Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stimulus jobs: Is the recovery act working?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BigPat
    replied
    Originally posted by kcso View Post
    It looks like Social Security has slowed to a drip.

    Social Security makes it official: No COLA in 2010

    WASHINGTON – There will be no cost-of-living increase for more than 50 million Social Security recipients next year, the first year without a raise since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.

    Blame falling consumer prices. By law, cost-of-living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which is negative this year because of lower energy costs. Social Security payments, however, do not go down even when prices drop.

    The Obama administration, meanwhile, is pursuing a different way to boost recipients' income. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama called for a second round of $250 stimulus payments for seniors, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities.

    The payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the government's economic recovery package. The payments would be equal to about a 2 percent increase for the average Social Security recipient.

    The White House put the cost of the payments at $13 billion. Obama didn't say how the payments should be financed, leaving that up to Congress. The president is open to borrowing the money, which would increase the federal budget deficit, just like Congress did with the first round of stimulus payments.

    Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest bump up since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.
    The lack of a COLA has absolutely nothing to do with SOcial Security or the Government being out of money. The reason is pretty clearly spelled out in teh article that you cited.

    Leave a comment:


  • Driven
    replied
    Originally posted by FredFlash View Post
    I never discuss economics with anyone who doesn't have at least a Bachelors degree in the field.
    Thank you for informing us mindless idiots of your superior intelligence. We are humble to have someone of such superior intellect in our midst.

    Leave a comment:


  • jcioccke
    replied
    I never discuss economics with anyone who doesn't have at least a Bachelors degree in the field.
    Nice of you to dummy down to a Bachelors Degree. I would assume you would only speak to individuals with a Masters Degree or PHD.

    Leave a comment:


  • jcioccke
    replied
    Not working. Not even close. But since there is no way to officially track the "would have been" numbers, Obama can make it sound like it saved all sorts of things. Smoke and mirrors. At least he has a promising job after the presidency.... that is if he doesn't become our perpetual president.


    Jasper you are correct. Dems don't know how to make jobs, they never have. But they do know how to spend our money like there's no tomorrow. They sure know how to raise our taxes and it appears they are all on board and ready to take control of and ruin our health care system.
    +1

    The only part I would correct would be;
    They are spending Our Granchildrens money at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • kc12
    replied
    Originally posted by FredFlash View Post
    I never discuss economics with anyone who doesn't have at least a Bachelors degree in the field.
    Good. The last thing we need is more lawyers (or wanna-be lawyers) trying to discuss economics, the law, doctors, energy needs, or anything else for that matter.



    What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?











    A slow start.
    Last edited by kc12; 10-16-2009, 06:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FredFlash
    replied
    I never discuss economics with anyone who doesn't have at least a Bachelors degree in the field.

    Leave a comment:


  • Driven
    replied
    Not working. Not even close. But since there is no way to officially track the "would have been" numbers, Obama can make it sound like it saved all sorts of things. Smoke and mirrors. At least he has a promising job after the presidency.... that is if he doesn't become our perpetual president.


    Jasper you are correct. Dems don't know how to make jobs, they never have. But they do know how to spend our money like there's no tomorrow. They sure know how to raise our taxes and it appears they are all on board and ready to take control of and ruin our health care system.

    Leave a comment:


  • JasperST
    replied
    Liberals don't know how to create jobs. All they know how to do is take from one and give to another.

    Leave a comment:


  • dadyswat
    replied
    Hey, in my position in IT I saved 500 jobs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rifleguy
    replied
    The stimulus helps out ONLY if your the government and refuse to do what Americans have had to do since the government got us into this recession.

    Leave a comment:


  • dadyswat
    replied
    Hopey changey isn't working here in Ohio.

    Leave a comment:


  • kcso
    replied
    Originally posted by Southflaguy View Post
    Seems like the stimulus just stop the bleeding, what would happen once the money dries up?...
    It looks like Social Security has slowed to a drip.

    Social Security makes it official: No COLA in 2010

    WASHINGTON – There will be no cost-of-living increase for more than 50 million Social Security recipients next year, the first year without a raise since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.

    Blame falling consumer prices. By law, cost-of-living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which is negative this year because of lower energy costs. Social Security payments, however, do not go down even when prices drop.

    The Obama administration, meanwhile, is pursuing a different way to boost recipients' income. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama called for a second round of $250 stimulus payments for seniors, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities.

    The payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the government's economic recovery package. The payments would be equal to about a 2 percent increase for the average Social Security recipient.

    The White House put the cost of the payments at $13 billion. Obama didn't say how the payments should be financed, leaving that up to Congress. The president is open to borrowing the money, which would increase the federal budget deficit, just like Congress did with the first round of stimulus payments.

    Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest bump up since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.

    Leave a comment:


  • ray8285
    replied
    Originally posted by jcioccke View Post
    +1

    Unemployment will not correctly factor the individuals who have maxed out unemployment vs the individuals that are back to work. This can be a very misleading statistic, in regards to job, etc.
    Exaclty, the more realistic figure is supposed to be around 16%

    Leave a comment:


  • jcioccke
    replied
    The article is useless. Nobody can figure out how many jobs were saved. There is no tracking system for how many jobs were going to be lost and there is no tracking system for how many jobs were saved. Think about it, the only way the government can track how many people have lost their jobs is from the number of people who have filed for unemployment and that is an unreliable method to say the least. It is a political trick started by Obama that seems to have a lot of people happy.
    +1

    Unemployment will not correctly factor the individuals who have maxed out unemployment vs the individuals that are back to work. This can be a very misleading statistic, in regards to job, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • kc12
    replied
    The article is useless. Nobody can figure out how many jobs were saved. There is no tracking system for how many jobs were going to be lost and there is no tracking system for how many jobs were saved. Think about it, the only way the government can track how many people have lost their jobs is from the number of people who have filed for unemployment and that is an unreliable method to say the least. It is a political trick started by Obama that seems to have a lot of people happy.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 6234 users online. 351 members and 5883 guests.

Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X