COLA for social security

We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.

Don't spend it all in one place :-)))

Carole

"Carole" <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net...
> We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.
>
> Don't spend it all in one place :-)))
>
> Carole

I find it unbelievable that 2.3% bears any relation at all to the increase
in the cost of living in the last couple of years.

Just gasoline and the price of anything else that includes cost of
transportation seems to have gone up at least 20%.

Jo

can't pay out more than comes in - and taxpayers strongly resist an
increase in the s.s. deduction...what to do? there isn't any 'them',
just us!

jofirey wrote:
>
> "Carole" <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net...
> > We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.
> >
> > Don't spend it all in one place :-)))
> >
> > Carole
>
> I find it unbelievable that 2.3% bears any relation at all to the increase
> in the cost of living in the last couple of years.
>
> Just gasoline and the price of anything else that includes cost of
> transportation seems to have gone up at least 20%.
>
> Jo

Yep, SS benefits increase by 2.3% while Medicare deduction goes to
$96.40 or a whopping 3.1% more than this year. If we factor in the
rising supplemental health care premiums plus the rising Plan D
premiums, that 2.3% is a joke.
My opinion only.

Ann

jofirey wrote:

> I find it unbelievable that 2.3% bears any relation at all to the increase
> in the cost of living in the last couple of years.
>
> Just gasoline and the price of anything else that includes cost of
> transportation seems to have gone up at least 20%.
>
> Jo

I know, Jo. The increase I will get won't even cover the extra for gas,
and I've cut down a LOT on my driving. I only go out now when I have to.

Carole

this will also apply to social security widow's benefits too, for those of
us who are old enough to get widow's benefits. (i'm still a bit young, yet.
you have to be 60.)

kate


"Carole" <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net...
We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.

Don't spend it all in one place :-)))

Carole

By the time all the "takeouts" have been taken out, I expect soon to get a
bill from them for what I owe SocSec!
Gwen

"d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
news:kfSdnbYEb4s0lNPanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> this will also apply to social security widow's benefits too, for those of
> us who are old enough to get widow's benefits. (i'm still a bit young,
> yet.
> you have to be 60.)
>
> kate
>
>
> "Carole" <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net...
> We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.
>
> Don't spend it all in one place :-)))
>
> Carole
>
>

<sweetpickleNO@SPAMknology.net> wrote in message
news:eb783$474e0b64$45491df5$10741@KNOLOGY.NET...
By the time all the "takeouts" have been taken out, I expect soon to get a
bill from them for what I owe SocSec!
Gwen

i hear that, sweetie. you mean "takeouts" for medicare and the drug
benefits, i'm assuming. i remember when i was on on ssdi in the early
1970s. the $167 a month ssdi benefits sure didn't go far back then, either.
my grandmother received even less than that, for her ss retirement benefits,
something like $59, and she was in her 80s.

i only mentioned the widow's benefits, because most people don't know about
them. usually, people only know about the death benefit of a one time check
for $250.

kate

"d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
news:kfSdnbYEb4s0lNPanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> this will also apply to social security widow's benefits too, for those of
> us who are old enough to get widow's benefits. (i'm still a bit young,
> yet.
> you have to be 60.)
>
> kate
>
>
> "Carole" <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net...
> We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.
>
> Don't spend it all in one place :-)))
>
> Carole
>
>

What to do? Make the government put back the money they spent in other
places!

"Paul T. Holland" <pholland@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:474CBFC4.73F1393B@bellatlantic.net...
> can't pay out more than comes in - and taxpayers strongly resist an
> increase in the s.s. deduction...what to do? there isn't any 'them',
> just us!
>
> jofirey wrote:
>>
>> "Carole" <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> > We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.
>> >
>> > Don't spend it all in one place :-)))
>> >
>> > Carole
>>
>> I find it unbelievable that 2.3% bears any relation at all to the
>> increase
>> in the cost of living in the last couple of years.
>>
>> Just gasoline and the price of anything else that includes cost of
>> transportation seems to have gone up at least 20%.
>>
>> Jo

"Paul T. Holland" <pholland@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:474CBFC4.73F1393B@bellatlantic.net...
> can't pay out more than comes in - and taxpayers strongly resist an
> increase in the s.s. deduction...what to do? there isn't any 'them',
> just us!
>

"they" have been paying out more than comes in pretty much forever.

I'm pretty sure that is the whole basis of government funding.

Jo

"Judy Bay" <jbay2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ICo3j.3903$so3.1370@newsfe18.lga...
> What to do? Make the government put back the money they spent in other
> places!

Pretty soon this conversation gets into politics,,,, in other words peoples
opinion of what has taken place or whose fault something is. It can not
remain in the world of facts and what actually takes place or has taken
place.
I, for one, get a little upset when people knowingly say or do things to
slant the truth. :-) You have just made LBJ turn over in his grave
with your question. Tooo much truth does that ya know.
How about lets change the subject??? Arthritis support is a good
subject.

