If the Death Panel finds out she’s putting butter on her oatmeal… well, let’s just say she led a long, full life.
Assuming that you intend that as an endorsement for giving seniors extra money, I’d have to say that it doesn’t work in that fashion.
If there’s a sector of the elderly who are driving the economy, it’s not the portion who need to receive a $250 check. Pointing out that a significant number of the elderly are in poverty simply reinforces the idea that probably there isn’t a substantial group of them who are driving the economy at all. They’ll take the extra money and buy extra Preparation H and bacon. These products aren’t growth markets. You can give them all the money in the world and they’re not going to do anything novel or market making. “Bacon sales are up 10%!” Well woohoo.
When did this new condition become relevent? Since when is a consumer driven economy only about those products that are “novel and market making”? And how the heck do you know how they’ll spend the money?
I’m just pointing out that if the argument is that this is a “stimulus” then it needs to be something which would stimulate. Otherwise it isn’t a stimulus, it’s just handouts regardless of what anyone says. And I know how they spend because I’ve seen threads talking about the spending habits of the elderly. They don’t try new products, they just buy the old and established brands. They don’t really speculate. They just sort of do the same thing over and over again, in the same way that they used to. The definition of economic growth is synonymous with the creation of new and improved things and ways of doing things. Otherwise you’ve just got devalued money, not greater wealth.
I see a boom in restaurants with Early Bird Specials. That, and those complete wrap-around sun glasses.
Is there any doubt that if you get to define the terms, you’re likely to win the argument?
"Why, that’s not a stimulus, just because it gets spent! No, no, it has to have a propeller beanie and a buffalo nickel, then its a ‘stimulus’ ".
The largest understood context of a “stimulus” is that the money get spent, preferably on consumer goods. Your qualifications of the term are intriguing, but somewhat original, if not unique. At any rate, they were not central to our discussion until you insisted that they were. Nor will they be unless they are accepted.
Best of luck with that.
Obama’s giving the old folks $1.2 million each? Well, surely when 50 million people all try to buy retirement condos in Miami Beach it will do something to the economy.
Well, he did say “massively stupid”. I think he’s on pretty solid ground, there.
I was discussing Maces error that seniors are the wealthiest group and don’t need it. That is all.
But it would certainly be a stimulus. A lot more than huge bonuses for bankers is.
Those and any other normal purchases do drive the economy. Spending money on normal life things is what makes the economy work. Closing restaurants, shows, and small businesses are testament to that.
And when the government adopts that standard, it will be a good point. Right now it’s just a proposition. And I never said that seniors were the wealthiest group. You just made that up. Poor people need help. Using “seniors” as a proxy for “poor” is idiotic.
Once again, seniors ARE the wealthiest class in America. It’s not even close. And it makes perfect sense - on average, they retired at or near their peak earnings. They had a decade or two to build wealth after the children left home and the house was paid off. They tend to spend less money as they save for retirement. The peak age for wealth in the United States is 63 - only two years before being qualified for a $250 gift from the government.
Of course there are poor seniors. There are desperately poor seniors. But we are talking about a demographic group here, and not individuals.
As a group, seniors are probably least likely to spend the money they get. That makes them a poor candidate for a stimulus. As a group, they are the wealthiest Americans. Not only that, but they do not have dependents. That makes them a poor candidate for social assistance. It would have been far better in every way to either save this money, or give it to poor people and the unemployed - people who really need it and who have children to care for.
But seniors wield significant political power, and it’s growing each year. And they are a primary stumbling block in the Democrat’s attempt to pass health care reform. Hence the attempt to buy them off. That’s all this is, and everyone knows it.
They are the “primary stumbling block”? Really? As you might imagine, the liberal media isn’t giving much attention to this, they portray the biggest problem as the health insurance industry and their money. But you clearly have better sources, may we inquire what they are?
Agreed. It is pandering at its worst. I’m sure that Warren Buffett and Ross Perot need their $250 checks.
Seniors get Medicare as well as drug reimbursement from the government. They are the LAST demographic group that needs help in this economic crisis. The President of the United States is taking tax money from the working class who are struggling to survive to fund a giveaway to the most financially secure. The people struggling to survive are the same people paying the taxes to fund this.
No they aren’t, the money will be borrowed and then paid back by the general fund. The people paying will largely be future high-income earners.
I believe both men are still working, and so probably don’t receive SS benefits.
Also note that there was already a bipartisan bill in the Congress to permanently pass a SS increase to replace the COLA, which as I mentioned, would have a far larger negative effect on the future fiscal outlook then a onetime payment. If nothing else, the current law will probably halt any effort to pass a truly fiscally irresponsible permenant increase.
I asked you for a cite for this back on the first page. Seniors are in fact good candidates for the stimulus since they in fact spend the largest chunk (goes to a google spreadsheet) of their income as compared to any cohort except under 25s. Also I suspect they’ve internalized the fact that they get a COLA increase every year (since that’s been the case since 1975), and so adjust their spending accordingly, even if their cost of living hasn’t actually increased. Finally, their cost of living has, at least arguably, increased, since they spend a larger fraction of their income on medical expenses (same cite as above) then any other cohort, and those expenses have increased.
I do not know this, and in fact don’t think it is true.
This cite supports that of gonzomax. Senior credit card debt has increased 26% since 2005, the second highest of any age bracket.
Another problem is that those living on investment income have seen the value of their investments plummet, thanks to the move from defined benefits. I haven’t found a cite for that, but I think it is pretty obvious.
You don’t understand your own cite. What it said is that the majority of debt for a senior citizen is medical. It is not a comment on the debt ratios of seniors compared to everyone else. Taking a temporary hit on an investment portfolio is a far cry from losing a job and house.
We are in a deficit economy and the money given away has no tax to back it up. It is future debt. This is deliberate mismanagement on the part of the President and hopefully Congress spikes it before it sees the light of day.
I think the level of credit card debt devoted to medical expenses shows that the existence of Medicare has not eliminated the problem of health bills. Lots of things aren’t covered, such as home nursing care.
I agree that there are plenty of people in need, which is why it is important to increase unemployment benefits. Not that seniors are immune from this:
Link
It is lower than the national rate because of the many people who would like to work and drop out. How many of these people are not getting the investment income expected when they retired or planned to retire. I’ve seen some information that says one of the problems with employment are the number of seniors staying in their jobs longer than expected because of the value of their retirement accounts.
I’m not saying that a couple of hundred bucks is going to fix all these problems. But stimulus like this will help. Do you think cutting back on deficit spending is going to do anything to cut the unemployment rate?
It said that seniors suddenly have the 2nd highest credit card debt of the 4 age groups they looked at (they used to be the lowest), and most of that increase was for medical expenses. I didn’t see that it addressed overall debt, which is a much better metric to be looking at. And, at any rate, the variation among the different age groups wrt credit card debt isn’t all that much.
It does seem like a blatant way to curry favor with seniors. IIRC, Obama didn’t do too well with that group. Whether this is about health care reform, as **Sam **seems to think, is hard to say. That is the hot topic these days, but who knows what these politicians are thinking.