer Tsar. 8)

MMC
10-20-2011, 01:01 AM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-million-could-pay-more-cnnm-2247983787.html?x=0

That also means an estimated 10 million high-income workers may be paying a bigger tax bill.
That's because the inflation that justifies the benefit increase also will raise the amount of income subject to the portion of the payroll tax supporting Social Security.

Currently workers pay the tax on the first $106,800 of income. Starting next year, they will pay it on the first $110,100.
Normally the tax rate is 6.2% for workers and 6.2% for employers. Those who are self-employed pay the full 12.4%.
But this year workers have only paid 4.2% thanks to a temporary payroll tax holiday that Congress passed last December.

It's not clear yet what the rate for 2012 will be. If President Obama has his way, it will be temporarily cut even further -- to 3.1%. Otherwise it may be maintained at 4.2% or revert to 6.2% as it is scheduled to under current law.

This year, people making $110,100 are paying $4,486 into Social Security.

Next year, if the rate reverts to 6.2%, they'd pay $2,341 more.

If the rate stays at 4.2%, they'd pay $139 more.

And if it's reduced to 3.1%, they'd pay $1,073 less.

Proponents who support an extended payroll tax holiday say letting it expire would hurt the economy.

Opponents say the idea is not very effective as economic stimulus.

To help close Social Security's long-term financing shortfall, budget experts have recommended increasing the amount of income subject to the payroll tax.

One proposal is to raise the cap to a level where the payroll tax is covering 90% of wages earned in the country, as it used to for years.

To accomplish this, Obama's fiscal commission proposed raising the cap gradually so that it covers 90% of wages by 2050. Under that proposal the taxable maximum would be $190,000 in 2020, up from the $168,000 currently projected.....snip~

wingrider
10-20-2011, 06:39 AM
hold the phone folks.. it isn't as if we are going to get the 3.6 percent increase after all.

now they want to cut it because of the increase in the expenditures of medicare.. if we are really lucky we might see about 15 bucks when its all said and done,,

whoopee , now I can take the wife out for a hamburger once a month , and to think I worked 50 years for this...unfuckingreal.

MMC
10-20-2011, 07:11 AM
hold the phone folks.. it isn't as if we are going to get the 3.6 percent increase after all.

now they want to cut it because of the increase in the expenditures of medicare.. if we are really lucky we might see about 15 bucks when its all said and done,,

whoopee , now I can take the wife out for a hamburger once a month , and to think I worked 50 years for this...unfuckingreal.


What you think brutha? Especially about those opponents that say the idea is not ver efective stimulus. I didn't think it was suppose to be an effective stimulus in the first place. So how is that an argument to fight with?