Harv

And I was surprised to learn, Kate, that only the first to die rates that
$250. Doesn't matter if the other one has any money at all!



"d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
news:ELSdnZp618wTjtPanZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> <sweetpickleNO@SPAMknology.net> wrote in message
> news:eb783$474e0b64$45491df5$10741@KNOLOGY.NET...
> By the time all the "takeouts" have been taken out, I expect soon to get a
> bill from them for what I owe SocSec!
> Gwen
>
> i hear that, sweetie. you mean "takeouts" for medicare and the drug
> benefits, i'm assuming. i remember when i was on on ssdi in the early
> 1970s. the $167 a month ssdi benefits sure didn't go far back then,
> either.
> my grandmother received even less than that, for her ss retirement
> benefits,
> something like $59, and she was in her 80s.
>
> i only mentioned the widow's benefits, because most people don't know
> about
> them. usually, people only know about the death benefit of a one time
> check
> for $250.
>
> kate
>
> "d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
> news:kfSdnbYEb4s0lNPanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> this will also apply to social security widow's benefits too, for those
>> of
>> us who are old enough to get widow's benefits. (i'm still a bit young,
>> yet.
>> you have to be 60.)
>>
>> kate
>>
>>
>> "Carole" <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.
>>
>> Don't spend it all in one place :-)))
>>
>> Carole
>>
>>
>
>
>

<sweetpickleNO@SPAMknology.net> wrote in message
news:669ad$474e27d2$45491df5$15734@KNOLOGY.NET...
And I was surprised to learn, Kate, that only the first to die rates that
$250. Doesn't matter if the other one has any money at all!

that's news to me, too!



"d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
news:ELSdnZp618wTjtPanZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> <sweetpickleNO@SPAMknology.net> wrote in message
> news:eb783$474e0b64$45491df5$10741@KNOLOGY.NET...
> By the time all the "takeouts" have been taken out, I expect soon to get a
> bill from them for what I owe SocSec!
> Gwen
>
> i hear that, sweetie. you mean "takeouts" for medicare and the drug
> benefits, i'm assuming. i remember when i was on on ssdi in the early
> 1970s. the $167 a month ssdi benefits sure didn't go far back then,
> either.
> my grandmother received even less than that, for her ss retirement
> benefits,
> something like $59, and she was in her 80s.
>
> i only mentioned the widow's benefits, because most people don't know
> about
> them. usually, people only know about the death benefit of a one time
> check
> for $250.
>
> kate
>
> "d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
> news:kfSdnbYEb4s0lNPanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> this will also apply to social security widow's benefits too, for those
>> of
>> us who are old enough to get widow's benefits. (i'm still a bit young,
>> yet.
>> you have to be 60.)
>>
>> kate
>>
>>
>> "Carole" <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.
>>
>> Don't spend it all in one place :-)))
>>
>> Carole
>>
>>
>
>
>

"Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:Ojp3j.27353$lD6.8422@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...

"Judy Bay" <jbay2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ICo3j.3903$so3.1370@newsfe18.lga...
> What to do? Make the government put back the money they spent in other
> places!

Pretty soon this conversation gets into politics,,,, in other words peoples
opinion of what has taken place or whose fault something is. It can not
remain in the world of facts and what actually takes place or has taken
place.
I, for one, get a little upset when people knowingly say or do things to
slant the truth. :-) You have just made LBJ turn over in his grave
with your question. Tooo much truth does that ya know.
How about lets change the subject??? Arthritis support is a good
subject.

Harv

it's not opinion, nor political opinion. it is the truth and an historical
fact that social security money has been used for other things, harv.
whether it was done by LBJ or any other administration (and it was done by
other administrations and other congresses, too.) judy didn't say anything
about just who, specifically, nor what political party nor which
administration nor which congress did it . . . but, you did. it doesn't
matter, in reality, who did it, but that it was done (and continues to be
done); and that kind of misdirection of those funds contributes/contributed
to the longterm social securtity problem at hand.

and btw, social security and social security disability benefits is very
much a topic of interest and need, especially to arthritics who depend upon
those benefits. political or not. if we hide our heads in the sand about
it, those benefits will eventually become non-existent.

kate

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:53:10 -0500, Carole wrote
(in message <5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net>):

> We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.
>
> Don't spend it all in one place :-)))
>
> Carole

trust me, it's higher than the COLA for Episcopal clergy, at last in our
diocese!

