Received my copy of the AARP Bulletin today. On page 40, "Florida" there is a statement that "For only the Third time in 40 years, retirees did not receive a cost-of- living adjustment for 2016." I want to note , that those three years were all under the current administration (Obama and his cronies) a fact which seems to be intentionally unmentioned in the article. That is no surprise since the AARP, the great protector of we seniors, supported his presidency.

I am of the opinion, that the article purposely obfuscates the fact that the administration has neglected and continuously neglects the plight of the senior citizens who look upon Social Security as a means for survival. It seemingly is more important to BHO to secure his "legacy" than see to it that our seniors are able to face the mounting cost of day to day living.

I am disappointed, but not shocked, by the lack of candor by AARP and will not renew my membership.

Yep, and AARP endorsed Obama's health care program. One of the reasons I will NEVER join them. They sold out.

Originally Posted by Guest

Received my copy of the AARP Bulletin today. On page 40, "Florida" there is a statement that "For only the Third time in 40 years, retirees did not receive a cost-of- living adjustment for 2016." I want to note , that those three years were all under the current administration (Obama and his cronies) a fact which seems to be intentionally unmentioned in the article. That is no surprise since the AARP, the great protector of we seniors, supported his presidency.

I am of the opinion, that the article purposely obfuscates the fact that the administration has neglected and continuously neglects the plight of the senior citizens who look upon Social Security as a means for survival. It seemingly is more important to BHO to secure his "legacy" than see to it that our seniors are able to face the mounting cost of day to day living.

I am disappointed, but not shocked, by the lack of candor by AARP and will not renew my membership.

"The CPI-W is determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor. By law, it is the official measure used by the Social Security Administration to calculate COLAs". Please do a little research before you post biased comments.

The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. obama is a bum and AARP is crooked.

Originally Posted by Guest

The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. obama is a bum and AARP is crooked.

Originally Posted by Guest

"The CPI-W is determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor. By law, it is the official measure used by the Social Security Administration to calculate COLAs". Please do a little research before you post biased comments.

and by law the IRS wasn't supposed to target political groups and obama(by his own admission)wasn't allowed to use executive action.

So why on earth would we believe anything any gov't agency states??????Especially during this administration.

Perhaps it is you who should research before claiming things aren't what they seem.

Originally Posted by Guest

Received my copy of the AARP Bulletin today. On page 40, "Florida" there is a statement that "For only the Third time in 40 years, retirees did not receive a cost-of- living adjustment for 2016." I want to note , that those three years were all under the current administration (Obama and his cronies) a fact which seems to be intentionally unmentioned in the article. That is no surprise since the AARP, the great protector of we seniors, supported his presidency.

I am of the opinion, that the article purposely obfuscates the fact that the administration has neglected and continuously neglects the plight of the senior citizens who look upon Social Security as a means for survival. It seemingly is more important to BHO to secure his "legacy" than see to it that our seniors are able to face the mounting cost of day to day living.

I am disappointed, but not shocked, by the lack of candor by AARP and will not renew my membership.

We constantly hear about Obama having added 9 TRILLION to the national debt. We constantly hear China holds the bulk of our national dept. I've lost all faith in both our lying government and our LIBERAL PRO-OBAMA PRESS.
I was shocked to find that first of all Japan holds slightly more of our national debt then does china. The difference is slight-just a FEW BILLION. More important to us. Together Japan and China hold less than 20%. SOCIAL SECURITY OWNS 42% OF OUR NATIONAL DEBT.

Getting a COLA-YOU ARE PAYING OBAM'S DEBT. Does anyone but me wonder what OBAMA bought with 9 TRILLION DOLLARS? He has not built a national highway system, created national parks, built hoover dam. WHERE DID OUR 9 TRILLION DOLLARS GO?????????????????????????????????????

Then why did the Federal Government get a 1.3% cost of living raise?

Originally Posted by Guest

We constantly hear about Obama having added 9 TRILLION to the national debt. We constantly hear China holds the bulk of our national dept. I've lost all faith in both our lying government and our LIBERAL PRO-OBAMA PRESS.
I was shocked to find that first of all Japan holds slightly more of our national debt then does china. The difference is slight-just a FEW BILLION. More important to us. Together Japan and China hold less than 20%. SOCIAL SECURITY OWNS 42% OF OUR NATIONAL DEBT.

Getting a COLA-YOU ARE PAYING OBAM'S DEBT. Does anyone but me wonder what OBAMA bought with 9 TRILLION DOLLARS? He has not built a national highway system, created national parks, built hoover dam. WHERE DID OUR 9 TRILLION DOLLARS GO?????????????????????????????????????

It has always been so people want but they expect others to pay for it.

