OK, Obama is now moving steadily towards my dumbass politician list. For the first time in umpteen years, there will not be a COLA increase for Social Security recipients in 2010, because consumer prices actually fell over the last year. Hey, good news! We can save the money that would have gone to that and use it for something else, right?
Nope. Huey P. Obama is pushing for more chickens in every pot. $250 to be just handed to Social Security recipients because they didn’t get a COLA. WTF? A COLA is not needed because prices are lower now than they were last year. That’s why there’s an annual review of such things, and existing law to tell us what do–ie, do not increase payments this year. Giving people money the law says they do not need and are not entitled to receive, when the budget deficit is already out of control makes no fiscal sense. Tax Dollars are not his personal slush fund to be doled out whenever he wants.
Boo to Obama for reckless, uneccessary spending and fiscal irresponsibility. Hopefully, Congress has more sense than he does, and does not authorize another government giveaway.
I tried to provide a link–there’s a story in the Money section of CNN, but my browser crashes every time I load that page. Sorry.
What? Reasoned criticism of Obama? No calling him a socialist? No grandiose oversimplifications?
Knock it off.
I think this was more political expediency than doling out cash. Very subtle difference in the (imagined) mindset, and both are criticizeable.
It also highlights one of the lost-in-the-bleating conservative ideas. Start a handout, and you’ll be tied to it to the point where you can’t even follow a reasonable course of action.
I assume that someone pointed out that if he allows the no-COLA to go unchecked, the Right Wing Marketeers would have a field day. Not that it would have anything to do with reality – more along the lines of Obama canceled payments to seniors. The political fallout from that was weighed against the political fallout of extending payments ($250 each month or over a year?) would be lower than the boon from not pissing seniors off (or making them happy). Plus, if they truly don’t need it, then it’s likely that a good amount will flow back to the economy, which is arguably beneficial (that argument is for another thread).
This is not a justification of the choice, more an analysis of one possible decision-making scenario.
The cost of living has not decreased. I know the stats say it, but gas is rising again, food costs more ,insurance costs more. If housing costs are dropping, that is only relevant if you are buying or selling one. The experience in the marketplace belies the idea that cost of living is going down. Perhaps Rolexes are dropping. Normal expenses are not.
Oh please, please, give me a soundbite about the GOP screaming about Obama giving money to old people. (Which if I remember my demographics correctly is a place where they still have some support.) That will go over real well.
It’s nice to see that some of the political lessons he learned in Chicago have taken.
Eh, given that it sounds like it will be paid through gov’t borrowing, it’s pretty obviously meant to be a politically do-able mini-stimulus. A good thing, IMHO, though I’m sure others disagree.
And though its obviously a worse deal for the gov’t’s bottom line then not paying Seniors anything, its a much better deal then actually gving them a COLA, as this will be a one time payment and not a permanent increase.
Nope. It’s being paid out of the general fund, basically using the same mechanism as the earlier stimulus payments. That was sort of my point, the tie to actual Social Security payments is pretty weak, its basically political cover for stimulus funding.
They are trying to keep the dollar from collapsing by devaluing it over time. A collapse in the dollar could be heavily in our favor if we are borrowing heavily from other nations. I think there is a recognition that the dollar has to go down, and so perhaps he is investing based on that idea, that it will be a lot easier to pay off debts when the dollar which is going down no matter what finds its resting point. Other countries are trying to divest of their dollars which also depresses the value of the dollar, so it just transfers the debt around and while our as-measured debt goes up, our relative debt stays the same or goes down. This of course drives up the price of imports which will be more expensive for Americans who are invested completely in dollars, but this will be stimulative for American industry who can now compete better in the Domestic markets due to the higher price of foreign imports.
The dollar going down could be a good thing collectively since we are all in debt, but a bad thing individually because we’re all holding dollars.
It was a bit of a joke, actually, but big city politicians know to keep their base happy by giving them things. It might not be money, but rather picking up the trash real well, but this is an old established rule of machine politics.
The problem with the cash payments before was that they all went right into savings. I wonder what the savings rate for seniors is. If this comes around Christmas, ToysRUs might see a bonanza as grandmas with government cash in hand storm the store.
I thought the original idea was that SS payments weren’t increasing (no COLA) but there was going to be an increase in a medicare premium resulting in a net drop in actual check amount and this was the justification for the one time payment. Neither of the articles I looked at mentioned this. Anyone else hear this?
They’re just trying to get more stimulus into the economy. There’ll be more of these low-level handouts done in various ways over the next couple of years.
