English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There seems to be something wrong with how the federal government calculates the cost of living increases to give to the elderly in their Social Security checks.

The price for fuel oil has shot up to over $3.00 per gallon. Yet, Social Security checks hardly go up at all.

How can the elderly be expected to survive while energy prices go up so much?

2007-11-07 00:49:48 · 9 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government Politics

My point is that it seems as if heating oil carries far too little weight over time in the formula for cost-of-living increases.

2007-11-07 01:02:48 · update #1

9 answers

If we, as Americans, gave a damn you wouldn't have to ask that question.

Guess we don't expect them to survive. After all this is America - where everyone has choices. If they had made better choices when they were young they would be able to afford the increase.

Why should the money I earn be taxed so some lazy old bat who probably chose to stay home instead of working and saving can have heat?

For conservatives pro-life ends at delivery.

2007-11-07 01:00:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

It is absolutely amazing how little the American public of today knows the history of its own political development.
COLA (cost of living allowance) was costing the the federal budget big problems in the late 1970s and into the 1980s. Try as hard as they could, the government couldn't get inflation under control. This 15 year period of inflation was caused by a huge deficit created in the 1960s. A time the the government took on 3 large expenditures, the Vietnam war, the space race, and a new welfare program.
Anyway, to solve the SS COLA problem, the government in the 1980s changed the way it calculated the inflation rate. It no longer counted the increase in the cost of energy, food, medical expenses or prescription drugs. More weight was placed on items that historically drop in price from year to year like TVs, stereos, computers, and other electronics. This gave the appearance that inflation eased up. It also dropped the COLA increases in SS.
Today, the government's quoted % of the inflation rate presents no picture whatsoever of real inflation. Inflation is the devaluation of the dollar. During the last 7 years, the dollar has devalued by about 65%. That is the largest inflation rate in the history of this country, and it is going completely unnoticed by the public.
I guess it's a good thing to keep the general public ignorant.

2007-11-07 01:23:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

If the federal government stopped paying outrageous pensions to senators, congressmen and presidents; if the federal government stopped subsidizing housing, farmers and corporations; if the federal government stopped footing the bill for willful laziness among working-age people; if the federal government banished the IRS tax code in favor of a national sales tax ... there'd be more than enough money to provide cost of living increases for social security.

"Elderly people" aren't typically making a commute and the impact of $3.00+ gasoline doesn't affect them like it would someone that drives to work, totes the kids to and fro and doesn't mind driving across town to pick up their new i-pod.

There's nothing wrong with the way the federal government calculates the COL increases - there's just something wrong with the federal government, period. The level of waste and misappropriation of funds is staggering.

For a nation born of a tax revolt, I find it astonishing people do not demand revision or abolition of the IRS in favor of a less bureaucratic and more transparent method of taxation.

Sadly, in a country where politicians are elected based on their positions regarding individual emotional issues and not on their business acumen, it will continue.

2007-11-07 01:21:25 · answer #3 · answered by pepper 7 · 0 0

Because todays elderly worked so hard years ago to have what they do ,its not easy to get them to apply for help with their winter heating bills .
So many will freeze to death this winter to proud to ask for help .

I can think of no better way for a true patriot to leave this world Independent self sufficient to the end and never once asking for a hand out .
These people will have paid their insurance up to date all their financial affairs and wills are in order and they have planned their funerals purchasing the plot the casket and the flowers .

They have prepared properly and never relied on anyone else .

You should be so lucky to have lived such a life . Now since you know that fuel costs are only going to get much more expensive if I were you I would get to work so some day you do not freeze to death leaving behind un-payed bills and a mess for others to clean up . .

2007-11-07 01:15:20 · answer #4 · answered by TroubleMaker 5 · 0 0

That's what happens when the government controls anything. When social security was conceived there were 13 people paying in to it for every person drawing from it. Now it it almost 1 to 1. The money is not there because there is no way to plan that far ahead.
This is a snapshot of what will happen if we ever get socialized health care.
Sooner or later we will learn that nothing is "free".

2007-11-07 01:01:57 · answer #5 · answered by Early Cuyler 2 · 0 0

Phil Indyblanc has the basics of the problem pretty well nailed down. The COLA's are no where indicative of actual inflation rates for the commodities that most seniors are dependent upon to live. No one, no matter how well they've planned, can win against this governments policies towards SS recipients when the deck is stacked against us. The only ones that need not worry are those that were already wealthy when they retired. How many of us can claim that. All I ask for is a fair chance to stay even.

2007-11-07 06:37:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Those damn Liberals who refuse to correct any problems with Social Security. There ought to be a law the the retirement of Senators and Congressmen be handled by Social Security. They are the stewards of the fund with no personal incentive tied to it. Maybe they should not be the stewards of the fund, pay back the money they borrowed and let personal accounts be the norm.

2007-11-07 00:57:48 · answer #7 · answered by ken 6 · 1 1

The federal government is NOT there to take care of you all of your life. You are expected to be able to plan ahead and make preparations for your own future. That's part of living in a free society.

Social Security checks are not intended to be the only means of support for people in their retirement. They are supposed to save for their retirement on their own. That means planning ahead and not buying that big boat, or 4 jet-skis, or taking 3 big hunting trips every winter.

I know that doesn't help much for the people that never did plan, and I don't mean to sound cruel to them. This is a warning to the people that are still working - start saving, because it's only going to get more and more expensive.

2007-11-07 00:56:54 · answer #8 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 1 2

Social security is tied to the inflation rate. This years increase was tied to last years inflation. The gas prices didn't rise until this year. That will show in next years SS increase.

2007-11-07 00:54:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers