"Attention seniors! Your Social Security payment could shrink next year"

This is plain old scare tactics. It will NOT "shrink." The law does not allow payments to be reduced because of deflation.

So NOT getting an increase is NOT the same thing as shrinking your payments.

needs to nip this in the bud, We have to take care of the old.Hey president Obama,Get it done don,t let it happen.

At least we should give social security people an increase to cover the rising medical costs. Suppose we give them a $15 a month raise rather than a $25 one like they usually get, then they could pay that extra health premium when it goes up. OR the health reform should stabilize their premiums so they do not ever increase. The elderly and disabled should not have to suffer because Bush used all the money for an Iraq war and because CEO's were so greedy that we had to bail them out so the country would not fall on it's face. We need this Health Care Reform to lower and stabilize these premium costs for seniors.

We voted for change. Don't give an increase, save it to pay congressional idiots a 30K cola. Reduce the social security payouts thru denying swine flu shots. Change has come.

Does this mean that the people in Congress also are not going to get the "automatic" pay increase they get every year?? Oc course they said they only get 3%, but their 3% is on thousands of dollars but my Soc. sec. only gets me about 18.00 on a COLA. I thnk 2 years ahead sounds kind of out of it., if all is as great as the big spenders are saying. The way they are spending money, it take a lot more of time than predicted. After working for 50 years and paying into soc. sec., and realizing how much is removed and put in the gneral, is scary. Also every one thinks Medicare is Free. When you and your wife get the soc. sec. checks and they take $93.00 a month out for medicare, you wonder.

To Dgnospam25, who said, "This is plain old scare tactics. It will NOT "shrink." The law does not allow payments to be reduced because of deflation." >>>>> The reason they say it will shrink is because the cost of Medicare is deducted from your Social Security check. Those costs rise every year, and are partially offset with a cost of living increase in SS. If there is no cost of living increase, then the deduction for the higher Medicare costs will "shrink" your check.

The government inflation figures, like unemployment and manufacturing figures have tweaked to death and contain so many corrections that a dart thrown by a monkey at a board of numbers would be about as accurate.

To ettucat: OK, good point. But doesn't this only affect those who are on the prescription program or Medicare Part B? Not everyone subscribes to those programs. I don't.

First, as one that is over 65, I think that we should examine the system itself. Social Security is a tax. The creation thereof was envisioned and put in place by FDR. The initial concept was to provide a stipend payment to insure that anyone that worked would have some kind of income, small as it would be. I think that we should all be aware that the concept of retirement, 401K's and all of these nice things are all after WWII. The system was never intended to provide assistance to the disabled. It was never intended to pay widows at 60. It was never intended to pay support to minor children of the disabled. It was never intended to become a government retirement program. It is the better mousetrap for it was a TAX. A tax intended to go first to the trust and than the general fund. It is simply a borrowing instrument of the government over which they use it as collateral and than, pay it back.
Enough said!

As the blog states - there will be increases in food and other essentials, but we are really talking about a two, yes 2, dollar increase in the part D. As at least one other commenter has indicated, not everyone participates. Some of choice, some because of cost. So, should we, the recipients of this "entitlement", get an increase? Damn good question. How about the people that are now paying into this system but have a few or many years to go? Has anyone asked them how they feel? In all honesty I am inclined to go with Bernie Sanders (Senator-Ind, VT) in his idea of a one-time 100-150 dollar payment, primarily as an offset. It is probably the most politically astute move as it would offend the least and get this issue off the table.
I do think that there are more important things on the agenda.
The current projections put this country so far in the hole that dollar bills on end would reach from Earth to Saturn. Considering that one needs a rather high power telescope just to see the place as a distant light in the sky - that in itself is scary. People that wanted to live the high life borrowed too much and there were lenders to oblige. That is what started this mess.
A government can do the same. You cannot squeeze water out of rock and with so many people out of work tax revenue is going to come up way short.
There is a drought in the lower part of Texas and a major water problem in So. Cal. These are agricultural areas of high production. The serious problems will start in Jan. Beware of the grocery store.