For most Americans Social Security is the largest tax you pay. For most people, though they may not know it, your employer pays for you, tax free to you the sme amount that you pay. I was self employed so while most others paid 6.5% I PAID 13% OF MY GROSS TO SOCIAL SECURITY. There is a point where you hit a certain income and the rest of your money is free of social security tax. An irony is that I hit that number TWICE and each time they raised the cap the following year.

As I said we all want but, want others to pay for it. The matching of your social security if you work for a company, the retirement contributions, if not for a defined benefit plan then to a 401k, 403B etc, the healthcare plan-if you paid part of it did you pay the 18,000 that it would have cost you?
Since, I did not get any of this, perhaps the government should tax this?
They are talking about taxing my savings or reducing my social security due to the fact that I knew I would be older tomorrow than today and I knew that I had little job (employment) security.

It's been this way since 1975.



What is a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)?

The purpose of the COLA is to ensure that the purchasing power of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits is not eroded by inflation. It is based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of the last year a COLA was determined to the third quarter of the current year. If there is no increase, there can be no COLA.

Originally Posted by Guest

It's been this way since 1975.



What is a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)?

The purpose of the COLA is to ensure that the purchasing power of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits is not eroded by inflation. It is based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of the last year a COLA was determined to the third quarter of the current year. If there is no increase, there can be no COLA.

Yes, COLA. There was a debate about how they measured it last year. There had been several ideas exchanged as to how they thought it might be modified or changed to be more in line with the economy. The price of food had gone up but the price of gasoline had gone down. I guess they never did come to a consensus on any change.

Some things really confuse me. Conservatives continuously complained about inflation, so under Obama inflation has been so low that in 3 of his years there was no increase in the CPI-w. Prior to 1975 there was no increase in SSec benefits unless congress each year passed an increase. In 1972 GOP Nixon's proposal to stop the yearly game of passing increases was made into law with bipartisan support.

"The uncertainty of adjustment under present laws and the delay often encountered when the needs are already apparent is unnecessarily harsh to those who must depend on Social Security benefits to live.

Benefits that automatically increase with rising living costs can be funded without increasing Social Security tax rates so long as the amount of earnings subject to tax reflects the rising level of wages. Therefore, I propose that the wage base be automatically adjusted so that it corresponds to increases in earnings levels." Legislative history is here:
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v36n3/v36n3p3.pdf

In the previous two cases where no COLA increase was given by the law, there was proposed legislation to give a bonus payment to seniors. And GOP votes killed that increase. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/329...y#.VpKsdstIg5s

And this time there is a bill introduced by Sen. Warren D-Massachusetts to give an increase equal to the average increase of CEO's. So one party is trying to protect seniors from the use of the CPI-W and one is not. One party is responsible for no increase in your SSec in 2016, and one is working unsuccessfully to lessen the impact of the lack of a COLA.

Originally Posted by Guest

Some things really confuse me. Conservatives continuously complained about inflation, so under Obama inflation has been so low that in 3 of his years there was no increase in the CPI-w. Prior to 1975 there was no increase in SSec benefits unless congress each year passed an increase. In 1972 GOP Nixon's proposal to stop the yearly game of passing increases was made into law with bipartisan support.

"The uncertainty of adjustment under present laws and the delay often encountered when the needs are already apparent is unnecessarily harsh to those who must depend on Social Security benefits to live.

Benefits that automatically increase with rising living costs can be funded without increasing Social Security tax rates so long as the amount of earnings subject to tax reflects the rising level of wages. Therefore, I propose that the wage base be automatically adjusted so that it corresponds to increases in earnings levels." Legislative history is here:
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v36n3/v36n3p3.pdf

In the previous two cases where no COLA increase was given by the law, there was proposed legislation to give a bonus payment to seniors. And GOP votes killed that increase. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/329...y#.VpKsdstIg5s

And this time there is a bill introduced by Sen. Warren D-Massachusetts to give an increase equal to the average increase of CEO's. So one party is trying to protect seniors from the use of the CPI-W and one is not. One party is responsible for no increase in your SSec in 2016, and one is working unsuccessfully to lessen the impact of the lack of a COLA.

It's much easier for some people to try to blame President Obama or the Demcrats for things instead of facing facts. I am just astounded that someone would actually try to say it's Obama's fault he didn't get a social security raise. As though he controls that.

I guess I will have to go on one less cruise this year - 3 instead of 4.

And maybe drink Yeungling at Cody's instead of Stella.

Originally Posted by Guest

and by law the IRS wasn't supposed to target political groups and obama(by his own admission)wasn't allowed to use executive action.

So why on earth would we believe anything any gov't agency states??????Especially during this administration.

Perhaps it is you who should research before claiming things aren't what they seem.

I believe this was about social security and cola. Take your hate elsewhere.