Right Wing Dog

The FIGHT for The RIGHT!

Obama say he will take care of you but Instead he takes from you!

Here is a copy, word for word, of what the Administration of Barack Hussein Obama has done to Seniors on Social Security. Prices will go up but Social security will not. Is this an example of his tax cuts? Seems more like an example of how he uses fancy words and promises to convince people he will take care of them and then turns around and takes from them instead.

If you meet Barack Hussein Obama it may be prudent to keep your hands in your pocket and not shake hands with him. He may steal your fingers!

Zero Social Security COLA Increase Until 2013
Congressional Budget Office Issues Unprecedented Projection
For No COLA Increases From 2010 – 2012

April 6, 2009 (Washington, DC) – The 37 million Americans aged 65 and over who receive a Social Security check each month are forecast to receive no increase in their Social Security checks until 2013.

Seniors have never failed to receive an annual increase of less than 1.3 percent since automatic Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) went into effect in 1975, and have never received less than 5.9 percent over a three-year period.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued the forecast in its March 2009 publication, A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update of CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook.

The analysis reads, “No COLAs are currently projected for [Social Security] from 2010 through 2012; the COLA would amount to less than 2 percent in all future years.”

“If a nation can be judged on how well it treats its most vulnerable citizens, I’m afraid we’re slipping badly behind,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League. “Too many of us seniors are being forced to choose between prescription drugs, nutritious food, and heat during winter, and we must do a better job of protecting the nation’s elderly.”

A recently released survey returned by 808 members of The Senior Citizens League found that while 56 percent of respondents said their costs increased more than $119 per month last year, just one percent said they received a COLA of $119 or more this year.

Supporters of a zero COLA increase will likely argue that a zero COLA during deflationary times is fair. However, they do not mention that the way the COLA is calculated fails to accurately track senior costs, since it is based on the spending habits of young, urban workers. As a result, senior costs may go up during periods of deflation, reducing their buying power even further.

The Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers, or CPI-E, more accurately reflects senior costs. By tying the annual increase in the COLA to the CPI-E instead of the CPI-W, or Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, seniors would see much needed relief in their monthly checks during most years.

For example, a senior who retired with a benefit of $460 in 1984 would have received almost $12,014 more over the past 26 years with the CPI-E.



April 16, 2009 - Posted by | Blogroll, Change, Democrat, Liberal Democrat, NOBAMA, Obama, Political, POLITICS, President, Social Security


  1. Fascinating! BUT…what did Obama have to do with this? Isn’t this just the application of the law that’s been in place for decades?

    Comment by Fred | May 5, 2009 | Reply

  2. Let’s try and figure it out using the following :

    This is the first time in 30 years that those who receive Social Security will not see an increase in benefits via a cost of living adjustment.

    This is the first time (thank the Lord) that Barack Hussein Obama has been President.

    Barack Hussein Obama campaigned on change and one of the changes was that he would make the program work in the black.

    I fear that BHO has more changes in mind and the will not be to the benefit of the seniors in our country, many who are already overburdened with taxes and medical costs.

    Prices go up and will rise more if Obama has his way but he cuts the seniors only source of income. They did not spend the dollars they contributed to Social Security. the nitwits in Congress and the White House did.

    I think that sums it up fairly well.



    Comment by rightwingdog | May 6, 2009 | Reply

    • Do I believe RWD or the Washington Times?

      Well, I happen to know the truth on this one, and the Washington Times has it right when they say it’s long-standing law (not Obama) that determines whether social security benefits are increased.

      You can read it yourself at the following URL: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/20/causey-living-adjustment-not-sure-in-2010/print/. However, if you don’t want to go to that trouble, I’ve put a little of it below.

      You can have your opinions, but I had hoped you had the facts right, at least. You didn’t, but I guess you’re having fun ranting, anyway.

      Here’s part of the Times article:

      Retiree cost-of-living adjustments by law are based on the rise in the Labor Department’s CPI from the third quarter of this year (comprising the months of July, August and September) over the same time period in the previous year.

      Living costs actually declined last October, November and December. And they rose only slightly in January, February and March. That means that halfway through the cost of living countdown, the CPI that triggers raises is lower than it was this time last year.

      If that trend — either deflation or modest inflation — continues, experts say it is very possible that federal/military/Social Security retirees will not get any inflation adjustment in January.

      Comment by Fred | May 8, 2009 | Reply

      • Fred:

        Looks like you got me on a technicality! I admit that I was incorrect regarding the way COLA’s are figured.

        However, I do not understand how they come up with “No COLAs are currently projected for [Social Security] from 2010 through 2012; the COLA would amount to less than 2 percent in all future years”! 2010 I can see using the information you provided BUT what about 2011 and 2012?

        If Congress passed a law in 1975 to cover this I can hardly blame Barack Hussein Obama as he was only about 13 years old then.
        However, if he (BHO) can give OUR money away like a drunken sailor to organizations like ACORN ($8.5 Billion or at least a share of that amount) he could certainly do something for the seniors. Instead he has been talking about taking away from Medicare and re-doing Social Security, whatever that means.

        It is apparent that Barack Hussein Obama is nothing but a “TAX and SPEND LIBERAL”.

        Thanks Again for the post and the correction!

        Comment by RightWingDog | May 8, 2009

  3. Funny how so many of Obama’s voters were so vocal before the election and now are quiet.

    Comment by midg | May 6, 2009 | Reply

  4. Funny is a way but actually tragic that they have a problem vocalizing their mistake as well as they did laud Barack Hussein Obama prior to the election. IMHO, many people were taken in by his smooth talking and big smile and they did not look further not realizing that he was an empty suit!

    Thanx for the comment


    Comment by RightWingDog | May 6, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: