Do you really believe this? Really?
Nearly every ‘right winger’ on this board is of the fiscally conservative bent. I, for one, will not be complaining if we somehoe turn down one more opportunity to increase the massive and ongoing transfer of wealth from the young to the poor.
Eh? Do you have a cite for this. I would assume that basically all seniors that receive SS are drawing down their savings every month, almost by definition.
Agree cash to the unemployed would probably be better, but probably not currently politically do-able, at least without burning a lot of political capital. The SS is a decent stimulus that can pass Congress, which makes more sense then an excellent fiscal stimulus that won’t.
Actually, aren’t seniors less likely to be poor than younger people?
Some seem mighty outraged that it’s been mentioned that it was done in recent history. There were plenty of arguments justifying it back then. Perhaps someone could look them up?
With regard to Clinton’s blowjob, here we have a case where two consecutive presidents have actually given the nation figurative blowjobs in the form of money giveaways*.
It’s absurd to suggest that had Bush had actually gotten a blowjob from Condi, it’d be unreasonable to reprise Monica’s blowing of a former president’s member, and the nation’s reaction to learning that. Bush’s blowjob would not be a new thing, it’d be a repeat of something from the Clinton years. Rather than groping blindly for a proper response, the nation could look to the precedent set by its response to Monicagate.
I cannot imagine a benign reason why some seem so set against the mention of precedent in the present context. Perhaps some wish to hold a de novo debate with one hand tied behind their backs and the Marquess of Queensberry rules to boot?
Nah, the thread title itself tells us that’s not true. Someone wants to get some hits in on the new president without acknowledging our new, Republican inaugurated, tradition of giving away tax money to buy votes**.
*this is assuming Obama’s evil plan goes through, which we do not know yet.
**or just possibly giving away tax dollars for slightly less sinister purposes.
Only because we give them at least a trillion dollars a year in wealth redistribution via medicare and social security. Poverty rates were far higher before those programs.
COLA is pretty self explanatory. If it’s a negative number then payments should go DOWN this year not up. Where is the logic in taking tax money from the young who are struggling to survive to pay for retired people who don’t qualify for it. People are losing their jobs and their houses because unemployment funds are limited. Nobody’s asking the elderly to tighten their belt. They got a cost of living break in prices so they are ahead of the game.
The problem with the $250.00 is it’s so small it’ll just go to pay off a bill. This means no NEW purchases, just paying the interest on something you bought, and for many stalling bankruptcy off for another month.
But in reality this is about politics, seniors vote, so give them something and you can have something to crow about at the next election.
Yes, I can see it now, gazillions of bucks for running dog jackals of the Wall Street, but let an old granny lady wish for a dab of butter for her oatmeal…
Yes, I can certainly see the advantages that might offer. The fact that it is grounded in truth adds an element of spice as well, don’t you think?
Unemployment insurance has been increased and extended by the Obama administration.
I’d imagine, though, that you do a little better for stimulus purposes in giving the money to seniors than to the population at large. I’d imagine that a sizeable portion of those on Social Security have reasonably constant expenses, which really aren’t increasing in this economic climate, and are no longer terribly concerned with saving money for the future. So, they actually might be well disposed to spend the money. Of course, I’m no expert on such things, nor am I really convinced that the primary purpose is stimulus, rather than political expediency.
I think it’s a misunderstanding to think that because seniors’ savings rate is negative, that they’ll quickly spend any stimulus money they get.
Anyone who is retired obviously has a negative savings rate, since they aren’t earning income. But they tend to spend conservatively. The Permanent Income hypothesis shows that people tend to spend proportional to their expectation of lifetime earnings. That’s why Bush’s stimulus failed - a one-time tax rebate doesn’t increase your personal lifetime income much, so it doesn’t change spending patterns much.
Seniors are on fixed incomes. People on fixed incomes tend to be very conservative with their money. Give extra money to a senior, and she’ll put it in her savings account and maybe add in the odd extra small purchase over time because she’s got a bit more in savings.
And I don’t know where you guys are getting the idea that seniors are poor, because they are not. They are the wealthiest group in America. By far. For every poor lady scraping by on basic social security there are many more people who are retired workers with pensions, or savings, or both. Even many of the income-poor seniors are property-rich, owning homes outright. But most wealth accumulation happens in your later years. The kids are gone, the house is paid off, you’re at your earnings peak. In the United States, wealth peaks at about 63 years old. As the baby boomers retire, that number will grow.
As I said, this payoff is bad economics, and it’s bad even from a wealth-redistributionist standpoint. You’re borrowing money and giving it to the richest demographic group.
That’s why I think it’s simply a payoff, to buy support for Obama’s health care plan. He desperately needs to get seniors on board, and miraculously discovers that each one of them needs two hundred and fifty bucks.
