Ursa Majoris Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 No rise for seniors Not the least of the good stuff in this decision is the defeat of that ridiculous band of old farts, the AARP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) Yea screw the ones that need it the most. I am sure acorn and the likes all get theirs tho. seniors ,vets and disabilities dont need to eat. heck most of these guys dont even vote Edited March 5, 2010 by moneymakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 Yea screw the ones that need it the most. I am sure acorn and the likes all get theirs tho. seniors ,vets and disabilities dont need to eat. heck most of these guys dont even vote You're not worth the wear on my fingertips but if you read the article - if you can read at all - you would see that with inflation at 0%, an index-linked system should have no increase because there has been no increase. This decision is exactly right, negating a government giveaway that you and your ilk would usually call welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 You're not worth the wear on my fingertips but if you read the article - if you can read at all - you would see that with inflation at 0%, an index-linked system should have no increase because there has been no increase. This decision is exactly right, negating a government giveaway that you and your ilk would usually call welfare. Dont feed the trolls . . . But you are exactly right . . and it was a very correct move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 This decision is exactly right, negating a government giveaway that you and your ilk would usually call welfare. Yes it was a good decision, and it's a good thing that at least 10 of your ilk agreed. "At least 10 Democrats agreed with Gregg and joined 40 Republicans to defeat the proposal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 Yes it was a good decision, and it's a good thing that at least 10 of your ilk agreed. "At least 10 Democrats agreed with Gregg and joined 40 Republicans to defeat the proposal." So remember that support two of us have shown for your side. We'll be along one day to ask where your bipartisanship is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 So remember that support two of us have shown for your side. We'll be along one day to ask where your bipartisanship is. I'm all for good policy, don't really care who comes up with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I'm all for good policy, don't really care who comes up with it. Riiiiiiiiiight . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Riiiiiiiiiight . . . . You just can't help yourself can you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 You just can't help yourself can you With a set up like that? C'mon now . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 it's a good thing that at least 10 of your ilk agreed. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 They got over 5% last year due to the gasoline spike. Can't have it both ways. Inflation has actually been negative, slightly, and the law says payments can never go down. And they are on Medicare anyway. And what's wrong with dog food anyway? :woof: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 They got over 5% last year due to the gasoline spike. Can't have it both ways. Inflation has actually been negative, slightly, and the law says payments can never go down. And they are on Medicare anyway. And what's wrong with dog food anyway? :woof: agreed. although I would go with cat food. Bring on the death panels so we don't have to even worry about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Dont feed the trolls . . . But you are exactly right . . and it was a very correct move. Says the guy who blasted Bunning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I have to admit, Bunning was the first thing I thought of with this. The measure being defeated, though, is a very good thing. Especially since seniors are the SINGLE WEALTHIEST DEMOGRAPHIC IN THIS COUNTRY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 It's a great start, now if we can just see that same common sense being used on all the legislation currently being discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 In a thread that has since been deleted, I argued that this was payment was pure pandering to the oldies. I'm glad it has been defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 Says the guy who blasted Bunning. If you think those two things are the same, I'd really like to know how to connect those dots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 If you think those two things are the same, I'd really like to know how to connect those dots. Both are/were unfunded spending bills If you believe what Obama is saying congress should find away to fund everything they do. That is one of the very few things I agree with Obama on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Says the guy who blasted Bunning. Are you kidding me? Those payments were directly tied to consumer prices . . which FELL. Unemploymnet hurts people that are not necessarily retired, have families to support and a brutal job market. I will continue to blast Bunning for his choice to bills to make an "example" of. I AGREED with his position, but disagreed with his choice of bills. Y'might want to read what I have repeatedly stated . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 5, 2010 Author Share Posted March 5, 2010 Both are/were unfunded spending bills If you believe what Obama is saying congress should find away to fund everything they do. That is one of the very few things I agree with Obama on. The Bunning thing is indeed unfunded but IMO he's picked the wrong place to fight the right battle. The payments themselves are justified, I think we can all agree. The SS payment flat out would have been a giveaway without any justification. SS is index linked and the index for 2009 was zero, therefore there should be no increase. Obama wanted to give away $250 per head to every SS recipient to make up for inflation being at zero, which is just ridiculous regardless of the fact that I support him. In 2009, SS increased sharply due to the 2008 gas spike and seniors can't have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 So remember that support two of us have shown for your side. We'll be along one day to ask where your bipartisanship is. bipartisanship is great when its for the right things. this was the right thing to do. if you want blank bipartisanship for something, thats nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 The Bunning thing is indeed unfunded but IMO he's picked the wrong place to fight the right battle. The payments themselves are justified, I think we can all agree. The SS payment flat out would have been a giveaway without any justification. SS is index linked and the index for 2009 was zero, therefore there should be no increase. Obama wanted to give away $250 per head to every SS recipient to make up for inflation being at zero, which is just ridiculous regardless of the fact that I support him. In 2009, SS increased sharply due to the 2008 gas spike and seniors can't have it both ways. I disagree, I don't think there is a wrong place for the right battle. Either it is the right battle or it isn't. You can't just make rules and then selectively apply them. Well I guess you can, but look where that has gotten us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.