--
Nann
remove the Gator cheer to email me
Simply the thing I am shall make me live --- William Shakespeare

"d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
news:ZPWdnc3SZIw42dPanZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Ojp3j.27353$lD6.8422@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>
> "Judy Bay" <jbay2@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ICo3j.3903$so3.1370@newsfe18.lga...
>> What to do? Make the government put back the money they spent in other
>> places!
>
> Pretty soon this conversation gets into politics,,,, in other words
> peoples
> opinion of what has taken place or whose fault something is. It can not
> remain in the world of facts and what actually takes place or has taken
> place.
> I, for one, get a little upset when people knowingly say or do things to
> slant the truth. :-) You have just made LBJ turn over in his grave
> with your question. Tooo much truth does that ya know.
> How about lets change the subject??? Arthritis support is a good
> subject.
>
> Harv
>
> it's not opinion, nor political opinion. it is the truth and an
> historical
> fact that social security money has been used for other things, harv.
> whether it was done by LBJ or any other administration (and it was done by
> other administrations and other congresses, too.) judy didn't say
> anything
> about just who, specifically, nor what political party nor which
> administration nor which congress did it . . . but, you did. it doesn't
> matter, in reality, who did it, but that it was done (and continues to be
> done); and that kind of misdirection of those funds
> contributes/contributed
> to the longterm social securtity problem at hand.
>
> and btw, social security and social security disability benefits is very
> much a topic of interest and need, especially to arthritics who depend
> upon
> those benefits. political or not. if we hide our heads in the sand about
> it, those benefits will eventually become non-existent.
>
> kate

Well said with one big exception,,, it matters to me and many others, the
whose an whys something has gone so wrong but it is a good example of what
takes place with people when they expect too much out of the federal gov.
in other words when people expect the gov. to keep its promises,,, make its
commitments. It is the people with their head in the sand that do that. I
can give you a ton of examples but I am not. This is not the right
newsgroup for this. You are correct that people need to know what they can
expect so that they can make adjustments to how they can live their lives
and that can be included in Support and needs to be understood.

Harv

Another 'widow's benefit' that many don't know about--- Because I was
married for more than ten years and then divorced, I get a "divorced widow's
benefit" along with my SSDI- and I have since my ex died when I was 53.
(And because I was over 50 when I remarried the divorced widow's benefit
continued while I was re-married, too!) It's only $163 a month, but it
helps. The amount is determined by what his monthly retirement benefit
should have been and what my monthly benefit is and some percentage. I
don't know the details, but I sure was surprised when I was told I'd get an
extra check every month. And I can claim his higher benefits when I turn 67
which is full retirement age for my birth year.

Leslie

"d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
news:kfSdnbYEb4s0lNPanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> this will also apply to social security widow's benefits too, for those of
> us who are old enough to get widow's benefits. (i'm still a bit young,
> yet.
> you have to be 60.)
>
> kate
>
>
> "Carole" <SeattleCarole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5r3sfmF12b3o3U1@mid.individual.net...
> We are getting a whopping 2.3% increase for 2008.
>
> Don't spend it all in one place :-)))
>
> Carole
>
>

Not to belabor the point, but this certainly IS on topic for an
arthritis support group. When I first had to stop working and apply for
SS Disability, this group was very supportive to me.
Those of us on fixed incomes look forward to "just getting by' and not
going on spending sprees. This is apolitical in every sense.
P.S. Kate, you rock!

Ann

"Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:FqA3j.77986$Um6.21896@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...
> Well said with one big exception,,, it matters to me and many others, the
> whose an whys something has gone so wrong but it is a good example of what
> takes place with people when they expect too much out of the federal gov.
> in other words when people expect the gov. to keep its promises,,, make
> its commitments. It is the people with their head in the sand that do
> that. I can give you a ton of examples but I am not. This is not the
> right newsgroup for this. You are correct that people need to know what
> they can expect so that they can make adjustments to how they can live
> their lives and that can be included in Support and needs to be
> understood.
>
> Harv
>


Not always true. The "government" made promises to the military for years
with the notion that they could be changed like soiled linen.

Forgot that said military consisted of individual soldiers, many of whom
would get law degrees on the GI bill. Some of whom would get elected to the
government. And who would force those promises to be kept. Sometimes you
have to look after your own.

Jo

"ANN M" <ann1026@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3434-474EE272-3603@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
> Not to belabor the point, but this certainly IS on topic for an
> arthritis support group. When I first had to stop working and apply for
> SS Disability, this group was very supportive to me.
> Those of us on fixed incomes look forward to "just getting by' and not
> going on spending sprees. This is apolitical in every sense.
> P.S. Kate, you rock!
>
> Ann
>

Hi Ann,,, I was on SSD for 7-8 years and I fully understand what you are
saying and I was one of those supporting you. Please understand that
sometimes these conversations end up a commercial for a way of thinking and
I was just trying to keep that from taking place and I do not think it did.
Kate does Rock and so do you. If what you had to say means that people are
better informed and know what to expect,,,,, it was time well spent.
Harv

"jofirey" <jofirey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5r893cF13d261U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:FqA3j.77986$Um6.21896@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...
>> Well said with one big exception,,, it matters to me and many others, the
>> whose an whys something has gone so wrong but it is a good example of
>> what takes place with people when they expect too much out of the federal
>> gov. in other words when people expect the gov. to keep its promises,,,
>> make its commitments. It is the people with their head in the sand that
>> do that. I can give you a ton of examples but I am not. This is not the
>> right newsgroup for this. You are correct that people need to know what
>> they can expect so that they can make adjustments to how they can live
>> their lives and that can be included in Support and needs to be
>> understood.
>>
>> Harv
>>
>
>
> Not always true. The "government" made promises to the military for years
> with the notion that they could be changed like soiled linen.

In any way,,,, did it seem to you that I did not agree with what you have
just said?

>
> Forgot that said military consisted of individual soldiers, many of whom
> would get law degrees on the GI bill. Some of whom would get elected to
> the government. And who would force those promises to be kept.
> Sometimes you have to look after your own.
> Jo

The very same thing is taking place with the American public just not as
bad as with the military and people need to realize it. The only thing
is,,, this may not be the best place to do it. You see how easy it is to
go from complaining about Our Raise with SS to support for the military.
You are talking to someone that spent Sats and Sunday afternoons on many a
week in the month down at the Vets hospital in support of so many that had
lost so much. I watched the slow death of more than one friend with the
results of Agent Orange. Yes,,, you have to look after your own and
others. I was never in the military.

Harv

On Nov 29, 1:18 pm, "Harvey R. Stone" <hrst...@swbell.net> wrote:
> "jofirey" <jofi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5r893cF13d261U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Harvey R. Stone" <hrst...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:FqA3j.77986$Um6.21896@newssvr12.news.prodigy .net...
> >> Well said with one big exception,,, it matters to me and many others, the
> >> whose an whys something has gone so wrong but it is a good example of
> >> what takes place with people when they expect too much out of the federal
> >> gov. in other words when people expect the gov. to keep its promises,,,
> >> make its commitments. It is the people with their head in the sand that
> >> do that. I can give you a ton of examples but I am not. This is not the
> >> right newsgroup for this. You are correct that people need to know what
> >> they can expect so that they can make adjustments to how they can live
> >> their lives and that can be included in Support and needs to be
> >> understood.
>
> >> Harv
>
> > Not always true. The "government" made promises to the military for years
> > with the notion that they could be changed like soiled linen.
>
> In any way,,,, did it seem to you that I did not agree with what you have
> just said?
>
>
>
> > Forgot that said military consisted of individual soldiers, many of whom
> > would get law degrees on the GI bill. Some of whom would get elected to
> > the government. And who would force those promises to be kept.
> > Sometimes you have to look after your own.
> > Jo
>
> The very same thing is taking place with the American public just not as
> bad as with the military and people need to realize it. The only thing
> is,,, this may not be the best place to do it. You see how easy it is to
> go from complaining about Our Raise with SS to support for the military.
> You are talking to someone that spent Sats and Sunday afternoons on many a
> week in the month down at the Vets hospital in support of so many that had
> lost so much. I watched the slow death of more than one friend with the
> results of Agent Orange. Yes,,, you have to look after your own and
> others. I was never in the military.
>
> Harv- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just to add two cents....when my Dad died (3/30/03) my Mom was
eligible for widow's benefits but not until she was 62. You can
collect it early, if you are disabled yourself. Luckily, my Mom was
eligible for disability for her bipolar and anxiety disorders. It
amazes me to this day how easy it was for her to qualify for those
benefits; her doctor sent in the information and then I had to bring
her to see the doctor for SS. I went in with her, and he asked her
about 5-6 questions, NO LIE and she was in. It disheartened me a bit,
because I know people with AS and with RA who have had to fight and/or
appeal for years, despite serious visible damage from their diseases.
I am glad that my Mom was approved (otherwise she might've had to move
in with me, egads!!!!!), but am still surprised how easy it seemed to
be for a mental disability than a physical one.
Char

Well said with one big exception,,, it matters to me and many others, the
whose an whys something has gone so wrong but it is a good example of what
takes place with people when they expect too much out of the federal gov.
in other words when people expect the gov. to keep its promises,,, make its
commitments. It is the people with their head in the sand that do that. I
can give you a ton of examples but I am not. This is not the right
newsgroup for this. You are correct that people need to know what they can
expect so that they can make adjustments to how they can live their lives
and that can be included in Support and needs to be understood.

Harv

wink, wink. nod, nod? what you stated almost sounds like saying, "boys
will be boys and gov't will be gov't . . ." i hope i'm not hearing you
correctly. every man for himself? expect too much from our gov't? the
blame game is immature, at best, but individual responsibility and
accountability is paramount in its importance.

no, harv. the problem is that we don't expect and require better. the
people with their heads in the sand are those who DON'T expect and require
that our gov't will do what is right, honor its word, value our trust and do
what we need it to do. those are the same people who allow and enable (and
virtually give their permission to) gov't to get away with abandoning
comittments and breaking promises made to the american people. those are
the same people who permit and enable misfeasance, malfeasance and
corruption in our gov't to continue on its merry and unaccountable way.
how? by looking the other way when gov't does those things, and by not
requiring and demanding accountability for not doing the job our elected
officials were sent there to do. if you don't expect and require better,
you will surely get mediocrity or worse.

it was no accident, mistake nor coincidence that the 3 most powerful and
empowering words for our democratic republic are the first 3 words of the
preamble to our constitution (and our founders knew their importance and
made them the very first on purpose, for the sake of their posterity . . .
us, you and me.). those 3 words are "WE THE PEOPLE . . ." and why were we
given such power? ". . . in order to form a more perfect union, . . ." and
not to form a nation divided by political parties, nor divided by religions,
nor divided by ethnicities, nor divided by wealth or social status, nor
divided by ideologies, nor divided by pettiness, etc., etc, etc . . .
again, "we the people . . . in order to form a more perfect union" - let
that sink in for a minute.

therefore, "we the people", all of us, MUST expect and require the best
possible process and outcome, "for the general welfare", from our elected
officials and our gov't, and we must be ever watchful/diligent to hold them
accountable. Because, if we do not, our gov't and our elected officials
will seek their own self-sustaining benefit, at our expense, and act on
their baser natures in favor of their own self-interests.

kate

my two cents on this [and jmo]

simply 'replacing' the money [converted to obligation notes from the
treasury] isn't actually what is at issue.

presuming that the monies had never been shifted to other uses, and
remained tucked away in a single account only for ss, there remains the
problem of how to finance the baby boom generation that has simply lived
so long.

+70 million individuals that are coming into the system - and living
longer

it is important to understand the math -

the system was set up during a time when the elder population was a
small percent of the total

why? - because they didn't live very long. the 'average' annuitant would
only draw from the ss system for 2.5 - 5 years after retirement because
then they died...simple facts.

yes, we all new the couple who lived to a ripe old age - every family or
community had a few - but the majority of folk didn't live much past the
early to mid 60's in life

but, with the wonderful advances in medicine, nutrition, etc., we have
extended that draw 'out' period to over 18 years... now 78 yo

yet there has been no increase in the funding stream devoted to ss - the
dollar amount being withheld is - in proportion - still relatively the
same as when we lived a much shorter life.

also it is important to know what the law actually intended to put in
place: a 'supplement' to each individual's retirement nestegg.

the law was 'not' to be the 'only' old age support - rather a helpmate.


now, without resorting to pointing a finger in any direction - congress
as a whole, the various administrations, 'and' the voters, have known
these numbers for over 20 years without being able to sit down together
and address them as the facts they are - not politics, just the math of
it all.

we've had numerous well certified studies over the +20 years that show
us exactly how much money there is and the various solutions.

while it is true that by diverting the ss trust monies over to the
general ledger we fudged the general ledger, it doesn't change the
numbers 'within' ss at all - we still are paying out more than we have
collected for the purpose. because we live so much longer.

the diversion only means that the younger generations have a larger
general debt than the books reveal.
we have only slightly addressed the true shortfalls by changing the age
of retirement - now an upsliding scale above 65, but even so we haven't
truly addressed just how to fund the already existing need.

the only money is our own -


d'huit wrote:
>
> "Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Ojp3j.27353$lD6.8422@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>
> "Judy Bay" <jbay2@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ICo3j.3903$so3.1370@newsfe18.lga...
> > What to do? Make the government put back the money they spent in other
> > places!
>
> Pretty soon this conversation gets into politics,,,, in other words peoples
> opinion of what has taken place or whose fault something is. It can not
> remain in the world of facts and what actually takes place or has taken
> place.
> I, for one, get a little upset when people knowingly say or do things to
> slant the truth. :-) You have just made LBJ turn over in his grave
> with your question. Tooo much truth does that ya know.
> How about lets change the subject??? Arthritis support is a good
> subject.
>
> Harv
>
> it's not opinion, nor political opinion. it is the truth and an historical
> fact that social security money has been used for other things, harv.
> whether it was done by LBJ or any other administration (and it was done by
> other administrations and other congresses, too.) judy didn't say anything
> about just who, specifically, nor what political party nor which
> administration nor which congress did it . . . but, you did. it doesn't
> matter, in reality, who did it, but that it was done (and continues to be
> done); and that kind of misdirection of those funds contributes/contributed
> to the longterm social securtity problem at hand.
>
> and btw, social security and social security disability benefits is very
> much a topic of interest and need, especially to arthritics who depend upon
> those benefits. political or not. if we hide our heads in the sand about
> it, those benefits will eventually become non-existent.
>
> kate

"d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
news:tZCdnYHGBox_i9LanZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> Well said with one big exception,,, it matters to me and many others, the
> whose an whys something has gone so wrong but it is a good example of what
> takes place with people when they expect too much out of the federal gov.
> in other words when people expect the gov. to keep its promises,,, make
> its
> commitments. It is the people with their head in the sand that do that.
> I
> can give you a ton of examples but I am not. This is not the right
> newsgroup for this. You are correct that people need to know what they
> can
> expect so that they can make adjustments to how they can live their lives
> and that can be included in Support and needs to be understood.
>
> Harv
>
> wink, wink. nod, nod? what you stated almost sounds like saying, "boys
> will be boys and gov't will be gov't . . ." i hope i'm not hearing you
> correctly. every man for himself?

I am not going to go on and on with you which I knew was coming. You hear
me and know exactly what I am saying.

expect too much from our gov't? the
> blame game is immature, at best, but individual responsibility and
> accountability is paramount in its importance.
>
> no, harv. the problem is that we don't expect and require better. the
> people with their heads in the sand are those who DON'T expect and require
> that our gov't will do what is right, honor its word, value our trust and
> do
> what we need it to do.

Ok, Ok, Which party would do the above the best Kate??? If you expect
what you say above,,,, who comes the closest to doing that??


those are the same people who allow and enable (and
> virtually give their permission to) gov't to get away with abandoning
> comittments and breaking promises made to the american people. those are
> the same people who permit and enable misfeasance, malfeasance and
> corruption in our gov't to continue on its merry and unaccountable way.

You and I know several things that are an answer to what you have said.


Do you want to do that here Kate??? Would it make you hurt less or feel
better???

> how? by looking the other way when gov't does those things, and by not
> requiring and demanding accountability for not doing the job our elected
> officials were sent there to do. if you don't expect and require better,
> you will surely get mediocrity or worse.

My point exactly.... Who does that Kate? What are our choices that will
help this realization that gov. is the answer to anything???

>
> it was no accident, mistake nor coincidence that the 3 most powerful and
> empowering words for our democratic republic are the first 3 words of the
> preamble to our constitution (and our founders knew their importance and
> made them the very first on purpose, for the sake of their posterity . . .
> us, you and me.). those 3 words are "WE THE PEOPLE . . ." and why were we
> given such power? ". .

Now your really cooking and well said.

in order to form a more perfect union, . . ." and
> not to form a nation divided by political parties, nor divided by
> religions,
> nor divided by ethnicities, nor divided by wealth or social status, nor
> divided by ideologies, nor divided by pettiness, etc., etc, etc . . .
> again, "we the people . . . in order to form a more perfect union" - let
> that sink in for a minute.

Good idea. Who of the different parties support this the best?

>
> therefore, "we the people", all of us, MUST expect and require the best
> possible process and outcome, "for the general welfare", from our elected
> officials and our gov't, and we must be ever watchful/diligent to hold
> them
> accountable. Because, if we do not, our gov't and our elected officials
> will seek their own self-sustaining benefit, at our expense, and act on
> their baser natures in favor of their own self-interests.
>
> kate

Really good Kate,,,, like she said you rock if you vote this way, support
this way, We are cooking with gas. Got anyone in mind that thinks like
us and will put in motion this kind of thinking? I will vote for them.
Harv

"Paul T. Holland" <pholland@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:474F313C.4F31C4CC@bellatlantic.net...
> my two cents on this [and jmo]
>
> simply 'replacing' the money [converted to obligation notes from the
> treasury] isn't actually what is at issue.
>
> presuming that the monies had never been shifted to other uses, and
> remained tucked away in a single account only for ss, there remains the
> problem of how to finance the baby boom generation that has simply lived
> so long.
>
> +70 million individuals that are coming into the system - and living
> longer
>
> it is important to understand the math -

Do you think LBJ understood the math?


>
> the system was set up during a time when the elder population was a
> small percent of the total
>
> why? - because they didn't live very long. the 'average' annuitant would
> only draw from the ss system for 2.5 - 5 years after retirement because
> then they died...simple facts.
>
> yes, we all new the couple who lived to a ripe old age - every family or
> community had a few - but the majority of folk didn't live much past the
> early to mid 60's in life
>
> but, with the wonderful advances in medicine, nutrition, etc., we have
> extended that draw 'out' period to over 18 years... now 78 yo
>
> yet there has been no increase in the funding stream devoted to ss - the
> dollar amount being withheld is - in proportion - still relatively the
> same as when we lived a much shorter life.
>
> also it is important to know what the law actually intended to put in
> place: a 'supplement' to each individual's retirement nestegg.
>
> the law was 'not' to be the 'only' old age support - rather a helpmate.
>
>
> now, without resorting to pointing a finger in any direction - congress
> as a whole, the various administrations, 'and' the voters, have known
> these numbers for over 20 years without being able to sit down together
> and address them as the facts they are - not politics, just the math of
> it all.
>
> we've had numerous well certified studies over the +20 years that show
> us exactly how much money there is and the various solutions.
>
> while it is true that by diverting the ss trust monies over to the
> general ledger we fudged the general ledger, it doesn't change the
> numbers 'within' ss at all - we still are paying out more than we have
> collected for the purpose. because we live so much longer.
>
> the diversion only means that the younger generations have a larger
> general debt than the books reveal.
> we have only slightly addressed the true shortfalls by changing the age
> of retirement - now an upsliding scale above 65, but even so we haven't
> truly addressed just how to fund the already existing need.
>
> the only money is our own -

Oh my well said and wll thought out. Do you think when Soc Sec was drawn
up they included all the people on SocSec that are here in this country
illegally. In the SocSec office where they try to help people, nearly
every chair is full of drug addicts and people who can not even speak
English seeking payments. Do we think anyone saw that coming? Adjustments
need to be made and they are all hard choices. Who in government has the
guts to do that? Who that wants to do something about that and wants to be
in government,,,, has the courage to do that? Name them please,,, so I
can support them.
Harv



>
>
> d'huit wrote:
>>
>> "Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:Ojp3j.27353$lD6.8422@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>>
>> "Judy Bay" <jbay2@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:ICo3j.3903$so3.1370@newsfe18.lga...
>> > What to do? Make the government put back the money they spent in other
>> > places!
>>
>> Pretty soon this conversation gets into politics,,,, in other words
>> peoples
>> opinion of what has taken place or whose fault something is. It can not
>> remain in the world of facts and what actually takes place or has taken
>> place.
>> I, for one, get a little upset when people knowingly say or do things to
>> slant the truth. :-) You have just made LBJ turn over in his grave
>> with your question. Tooo much truth does that ya know.
>> How about lets change the subject??? Arthritis support is a good
>> subject.
>>
>> Harv
>>
>> it's not opinion, nor political opinion. it is the truth and an
>> historical
>> fact that social security money has been used for other things, harv.
>> whether it was done by LBJ or any other administration (and it was done
>> by
>> other administrations and other congresses, too.) judy didn't say
>> anything
>> about just who, specifically, nor what political party nor which
>> administration nor which congress did it . . . but, you did. it doesn't
>> matter, in reality, who did it, but that it was done (and continues to be
>> done); and that kind of misdirection of those funds
>> contributes/contributed
>> to the longterm social securtity problem at hand.
>>
>> and btw, social security and social security disability benefits is very
>> much a topic of interest and need, especially to arthritics who depend
>> upon
>> those benefits. political or not. if we hide our heads in the sand
>> about
>> it, those benefits will eventually become non-existent.
>>
>> kate

Yes, Harve, I, too, would like to know whom to support.

"Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:CeH3j.2554$NY.827@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Paul T. Holland" <pholland@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:474F313C.4F31C4CC@bellatlantic.net...
>> my two cents on this [and jmo]
>>
>> simply 'replacing' the money [converted to obligation notes from the
>> treasury] isn't actually what is at issue.
>>
>> presuming that the monies had never been shifted to other uses, and
>> remained tucked away in a single account only for ss, there remains the
>> problem of how to finance the baby boom generation that has simply lived
>> so long.
>>
>> +70 million individuals that are coming into the system - and living
>> longer
>>
>> it is important to understand the math -
>
> Do you think LBJ understood the math?
>
>
>>
>> the system was set up during a time when the elder population was a
>> small percent of the total
>>
>> why? - because they didn't live very long. the 'average' annuitant would
>> only draw from the ss system for 2.5 - 5 years after retirement because
>> then they died...simple facts.
>>
>> yes, we all new the couple who lived to a ripe old age - every family or
>> community had a few - but the majority of folk didn't live much past the
>> early to mid 60's in life
>>
>> but, with the wonderful advances in medicine, nutrition, etc., we have
>> extended that draw 'out' period to over 18 years... now 78 yo
>>
>> yet there has been no increase in the funding stream devoted to ss - the
>> dollar amount being withheld is - in proportion - still relatively the
>> same as when we lived a much shorter life.
>>
>> also it is important to know what the law actually intended to put in
>> place: a 'supplement' to each individual's retirement nestegg.
>>
>> the law was 'not' to be the 'only' old age support - rather a helpmate.
>>
>>
>> now, without resorting to pointing a finger in any direction - congress
>> as a whole, the various administrations, 'and' the voters, have known
>> these numbers for over 20 years without being able to sit down together
>> and address them as the facts they are - not politics, just the math of
>> it all.
>>
>> we've had numerous well certified studies over the +20 years that show
>> us exactly how much money there is and the various solutions.
>>
>> while it is true that by diverting the ss trust monies over to the
>> general ledger we fudged the general ledger, it doesn't change the
>> numbers 'within' ss at all - we still are paying out more than we have
>> collected for the purpose. because we live so much longer.
>>
>> the diversion only means that the younger generations have a larger
>> general debt than the books reveal.
>> we have only slightly addressed the true shortfalls by changing the age
>> of retirement - now an upsliding scale above 65, but even so we haven't
>> truly addressed just how to fund the already existing need.
>>
>> the only money is our own -
>
> Oh my well said and wll thought out. Do you think when Soc Sec was
> drawn up they included all the people on SocSec that are here in this
> country illegally. In the SocSec office where they try to help people,
> nearly every chair is full of drug addicts and people who can not even
> speak English seeking payments. Do we think anyone saw that coming?
> Adjustments need to be made and they are all hard choices. Who in
> government has the guts to do that? Who that wants to do something about
> that and wants to be in government,,,, has the courage to do that?
> Name them please,,, so I can support them.
> Harv
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> d'huit wrote:
>>>
>>> "Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Ojp3j.27353$lD6.8422@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>
>>> "Judy Bay" <jbay2@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ICo3j.3903$so3.1370@newsfe18.lga...
>>> > What to do? Make the government put back the money they spent in other
>>> > places!
>>>
>>> Pretty soon this conversation gets into politics,,,, in other words
>>> peoples
>>> opinion of what has taken place or whose fault something is. It can not
>>> remain in the world of facts and what actually takes place or has taken
>>> place.
>>> I, for one, get a little upset when people knowingly say or do things to
>>> slant the truth. :-) You have just made LBJ turn over in his grave
>>> with your question. Tooo much truth does that ya know.
>>> How about lets change the subject??? Arthritis support is a good
>>> subject.
>>>
>>> Harv
>>>
>>> it's not opinion, nor political opinion. it is the truth and an
>>> historical
>>> fact that social security money has been used for other things, harv.
>>> whether it was done by LBJ or any other administration (and it was done
>>> by
>>> other administrations and other congresses, too.) judy didn't say
>>> anything
>>> about just who, specifically, nor what political party nor which
>>> administration nor which congress did it . . . but, you did. it doesn't
>>> matter, in reality, who did it, but that it was done (and continues to
>>> be
>>> done); and that kind of misdirection of those funds
>>> contributes/contributed
>>> to the longterm social securtity problem at hand.
>>>
>>> and btw, social security and social security disability benefits is very
>>> much a topic of interest and need, especially to arthritics who depend
>>> upon
>>> those benefits. political or not. if we hide our heads in the sand
>>> about
>>> it, those benefits will eventually become non-existent.
>>>
>>> kate
>
>

ANN M wrote:

> Not to belabor the point, but this certainly IS on topic for an
> arthritis support group. When I first had to stop working and apply for
> SS Disability, this group was very supportive to me.
> Those of us on fixed incomes look forward to "just getting by' and not
> going on spending sprees. This is apolitical in every sense.
> P.S. Kate, you rock!
>
> Ann
>
I agree, Ann. When I had to apply for SSDI, people on here were very
supportive and helped me filling out all the papers. I was so sick (I
have congestive heart failure) that I had to fill them out a little at a
time as I just didn't have the strength to do it all at once. And when I
needed an explanation of what they were asking, people on here were more
than willing to explain things to me.

This group ROCKS! ))

Carole

"Paul T. Holland" <pholland@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:474F313C.4F31C4CC@bellatlantic.net...
my two cents on this [and jmo]

simply 'replacing' the money [converted to obligation notes from the
treasury] isn't actually what is at issue.

presuming that the monies had never been shifted to other uses, and
remained tucked away in a single account only for ss, there remains the
problem of how to finance the baby boom generation that has simply lived
so long.

+70 million individuals that are coming into the system - and living
longer

it is important to understand the math -

the system was set up during a time when the elder population was a
small percent of the total

why? - because they didn't live very long. the 'average' annuitant would
only draw from the ss system for 2.5 - 5 years after retirement because
then they died...simple facts.

yes, we all new the couple who lived to a ripe old age - every family or
community had a few - but the majority of folk didn't live much past the
early to mid 60's in life

but, with the wonderful advances in medicine, nutrition, etc., we have
extended that draw 'out' period to over 18 years... now 78 yo

yet there has been no increase in the funding stream devoted to ss - the
dollar amount being withheld is - in proportion - still relatively the
same as when we lived a much shorter life.

also it is important to know what the law actually intended to put in
place: a 'supplement' to each individual's retirement nestegg.

the law was 'not' to be the 'only' old age support - rather a helpmate.


now, without resorting to pointing a finger in any direction - congress
as a whole, the various administrations, 'and' the voters, have known
these numbers for over 20 years without being able to sit down together
and address them as the facts they are - not politics, just the math of
it all.

we've had numerous well certified studies over the +20 years that show
us exactly how much money there is and the various solutions.

while it is true that by diverting the ss trust monies over to the
general ledger we fudged the general ledger, it doesn't change the
numbers 'within' ss at all - we still are paying out more than we have
collected for the purpose. because we live so much longer.

the diversion only means that the younger generations have a larger
general debt than the books reveal.
we have only slightly addressed the true shortfalls by changing the age
of retirement - now an upsliding scale above 65, but even so we haven't
truly addressed just how to fund the already existing need.

the only money is our own -

concisely stated, paul. as you are no doubt aware, there are
practical/pragmatic things (such as: removing the cap and raising benefit
qualifying age, means testing, among other things) that can be done to
increase social security funding inflow, somewhat. however, the political
drama created surrounding these practical concepts hinders their
implimentation, even in the shorterm as experimental measures. that
political drama also intimidates and creates irresoluteness in our
legislators, which is why nothing gets done.

and too, considering what you've written, there are few who would willingly
give up their benefits (like i willingly stopped my ssdi benefits, in the