So, what appears to be a gesture to make up for losses in COLA is really a devious scheme to enlist support for another issue entirely? How are they planning to make this clear to them, are they going to include a note with the check? “Call your congressman right now and tell him to vote…” No? No direct connection between the bribe and the intended return?
Man, that is devious! That cunning rascal!
Let’s figure that the economy went poop primarily because of the mortgage crisis. Now let’s also assume that the mortgage crisis could have been entirely paid off for less than $300 billion (which is entirely true) which was already spent back in July of last year. The remaining slump to the economy is due to people pulling their money from the economy. There is no magical number which convinces people to put their money back into it, except that number and specific plan which does.
Of anything, you’re better off to spout of some random lowball number and tell the populace that the problem is fixed than to spend some insane amount and tell them that we’ll need some unknown greater quantity to even touch the problem.
There is no problem beyond ignorance and everyone looking to everyone else. Spending our next 20 year’s budget on this is massively stupid. Even if it doesn’t cause a problem in and of itself, you’re still losing tons of future money to have accomplished nothing and robbing the future of that money.
What loss in COLA? That’s the whole crux of the situation. There is no loss. There is no functional reason to hand this money out to a group with no specific need. There is an economic crisis going on and people are losing their jobs and houses. The President could just as easily hand out checks to people with poodles.
$15 billion divided by the 15 million people unemployed would be $1,000 check in the pockets of people who need it. This isn’t some esoteric argument about global warming, people are losing their homes.
It’s simple, if the cost of living goes down for you then you don’t need the money. If you lose your job then $1,000 is food on the table and a mortgage payment.
Portuguese Water Dogs. Let’s get the facts straight!
Behold, Magiver, born-again champion of the oppressed! We are, of course, pleased. However, it has created a minor controversy. Der Trish claims it was his neo-Trotskyite dialectic that brought you around, I claim it was my sparkling wit and gentle good humor. So, if you could settle that…?
(There are a few grouchy Marxists who claim that this is merely an angle to chip away at The One, but we are ignoring such unworthy insinuations…)
Exactly. In an economy where 2/3s of all activity is consumer spending, it makes sense to target those who are MOST likely to SPEND any extra funds, not sock them away on top of their existing stash to earn interest. This is why Bush’s “stimulus” plan failed so spectacularly…one reason, anyway…he targeted those with higher incomes/net worths and ignored or gave much smaller hand-outs to the teeming masses who earned/had so little they didn’t pay taxes but who happen to be the very ones who keep our economy running because virtually every dime they get is immediately SPENT on needed goods or services.
I happen to get social security (as a widow with 2 kids), and that last stimulus payment of several hundred really helped us (and was spent, stimulating the economy). Costs have gone down? really? When? I sure haven’t noticed. I must be shopping the wrong stores, I guess. The grocery bill alone to feed a 17 yr old and a 10 yr old plus me is still as high as ever. My rent has actually INCREASED by $30 over the last yr. My utilities remain the same or higher. Ditto insurance.
I am also a returning college student (after being unemployed for 8 mths or so I figured I might as well do something productive in the meantime :rolleyes:) and the recent federal increases for Pell Grants (I got one) and student loans (I got 2) have enabled me to be able to attend full time and still keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.
And while I was getting unemployment, the federal extensions of benefits and roughly 20% increase in benefits kept us from homelessness and hunger.
The Obama administration has already done more for me and people like me than the previous one ever did. And more for the economy, all things considered.
Why is it that when Bush did it, it was not a hand-out but a return of “our” money but when Obama does it, it’s a hand-out to lazy bums who don’t deserve it? Those in my income bracket may not pay as much individually in taxes, but by God we pay the bulk of them collectively, making up the vast majority of the population! AND we run this economy, doing most of the work and making most of the purchases.
So ironic that “conservatives/Republicans” have suddenly found their urgent sense of fiscal responsibility now that a Democrat is in office, after collectively remaining mute while Bush spent us into a black hole. :dubious:
Sorry about your situation, but I want to respond to this part of your post, which I find to be in error.
Last time there was a tax rebate, it went to everyone (or at least to all tax payers). So, in that sense, it was returning “our money” to us. This give-away is to only a certain group of people. And that group, as a whole, is generally well off. You might not be, but most SS recipients are.
Also, your statement about your income group paying the bulk of [federal income] taxes isn’t true unless you’re in the top 5% of income earners. In fact, the top 20% of income earners pay over 80% of all income taxes. Link.
http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social/families-children-family/12843524-1.html The relative wealth of seniors has been rethought. When you include the costs of health care and drugs you get a more realistic picture. Senior poverty rate is nearing 20 percent.